My first attempt at writing a History article, so here goes... :)


The First and Second Balkan War's


Following the weakening of the Ottoman influence in the Balkans, and the Austro-Hungarian annex of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908. The nations of Greece, Serbia, Montenegro, and Bulgaria secretly signed a pact the “Balkan League” against the ever weakening Ottoman Empire on March 13'th, 1912. The pact divided the Ottoman controlled portion of the Balkans to be divided between the League members.

The First Balkan war began when in October the 8’th 1912, Montenegro declared a war against the Turks, and within 10 days all of Montenegro’s allies where at war with Turkey. Within a few weeks the Turks had retreated to maintaining the defense at Istanbul, and the Ottoman controlled part of Balkan was now in the hands of the “Balkan League” nations. Serbia had gained a Adriatic Port at Durazzo, but both Austria-Hungary and Italy were against this acquisition because both of them feared that it may become a Russian port.

While fighting took place at Adrianople, Scutari, and Janina, the armistice was signed, and a peace conference met at London in December, 1912. The negotiations broke down when a Military coup occurred at Istanbul which brought into power a group of men who were determined upon resistance. The war resumed in Spring of 1913. Adrianople, Scutari and Janina fell, and the fighting ended. The Treaty of London ended the First Balkan War on May 30'th, 1913. Turkey ceded all possessions in Europe to the allies west of a line from Enos on the Aegean Sea to Midia on the Black Sea, with the exception of Albania. The Great Powers began to draw the lines of a new Albanian State. Turkish sovereignty over Crete was withdrawn and it was united with Greece. The Aegean islands which Greece occupied were left to the Great Powers.

The Second Balkan War began when Serbia, Greece, and Romania quarreled with Bulgaria over the division of their joint conquests in Macedonia. On June 1, 1913, Serbia and Greece formed an alliance against Bulgaria, and the war began on the night of June 29/30, 1913, when King Ferdinand of Bulgaria ordered his troops to attack Serbian and Greek forces in Macedonia. The Bulgarians were defeated, however, and a peace treaty was signed between the combatants on Aug. 10'th, 1913. Under the terms of the treaty, Greece and Serbia divided up most of Macedonia between themselves, leaving Bulgaria with only a small part of the region.

As a result of the Balkan Wars, Greece gained southern Macedonia as well as the island of Crete. Serbia gained the Kosovo region and extended into northern and central Macedonia. Albania was made an independent state under a German prince.

First Balkan War (1912)
Black line: frontiers at outset of the war
Green line: frontiers of Ottoman Empire at outset of war
Darker colors: Serb, Bulgarian, Greek and Montenegrian gains

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/trachtenberg/courses/First%20Balkan%20War.JPG


The Second Balkan War (1913)
Dark colors represent areas lost by Bulgaria to her neighbors

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/trachtenberg/courses/Second%20Balkan%20War.JPG

A bit short, but not bad for a first effort. :goodjob: Listed.

a good topic, one of those subjects that people have heard of but don't know much detail about. :goodjob:

The Balkan Wars: All in all, a sad story for the imperialist apetites of the small but aggressive Balkan monarchies, of the the big and greedy European powers, and in the middle of all that, about Macedonia, the Apple of Discord on the Balkans, and its unfortunate nation incompetent to control its own destiny.

About the article; Short, informative and well done. Unfortunately, this article lacks soul and is too dry and factographic for a more insightful scope in Balkan history. Still, I respect your interest in Balkan history very much.

Very interesting.

Was albania conquered by anybody during the Balkan wars? I read that Roosevelt made it possible for the albanians to have their tiny little state and not being split up among the others. Can anybody elaborate that? Like among who was albania going to be split?

Was albania conquered by anybody during the Balkan wars? I read that Roosevelt made it possible for the albanians to have their tiny little state and not being split up among the others. Can anybody elaborate that? Like among who was albania going to be split?

Yeah, Creece and Serbia occupied it for a while, but because of opposition of Austria-Hungary and Italy they had to withraw from it and let it have independece.

The ethnic composition of the entire territory of Macedonia before the Balkan Wars.

balkan views
Greek; Nikolaides 1899: Macedonian Slavs (454,000), Greeks (656,300), Turks and others (576,600)
Bulgarian; Kenchov 1900: Serbs (400), Bulgarians (1,037,000), Greeks (214,000), Turks and others (610,365)
Serbian; Gopchevich 1886: Serbs (1,540,000), Greeks (201,000), Turks and others (397,020)

neutral views
German; Dr. K. Ostreich - 1905:Macedonian Slavs (1,500,000), Greeks (200,000), Turks and others (550,000)
Austrian; K. Gersin - 1903:Macedonian Slavs (1,182,036), Greeks (228,702), Turks and others (627,915)
English; Andrew Rousos:Macedonian Slavs (1,150,000), Greeks (300,000), Turks and others (400,000)

Study the number yourself, and draw a conclusion.
Today, Greece claims Macedonia is and has always been a Greek territory, and even more, Macedonians have no right to use the name Macedonia, since Macedonia is culturally part of Greece.
Seems odd to me that only a century ago, it wasnt.

Today, Greece claims Macedonia is and has always been a Greek territory, and even more, Macedonians have no right to use the name Macedonia, since Macedonia is culturally part of Greece.
Yeah right. The greeks want everything.

Actually Macadonia is not the country of Alexander the great and it never was. Just this region is called that. And the truth is that there is not Macadonians. Mainly they are Bulgarians .Their laguage is the same.Macadonia is par of Bulgaria.

Macedonia is as much a part of Bulgaria as Austria and Switzerland are part of Germany.

Macedonia is as much a part of Bulgaria as Austria and Switzerland are part of Germany


Than Austria and Switzerland are part of Germany. If you had known somethng about the history of the Balkan countries, you would have known what is macadonia.

Let's not start this "Macedonia is Greek" crap all over again :(

I know a lot about the history of the Balkan countries. Macedonia was sometimes part of Bulgaria, sometimes not. Right now it's not.

Part of Bulgaria or not, in Macadonia lives Bulgarians and their language is the same.

Part of Bulgaria or not, in Macadonia lives Bulgarians and their language is the same.

In all books that i've read of the subject and all European Language maps i've seen. Macedon is classed as it's on separate language from Bulgarian. And Macedonia was never completely part of an independent Bulgarian state. After the first Balkan War eastern macedonia was under Bulgarian control, yes. But they lost it in the second balkan war to Serbia a year later.

Part of Bulgaria or not, in Macadonia lives Bulgarians and their language is the same.


This is crap.:lol:

@Srdjan
And why it is crap ? May be because it's different of your oppinion?

@Reno
Evreything may be written in the books.But if a Bulgarian meets a 'Macadonian' and both speak their native language, they won't have problems with understanding each other.The Macadonian is a Bulgarian dialect, but this doesn't make it different language.Like the American and the English. We can't say they are different languages, can we?

I propose the FYROM to rename itself to "The definitely not Greek republic of Bulgaria 2 that has nothing to do with the definitely Greek province of Macedonia", the language to "A not Greek related dialect that is closer to Bulgarian than to Greek" and Skopje to "Certainly not Thessaloniki, much less Pella". The people should name themselves "Not Greek". The state motto should from now on be "Alexander was Greek, and we are not". The national flag should be purely grey because that is a neutral colour and won't upset the Greeks because it does not use any imagery that is in any way related to Greece. Finally, the country should pay copyrights to the Greeks for using the Macedonian name over the past centuries.

But if a Bulgarian meets a 'Macadonian' and both speak their native language, they won't have problems with understanding each other.

If a Finn and an Estonian meet each other and both speak their native language, they will understand each other. But that does not make Estonian a dialect of Finnish or Finnish a dialect of Estonian. Same case with Macedonian and Bulgarian. And please provide some words or sentences from both languages (Macedon and Bulgarian) so i can see for myself if it really is the same language. (Wich for now i consider Macedonian as a separate language) ;)

And besides does any Macedonian feel like they are Bulgarian or that they should be a part of Bulgaria? ;)

Some of the older macadonians i think, feel Bulgarians.And many of the people who lives in Serbia , Greece and Romania (near the border) feels Bulgarians and talk Bulgarian.And actualy there never have been a country Macadonia. It was formed before some years.
And about the two languages...they are the same.Just find any word in Bulgarian or Macadonian and you will see it's the same.
Drugarce kaj zivees ti?? Makedonija e na site samo ne na Makedoncite-Macadonian.
The same in Bulgarian
Drugariu kak jiveesh ti ?? Makedonia e na vsichki samo ne na Makedoncite.

Note: Words like site=vsichki are dialect forms, still used in some parts of Bulgaria.
Some other little differances are due to the fact that tha Bulgarian and Macadonian alphabet is Cyrilic and it can't be written exactly the same on latin.

In all books that i've read of the subject and all European Language maps i've seen. Macedon is classed as it's on separate language from Bulgarian.

It's always a political question what you consider a separate language. For example Serbs, Croats and Bosnians speak all the same language (only that they use different writing systems), but officially it's three languages. Similar case with Romanian/Moldavian, Malay/Indonesian etc. There's a saying that 'a language is a dialect with an army', and that's quite true, I think.

The answer to whether Macedonian is a separate language or Bulgarian is: both!

Here's how John McWhorter put it in The Power of Babel (Great book, by the way.):

Yet travelling from humble hamlet to humble hamlet across the former Yugoslavia...the linguist encounters a continuum of dialects changing Gurage-style from village to village...

In larger view, this particular continuum encompasses "languages" even beyond Serbo-Croatian. Not only can Bulgarians understand Macedonians next door, but Macedonians on the border with Yugoslavia can communicate with Serbo-Croatian speakers on the other side, such that Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian and Bulgarian form a grand continuum. Standard Serbo-Croatian are as different as Spanish and Italian but are linked by a procession of dialects--and even a whole "language'"--falling on a continuum linking them in a kind of living exhibit of one morphing into another in space just as languages morph into one another in time.

You get a similar continuum in dialects in German, which can be more different than Swedish, Norwegian and Danish.

The problem isnt whther the languages are the same or not. Quite naturally, the literature Macedonian language is not the same with the Bulgarian, since they are codified as separate ones. The spoken languages in the whole Balkan Slavic linguistic area are arranged in a lignuistic continuum. For example, people from Kumanovo (city in Macedonia near the Serbian border) and Vranje (Serbian city near the Macedonian border) speak very similar and yet their dialect is rather different than the respective official languages of the countries. The same goes for the Bulgarian-Macedonian relation. As much as I can understand Bulgarian (but cant speak it), I don’t understand some Eastern Bulgarian dialects and also people from these areas wouldnt understand people living in Western Macedonia. There are some more isolated dialects within Macedonia that even a native Macedonian speaker cant understand (eg. Berovo, a mountainous town near the Bulgarian border). What concerns me personally is the political agenda behind this so-called language issue. How can someone so fervently deny the national identity of an entire group of people who choose to define themselves as they feel. There’s no notable number (more than 0,1%, that is) of people in Macedonia which declare themselves Bulgarians, according to the recent census. The historical background of the national identity development is more trickier however, so you can discuss it in this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=91174). This policy of denying Macedonian identity has its roots in history when it was used as an argument for Bulgarian expansions. Today the Bulgarian government and more serious parties are progressively oriented and don’t deal anymore with these ghosts of the past. But there are some people who refuse to give up their national-romantic dreams of great Empires, as evidenced by some members who visit this site.

