1

Macedonia, the Lung of Greece: Fighting an Uphill Battle

By Marcus A. Templar
This year, Greeks all over the world are celebrating the 100
th
anniversary of the liberation of
Macedonia from the Ottoman yoke. It was an emotional moment for the inhabitants of
Thessaloniki when they saw the sky blue-white flag flying over the White Tower. While today
the Macedonians celebrate the liberation of the city and indeed the return of the land of Alexander
the Great back to its motherland, others challenge the present status quo.
The Greek Army entered Thessaloniki in the early hours of Saturday, October 27, 1912 (Old
Style). In a moving editorial, the newspaper Makedonia of Thessaloniki in its Sunday, October
28, 1912 edition expressed the feelings of the Macedonian Greek as follows:
With warm tears, tears of joy that floods the chest of the slave who recovers his freedom, tears
of gratitude that fulfills his existence for his liberator, we salute the Greek army that entered
the resplendent city of the Thessalonians.
This brilliant trophy of the heroic and victorious Greek Army demolishes the cornerstone of
the Turkish state from the Greek Macedonia. Of the state, which, as the kingdoms of ancient
monsters were established on layers of bones. Of the state, which has been synonymous to
barbarism and horribleness. Of the state, which holding in one hand the torch of arson and in
the other the dagger of the murderer, burned and slaughtered our life and our honor, our faith
and our ethnicity, and anything holy and sacred that we have.
And now the pulverized homeland of Aristotle and Alexander [the Great], whose every hill
and every valley, every corner and every span, are soaked in innocent Greek blood and former
and recent lamentations of the martyrs of the Faith and Fatherland, throws itself free into the
warm and loving arms of Mother Greece.
Thus, the great epic of 1821 continues.
1
It is important for the Greeks to know what the Macedonian fighters did face during their
struggle to liberate Macedonia. For this reason, I am offering a summary of five chapters of an
upcoming book that I am preparing under the working title MACEDONIA: Land of Illusions,
Myths, and Falsities.
2
Introduction
The Seven Slavic tribes and Bulgarians appeared in the south Balkans in the 6
th
century.
Despite the centuries-long attempts of the neighboring Slavic element to slavonize them,
Macedonian Greeks remained Hellenic (Papazoglu 1957, 4 & 333; 1978, 268). The reason for the
failure to slavonize the Macedonian Greeks was that the Slavs in the purely Greek provinces [of
Byzantium] did not form large, homogenous groups, and they were unable to resist the attraction
of a higher cultural environment (Dvornik 1970, 42).
In the beginning of 1902, the Greek Prime Minister, Alexander Zaimis, openly admitted, the
chief threat to Hellenism in Macedonia came, not from the Ottoman Turks, but from the
Bulgarians (F. R. Bridge 1976, 91). The continuous political and military involvement of the
Great Powers
2
officially was intended to alleviate the plight of the Christians under Ottoman
misgovernment. In reality, the same Powers were interested (and still are) in establishing their
political and military outposts in their client states of the region.
As an antidote to the political antagonism between the Pan-Slavist movement of St.
Petersburg, Russia and the Western Powers, Bulgarian intellectuals in Macedonia found political
recourse in Marxism and Anarchism believing that if those philosophies were implemented and
spread, they would liberate not only themselves from the Ottomans, but also from the supremacy
among the Great Powers.
By the end of the 19
th
century, the Bulgarian idealists in Macedonia created secret societies
bracing their military groups with thugs and brigands who had re-invented themselves as patriots
and liberators while they covertly continued their old lifestyle and directly threatened the
existence of anything Greek.
The Effects of the Slavic Awakening in the South Balkans
The Slavic Awakening in the south Balkans gradually appeared at the end of the 18
th
century
in Bulgaria, Croatia, and later in the 19
th
century in Serbia, and Slovenia. The 19
th
century was an
era of literary upheaval aka literary awakening in Europe. The Pan-Slavic movements of national
awakenings took place in the mid 19
th
century at the same time the communist philosophy was
3
spreading. Those leading various movements, being idealists, used the literary awakening as the
reason for local activities that developed into national liberation movements.
Two events caused the concept of a Greater Bulgaria, the creation of the Exarchate and the
Preliminary Treaty of San Stefano. The re-election of Gregorios VI to the Patriarchic throne in
1867 proved detrimental to the Patriarchate, as well as to Hellenism of Macedonia.
3
The
candidate for the patriarchal throne, Gregorios VI, in order to fulfill his ambition, asked Count
Nikolay Ignatyev, the Russian Ambassador in Constantinople, for his support in exchange for a
few concessions, one of which was the establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate.
Patriarch Gregorios VI was quoted as stating to Count Ignatyev, With my hands I built a
bridge toward the political independence of the Bulgarians
4
(Ignatyev dispatch No. 128, May 14,
1867). Patriarch Gregorios VI probably thought of an autonomous Bulgarian Church within the
territories between the Balkan Mountain range and Danube River. The Patriarch was in for a big
surprise.
