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).
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).
i.e. their previous experience with statehood, whereas "non-historic" ones are those that usually make trouble around the block...