Ps: The parole our Bulgarian friend decided to use as an example would translate as: “Where do you live, pal? Macedonia belongs to everyone, except to the Macedonians.” This example explains the situation quite qell.

Well, saying that Macedonian and Bulgarian are virtually the same language doesn't mean denying Macedonia's independence. Macedonia has become a nation by historical reasons, just like Belgium and Austria are nations, although there is no 'Belgian' or 'Austrian' ethnicity. Yet nobody would deny Belgium's or Austria's legitimacy.

But there are some people who refuse to give up their national-romantic dreams of great Empires, as evidenced by some members who visit this site.- if this is for me i will only say that i am a nationalist. I love my country.Companiero you are from Macadonia and you should know about BMPO and Ilinden 1903.And about the national-romantic dremas of great empire i would say'We don't want nothing from the others, but we don't give nothing ours to them'- this are words of one famous Bulgarion revolutioner-V. Levski

fingOlfin:

I look at the size of Macedonia compared with Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece, and think BMPO is pretty much nuts. Not to say groups of nuts can't cause a humungous amount of damage. They may be able to whip Albania.

There is a small group which wants to take the Spanish-speaking Sections of the United States and annex them to Mexico. (I think Mexico is really embarassed by them.) I don't see why this should prejudice us against Mexico. As near as I can tell, the Macedonian government has enough to do keeping peace with its neighbors without attributing delusions of grandeur to them.

Macedonia has an army of 12,000. They're hardly in a position to conquer their neighbors. It's like France cowering in fear of Belgium. Although, given the American fears of Iraq, it's hard to denigrate Balkan paranoia.

You are looking at troop numbers in a world that is leading to a global democracy. Greece is not fearing invassion, they are confronting democratic issues where a group of people are trying to steal the Greek National identity that ties the Hellenic History to Alexander the Great.

The Macedonian Issue is plain and simple; Slavs claim to be descendents of Alexander, they speak Bulgarian and the ruins of Alexander are in Greek. The flow and change of dialects of the Cyrillic script and language are continuous through-out the Balkans; which means populations have been moved, isolated, yet carry a common root in their language. Cyrillic and Greek have nothing in common.

If Slavic-Bulgarians mixed with the Greeks of Macedonia they are a part of the Macedonia group; therefore they cannot be determined as the whole of the group, as most of Macedonian identity is translated and tied through the Greek language.

FYROM is in Peoria, it only has a small portion of the Macedonian region. The only historical person that has mapped FYROM as Macedonia is Communist leader Marshall Tito. He initiated the state name Socialist Republic of Macedonia. If the determination of these people is to be named after a region they are barely a part of, and then to name themselves the heirs to Macedonism; why should the Greeks ignore this? Give me a good, sensible reason why this issue is not a suspiscious one, especially when school books list the issue as one that deals with supression and secret languages, and that Greeks plot to steal Macedonism when it is already the founding of Greek unity. Just because I am Athenian in blood does not mean I am not Greek. Athenians are Greek, Spartans are Greek, Cretans are Greek, Pontics are Greek, and Macedonians are Greek. They are the City-States that united to create the Hellenic Identity; we are the Hellenic Republic.

No matter how many 100s of years Greeks are displaced from their homes, the archeological findings will always remain the same: Alexander the Great united an Hellenic Empire.

The Alexander the Great Macadonians have nothing similar to the people which leave in Macadonia now.

"BMPO is pretty much nuts." You are insulting the memory of heroes by this.The members of BMPO were brave and courageus.They made a revolt, so that Macadonia can unite with Bulgaria again.Later BMPO volunteers fough in the Bulgarian army.And revolutions are not made by nuts.

Oh dear, the Balkans :shakehead... Really giving me a headache each time :cringe:

Go to a doctor ;) :D

We haven't heard from Albania yet.

Well, saying that Macedonian and Bulgarian are virtually the same language doesn't mean denying Macedonia's independence. Macedonia has become a nation by historical reasons, just like Belgium and Austria are nations, although there is no 'Belgian' or 'Austrian' ethnicity. Yet nobody would deny Belgium's or Austria's legitimacy.

Aion, I think thats a good remark for a start. But drawing such paralels I'm afraid doesnt correspond to the actual case with Macedonia. No one in Macedonia wants to be considered Bulgarian ethnicity, and the Macedonian state in 1944 was created by Macedonians considering themselves a consititutive ethno-nation seperate from neighbouring ones, with seperate language, history and culture. Thats not at all the case with Austria and Belgium. Is Bulgaria or Greece to tell these people who they are and how they are supposed to feel? (note that i use the term national identity, not in the sense of state-being, but ethno-nation identity)
Its true that denying national identity doesnt mean denying the state, but you fail to see the historical perspective here and its present implications. Both Bulgaria and Greece had large Macedonian minorities, and precisely this "harmless" policy of denying the identity brought to the mare annihilation of the two minorities in both countries. Even today, Greece gets haavy criticism from human rights groups for the same thing, and even today Macedonians born there suffer cultural opression and discrimination if openly declare their nationality. The most effective form of minority opression is always through denying the national identity. And thats what you're seeing here - Balkanism at work.

sydhe, it seems to me you consider other countries consider VMRO to be a present threat. VMRO doesnt exist today (except that the name is part of a political partys name), and theres no way/grounds anyone could fear it. At the time being, VMRO fought for autonomy of Macedonia, when Macedonia was under Ottoman Empire. They failed and thus Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia conquered Macedonia and declared each part to be their own territory.

Greek Stud, you're getting annoying.

To everyone (especially non-Balkanians) intending to post, i strongly recommend reading the starting post in this thread (Macedonians; Who were they? Who are they?) first in order to get a general idea about the problem. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=91174

Companiero, is that all you have to say? Because it is annoying to hear you jump from ethno-national claims to self-determination. Just tell everyone, when you call yourself Macedonian, are you or are you not saying your ethnic group is the sole heir to Alexander the Great?

*Your nation is not in Macedonia, it is in Peoria
*Suppression from expressing yourself as the only Macedonians in which you do not recognize Greek-speaking Macedonians as Macedonians. This is suppression of our rights to the Macedonian identity. So stop playing the victum
*Skopje was the staging point that armed Communist rebels in the Greek Civil War; your claim to identity has already brought war to Greece

Stop using the name Alexander the Great? The today's Macadonians aren't the Alexander the Great macadonians.
But isn't if somehow funny ? Greeks say "Macadonians are Greeks", Bulgarinas say "Macadonians are Bulgarinas", Macadonian says that they are Macadonians and may be the albans will say that the macadonians are Albans :rolleyes:

Just to be sane here: Greece does not claim any land of the sovereign country of the former yugoslavian republic of macedonia. The only dispute is over the name. If it was called "slav macedonia" i personally would not mind, but to call it just "macedonia" would create the illusion that it has something to do with alexander the great, when obviously it has nothing whatsoever to do with ancient macedonia. Only a small part of the former yugoslav republic of macedonia was ever part of the ancient macedonian kingdom, and both of that kingdom's historical capitals (Pella, and Thessalonike ;) ) are in Greece.
Putting aside the question of whether or not the ancient macedonians were greek or not (which bores me) it is obvious that they were not slavs or bulgarians.

btw i am macedonian too, since i am in greek macedonia. Is that supposed to make me a macedonian of the former yugoslav republic of macedonia too? :p Ofcourse not. There are over 2,5 million greeks in greek macedonia, and they are, quite understandably, called macedonians, like a texan is called a texan, and still he is an american too. In Greece macedonia is a region, it has nothing to do with the country with that name, to the north of us.

I propose the FYROM to rename itself to "The definitely not Greek republic of Bulgaria 2 that has nothing to do with the definitely Greek province of Macedonia", the language to "A not Greek related dialect that is closer to Bulgarian than to Greek" and Skopje to "Certainly not Thessaloniki, much less Pella". The people should name themselves "Not Greek". The state motto should from now on be "Alexander was Greek, and we are not". The national flag should be purely grey because that is a neutral colour and won't upset the Greeks because it does not use any imagery that is in any way related to Greece. Finally, the country should pay copyrights to the Greeks for using the Macedonian name over the past centuries.

:lol:
Very nice Stefan :) And good luck with your Huns civ2 scen ;)

varwnos, the name Macedonia doesnt only relate to the Ancient Macedonia; since Vi century this territory was populated with majority of Slavs who became part of the identity of what Macedonia represents. A perfect equivalent of what you're saying is someone to force Russia to put a "slavic" adjective in front of their name, because the name Russia "creates the illusion that the Russians are descendants of ancient Russ", which is out of everyone's mind. Yes, if we had nukes as well, it would've been out of everyone's mind as well. :)
Also, you seem to forget the fact that although the half of Macedonia is now in Greece, it was taken (literally) from the Slavic Macedonians who lived there (1913), and what this topic is about - the Balkan Wars, and its democratic composition dramatically altered by force soonafter. Greeks always seem to avoid this period when talking about the "Macedonian issue".
Furthermore, even if we do suppose Ancient Macedonians were Greeks, claiming right of land and name based on ancient rights (more than 15(!) centuries) is as anachronic as it gets.

Instead of indulgung into name bashing and all, i'd like you Greeks to provide more info about the Balkan Wars and how Greek historiography treats the events, so that we both can have advantage from such a exchange.

I am not familiar with the ethnic divisions in 1912-13, and i am sure that a number of slavs, possibly big (i dont know) stayed in Greece after the new territory was annexed. Likewise a number of greeks remained in Vitola/Monastery and other cities in the serb annexed part of the region of Macedonia. It seems though that both groups were assimilated into the other nations, and i am sure that this didnt happen exactly democratically in some cases... but i disagree that it was a conspiracy against a unique macedonian ethnicity; in the case of Greece it probably was against panslavism in the balcans, and revisionism, and in Serbia for similar reasons, and also in Bulgaria in eastern Rumelia. No one is 100% greek or 100% slav or 100% bulgarian or anything else in the balcans, i am sure, but we have to try to communicate in better terms, and not be so suspicious of each other :)
I think that it would have been a lot easier for Greece to accept the name Macedonia for your country if it was obvious that this would not lead to weird far-right ideas, and to confusion about your relation to the ancient Macedonia. It ovviously was a huge dimplomatic error to insist that the name of fyromacedonia did not include the word macedonia at all, since iirc the name "slav macedonia" and "north macedonia" were also suggested at the time, and Greece wrongly denied. I am also aware that since your new constitution you cannot now adopt the name Slav Macedonia, since albanians are recognised as a "founding ethnicity" (along with slav macedonians ofcourse!) of your country. Personally i want the name dispute to stop as soon as possible, since then relations can become better, and the region needs stability and good relations. Perhaps "north macedonia" will be a future name proposition.