Three years later (February 27/ March 11, 1870) and after some more Bulgarian and Russian
proposals, Sultan Abdlaziz issued a decree (frman), which established the Bulgarian Exarchate
standardizing the rules and regulations on the technical aspects of the Exarchate. The decree
offered the Exarchate jurisdiction over the entire Bulgaria north of the Balkan Mountain range
(the old Roman Moesia Inferior), plus the regions of Sofia and Ni. In addition, the Exarchate
received parts of the upper Struma valley and the dioceses of Plovdiv (Philippoupolis) and Sliven
(Slymnos), under the banner of the autonomous Greek Church.
One man, Stojan omakov, the Russophobe Bulgarian extremist, who was an influential
official in the Ottoman administration, was behind Article X of the decree that established the
Exarchate (Sumner 1933, 567, 568). The articles of the decree were straight forward, except for
article X, which stated that the Bulgarian Exarchate, the constitution of which was to be settled
by subsequent regulations, but which was to be in effect independent of the Patriarch, and was to
include all dioceses with a purely Bulgarian population and in addition any other districts two-
thirds or more of whose inhabitants so desired. In addition, the decree politically established the
Bulgarian ethnicity for the first time (Sumner 1933, II, passim).
The language of the two-thirds provision resulted in an inexorable and poisonous armed
race between the Exarchate Bulgarians and the Patriarchist Greeks because these were the two
main Christian ethnicities in Macedonia with religious and ethnic identities that did not always
4
coincide and the statistics were inaccurate (Yosmaolu 2006, passim). Besides, the example
offered by the Gevgeli District Governor of the Province of Rumeli in document No 81/8053,
dated August 21, 1905, indicates that the intimidation that the Bulgarians exerted on the
inhabitants of Negorci, just north of Gevgeli, was clear: declare yourselves Bulgarians or you die
(Yosmaolu 2006, 62).
Thus, the unintended consequence of a well-disposed Patriarch would cost thousands of
peoples lives and prove detrimental to Hellenism and to the Patriarchate itself since much of the
prestige and income were connected to the lands of the Exarchate. Patriarch Gregorios VI either
discounted or overlooked the possibility that the Russians could alter the end goal after obtaining
his approval for the establishment of the Exarchate. Ignatyev describes the problem of the
Russian diplomacy as follows:
The exarchate, even in its most restraint form, offered a national core [to the Bulgarians],
which would be free to develop later. My main concern in the question, which I struggle
with, has always been to provide for the Bulgarians without breaking with the Greek national
body, protecting them from the efforts of the [Roman] Catholic and Protestant propaganda
and also keeping them in the orthodoxy and our influence (Sumner 1933, 569).
5
Indeed, on one hand, the Russians ascertained that the Bulgarians had a window through
which they could obtain more than the Patriarch had wished. It was a win-win situation for the
Russians and the Sultan, since under pressure from the Pan-Slavists within the Empire and
through the Bulgarian diaspora at Odessa, Kishinev, Bucharest, Belgrade, and St. Petersburg the
Russians increased their influence with the Bulgarians. On the other hand, the Sultan achieved his
goal to play the Bulgarians against the Macedonian Greeks. At first, he divided them and then he
fueled their discord.
By 1895, the Bulgarians claimed 600 to 700 schools with 25,000 to 30,000 pupils and by 1912
seven bishoprics in Macedonia came under the jurisdiction of the Exarchate (Stavrianos 1963, 98).
But according to Greek sources, by the time of the Balkan Wars (1913) in the Vilayet of
Thessaloniki, there were 384 Bulgarian schools educating 17,777 pupils and 571 Greek schools
with 32,534 pupils. In the Vilayet of Monastiri (Bitola) there were 272 Bulgarian schools with
16,089 pupils, and 432 Greek schools with 25,026 pupils. The Serbs had founded schools in the
areas of Kosovo Vilayet, especially in Skopje and Kumanovo (Bechev 2009, 68).
5
Macedonia Rediscovered
Due to the failure of the Constantinople Conference (1876 1877), two important conventions
took place between Russia and Austria-Hungary in 1877. One took place in Budapest on January
15, 1877 and the other in Reichstadt (present-day Zkupy, Czech Republic) on July 8, 1877 (Onou
1932, II, 627, 636). The participants in both meetings on the Russian side were Emperor
Alexander II and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Prince A. M. Gorakov, and on the Austro-
Hungarian side Emperor Francis Joseph and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Gyula Andrssy. The
Austrian Emperor introduced the idea of an autonomous Macedonia as part of a package deal with
Russia, which wanted to have a kindred Slavic outpost in the Aegean. Under the plan, Austria
would have the military control of Bosnia and Herzegovina and in exchange, Russia would
receive territories lost in the Crimean War, while Bulgaria would be independent with additional
territories of Dobrudja. Macedonia would be autonomous within the Ottoman Empire. At that
time, the territories of Macedonia included only the region of Macedonia within Greece and the
area of Pelagonia (Monastiri/Bitola, Ohrid areas).