I realise that a country needs to have a serious name, but the situation in the balcans is always tricky. Someone once made the parallelism betwen fyr. macedonia and greek macedonia, and northern italy becomming seperated into new countries, and one of which would choose the name "Tyrolia". This would be problematic for the austrians, for similar reasons ;) Or even european turkey becomming an independant nation, naming itself Byzantium (!), or Thrace:D

The conflicts of 1912-1913 have much to do with the Slavic invasions in the 6th century. You can not pick and choose which Macedonians you want to talk about to prove your case. When Slavs entered the Byzantine Empire, they were not accepted. The acts of Cyril & Methodus to translate Orthodoxy for the Slavs, was an act to bring communication between our communities.

Slavic migration into Macedonia progressed to the Slavs over-throwing the Greek Macedonians and declaring independence. In 1913, Greek revolutionaries threw out the Slavs and Bulgarian speaking villages. Many were innocent and many were not; many Slavs, Bulgars, Greeks worked with the Turks to supress all non-Muslims. But the Slavic side to the Macedonian Issue is for the purpose of corrupting Greek Macedonian legitimacy. The Latin States did this to the Byzantine Empire and so did the Catalonians who have just paid 200,000 EU dollars to the monastary at Mount Athos for the purpose of good-will gesturing remorse for when they pillaged the monastery.

Greek Macedonia is approximately 90% of the region called Macedonia. It is not half as has been stated, it is the majority. Whereas FYROM has 100% of Paeoria, the region the ancient Macedonians conquered before the Illyric Wars.

varwnos: Actually European Turkey could call themselves Byzantium since old Byzantium is on their territory. Thrace would be pushing it, though. East Thrace maybe.

I wonder if West Africans have this kind of discussion about Ghana, since the old empire of that name and the current state share no territory. Cape Verde isn't in Cape Verde, either.

Everybody can call him as he wish.Infered from your minds if i go to live in China, i could call my self Chines ? But i am not and will never be.
The turks aren't Byzantians. They are differen races.And about Thrace, nobosy is Thracian now, The thracians had dissapeard soon after the coming of the slavs and bulgarians.Some joined Bulgaria, and some just dissapeard.

The turks aren't Byzantians.

Obviously.

They are differen races.

They are different peoples. (There is only one human race) ;)

In some languages the latin word "race" is substituted with a word that means "people, tribe" etc. In greek for example the equivelant for "race" is Eidos (it helps that a huge number of greek words are used in other languages too ;) ) Eidos means species, and would be the word used when talking about the human race. However when one would be talking about a specific group of peoples, other words would be used.
I am pretty sure that Flingolfin meant the same thing, so there is no reason for such comments, Reno :p :)

meant the same thing, so there is no reason for such comments

In english there does not happen to be such a resemblence in meaning. And while he is writing those sentences in english, i will take it literally. :p

Obviously.



They are different peoples. (There is only one human race) ;)


Different people are the Germans and the Spains for exaple.But the turks and the byzantiums had different fenotipes.And there are much more than one races ;)I am not a racist, and i don't say that one race is supperior than other, but there are different races.

I wasn't saying the Turks were Byzantines. I was saying that since the city of that name was located in European Turkey, they could use the name if they became independent. East Thrace would be better, since I don't think the Thracians would object. Is Belgium inhabited by the Belgae or Portugal by the Celts?

Different people are the Germans and the Spains for exaple.But the turks and the byzantiums had different fenotipes.And there are much more than one races ;)I am not a racist, and i don't say that one race is supperior than other, but there are different races.

This is controversial (as if this thread weren't already controversial enough :rolleyes: ). I know there are still many people (especially in the US, but also elsewhere), who still adhere to the concept of races, but for many people (especially here in Germany, understandably) it has become discredited. I don't allege that you imply one race to be superior, of course. But the concept of races can be ideologically abused quite easily, leading to chauvinism or racism. That's why I don't like talking of races.

Also, can you explain me why Germans and Spaniards are different people but Turks and Greeks different races? Because the former three are indo-european and the latter are turkish? Would you then consider a Swede and a Pakistani being different peoples (both indo-european) but a Swede and a Finn different races (one indo-european, one fenno-ugric)? And what about the Slavs (indo-europeans as well)? According to the old (and unsustaibable, of course) stereotype they should be 'Asians' or 'Mongols'. You're a Bulgarian. Do you feel very Mongol? :lol:

What is certain is that popular feeling in Greece in the early 90s did not help at all a solution. But the fear here was (and for some people this fear persists) that the (slav) macedonians would use the name to form unrealistic claims on Greece in the future, and lead to a progressive historical revisionism about their new country (that it has ties with ancient Macedonia, or that it has historical claims on other balcan countries). Albania's own claims on neighbouring countries have already lead to a great deal of turmoil in the region, and in FYR.Macedonia most of all, where the situation was a real civil war a few years ago. This lead to the adoption of a new constitution, where, as i already have noted, albanians are regarded as an equal founding state, alongside the slav macedonians.

Whereas i certainly do realise that most of the feeling of people here is generated due to false reasons (and sometimes we think that our own history is more important than other people's, which is dead wrong) i still am of the view that in Fyr.Macedonia there is stil great difficulty to form a solid nation, which wont be behaving against its neighbours. Greek Macedonia has its own problems, but we do not need the prospect of future hostility from a neighbour :)

Most of the foreign investment in slav Macedonia is by greeks, and there have been instances of racial attacks against them.

If we were just clear about what each other thinks about the situation it would be a lot easier to communicate. I am sure that no sane person in greek macedonia would react badly against someone from slav macedonia, who just wanted to be called that because of the region, and had no claim on other people's land/history etc. The best way to resolve issues anyway is to not polarise, since when people polarise it is near impossible to get them to view the other person logically.

That said i am sure that if i was a teenager in slav Macedonia i would too tend to feel badly against greeks, but then this would not have much to do with the actual people, but more to do with my psychology. Being sincere and open about any issue is the only way to communicate :)

Also i would like to note that i am 26 now, and definately would never demonise the slav macedonians. The fact that i add the word "slav" infont of that is only because i want to make the distinction between the greek macedonians and the slav macedonians. I would like it very much if in the future we could have a bigger bond, due to the common name the region had since medieval times, and not to be demonising each other. Hostile and uneducated people exist in all countries, but you should not think that everyone is like that, and always remember that when people feel afraid they react with hostility (or despair). What one has to do is to communicate ;)

This is controversial (as if this thread weren't already controversial enough :rolleyes: ). I know there are still many people (especially in the US, but also elsewhere), who still adhere to the concept of races, but for many people (especially here in Germany, understandably) it has become discredited. I don't allege that you imply one race to be superior, of course. But the concept of races can be ideologically abused quite easily, leading to chauvinism or racism. That's why I don't like talking of races.

Also, can you explain me why Germans and Spaniards are different people but Turks and Greeks different races? Because the former three are indo-european and the latter are turkish? Would you then consider a Swede and a Pakistani being different peoples (both indo-european) but a Swede and a Finn different races (one indo-european, one fenno-ugric)? And what about the Slavs (indo-europeans as well)? According to the old (and unsustaibable, of course) stereotype they should be 'Asians' or 'Mongols'. You're a Bulgarian. Do you feel very Mongol? :lol:

Well, as you know most of the peoples of Western Europe have come from the German tribes.And most of the peoples from Easter Europe have come from the Slavs.And the turks are asians, nomadic tribes.And about the slavs stereotype, you are mistaken.They have nothing to do with the Asians and Mongols.The slavs were tall and blondhaired.According to some theories the proto Bulgarians were Mongols.And about what i feel, I feel Bulgarian.Because when the slavs and proto Bulgarians made their country, a new culture was born - The Bulgarian.

We can't just close our eyes and say that all people in the world are the same.There ARE different races.The black, the white, and the yellow.But i think that aren't the all races and this isn't right.The Indians(Americans) are different race, and the Indians(Asian) too as well as the arabs.

I didn't say the Slavs are Mongols :crazyeye: It was meant to illustrate how absurd race theory can get. And how do you want to know if the proto-Slavs were tall or blond-haired or whatever? And if you talk about Bulgarian culture or identity you're completely right, but what does that have to do with race?

The slavs were tall and blondhaired

That's the same rubish that the nazi's used to tell about what the Arians looked like. ;)

Anyway that's not the topic of this thread.

Anyway that's not the topic of this thread.
True.

varwnos: You're completely right, of course. I don't know anything that could be added to what you said. Anyway, unfortunately it seems there are not enough people in that region who are as sensitive. Nationalistic feelings seem to be quite strong in all these countries, also in Greece: Think of that poor albanian guy who had to die when Albania beat Greece in football :shakehead. And Greece fails to officially recognise its national minorities. But it isn't any better in Greece's neighbouring countries: In Turkey you can get in prison for admitting the genocide on the Armenians (but that's a different topic, again). And Macedonia, Bulgaria, Albania: well, everybody seems to hate each other. Maybe we should concentrate on the reasons for these sentiments? Is it because Balkans' history is so darn complicated? It seems to me that quite everybody has ben oppressed by everybody: The Pontic Greeks were expelled from Turkey, the Turks from Greece, the Macedonians from Greece, the Greeks from Macedonia etc. Sometimes I lose sight. That's what I meant when I said the Balkans is giving me a headache :)

That's the same rubish that the nazi's used to tell about what the Arians looked like. ;)

Anyway that's not the topic of this thread.

It is not the same.I don't say that beeing tall and blond is mark of race superrior than others.It's just conclusion made by the historians.You can't get the difference.Arians are tall and blond- this is neither racisim, nor nationalsotialism.
But if i say that those who are tall and blond are superrior from the black people for example, it would be racisim and nationalsotialism.

@Aion: I was just answering your las question-'Do you feel very Mongol?'.

I dont view tall and blond as anything superior. I do not even recall a single blond person who was a genius, when there are tons of dark haired geniuses :) Also it would appear that being blond is not ussually linked with sexuality either, although this is ofcourse a generalisation.

I dont view tall and blond as anything superior. I do not even recall a single blond person who was a genius, when there are tons of dark haired geniuses :) Also it would appear that being blond is not ussually linked with sexuality either, although this is ofcourse a generalisation.

Nobody is saing that.I was just giving an example.

But actually isn't this ' I do not even recall a single blond person who was a genius, when there are tons of dark haired geniuses :)' racisim?

hm i didn't mean it as a racist comment, but you are right, it was not correct anyway. However i am sure that most slavs and most bulgarians are dark haired too ;)
It probably is mostly me, i cannot really think of a blond genius, although there must be some.

Balkan Wars - Supplement


Political circumstances on the Balkans in the early XX

The Ottoman Empire in the dawn of the XX was rahter weak, both economically and politically. The recent Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 that costed them huge portions from the Balkan peninsula was a huge blow to the Empire. Foreign capital (railways, factories, mines exploitation) was beginning to enter Turkey as well, but it was badly lagging behind other developed European neighbours. A new citizen class appeared (the Young Turks) opting for liberal far-fetched reforms, who eventually (1908) took power and overthrew the sultan, but proved not much better than the previous regimes.
Bulgaria, Serbia and Montenegro got their independence on the Berlin Congress (1878) and in each there were small Balkan dynsties whose interests mingled with the interests of the two great powers interested for the Balkans (Austria and Russia). Although initially the Obrenovic dynasty ruled Serbia (which were pro-Austrian), in 1903 a new dynasty, Karagorgevic, gains power after the assasination of king Alexandar I Obrenovic and Petar I Karagorgevic is made king. He led strong pro-Russian policy, which would cause the increaisng animosity with Austria leading to WW1 later.
Bulgaria’s king Ferdinand came from a German dynasty, what explains his inclination towards Austria. What’s more important about Bulgaria was the annexation of the autonomous principality of East Rumelia (South-central Bulgaria) in 1886, which caused dissatisfactin in Russia and Turkey, since the principality was created on the Berlin Congress as means to hold Bulgarian territorial pretensions at bay.
Greece in 1913 was a kingdom under the protection of the Western powers (traditionally, Britain).
Whats common for all Balkan nations are the strong nationalist movements, who taught by the guiding example of their bigger European patrons, each craved for a piece of “empire” for themselves. Thus, Bulgaria dreamt of Great Bulgaria (having acquired East Rumelia) encompassing all of Macedonia, Thrace and Dobruja; Serbia wanted to exapnd southward to Kosovo and Macedonia, gain Bosnia and Vojvodina from Austro-Hungary; Greece had her eyes on Epirus, Macedonia, Thrace, all the Aegean islands across the sea including the Western coast of Asia Minor (Ionia) – the Megali idea.


Macedonia in the early XX

In Macedonia, even before the Balkan Wars errupted, all three neighbouring nations led propagandas in order to recruit the local populace for their causes, telling them they are Greeks, Serbians and Bulgarians respectivly. The foreign propagandas, in the absence of administrative apparatus were carried out through church missionaries and the so called church-school regions. These regions ever since the end of the Ohrid Archiepiscopy (run by Slavic Macedonian episcopes) in 1767, were under the rule of the Constantinopole Patriarchy (Greek clergy). (The Turkish authorities allowed relative religious freedom and independence throughout their reign, so they generally didn’t care about the affairs in the Christian world.) These church-school regions were places where one could get education (religious indeed, but that also included learning how to read and write). Starting in the end of XVIII, Greek language and alphabet started to replace Old Church Slavonic and the Cyrilic in the churhc schools. Thus, Greek language and clergy restricted any development of independent Macedonian thought during the first half of the XIX. However, in the second half of XIX, members of Macedonian inteligentsia who studied in Russia, began to see the need for reimplementing Slavic language in the churches and education system. In 1860 they file a request to the Turkish sultan for reestablishing the Ohrid Archiepiscopy and for changeing the Greek clergy in Macedonia. The two brothers (Miladinovi) which lead this initiative were imprisoned in Istanbul and died there in 1862. The so called anti-phanariotic struggle doesn’t stop however and even intensifies as Bulgaria (who gained independence in 1878, don’t forget) opens up to be new centre for Macedonian intellectuals who get education in Slavic there. They have big support from local populace who give money to open new schools and churches, where education and church service is carried out in common language. Other (Slavic) Macedonians yet, stick to Greek Patriarchist clergy. The Bulgarian Exarchy (Church) supports the Macedonian intellectuals in their struggle against Greek and they begin a bitter church struggle in Turkish Macedonia to win more church-school regions. The Macedonian population support is undecided between the two blocks, but still leaning towards the Exarchy. Even the Serbian church opened schools and sent missionaries to Macedonia to spread Serbian language and culture. What this seemingly “noble” struggle for education in fact meant, was preparing the terrain for the future conquerings of Macedonia (which each neighbour viewed as its own natural right) in order to rally the population for their causes and enforce Greek/Bulgarian/Serbian national consciousness.


Macedonian resistance

The Macedonian emigration formed numerous communities in other countries that promoted Macedonian culture and the idea for Macedonian autonomy or Balkan federation of equal peoples etc. Most notable are the Macedonian society in Sofia (1891), the Young Macedonian Literary Society (issued a paper “Vines”) in Sofia, the Macedonian Socialist Group, also Sofia; in Serbia: teachers community “Vardar” (1893), Macedonian club (1902), a student community in Belgrade who issued a paper to be forbidden soon. Then there are others in Switzerland (Secret Macedonian Revolutionary Cometee – 1900), Russia (Secret Macedonian Revolutionary Society – 1900) and others.
Most notable was the formation of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) in 1893 in Solun (Thesaloniki) in Macedonia, which organized an armed struggle for the liberation of Macedonia and its autonomy. In 1895 in Sofia the Supreme Cometee of IMRO (an external body of IMRO) was formed, supported by Bulgaria which had on its agenda a unification with Bulgaria after the initial autonomy. The political disvision within the IMRO started to boil up to the point where they started to assasinate each other until the pro-Bulgarian wing completely overtook the organization in 1912, if i’m not mistaken about the year.
However, two notable events did happen in 1903 which greatly increased European interest for the Balkans and contributed to the general climate which led to the Balkan Wars. First in 1903, were the terrorist attacks of a young group of Macedonian anarchists, who bombed the bank and railway in Solun (Thessaloniki), in order to send a message to the European public about the urgency of the Maceodnian question. And later that year on 2. August 1903, the Ilinden Uprising happened, which created the Krusevo Republic, which lasted for 10 days before the insurrection being bloodily quelled by the Turkish army. The people who organized the uprising were aware of the multicultural character of Macedonia, so they called for all “the Macedonians and their brothers: Albanians, Vlachs, Turks” to join them in their fight for freedom. The uprising had a republican, liberal and socialist character, which was the reason that even some Turks supported the insurgents.


Awakened European interest and new Balkan constellations

Even on the Berlin Congress there were ideas about Macedonian autonomy, proposed by Austria, but weren’t effectualized.
After the Ilinden Uprising, the European powers (Russia and Austria) considered giving Macedonia autonomy, but since no real war had been fought, it was hard to extort such concessions from Turkey. On the so called Mirtzstadt treaties (1903), several acts regarding Macedonia were brought: that urgent reforms are needed (Turkey didn’t comply, of course), foreign millitary officers were sent to Macedonia to observe the situation, but nothing substantional improved. In 1908 (Ravel Treaty), Macedonian autonomy again was brought up by England and Russia, but nothing happened.
This was enough for the Balkan petty monarchies to prepare for conquest war. Montenegro, Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria allied themselves in the “Balkan League” and attacked Turkey with much success. Initially Serbia and Bulgaria made an agreement for conquering Macedonia and drew the division line (cutting present territory of Republic of Macedonia diagonally in half). However, as soon as the millitary clashes began and Serbia got the bigger piece of the cake, Bulgaria began complaining. Serbia wouldn’t want to step back its armies and Bulgaria attacked Serbia and Greece (summer 1913 - Second Balkan War). Unsuccessfully. The final border lines dividing Macedonia in three, were drawn in Bucharest in August 1913.


The political conditions in Macedonia (1913-1945)

Macedonians were the majority in all three parts of Macedonia, prior to the Balkan Wars. Other population included Turks, Greeks (south), Vlachs, Albanians (west), Armenians, Roma etc. In all three parts of Macedonia an aggressive assimilatinist policy was implemented.
Greece: Macedonian language was forbidden for every kind of use, even domestic, Macedonian culture was supressed, toponymes were changed from Slavic to Greek (Solun - Thessaloniki, Voden – Edessa, Kukus – Kilkis, Ber – Veria, Lerin – Florina etc), personal names were changed to Greek version, taxes imposed. With the Ney and Laussane (1923) Treaty 90,000 Macedonians (Slavs from the Greek conquered Macedonia) were forcably moved to Bulgaria; 40,000 (Slavic) Macedonian muslims were moved to Turkey (along with 300,000 Turks from all Greece) and in their place over one million Greek colonists from Asia Minor were brought and given free land. Cultural terror over the Macedonians was especially present during the reign of the totalitarian dictator Ioanis Metaxas (1936) supported by Britain. During the Greek Civil War (1946-1949) Macedonians massively supported the Greek Communist Party (which promised them right of self-determination, even autonomy). Total of 150,000 died in the war after the defeat of GCP, among them many Macedonians, another around 70,000 Macedonians were forced to emigrate to USSR or Yugoslavia, but a large number also stayed there living without any minority rights.
Serbia: Serbian conquered Macedonia declared “Vardar banovina”; Serbian propaganda through papers, schools and church (Serbian language and national identity), surnames changed from –ski to –ic ending, around 4,200 Serbian famillies colonized in Macedonia and given free land
Bulgaria: anarchy in the Bulgarian Macedonia part under the troops of pro-Bulgarian IMRO, huge poverty, hardly any schools altogether, cultural propaganda.

Varwnos, I very much appreciate your responses. I too agree that one needs to keep a cold head and look towards a common solution to the problems. Future prospects of a peninsula without borders, as we on the Balkans are very much hoping, are more real than ever in the face of the new Europe. But I also strongly believe that if any hopes of this new Europe are to become true, we must approach to solving the problems of the past, not forgetting them, acknowledging the mistakes and make sure they don’t happen again. Israel and Germany would have never ended in peace with each other, if it wasn’t for the open acknowledgment of past mistakes and atrocities. It is in this context that I want to offer you some more information about similar actions that have taken place in Macedonia in the past, which I believe you dont know much about. Not because of your lack of intellectual curiosity (you strike me as a very open-minded guy), but because Greek historiography still keeps many things under the rug, at the same time glorifying ancient achievements and creating powerful national myths from them. The same happens in most countries in fact, mainly because nation-states feed on national myths, but we’re not 19th century anymore and we have to look to the common future free from such moulds of thought.
We cant do that without acknowledging the cultural genocide in Macedonia, which happened and sadly, is still happening. Just out of curiousity, can you, as a Greek Macedonian, trace your ancestors line back to 1913? Where does it lead to?
In Bitola in 1913 (being a major city in the region) there could have been some Greeks (merchants maybe), but nothing even near a notable number. We cant play dumb and pretend we don’t see the difference between a systematic brutal assimilation and 10 Greeks dissolving into a pool of 200,000 Macedonians.
Its true that no one is 100% anything. Ethnically, we’re all one colourful mix of the peoples that have crossed the Balkans during the ages. But what is important is to respect each other’s own self-determination of national identity.
Republic of Macedonia after her independence has changed its flag and constitution, clearly stating that it has no whatsoever territorial pretensions against any of its neighbours, so any fear is unfounded and product of propaganda. Its even irrational to believe that we could threaten any country’s sovereignity when we have hard time keeping our own in the first place.
Btw, the Thracians were much more longer around than the coming of the Slavs. Even well into the XVIII century there were traces of Thracian ethnic identity, but i’ve only read too little (perhaps vrylakas can elaborate).