The belief that Ignatyev created Macedonism or he is responsible for bringing the Bulgarian
ethnicity into the foreground is false as it is the result of the misinterpretation of facts. The
artificial ethnicity that Ignatyev was accused of creating was the Bulgarian. Ignatyev was neither
the creator of Bulgarian nationalism nor the initiator of the struggle for a Bulgarian Church
independent of the Patriarchate. The origins of the modern era recognition goes back to the
generation before the Crimean War, i.e. 1833 (Sumner 1933, II, 566, Anastasoff 1944, 103). In
his memoirs, Ignatyev explains that he had a lot to do with drafting and negotiating the Treaty of
San Stefano as ordered, but the instructions of what Russia wanted had come from St. Petersburg
(Sumner 1933, II, 566-7).
Although at present, the basis for the Serbian literary language is the Northern Ekavian, until
1878 the literary language of Serbia was the Eastern Herzegovinian. Istono-hercegovaki or
Eastern Herzegovinian dialect is spoken in eastern Herzegovina, NW Montenegro, the Sandzhak
of Novi Pazar or Raka, eastern Bosnia, western Bosnia, Serbian Krajina, and middle Slavonia. A
letter from Pope John VIII in AD 873 to St. Methodius reveals the policy of the papacy
concerning the ancient Illyricum and the religious situation in the lands forming the cradle of the
Serbians, later called Raka (Dovrnik 1970, 38). The Serbs built the city [Raka] soon after
6
their conversion to Christianity at the end of the ninth century, the center of the Serbian state
was then not Duclea [Duklja], but Rascia [Raka], where the bishopric of Ras was the national
religious center (Dovrnik 1970, 254, 257). Porphyrogenitus refers to it as - Rasi (De
Administrando Imperio, 32, 53).
6
For historical, but also for linguistic reasons, Serbia wanted to expand west to Bosnia and
Herzegovina allowing Bulgaria to expand west as well as to the area of the present day the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). Due to Gorakovs Austro-phobia, the Russians
accepted the expansion of the Austro-Hungarian Empire to lands west of the Drina River (Bosnia
and Herzegovina) depriving Serbia from expanding west and giving Serbia no choice but to
expand south. Austro-Hungarian (Andrssy) and Russian (Gorakov) machinations regarding
Serbia and Bulgaria, the two Ottoman controlled Slavic peoples of the south Balkans, generated
the Council of Berlin and all its political and social costs, and pushed both Serbian and Bulgarian
nationalism to compete over the same territory.
Serb politicians and ethnographers such as Stojan Novakovi, Jovan Cviji, Aleksandar Beli,
et al. argued that the inhabitants of present day FYROM territories spoke dialects that belonged to
the transitional Serbian dialects, i.e. Torlak dialects.
7
Between 1890 and 1900, Bulgarian
governments sponsored ethnographers to draw maps of Macedonia to include the territories west
of Bulgaria that fit their political and territorial aspirations (Djordjevi 1918, 6).
Vasil Kunov, one of the enlisted inventive ethnographers, created a map of a new Macedonia,
never before imagined, allegedly inhabited mostly by Bulgarians. Considering that only a few
westerners visited Macedonia at that time, Bulgaria, assisted by Russia, was free to assert that the
majority of the Macedonians were Bulgarians when in fact they were a medley of races and
nationalities. Ottoman statistics tied to military taxation were unreliable since most Patriarchist
households registered only one male per household, while children and female residents were
completely missing from the equation. That was not true with the Exarchist households, which
were ethnically Bulgarian (Carnegie Report 1914, 28; Yosmaolu 2006, passim).
The new map of Macedonia included the Vilayets of Monastiri, Thessaloniki, and the south
region of the Vilayet of Kosovo, and in general the Torlak speaking areas of Serbia. The sole
purpose of such effort was the annexation of the territories northwest, west, and south of Bulgaria,
i.e. the restoration of the Second Bulgarian Empire. The annexation of Eastern Rumelia boosted
Bulgarias hope for more territorial additions thinking that since the Great Powers had tolerated
7
and went along with the annexation of Eastern Rumelia, Bulgaria had an excellent chance to do
the same with other territories. The subsequent lands that Bulgaria had on its annexation list were
Thrace, Dobrudja, Bosilegrad and Tsaribrod.
The Birth and Development of the IMRO
In Thessaloniki on October 23, 1893, inspired by the Carbonari secret revolutionary societies
of early 19th-century Italy, a group of Bulgarian intellectuals ranging from simple idealists to
socialists, revolutionary socialists, and anarchists formed a secret society under the name
Bulgarian Macedonian Revolutionary Committee (BMRC).
8
Members of the organization could
be any Bulgarian, irrespective of gender, who is not compromised by something wicked
(Lazarov et al. 1993, 218).
The organization had espoused narodnik socialism advocating the spreading of political
propaganda among the peasants and through them to the masses in hope that they would bring
their awakening and consequently revolt against the oppressors and upgrade their standard of
living, but always within the socialist sphere. These political emissaries oftentimes accompanied
their message with threats, harassment, or actual murder.
The political actions of the organization were based on a dual program which included a
popular revolt against the Ottoman misrule, and after the autonomy or independence had been
accomplished, a social revolution against the propertied and bourgeois classes of Macedonia
would take place with the help of the brigands of the BRMC. The result would have been the
establishment of a Social Democracy of Macedonia, i.e. a Peoples Republic. It would happen
14 years before the Russian Revolution. While Russian politicians disliked the narodniki, the
Bulgarian political elite considered them as political allies.
The patriotic sentiment among Bulgarians was high, doing whatever possible to bring the
Bulgarian borders to those of the Treaty of San Stefano and the Exarchate. In 1895, one of the
secret societies, "The Macedo-Adrianople Committee," addressed a letter to the Great Powers,
supposedly representing all inhabitants of Macedonia, advocating "an autonomous Macedonia,
with its capital at Salonika [Thessaloniki], to be placed under a Governor-General of the
predominant ethnicity" (Miller 2009, 444). Since Sofia had already placed the plan of changing
8
the borders of Macedonia to its taste, the term predominant ethnicity was a self-fulfilling
prophesy.
In the beginning of the 20
th
century, not only did the leadership of the BMRC considered
themselves Bulgarians, so did all the Slavic-speaking inhabitants of Macedonia; however, within
the Bulgarian domain they regarded themselves as Macedonians. It must be noted that most of
the leadership and membership of the Internal Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary
Organization (IMRO) were born and reared in Macedonia proper, i.e. the region of Macedonia
within Greece, plus the area of Pelagonia in the present day FYROM.
Krste Petkov Misirkov, designated by the Socialist Yugoslavia as the father of Macedonism,
explained the rationale behind the chosen term Macedonian Slavs (Misirkov 1974, 159). He
also used Macedonian Slavs. Misirkov oftentimes mentioned passim that all other nationalities
living in Macedonia used an identical geographic designator, Macedonian, with or without their
own ethnic designator. Nikola Karev declared himself Macedonian, in the same manner.
In 1903 in Sofia, Bulgaria, Misirkov published his first essay entitled What We Have Already
Done and What We Ought to Do In The Future. All other essays that he included in the book On
Macedonian Matters, published after 1914, showed more flexibility and openness about his
socialist philosophical inclination. The editor, Boris Vishinski, admitted that in his 1903 essay
Misirkov was not as outspoken as he had been in publishing these ideas, probably from fear of
political persecution (Misirkov 1974, 222). In his 1925 essay on Macedonian Nationalism,
Misirkov explained the pro-Bulgarian stance that he espoused at the end of the 19
th
century and
his Macedonian nationalism with the statement Macedonian intellectuals have sought and
found, another way of fighting, i.e. an independent Macedonian scientific way of thinking and a
Macedonian national Consciousness (Misirkov 1974, 226). The scientific way that Misirkov
had mentioned meant the scientific communism of Marxism-Leninism, which at that time was at
its peak. By 1925, the IMRO was already such an established formidable force within the
Bulgarian politics that it was the regulator of the Bulgarian polity and it was part of the Bulgarian
Communist Party.
In his interview with the Greek newspaper, Akropolis, Nikola Karev identified his ethnicity as
Bulgarian, but then he said that he was a Macedonian (Utrinski vesnik, July 22, 2000, Archive
No 329). Mrs. Elefterija Vambakovska of the Institute of National History of the FYROM
thought that such a statement is illogical since in her opinion Karev could not have two ethnicities.
9
But Karev had not declared two ethnicities. He identified himself as a Macedonian Bulgarian.
Macedonian Greeks similarly identify themselves as ethnically Greeks, but within the Greek
domain they culturally identify themselves as Macedonians, Thracians, Cretans, Thessalians, etc.
based on the location of their birth. Such designation is strictly geographical as Misirkov stated
(Misirkov 1974, 159). Mrs. Vambakovska feels the way she does because she and her
compatriots have been educated that the Macedonian ethnicity existed at the time of the Ilinden
Uprising, something that Prof. Katardjiev refutes. According to Misirkov there is no contradiction
in Karevs statement.
The adoption of a new identity was deemed necessary. One reason was that the new identity
was to be used effectively in order to start the agitation among the Slavic populations of the region
of Macedonia in order to set the foundation of a separate Slavic ethnicity other than Bulgarian. In
addition, by separating their own ethnicity from that of the Bulgarians of the Principality and
calling themselves Macedonians, they hoped that all nationalities of Macedonia would rally
behind the movement, but they also hoped that the Great Powers would bite the bait and support
the plight of the Macedonians.
Characteristic of the political reaction to this thinking abroad Rostkovski, the Russian
Consulate in Monastiri (Bitola) often said, "The Bulgarians think they are the only people in the
world with brains, and that all others are fools. Whom do they hope to deceive with their articles
in Pravo and other papers saying that the Macedonians want Macedonia for the Macedonians?
We know very well what they want! (Misirkov 1974), 44).
The developed regionalism of the IMRO had been commensurate with its members political
affiliation to socialism and anarchism. The political aims of the organization were also different
from those of the Principalitys. The implementation of their political ideology, along with their
desire for the liberation of Macedonia from bondage, boosted their regionalism, which translated
into a new identity, the Macedonian Slav.