Concerning the name issue, I think any combination of adjective plus “Macedonia” would be considered offensive by all Macedonians and not serious. There are options though, like exclusively “Republic of Macedonia” in all instances, or changing “Macedonia” to the original in Macedonian - “Makedonija”, adding something in brackets etc. I also think both parties should officially distance themselves from any claim on the decendancy of Ancient Macedonians and leave that question to the scientists and historians.
What I disagree with you though: What do you mean “racial attacks against Greek investors”? We’re begging for investors currently with 40% unemployment.
Also, you’re not correct that Albania had any kinds of territorial pretensions towards any of its neighbours. During the ethnic conflict in 2001, Albania gave the most valuable support for the territorial integrity of Macedonia from all our neighbours.
I’m also ashamed from few ignorant nationalists here in my country who sometimes show up with paroles on political rallies like “Solun is ours.”, which is ridicilous :) and I despise those who speak bad for Greeks per se, because personally I like Greece very much, although you don’t like us much. :)

Very good work there companiero. Could i add your part to my article, with credit to you for that part naturally? :)

I cannot really make any comment on the historical claims themselves, since it would unfair given that i have not really studied the history of the region, and definately you are correct that (slav) macedonian does not appear in any greek books.
So i will try to answer some of your comments, without- i repeat- providing historic info, or refuting the historical info you allured to, which definately is alien to me. However i can make a very small note about them: i would not be surprised if atrocities indeed took place at some eras, but the treaty for the exchange of populations was an international treaty, and in the greek civil war atrocities extended to all the people in Greece. That said i am sure that the Greek state of 1945 was not really the most democratic place in the world, or during the Metaxas dictatorship. Perhaps in the future it will be easier for balcan countries to discuss about history without always sticking to one version which presents all of the others as murderous freaks, and only the one country as the saint/martyr etc, but that is something done by all of the countries in the region :(

-It is impossible for anyone in Greece (or at least almost anyone) to accurately trace his family line back to 1913. It can only happen in some cases of old families which had political power, or were merchants of that era, however for the vast majority of the population it is simply impossible. Personally i am mostly from asia minor, since my grandparents are: 1/4 from Thessalonike, 1/4 from Pontus, 2/4 from coastal asia minor. I do not regard this ancenctry from there to be particularly important though, and it is common to have such a family line, due to the exchange of populations in 1922.
-It is very dangerous to claim that the people of one country are in reality some other ethnicity, and not the one they feel they are. No one can be sure who is slav/greek/slav macedonian/albanian, even turk, not 100%, which is why it is internationally agreed that the people of each country are free to identify themselves as what they want. Who knows, perhaps some people i have seen in the street are more related to you than me, and perhaps the same is true for some people you have seen in the street. But it is very dangerous terrain to tread on, to claim that x nationals are in reality something else.

-"Makedonija" would probably have been fine, if the foreign name wasnt still Macedonia. But anyway i am not making the decisions. Today the goevernment announced that it will probably veto fyrMacedonia membership in the eu and in nato untill a commonly accepted name can be found. It is not much use for me personally to say what i think since i am not in the government. It also promissed a referendum in the end.
-About Thessalonike being called Solun: yes, it was and still is, by slavs and bulgarians (and you too i guess?). However it is certain ocourse that the name the city had since it was founded was Thessalonike, as it is mentioned in historians of all periods, and as is also mentioned in the bible.
-About there being a massive number of slav macedonians in Macedonia, and only a few greeks: whereas it seems very probable if not certain that greeks were a small minority (even very small) in northern Macedonia, in the south they were one of the largest ethnic groups. Southern Macedonia had large numbers of jews, bulgarians, turks, and greeks. Iirc upon liberation/annexation the city of Thessalonike had almost an egual number from all those four groups. But it does not matter which groupd had more people: obviously any one of the balcan countries would want the city since it was the most industrialised part of the ottoman empire, apart from Constantinople itself ;)
-Racial attacks have happened (i am not saying that they happened in a massive scale, i just remember seing a report about one, and just mentioned it for the sake of presenting the full situation), but that is hardly unexpected. Like i said i could very easily have felt threatened and angered if i was a slav macedonian in your country, and reacted in such ways against whoever i saw as an enemy.
-There has been considerable play in greek media, in the past, about organisations in (slav) macedonia which actively support ideas of taking areas of Greece. Ofcourse the comparisson of the militaries would make this notion absurd, but what causes upset is that such ideas seem to not be getting uprroted, and this may lead to an escalation of them, which again would make relations more difficult.
-It is not that "we" dont like you: we do not know you. All that is known is the tention over the name, and some other negative stuff. Also, as in everywhere else, in Greece too mass psychology can be very hostile towards such things. I am sure that hostile/uneducated or just plain overly emotional people exist in your country too, and not only here :)

In conclusion i think that in the end the name probably will not change much. Northern Macedonia would have been my proposition. Perhaps the veto card will help, perhaps it wont. Really this issue should have been resolved a decade ago. But i am sure that in the future relations will be a lot better, like greek-bulgarian relations are now (remember that greek-bulgarian relations used to be pathetic too) ;) Also i still maintain that if we do not feel mutually intimidated due to wrong reasons, in reality we can form a bigger bond due to the name in the end. But like i said this would need better information: i mean if people here were sure that slav macedonians were using the name due to the medieval name of the region then you can be 100% sure that the negative emotions wouldnt have existed at all. But you know that if there is original distrust, and then one hears of organisations with territorial claims etc, negativity tends to prevail in people who have no other source of knowledge about the other person (and we still do not, like you do not about us).

Are you also aware, varwnos, that the briefing mediated by Matthew Nimetz said that:

(1) Any agreement would only last for a number of years, like 10, and then the name would then turn to Republic of Macedonia.

(2) Any region in Greece containing the name Macedonia would have to be removed.

(3) The Macedonian Orthodox Church (the UN making decissions on religious issues, and the Eastern Orthodox Church), could establish authority over Macedonian claimed artifacts; as Mount Athos is the Byzantine Empire's capital of Orthodoxy in the Balkans and Russia.

(4) Only 4 names were given by Nimetz that all contained the word Macedonia. This clearly shows that the mediation of the United Nations was biased in their opinion of the name issue.

The name issue is not just a name, it is like a credit card number and the use of the name is identity theft. We will not just hand over our history, our legal authority and claims to Macedonian artifacts. The discussion on the Macedonian Issue clearly hands over all rights to the Slavs of FYROM.

No matter how easy it is for individuals to swipe this issue aside as not being an issue, you must realize that States do not function for the interests of individuals. They obviously look at national ambitions and the global society. Those are the two aspects of this dispute that puts Greece in danger. It is not just a name. It is a record, it is recorded into legal parameter of rights of who owns these rights to the Macedonian history.

If the issue was simply self-determination, it would not have offended the Greeks. The Slavic determination that they are the "Macedonians" not only effects themselves, but also the legitimacy of the Greek self-determination that they are the owners of Macedonianism. Can this be shared? Only if the legal framework determines it. Macedonia as a name, means no sharing. New Macedonia, means we start with our own history. Slavic Macedonia means one race, one country. North Macedonia implies that the 5% of Macedonia that is in FYROM represents the entire country.

@Companiero: I can't agree with you. First Bulgaria gained it's liberty on in the Berlin congress.Bulgaria became free after the Sansteafanv's trety.According to this treaty, almost all lands in which lived Bulgarians are included in the independent country.But the 'great powers' didn't want a big country, which will dominate on the balkans, so the Berlin congress was made.According to the Berlin trety Bulgaria lands were made in pieces.And second, Bulgaria didn't annexed Romelia in 1886.It happened in 1885 and it was an act of unition.And it was made both by the Bulgarinas in the northern Bulgaria and the Bulgarians in Romelia.Of course the 'great powers' weren't agree.The Serbs, on the presure of the Austro-hungary decleared war on the united Bulgaria.The expectations was that the young Bulgarian army would not be able to ressist the Serbian army, armed and trained by Austro-Hungary.At the begining of the Serbo-Bulgarian war, the Serbian troops was stepping forward.The main Bulgarian force was on the border with Turket, excpecting an attack.But the Serbian offense was stopped near Slivnica.The serbian army was scattered.Then the Bulgarian army made counter-offensive.The Bulgarians reached the outskirts if Belgrad, but there the Austro-Hungarian ambassador,decleared that if the Bulgarian army entered Belgrad,Austro-Hungary would declear war on Bulgaria.The war ended and a peac trety was signed.The 'great powers' accepted the unation of Bulgaria.

And about IMRO, they weren't an organisation fighting for Macadonian aftonomy.They were fighting for the unation of Bulgaria and Macadonia.As it was wrriten in the sanstefan's peac treaty.


P.S. The attached image is a map of Bulgaria according to the Sanstefano's peace treaty.The darkest regions shows the lands where lived Bulgarians, but which lands weren't included in Bulgaria.All other none-white is Bulgaria.Sorry for that the map is in Bulgarian.

I do not think that anyone claims that there are ties between slav Macedonia and ancient Macedonia, so why are you afraid that they will? I mean if we are afraid that foreign universities will start claiming that slavs have relations with ancient macedonians, then we are perhaps too paranoid :p
The reality is that we have very few means of forcing a name to another country. Let me remind you that "northern macedonia" would have been an agreed upon name, 10 years ago, and our own paranoia was what prevented that. Also keep in mind that any people in the world can not be 100% different than us, by which i mean that they cannot be living happy lives and on the side be planning destructive acts against us. Infact if they get rid of some problems and uncertainties they themselves will slowly begin to act against their own far-right groups, which we are at the moment infact sustaining and enforcing by our own position on things.
As for being heir of "macedonism". Well, in order to be a heir of something one has first to learn about it. I do not see myself as being more of a heir to macedonism than some french or english person who have devoted a vastly larger amount of their time to read about it. Would you claim that someone in greek macedonia is more linked to macedonism because he just feels something about it?
A person forms the way he feels by a large number of parameters. Chances are that any child would tend to think of what he has learned in school, even if he isnt from the country. As you know Thessalonike today already has a lot of foreigners, and already a second generation of them, which hopefully will become more greek than foreign. I think that we should not act sporadically and with anxiety, but realise that other people do not differ drammatically from us, and given that they just have the means to survive they will too become more peacefull and friendly.
If a society is more developed then less people want to view their nation as the thing you described: there are more people in such a society which do not just hostily defend their nation's acts against everyoen else, with the attitude that it has to safeguard its "interests". You see the state the world is in due to a large number of people in the usa having such a view about what a nation should do, like the one you too supported. But if people do not demonise the others then we have a far better chance of living peacefully in some future.