The regionalism furthermore was deemed necessary because under the so-called
Macedonian Slavs term, the Slav speakers who lived in Macedonia could disassociate from
those Bulgarians of the Principality. Misirkov had explicitly argued against such practice as being
deceptive (Misirkov 1974, 36-85 passim). The event that boosted the argument of the Bulgarians
in Macedonia to differentiate themselves from those of the Principality was the adoption by
10
Bulgaria of the Eastern Bulgarian dialect as the basis for the literary language of the Principality at
the end of the 19
th
century.
The IMRO leadership realized that it would be an uphill battle to topple a well-established
and diplomatically recognized Bulgarian Principalitys polity. In addition, the IMRO realized that
it would also be an impossible task to attempt to institute a second Bulgarian state under the
banner of social democracy. At the beginning of the 20
th
century, at a time that social democracy,
revolutionary or not, was under the careful scrutiny of European regimes, a social democratic
Macedonia would be struck down before it started for fear of spreading to Europe threatening
regime changes. The French Commune government in the spring of 1871 was too close and the
Russian revolt of 1905 served as a warning.
At that time, two other revolutionary factions appeared, the Macedonian Supreme Committee
in Sofia and a Thessaloniki based smaller group of conservatives, the Bulgarian Secret
Revolutionary Brotherhood. By 1902, the latter was incorporated into the IMRO, and its
members proved very significant in the decision-making of the organization. They are the ones
that pushed the Ilinden Uprising, although they did not participate in it. They later became the
core of the IMRO right-wing faction under Sarafov. In 1907, a communist IMRO member, Todor
Panica, at the order of Jane Sandanski, assassinated almost all IMROs right wing leadership.
Boris Sarafov, one of the Supremist (Verhovists) leaders, had visited almost all European
capitals and launched a marketing campaign for his cause. He gave interviews for the Bulgarian
Committee, and paid off a great number of the European mass media. In addition, he established
the Balkan Committee in London, which in fact was a Bulgarian committee strongly advocating
pro-Bulgarian views. This Balkan Committee was managed by the Buxton brothers and included
some influential staunch supporters such as Henry Noel Brailsford, Morgan Philips Price, and the
correspondent of the Times of London, James David Bourchier. The Balkan Committee sent its
English representatives to various locations of Macedonia to encourage and assist the Bulgarian
members of the IMRO. Simultaneously, the representatives of the Balkan Committee in the
Balkans were in continuous communication through the English Consuls. Due to the great
influence that the leadership of the Balkan Committee had in the English governments, it
succeeded in appointing Bulgarophiles as consuls in the Balkans (Karavagelis 1958, 23-27; Dakin
1966, 150-1). Even when foreign humanitarian aid was sent and distributed by missionaries such
as Lady Thompson, the British and Foreign Bible Society, and others after the Ilinden Uprising,
11
the aid was distributed only to the Exarchists in collaboration with the Bulgarian komitadjis
(Karavagelis 1958, 26; Dakin 1966, 157 fn 35).
The Myth of Liberation: 1903 - The Peoples Republic of Krushevo
On St. Elijah Day of Configuration (July 20/August 2, 1903) in the town of Krushevo, the
IMRO staged a revolt declaring independence from the Ottoman yoke. The instrument of
independence is known as the Manifesto or Proclamation of Krushevo and it was directed toward
the Turkish population of the area. It must be noted that the president of the ephemeral Republic
of Krushevo, Nikola Karev, Kirovs cousin, was a well-known member of the Bulgarian Workers
Social Democratic Party, i.e. communist (Brown 2003, 190, 209; Gawrych 1986, 308).
In 1924, Nikola Kirov-Majski published a book and a theatrical play, Ilinden, and in the
second act, second scene of the play, the character of the teacher reads the manifesto to Nikola
Karev, the President of the Krushevo Republic. Karev, tells the teacher to translate it into Turkish
and disseminate it to the Turkish villages of the area (Majski. Fund. 933, . 1, .. 124,
. 13). The manifesto promoted in the play as a declaration of independence, is filled with
socialist parlance, which was very common for the time and place of the play when taking into
consideration the negotiations between the IMRO and the Comintern and the establishment of the
Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization United (IMRO-U). One must have in mind
that both Kirov and his cousin Karev were socialists. The language of the manifesto that Skopje
promotes as original is in conflict with what Kirov states in his book published in 1935, which in
fact is Kirovs diary, of the 10 day Ilinden Uprising, versus the book published in 1924, which
was the basis for a theatrical play.
According to Kirov-Majski, on July 24, 1903, Tako P. Hristov, a parliamentarian, took the
original document to the Turkish village of Adalci and handed it to a child with the directive to
give it to Sinan, the mayor of the town. Hristov waited three full hours for the answer. The
document was in fact an ultimatum in the form of a letter and not a proclamation of any type. In
the meantime, from the minaret of the mosque, the hodja called together the entire male
population of the village, which had 40 households, and made the terms of the ultimatum known
to them (Kirov 1935, 56). From there, Sinan sent the ultimatum to the Turkish villages of Laani
(180 households) and Debrite (250 households) which returned their response to Sinan. The
12
letter-ultimatum served a dual purpose: first, to make clear the purpose of the Uprising, and
second, to serve as a warning to the Turkish population that any collaboration with the Ottoman
Army would be punishable by death (Kirov 1935, 56 - 57). Under the threatening conditions set
by the Bulgarian revolutionaries, all three villages agreed not to assist the Ottoman troops if and
when they would arrive (Kirov 1935, 57).