Perhaps in the future it will be easier for balcan countries to discuss about history without always sticking to one version which presents all of the others as murderous freaks, and only the one country as the saint/martyr etc, but that is something done by all of the countries in the region
Absolutely. Though I have to say, I sense you’re referencing at my presentation of the issue. The reason that it may come across as the martyr/murder approach is that Macedonian history doesn’t really have much for someone to hold against her, mainly because we didt have a state for so long and therefore no opportunity to bully other people around. However, as soon as we created one (1945), we made up for that fact by fiercly dealing with “political ooportunists” i.e. non-“orthodox” communists. I already stated the terrorist attacks in 1903, and I could also add the involvement of pro-Bulgarian IMRO revolutionaries (stll, coming from Macedonia) in the assasination of Serbian king Alexander Karagorgevic in 1934. I like to think of myself as relatively objective and although sometimes terminology might betray me, I don’t disregard arguments or proofs.
-It is impossible for anyone in Greece (or at least almost anyone) to accurately trace his family line back to 1913. It can only happen in some cases of old families which had political power, or were merchants of that era, however for the vast majority of the population it is simply impossible.
Oh, but it only takes to have asked your grandparents where their parents came from. I mean, I ask you this because it is quite common in Greece for people to actually have a so to say “non-Greek” ancestry and yet don’t know about it. I met a guy on the Internet who so fervently rejected that his grandparents were Vlachs (who spoke the language), that he went as far as claiming that Vlachs are product of CIA imagination, when in fact only Greeks have ever lived in Greece. My grandparents also come from Greek Macedonia, who fled after the Civil War. You see, I have some relatives in Greece as well, but have never seen them, have no idea who they are; they don’t know as well, speak only Greek and are probably as fanatic as this young guy when it comes to feeling Greek. But as far as others are concerned, they are Greeks, because as you said, its all about how they feel. In only one generation, no one will have any idea that they have Macedonian-speaking ancestors and the lineage is lost.
There’s one thing I forgot to mention when I was thinking about how a long-term reconciliation could be deviced. Greece also has to return Macedonians (who have fled Greece during the Civil War) their properties which were taken by the state and given to Greeks. After the democratization, Greece brought a law which provided for this option, but it only extends to ethnic Greeks, which makes it discriminatory. Fulfilment of the guaranteed minority rights by international conventions of Macedonians presently living in Greece is also an imperative of any stable solution. (Today they have no right to declare Macedonian, no education in Macedonian and no government supported cultural initiatives whatsoever.)
Today the goevernment announced that it will probably veto fyrMacedonia membership in the eu and in nato untill a commonly accepted name can be found. It is not much use for me personally to say what i think since i am not in the government.
Well, I will. :) I think such action would bring most harm to Greece. To block a country which has invested so much efforts in its European future because of an irrational name problem, would mark Greece as unproductive, even hostile neighbour and increase support for Macedonia. Thing is, we’re far from ready to enter the EU, so a Greek veto wouldn’t practically harm us much.

-You’re right about Thessalonike of course. It was one of the cities where Greeks were biggest in number, since Greek citizen class in XIX was rather mobile and flocked in places where business could be done. In contrast, the Macedonian countriside was mainly Slavic Macedonian. Good to mention the Jews as substantional minority (forgot them), and the Bulgarians, but its trickier with them, since Slavic Macedonians were usually called Slavs/Macedonians/Bulgarians in documents depending on the political interests of those who wrote them. Still, there were also Slavs who felt like Bulgarians, so you’re right on the spot there.
-I’d still like you to refer to the concrete example of racial attack so that I can explain any possible misunderstandings.
-And I do know pretty much about Greek history and culture. And Greek girls. ;)

Greek Stud,
(2) Any region in Greece containing the name Macedonia would have to be removed.

(3) The Macedonian Orthodox Church (the UN making decissions on religious issues, and the Eastern Orthodox Church), could establish authority over Macedonian claimed artifacts; as Mount Athos is the Byzantine Empire's capital of Orthodoxy in the Balkans and Russia.
These two are not correct. The proposal was that neither the country nor the province would have the exclusive right to use the name “Macedonia” (instead “Republic of Macedonia” and “Greek province Macedonia”). And the third statement about the Church is simply reidicilous. I have no idea how an intelligent person could believe that, since not only its not correct, its also far from common reason. Why would a UN diplomat deal with the Church (which isnt officially recognized in the orthodox world btw)? He doesn’t have any interest OR right. And how is that connected with ancient artifacts? And what fool would allow a foreign Church to establish authority over cultural artifacts?!? :D

I can't agree with you. First Bulgaria gained it's liberty on in the Berlin congress.Bulgaria became free after the Sansteafanv's trety.According to this treaty, almost all lands in which lived Bulgarians are included in the independent country.
I said Bulgaria got its independence on the Berlin Congress (1878), and that still stands. From a formal legal point of view the Bulgarian independence gained in San-Stefano couple of months earlier was nulified, until reaffirmed in Berlin.
-You are right about the annexation of Rumelia in 1885 (not 1886, like i wrote). I checked all years info and that one and the year when pro-Bulgarian wing exterminated the pro-Macedonian wing in IMRO (1919 instead 1912) were my mistakes. Shouldn’t write articles next time recalling just by heart.
-That map is not what you’re saying. The explainations say “Territorial gains and losses of the Exarchy (Bulgarian Church)” That has nothing to do with ethnic Bulgarian areas.
And about IMRO, they weren't an organisation fighting for Macadonian aftonomy.They were fighting for the unation of Bulgaria and Macadonia.As it was wrriten in the sanstefan's peac treaty.
Right. :-/ San-Stefano was 1878, IMRO was formed 1894.

Very good work there companiero. Could i add your part to my article, with credit to you for that part naturally?
Naturally, just correct those two years i mentioned if you will.

Oh I love this thread... Thanks to Companiero, Reno and my friend varwnos for all the useful information and a leveled discussion. As to me I prefer not to comment here too much as my yellow race (although I am tall, fair, blond and have blue eyes, but i'm no genius neither :) ) and my fez prohibits me from being taken seriously amongst dear Nazis. (Speaking of Nazis, I wonder why Karaman hasn't showed up here, maybe i'll just PM him :) )
Otherwise, I am from Macedonia as well and feel a romantic connection but that's all about it. Half from Selonika (Greek Macedonia) and half from Ohrid (Macedonia).
I was wondering what all the fuss was about with just a name? In Turkey and Greece there is East and West Thrace but both people across the border don't claim anything to do with ancient Thracians; it's plain geographic description. How about the whole world calling USA just America. Do the other countries in the Americas feel threatened? (oh well, maybe they should, especially if they have oil, hello Chavez, lol).

So I suggest to all you guys -with utmost civilized attitude- surrender yourselfs to the Fez nation and we rename it back to Roumelia (strangely enough; meaning Roman Lands) and problem with Alexander the Great is solved, everyone is happy. :) (So we can finally discuss his sexuality more than his nationality ;) )
We also promise to kidnap your kids and change their religion free of charge, so they can once again become our rulers and steal from us.
If you like the formula, rinse it well then repeat for Israel-Palestine, Cyprus, Kosovo, Iraq-Kuwait, Lebanon-Syria and so forth until it's all cleaned up.

What? you do not speak balcan anymore. Humor is not allowed in a balcan thread! :p :D
I detest your plan too. Now that i said that, i will go on to read it.

'-That map is not what you’re saying. The explainations say “Territorial gains and losses of the Exarchy (Bulgarian Church)” That has nothing to do with ethnic Bulgarian areas.'

It's the same.The San Stefano peace trety was made according ti the territories of the Bulgarian exarhy.This treaty is made by the help of some scientist and explorers, who claimed in which lands lived Bulgarians.

And in 1885..it wasn't annexion ;) It was unition.
P.s.After all you understood what was written on the map, although you are macadonian ;)

P.s.After all you understood what was written on the map, although you are macadonian

Understanding the same langage dos not justify the case that Macedonia should belong to Bulgaria, you know. ;)

And even though i've not posted that much on this thread, i'll still be watching should it ever turn to flaming. :)

Understanding the same langage dos not justify the case that Macedonia should belong to Bulgaria, you know. ;)

And even though i've not posted that much on this thread, i'll still be watching should it ever turn to flaming. :)

Then you shouldn't hvae posted this ;)

Then you shouldn't hvae posted this ;)

My comment was not a flame.;)

The Macedonian Issue is flaming.

If they were claiming to be more related to ancient macedonians than a) ancient greeks, b) today's greeks, then it would be flaming. But i do not think they are.

a) even if the ancient macedonians were not greek, they definately were a lot closer to ancient greeks than to anything else; and at any rate hugely closer to them than slav macedonians. This is obvious and i doubt that anyone seriously doubts it.

b) today's greeks, although not that close to the people of antiquity (which is reasonable, given the amount of time that passed and the history of the region) are however close to ancient greeks due to the use of the language, which although not entirely the same has large parts being identical, and other large parts being almost identical. Also, while it would be extreme to claim a complete descendance from the people of BC, it would be at least to the same degree unreasonable to suggest that we are just as related to them as everyone else, for example germans or english: for the simple reason that we kept the language, and come from the region, we are more related to them than others, albeit not completely.
At least that is my view, which i am not defending here, merely presenting it, since i am very bored of such debates over the net which never lead to anything good. Feeling something about the ancients is fine, however one should make the distinction between that and acting against others, since the latter is the result of fear, which in most cases could have been avoided too.
Similarily it can be said that we are a bit more related to ancient macedonians too. But i am sure that this cannot exactly be measured, and again is more evident in the cultural heritage from the land, sites, and general mentality, rather than hard evidence. It is hugely possible that other people in the region are related to them as well, but again this cannot be measured.

Whereas it would be inevitable to some extent that since their country would be called something which has the word "macedonia" inside it, they would have references to the ancient macedonians too, probably, at least at first. However my view is that once they become more stable (if it happens, but in my view we should help them achieve that) then even the more extreme elements in slav macedonian society (and there are extreme elements like that in all societies, and even more in balcan ones ussually) will diminish in importance. There is no argument against the fact that in ottoman times the country have now have had almost half of the ottoman region of Macedonia, like we also have half of that. One can argue that no one really is much interested what the ottoman region was called, or the byzantine region prior to that (since tunch khan said that in ottoman times it was called rumelia) but most people have heard of the ancient macedonia, which has by far most of its land (almost 90% as you said) in the greek province of macedonia. So i do not understand why you are so fearfull that foreigners will mistake slav macedonia for ancient macedonia. I mean one could at first mistake it, but if he starts reading a book and sees some maps he will not anymore.
I maintain that the common name will in reality help us be closer in the future, once we stop fearing each other. But this cannot happen if we have so extreme views.