Concerning the events of the Uprising, the Bulgarian komitadjis killed innocent Greeks,
burned and pillaged only Greek houses, and in general destroyed only Greek properties (Ballas
1962, 37-66; Naltsas 1958, 18-22). The Ottomans rushed an Army of nine Infantry Battalions,
three Cavalry Companies, 18 artillery pieces (four Mountain and 14 Field guns), in order to crush
the revolt by looting and burning the Greek households that the Bulgarians did not have a chance
to burn, and killing innocent civilians
9
(Naltsas 1962,55; Greek Consul Dispatch 1903/ No 604).
Over and above the regular forces, the babozuk, an irregular force, the Grey Wolves of the
period, came to Krushevo in order to aid the ungodly work of the Ottoman Army (Naltsas 1962,
55).
The toll of destruction inflicted by the Bulgarian revolutionaries and the incoming Turkish
Army was 366 houses and 203 shops, all belonging to Greeks and Greek speaking Vlachs. In
total, 41 innocent Greek civilians were murdered with many more missing. Some were murdered
outside the town as they tried to escape and others less fortunate were buried alive by their
captors. The names of the victims are enumerated in the Greek Consuls dispatch.
Despite the fact that the vast majority of the victims (and their properties) were Greeks and
Greek speaking Vlachs (Ballas 1962, 37-66; Naltsas 1958, 18-22; Greek Consul Dispatch 1903/
No 604), the FYROM historiography has re-baptized the victims Vlachs, Albanians, and
Macedonians (Kirov 1935, passim; Brown 2003, 17, 79, 81-82, 96, 225).
Thus, if the FYROM historiographers call the Greek victims Macedonians, their contention
that the ancient Macedonians were not ethnically Greeks is invalid. If on the other hand, the
historiographers call the Bulgarian villains Macedonians, they admit guilt and responsibility for
the atrocities of the liberators of Krushevo during the life of their ephemeral republic. The
Preamble of the current komitadji state, the FYROM, draws its legitimacy from the Republic of
Krushevo. In this case, the government of the FYROM should relinquish any and all claims as a
nation of victims that the Krushevo Memorial represents.
13
But how is it possible for the villains and the victims of the Ilinden Uprising to belong to the
same ethnic group? Which ethnicity does the FYROM government honor in the Krushevo
Memorial? Looking at the names of the honorees, one cannot but conclude that the government
of the FYROM honors the villains, the Bulgarian bandit-rebels, the thugs, and the criminal
elements re-naming them Macedonians who killed innocent civilians and destroyed their
properties.
The behavior and reaction of the Greek political elite between 1878 and 1904 was at best
inexcusable. To this effect was Pavlos Melas message to Bishop Karavangelis I have read your
report [to the appropriate people] at the Ministry [of Foreign Affairs]. These people here are
asleep. What can I do?
10
(Karavagelis 1958, 17). The importance of Macedonia was remarked
by Pavlos Melas to George Sourlas, the director of schools at Nymphaion, "Macedonia is the lung
of Greece; without it the rest of Greece would be condemned to death" (Dakin 1966, 2n).
Indifference, negligence, procrastination, and sketchiness employed by the Greek political
elite and the bureaucrats of the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) only impeded the work
of the Greek resistance against the Bulgarians in Macedonia (F. R. Bridge 1976, 104). Besides,
such an attitude gave the impression to the Great Powers that the Greek population of Macedonia
was non-existent since the only ones fighting for freedom were the Bulgarians (Tout 1918, 680-1;
Naltsas 1958, 13, 14, 19; Karavagelis 1958, 8-9, 17, 25, 44).
While the Bulgarian komitadjis were well funded by the Bulgarian government and were well
armed and trained by Bulgarian officers, the Macedonian Greeks had nothing of the kind. The
Macedonian Greeks requested funding, training, and moral support from the leadership of Greece
and the Patriarchate and the only response they received was patience (Karavangelis 1958, 15).
What makes the matter worse is the fact that the weapons the komitadjis used to murder
Greeks were bought in Greek markets and military warehouses of the Kingdom of Greece.
Furthermore, the weapons (Gras, Mauser, Mannlicher-Schnauer) were transported to the
Bulgarian komitadjis in Macedonia by Greek mule drivers or (Naltsas 1958, 12; Ballas
1962, 40). On at least one occasion, one of the chief komitadjis, Vasil Tsakalarov, went in person
to Athens to buy weapons (Karavagelis 1958, 12).
That Macedonia remained ethnically, socially, ecclesiastically, and linguistically Greek is
because of the determination, devotion to Hellenism, and patriotism of its own sons and daughters
and to their brave Cretan brethren who came to their assistance, not because of the current Greek
14
political elite. Only when individuals and organizations exerted pressure on the consequent Greek
governments did Greece start supporting the struggle for survival of the Macedonian Greeks
(Naltsas 1958, 13; Dakin 1966, 46/fn16, 35/fn34, 142, 173, 179/fn 118-119, etc.).
The IMRO made political bedfellows with the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), aka
Young Turks, whom they assisted in their revolution of 1908. During WWI, members of the
IMRO fought as part of Bulgarias 11
th
Infantry Division demonstrating their brutality that
surpassed even the cruelty of the babozuk forces. They exhibited similar brutality against their
internal and external foes, whether as part of a power struggle or a mere antagonism, turning the
constant assassinations into a war of extermination which lasted about 40 years. Other members
participated in terrorist activities killing indiscriminately the same citizens they theoretically
defended and destroying properties of the same people they purportedly protected. During WWI,
the IMRO as an organization seems to have faded away. In fact, its leadership was as a
chameleon constantly modifying its doctrine and means of delivery, but not its goal.
In the 1920s, the IMRO established itself as such a formidable force in Bulgaria that it
effectively controlled the region of Pirin, becoming a state within the state in the strategic
southwest corner of Bulgaria. The organization used its controlling district as its staging area for
raids against Serbia and Greece. Under pressure, Bulgarias Prime Minister Stamboliyski signed
the Ni Agreement on March 23, 1923 under which Bulgaria would undertake the obligation to
stop the IMRO from raiding Serbian lands in exchange for Serbias support of Bulgarias claim
over Western Thrace at the expense of Greece.
As already mentioned, the IMRO became known for its brutality. To understand the brutality
of the IMRO bandits, one has to know that in Bulgaria on June 9, 1923, a military coup took place
organized by the Secret Army Union, supported by the bourgeois parties and the king. Although
the Bulgarian Communist Party remained neutral, faithful to its policy on Macedonias autonomy,
the IMRO participated in the coup dtat against Stamboliyski and his legally elected government.
The latters stance on the maintenance of Macedonias status quo was unbearable to IMROs
leadership. Soon after the coup and Stamboliyskis return to civilian life (June 14, 1923), IMRO
agents captured him and his brother at their farm in Slavovica, near Pazardik. In an indication of
their wrath, the assassins tortured him and his brother, cut off his right hand that signed the Ni
Agreement, stabbed him 60 times, and decapitated both before burying them (Jelavich 1984, 2,
170).
15
How to Create an Artificial Political Ethnogenesis
In pursuing their goal for an autonomous and eventually independent Macedonia under the
IMRO, its leadership negotiated with Comintern in Vienna. On May 6, 1924, the IMRO came to
an agreement under which the USSR would assist them in the creation of a Balkan Federation
uniting all parts of geographical Macedonia in exchange for IMROs services of destabilizing
Bulgaria, Greece, and Serbia. The Agreement of the two parties was published in the Vienna
newsletter La Federation Balkanique on July 15, 1924 (Stavrianos 1942, 46). In Vienna, after
some internal dissention, the left wing leadership of the IMRO founded a purely communist
organization, the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (United) (IMRO-U) as a
subsidiary of the Bulgarian Communist Party (Bechev 2009, xxx). The founder and first leader of
the Bulgarian Communist Party, Dimitar Blagoev, modified the idea of a Balkan Federation on a
socialist basis, i.e. a gradual rapprochement of existing pro-communist regimes (Stavrianos 1942,
35). Dimitar Vlahov, being himself a communist, pursued the same line as well. During the same
period, the two prominent right wing leaders of the IMRO, Protogerov and Aleksandrov, were
assassinated leaving Mihajlov as the only right wing leader.
In the meantime, in 1922 Bulgarian migrs from Macedonia Greece, affiliated with IMRO,
organized the pro-Bulgarian Macedonian Political Organization (MPO) (re-baptized in 1952 as
the Macedonian Patriotic Organization) in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois
and they contributed large sums of money to the IMRO. The MPO directed all resources to
educating their American-born descendants in spirit of the Macedonian aspiration which is the
liberation of Macedonia (Roucek 1971, 157). They were and still are followers of the Mihailov
doctrine, which according to the Skopje Academician, Ivan Katardjiev, stood for the
establishment of an independent Macedonian state, which meant a Macedonian state of the
Bulgarians in Macedonia.
In the 1930s, under pressure from the Greek and Serbian governments and the threat of war
with Greece, the Bulgarian Prime Minister, General Kimon Georgiev, grasped the nettle and
destroyed IMROs stronghold in the area of Pirin and captured more than 300 leaders of the
IMRO and armaments that could fully equip an infantry division.
The IMRO understood that all other ethnic groups living in Macedonia, i.e. Greeks, Jews,
Albanians, Vlachs, Turks, etc. could unconsciously be used as pawns in IMROs plans since, as
16
socialists, the IMRO had embraced equality and fraternity, and what was left was liberty which
they advocated. It is what the slogans Autonomous Macedonia and Macedonia for the
Macedonians were all about (Atanasoff 1944, 104). Article I of the IMRO Constitution stated,
The purpose of the Macedonian Revolutionary Committee is to gain complete political autonomy
for Macedonia (Roucek 1971, 151). But while equality and fraternity meant for the IMRO the
Bulgarization of all Macedonian nationalities, for the Young Turks it meant the Turkification of
the same (E. H. W. 1945, 511).