There is a statue of alexander the great in Thessalonike, and although i like walking near where it is, due to the scenery, i see it as just a cultural icon, and not a reason for anyone here to attack others. Also it is certain that no attack happens due to power alone, but moreover it needs an amount of fear and anger so as to sustain it. And i doubt that the slav macedonians are the real problem of the people who are against them, merely they are a provocation: their real problems are more personal to them, and they should try to solve those and not burden us with their anger.

An interesting thread, and one I applaud for its civility.

A few thoughts about Eastern European history:

There is this concept that arose out of the post-war years in Eastern European historiography called historic nations - and by "nation", I mean "naród", "nép", "volk", etc. This theory held that yes, today, Eastern Europe is awash with many nations big and small, all more or less equally humbled by the events of the first half of the 20th century - BUT there were some who were prima inter pares. Those nations who could (credibly, sort of) lay claim to historic pre-modern states or, better, empires, were therefore more developed and could boast a greater sense of nationhood, and with it more developed societies, implying more advanced cultures, and etc.

Of course, there is a certain degree of truth here - peoples with longer histories of statehood do generally have better organized societies, more experience with bureaucratic administration and economy, and etc. Still, this wasn't the real point of this historical theory; its real emphasis was to help bolster the sagging egos of those among us used to ruling over others in a new European (and Soviet) reality, and this ego-bolsterer was often at the root of many historical arguments in the region, even to our day. Poles, Hungarians, Serbs, Bulgarians and Greeks - among others - could look down on modern Slovaks, Ukrainians, Croats, Romanians or Macedonians because their histories had weak or no traditions of independence and statehood.

This is all tied up with our modern notions of ethnicity and statehood, which are largely based on piles of myths about when we became the peoples we are today - myths which we try to deny our neighbors, when they come into conflict with ours. The reality is that for Ukrainians, their ethnic identity can be traced back to historical times (16th-17th centuries) and they must accept a fairly recent vintage for their "ethnogenesis", while Polish ethnic myths sometimes have us existing as the Lusatian peoples even before the Slavs entered Europe 1500 years ago! Does this in any way change the reality that there is today a Polish and a Ukrainian people, regardless of their beliefs about their origins? In Polish historical texts I learned in graphic detail the many peoples, tribes and groups who have lived in the Ukrainian lands throughout history; the modern Ukrainians are just the modern-most manifestation of these many peoples. It would rarely occur to many Poles that the same could be said of us. Or, for that matter, Germans, French, Greeks or Italians.

Are the modern (FYROM) Macedonians just "Slavs" (which would mean for me that the modern Greeks could be called "Helenes" or that modern French could be called "Germanics")? Are they Bulgarians, Serbs, or another, third, separate ethnic group? This is all to say that arguing the history of how modern Macedonia - the country - came to be is useless because the real problem lies in modern politics and not in historical understanding.

But we are called Hellenes, in greek :D

Some comments:

1. The San Stefano size Bulgaria served mainly Russian political interests. Scaling back Bulgaria in Berlin was a western initiative, b/c western states did not like a large Russian satellite state in the Balkans. Too bad that Bulgarians had little to say about this at that time...

2. The Bulgarian indpendence was "de facto" and not "de jure" until 1908, not even after Eastern Rumelia revolted and joined Bulgaria proper. This again was not coincidental: both the existence of Eastern Rumelia and not having "de jure" independence in Bulgaria served the support of Turkey from the west to counterbalance Russia.

For those who are interested, A.J.P. Taylor wrote an intersting book ("Struggle for Mastery in Europe") about this period.

And one addition to Vrylakas' excellent point: "historic nations" is a term that found way into western scholarship as well. I've read political scientists who argued that "historic states" will reach democracy faster in the 1990s, due to their "historic" history... :crazyeye: i.e. their previous experience with statehood, whereas "non-historic" ones are those that usually make trouble around the block...

Nice posts everyone.

Since this thread diverged a bit into discussing the ethnic Macedonian element in Greece, (which is on the other hand, essential for the Balkan Wars) and just over a week ago I stumbled upon a book which provided me with some factography concerning the demographic changes in Greek Macedonia since 1913, I composed a small demographic fact-file. Focus is on the demographic changes affecting the (Slavic) Macedonian population.

Balkan Wars (1912-1913)
- 160 Macedonian and Turkish villages burned by the Greek army in southern Macedonia
- 16,000 Macedonians fled north

1913 – after the Balkan Wars
- population of Greek Macedonia – 1,052,000
35,2% Macedonians (370,000)
28,5% Turks
22,5% Greeks
Albanians, Vlachs, Jews, Armenians, Roma

1913-1928
* Ney Peace Treaty (1919) – “voluntary” exchange of populations between Bulgaria and Greece
- 86,500 Macedonians moved to Bulgaria
- Internal colonization in Greece – 53,000 Greeks colonized in Macedonia (mostly in the Salonika area)

* Lausanne Peace Treaty (1922) – forceful exchange of Christian and Muslim population between Greece and Turkey
- 350,000 Muslims banished from Greek Macedonia to Turkey (300,000 Turks, 40,800 Macedonian Muslims, 6,000 Albanians, Muslim Jews and others)

- Colonization of Christian population from Turkey (Lausanne Peace Treaty) and Greeks from all over the world – 1,160,000 total in Greece
- Colonization of 565,000 colonists in Greek Macedonia (200,000 Greeks, but also non-Greeks: 210,000 Turkish(-speaking) Christians, 80,000 Armenians, 75,000 Caucasians)
- 1926 –Law for Helenization of toponymes

1928
- population of Greek Macedonia - 1,412,000
45% Greeks
17% Macedonians
15% Turkish Christians (Karamani)
Armenians (6%), Caucasians (5%), Jews, (5%), Vlachs (3%), Roma (2%)

Greek Civil War (1936-1939)
- 50,000 Macedonians forced out of Greece
- 20,000 Macedonians died fighting in DAG (Democratic Army of Greece), military wing of CPG
- 46 Macedonian villages burned

1950-
-loosening compatibility and passive assimilation of ethnic Macedonian minority in Greece
Today – population of Greek Macedonia – just over two millions
98% Greeks
2% Others
- note: Greek government states there’re no ethnic divisions in Greece

Companiero, i think that now you are not really on topic anymore.
The ethnic divisions in Greece are there, but mostly in Thrace as far as the pre 1990 immigrants are the matter (1990 was the beginning of large immigration to Greece, mostly from Albania, but also from other balcan countries, the Ukraine, Romania, various asian and african countries).
Your statistics cannot be verified numerically, but that is hardly the issue here. The issue being that you cannot realistically claim that Greece owes your new country something (even if you do you have to realise that nothing will be granted to you; it is not like we occupied fyr macedonia in ww2 and commited massacres, as in the case of Germany occupying ww2 Greece). The exchange of populations treaties were all legitimate, which is why they are called treaties; nothing secret.
Don't maintain an agenda like that, since it makes any change for the better in relations simply impossible. (btw i am not sure what you expect to be done? it is far more realistic for the balcans to agree on letting the past go; check the case of the 1950's pogroms in Constantinople which led to over 100.000 greeks forced to flee). But the worst thing in your post is that you appear to be of the view that a percentage of greek macedonians is "racially" slavmacedonian, irregardless of what they feel they are. No one is something different than what they think they are, unless you plan to make them believe that they are, which is unrealistic. There is enough debate about whether your own nationality is based on really different ethnotic identify (ie not serb/bulgarian) so you should not harbour belated nationalisms (as in the case of similar belated nationalisms by the other relatively new nation in the region, Albania).
Ofcourse you are free to post what you want, but i am also free to feel dissapointed that you regard such posts as really constructive.

The ethnic divisions in Greece are there, but mostly in Thrace as far as the pre 1990 immigrants are the matter (1990 was the beginning of large immigration to Greece, mostly from Albania, but also from other balcan countries, the Ukraine, Romania, various asian and african countries).
Foreigners living in Greece are considered immigrants, they are something else. I responsibly claim, the Greek government doesnt recognize any autothonic ethnic groups in Greece, beside Greeks.
Your statistics cannot be verified numerically, but that is hardly the issue here.
Yes, they can. They are gathered from statistical data from the Greek authorities (colonizations), as well as foreign researches and estimations. (Ask for references for any particular one.)
The issue being that you cannot realistically claim that Greece owes your new country something (even if you do you have to realise that nothing will be granted to you; it is not like we occupied fyr macedonia in ww2 and commited massacres, as in the case of Germany occupying ww2 Greece).
Very true. And I do not claim Greece owes anything to my country. Greece owes much to their own minority of (slavic) Macedonians living there, which they culturally annihilated using fascist measures. That is a civilizational obligation that a democratic country, such as Greece wishes to be recognized, must fullfil. And if you think saying "fascist" is harsh, it is then when I'll have to become really “unconstructive” by providing vivid examples of how these people were treated 1913-1950. After all, I thought the statistics speak for themselves. (Even in my previous posts I mentioned which steps Greece is supposed to take in order to solve this problem; present steps, not clinging for the past. Don’t blame me for that).
But the worst thing in your post is that you appear to be of the view that a percentage of greek macedonians is "racially" slavmacedonian, irregardless of what they feel they are. No one is something different than what they think they are,..
Now wait a minute. Where did I say that? In fact, I 100% agree with you there. Indeed, one can safely infere from facts, that a significant percent of Greeks today (especially those living in Greek Macedonia) had Turkish/Slavic/Vlach speaking ancestors, but so much from that fact as long as they feel Greek today. My object of concern when talking about Macedonians living in Greece today is the tiny minority which struggles for cultural survival and acknowledgement of existence, currently, in the dawn of XXI.
In fact, I didnt say anything new with the factfile post. I only posted those statistics to support what I was talking about previously and to give some reference idea of the magnitude of those forced ethnic changes.
In the end, why do I risk coming across as negative by talking about injustices done by foreign countries? I’d be the last one normally, but this is one chapter of Greek history that hardly anyone knows about, instead everyone appreciating only their glorious past and percepting a new country (Rep. of Macedonia) trying to “steal” their identity. Wrongly so.
Respect.

I can understand the arguments of both sides.

Almost 55% of Macedonia is within Greek territory, 5% within Bulgarian, and the rest is FYROM (or whatever you want to call it).

Obviously FYROM has the right to call itself Macedocnia, but based only on geographical considerations. Anything else implies territorial ambitions against Greece, as well as the distortion of history.

I doubt Alexander and his fellow compatriots were writing using the Cyrillic alphabet - not least because it appeared some 1,500 years after his death.

Today's so-called Macedonias must admit that they are of Slavic origin who moved to the region in around 1,000 AD, and that they have nothing to do with those who occupied those lands in ancient times.

Moreover, they may very well call themselves Macedonian due to geographical considerations, but the problem is that the inhabitants of northern Greece, although Greek, also consider themselves to be Maceconians (not only due to geography, but also culturally).

Perhaps FYROM could be named the Republic of Northern Macedonia, which would be geographically more accurate (considering that the southern part belongs to the Greeks), and the nationality to be determined as Slav-Macedonian, thus making a clear distinction. I do not know what the Macedonians and Greeks would say about such a scenario, but I find it the most logical.

Finally, the decision by FYROM to remove from its flag the Star of Vergina is a clear demonstration of that country's acceptance that, historically and culturally, it has nothing to do with ancient Macedonia.

One of the points in this argument is:'Is there a macadonian nation', because if there is not Macadonian nation, there couldn't be a Macadonian country.


"Perhaps FYROM could be named the Republic of Northern Macedonia, which would be geographically more accurate (considering that the southern part belongs to the Greeks), and the nationality to be determined as Slav-Macedonian, thus making a clear distinction. I do not know what the Macedonians and Greeks would say about such a scenario, but I find it the most logical."

The things in Macadonia are going in different way. The country is becoming more and more muslim.

fingolfin, ???

Perhaps FYROM could be named the Republic of Northern Macedonia, which would be geographically more accurate (considering that the southern part belongs to the Greeks), and the nationality to be determined as Slav-Macedonian, thus making a clear distinction. I do not know what the Macedonians and Greeks would say about such a scenario, but I find it the most logical.
Perhaps Great Britain could be named Germanic Island of Britain. It would be ethnically more accurate, and the nationality be determined as Germanic British (considering that the over 1500 years ago Celtic-inhabited lands of the Isles today belong to Ireland mainly), thus making a clear distinction. Scientifically bloody logical.
I honestly cant understand how someone with dear heart thinks they can play with the national feelings of an entire nation.

A bit of googling has produced some pics, to make the subject more suculent to read.

http://www.md.government.bg/nvim/_en/albums/a12s-m.jpg

http://www.md.government.bg/nvim/_en/albums/a14s-m.jpg
Bulgarian army

http://www.md.government.bg/nvim/_en/albums/a11s-m.jpg
Bulgarian Artillery

http://www.wwi-postcards.com/items/bigthumbs/bigthumb_28b8d1b2_T_19.jpg
Bulgarian propaganda card

http://www.dreyblatt.net/whoswho/Images/85-93-4.jpg
Serbian commander with soldiers

http://www.soros.org.mk/konkurs/058/mk/balkanski/12.jpg
Macedonian war-struck family

http://www.bitolaonline.com/images/foto_images/upto1918/fotos_bitola_turkish_tt/a12_train_station_WW1d39b.jpg
Serbian soldiers in Macedonia

http://www.bitolaonline.com/images/foto_images/upto1918/fotos_bitola_turkish_tt/a7_60242t.jpg
Turkish Peasant, Bitola

http://www.bitolaonline.com/images/foto_images/upto1918/fotos_bitola_turkish_tt/f10_sultan-mehmed-5-resad-vobitola.jpg
Turkish Sultan Mehmet V visiting Macedonia

http://www.bitolaonline.com/images/foto_images/upto1918/fotos_bitola_turkish_tt/c3_tursko-korzoto.jpg
"City" life in Bitola, Macedonia - 1910's

fingolfin, ???


Perhaps Great Britain could be named Germanic Island of Britain. It would be ethnically more accurate, and the nationality be determined as Germanic British (considering that the over 1500 years ago Celtic-inhabited lands of the Isles today belong to Ireland mainly), thus making a clear distinction. Scientifically bloody logical.
I honestly cant understand how someone with dear heart thinks they can play with the national feelings of an entire nation.
"fingolfin, ???" ???? :)

Perhaps Great Britain could be named Germanic Island of Britain. It would be ethnically more accurate, and the nationality be determined as Germanic British (considering that the over 1500 years ago Celtic-inhabited lands of the Isles today belong to Ireland mainly), thus making a clear distinction. Scientifically bloody logical.

This is not my post. It's part of The end in night ones ;) Look at the previous page.

Just to be sane here: Greece does not claim any land of the sovereign country of the former yugoslavian republic of macedonia. The only dispute is over the name. If it was called "slav macedonia" i personally would not mind, but to call it just "macedonia" would create the illusion that it has something to do with alexander the great, when obviously it has nothing whatsoever to do with ancient macedonia. Only a small part of the former yugoslav republic of macedonia was ever part of the ancient macedonian kingdom, and both of that kingdom's historical capitals (Pella, and Thessalonike ;) ) are in Greece.
Putting aside the question of whether or not the ancient macedonians were greek or not (which bores me) it is obvious that they were not slavs or bulgarians.

BTW, I just went to Greece in September. Normally I should travel there through Bulgaria, since it's much shorter way. But I had to cross Serbia and Montenegro to get free transport. From Serbia, I went to Greece by crossing FYROM.
At the border with Greece, on the Greek border building, after you go pass the Macedonian building it's written something in Greek and below, the translation in English: "Macedonia was born Greek". :)

It's really strange, isn't it? ;)

Great Britain depicts the regions of the Angles (England), Welsh (Wales), and Scots (Scotland). The British identy, Companiero, is a new identity; whereas the Macedonian identity, is an old one. You are claiming an old identity, Britain named itself a new name.

BTW, I just went to Greece in September. Normally I should travel there through Bulgaria, since it's much shorter way. But I had to cross Serbia and Montenegro to get free transport. From Serbia, I went to Greece by crossing FYROM.
At the border with Greece, on the Greek border building, after you go pass the Macedonian building it's written something in Greek and below, the translation in English: "Macedonia was born Greek". :)

It's really strange, isn't it? ;)

I havent been there, but definately such a thing isnt smart at all, to write phrases like that in border buildings. They only show lack of intelligence; as if any visitor will look at a building so as to make up his/her mind about the name issue. Im sure most visitors dont even care about it, and rightly so ;)

P.s.After all you understood what was written on the map, although you are macadonian ;)

if that was the case wouldnt the usa be part of britain because it speaks the smae languge?

I have never said that the same lenguage is the only reason for that Macadonia=Bulgaria. The same language is one of the things which proves that Macadonian 'nation' is the same as Bulgarian nation. Or simply, there is no Macadonian nation.

I have never said that the same lenguage is the only reason for that Macadonia=Bulgaria. The same language is one of the things which proves that Macadonian 'nation' is the same as Bulgarian nation. Or simply, there is no Macadonian nation.

macadonia is an indapendent state, thus meaning it is NOT the smae as the bulgarian nation

ok peopel in american and england speak english but it doesnt mean america is same from britain THERE are differences

Except for the fact that Macedonians say their language was suppressed, secret, and uniquely original to Macedonia. Although their language is so closely related to other Slavic languages. Americans have never claimed to be indigenous, nor have they questioned the Native American heritage to areas like: Oklahoma, Dakota, Illinois, or Mississippi whom the Native peoples heritage is much different than the Anglo-American heritage.

Slavic Macedonians paint Greeks as the new culture; as a culture with no ties to Macedonianism. Macedonians separate themselves from Bulgarians because they have a nationalistic right to their indigenous land. This claim is false. Macedonianism steals Bulgarian historical battles, movements, and leaders which questions the validity to the nationalistic portions of their constitution as opposed to a functioning separate independent state.

You cannot compare the Balkan nations with nations that have not been separated on the status of Nationalism. This region has experienced nationalism at its fullest, and unless you understand nationism in this form, you cannot bring other variables into this dispute.

So this comparison between the USA and UK has no meaning in seperating the two groups into independent states. The Anglo-Americans are tied to England (the Anglos) who are tied to the Anglo-Saxons of Western Europe. The language comparison between Macedonians and Bulgarians brings back a question on the Macedonian claim, that their language is indigenous to Macedonia, as the Bulgarians will acknowledge that Turks and Slavs are much newer to the Balkans than the Greeks.

@Useles I don't know how well are you inforemed about Macadonia and Bulgaria, but the situation is much more different than England USA. I suggest you to read the whole topic...

@Useles I don't know how well are you inforemed about Macadonia and Bulgaria, but the situation is much more different than England USA. I suggest you to read the whole topic...

no its the same case (same, langauge, religion, etc..)

i have read this topic alot :mad:

and i suggest you stop trieing to claim macedonia is a part of bulgaria (and saying it should) when its not. remeber kids nationlism is bad! ::rolleyes:

If it were the same case that the British colony America acheived independence in the same manner as Macedonia acheiving independence from Yugoslavia, then Macedonia would have been a Bulgarian colony. Therefore, Bulgaria has a right to claim her colony (even though that does not mean that their claim will be rewarded).

This dispute occurred in the League of Nations. But the comparison to American independence does not make sense.

no its the same case (same, langauge, religion, etc..)

i have read this topic alot :mad:

and i suggest you stop trieing to claim macedonia is a part of bulgaria (and saying it should) when its not. remeber kids nationlism is bad! ::rolleyes:

The same case, but with one difference. Americans fought the British for their independance. The Macadonians fight for their Unation with Bulgaria. (if you have really read the topic, you will see what i am talking about)

And useless, nationalism is one of the greatest things in the world.

And useless, nationalism is one of the greatest things in the world.

nationalism lead to fascism ,nazis and hitler. so is it a good thing? nationlism killed many people. nationalism is bad

No. Schovinism lead to what you say. Natioanlism=patriotism= to love your country.

No. Schovinism lead to what you say. Natioanlism=patriotism= to love your country.

i have no idea what "Schovinism" means. patriotism and nationlism are different things patriotsim is to love you country, while nationlism is to die for your country

I meant chauvinism...

I don't get your logic about the patriotism and nationalism..
How can you die for your country, if don't love it...

P.S. You have said that the nationalism is bad thing....I don't see nothing bad in dying for your country.

P.S. You have said that the nationalism is bad thing....I don't see nothing bad in dying for your country.

example suicide bombers like kamakazis

First, your example is not good. The sucide bombers die becase are religious fanatics.

Second, if you meant the suicide bomber from Iraq, i see nothing bad in this. This is they way to fight against the occupying forces(of course i don't mean killing civilians)

Try other example ;)

First, your example is not good. The sucide bombers die becase are religious fanatics.

Second, if you meant the suicide bomber from Iraq, i see nothing bad in this. This is they way to fight against the occupying forces(of course i don't mean killing civilians)

Try other example ;)

like a said before a kamikazi (have i speeled it right?) or the dogs russia used to destry tanks (they trained them first)

First about the kamikazes( i don't know the excact spelling)They were soldiers. As many other soldiers in the wars, they died for their countries. Nothing bad in the kamikazes. I find nothing worse in them than in the ordinary soldiers.

:rotfl:

How can a dog be a patriot or nationalist ?? :confused: :D :)

First about the kamikazes( i don't know the excact spelling)They were soldiers. As many other soldiers in the wars, they died for their countries. Nothing bad in the kamikazes. I find nothing worse in them than in the ordinary soldiers.