IMRO-Us determination, constant political maneuvering, continuous political lobbying, and
unholy but suitable alliances led to the decision of the Central Committee of the Comintern to
ensue, in support of their fellow communists, the recognition of a third Slavic ethnic group in the
south Balkans in addition to the already existing Serbs and Bulgarians. Subsequently, the birth of
the Macedonian Slav nation took place on January 11, 1934 (Vlahov 1970, 357; Bechev 2009,
xxx-xxxi). To that effect, Stalins understanding of the national and colonial question, his
definitions of nation and colonialism along with the political subservience of the Socialist
Workers Party of Greece (SWPG), aka, Communist Party of Greece (CPG), were essential (Stalin
1913 and 1934; Stavridis 1953).
Joseph Stalin, a Marxist, and the Bolsheviks' expert on nationhood considered that all colonies
and dependent territories have the right to separate completely from the State with which they are
connected and to form an independent State; in the same way, the possibility of territorial
annexations is ruled out (Stalin 1934, passim). Per Stalin, a nation is not racial, nor is it tribal, but
a historically constituted community of people. Since nations are autonomous unions of persons
regardless of their ethnic background, ethnicity is not essentially connected with territory (Stalin
1913, passim). Subsequently, the fact that Macedonias population was ethnically heterogeneous
did not matter. The separate Macedonian ethnicity that the communists saw in the beginning of
the 20
th
century was faithful to Marxist theories on nationhood, as a product of the advent of
capitalism to Macedonia [sic] in the 19
th
century rather a primordial fact (Bechev 2009, 235).
Therefore, the IMRO believed that Macedonia and Thrace ought to be aided by the communists in
their effort towards independence (Laski 1968, 218).
Nikolaos Sargologos, the representative of the SWPG, voted for the resolution that recognized
the Macedonian Slav ethnicity without the authorization of the Central Committee of the SWPG
(Stavridis 1953, 178). That put the Greek Communists in a very difficult position because such a
17
vote strengthened the Bulgarian Communist Party while it weakened the Greek. The Yugoslav
delegation, realizing that such a recognition went against the interests of their national party, voted
against it. Besides, important members of the Central Committee such as Yannis Kordatos,
Thomas Apostolidis, Lefteris Stavridis, et al. strongly disagreed with Sargologos vote (Stavridis
1953, 180-183). Sargologos, knowing the consequences, instead of returning to Athens, pocketed
US$7,500 that the Comintern gave him for his support of the SWPG and emigrated with his
German wife to Chicago, Illinois (Stavridis 1953, 174-180).
Just before WWII and after the Maek - Cvetkovi Agreement, Macedonists wanted to
renegotiate the borders of their Banate by splitting their Macedonia from the rest of Vardar
Banovina while inserting the recognition of their ancient Macedonian ancestry. The objections
of the Serb classicist, Nikola Vuli, that the addition into the history of ancient Macedonian
ancestry was dishonest and deceiving, since a Slavic nation has no ancient Macedonian Greek
ancestry, were to no avail (Katardjiev 1986, 376-377).
It is ironic that during the Macedonian Struggle the Bulgarian komitadjis did not recognize the
Greek character of Macedonia even though it was inhabited by the descendants of Alexanders the
Great Macedonians. At the instructions of Imperial Russia and its Pan-Slavists, the Bulgarians
refused to recognize the birthright of the Macedonian Greeks to their own land (Ballas 1962, 47).
Andrija Radovis indications of the linguistic sacrifices of the Croats in the name of a South
Slavic union were also ineffective. In Radovis opinion, what the Macedonists wanted was
ethnocentric and wrong (Katardjiev 1986, 381-382).
While Vuli built his arguments on ancient history, Radovi, a staunch unionist of Serbia and
Montenegro, based his assertion on the compromise that the Croatian Illyrian Movement
successfully advocated for the name of a united South Slavic state (Yugoslavia). The Croats had
accepted the tokavian / -ije dialect as their own language instead of the Zagreb Kajkavian,
choosing a unifying factor over a divisive one, while the Macedonists favored the opposite.
11
Later in 1944, with the Yugoslavian Communist Party in power, the Macedonists did exactly what
they had wanted to do in 1939. The Peoples Republic of Macedonia within the Yugoslav
federation was a fact.
Marxism was the basis for the establishment of Socialist Yugoslavia as interpreted by
Aleksandar Rankovic and later by Edvard Kardelj. Although Tito was blamed that created a new
philosophy, he clarified,
18
Titoism as a separate ideological line does not exist .... To put it as an ideology would be
stupid .... it is simply that we have added nothing to Marxist-Leninist" doctrine. We have
only applied that doctrine in consonance with our situation. Since there is nothing new,
there is no new ideology. Should Titoism become an ideological line, we would become
revisionists; we would have renounced Marxism. We are Marxists; I am a Marxist, and
therefore I cannot be a Titoist (Dedijer 1953:432).
With the exception of Greece, the outcome of WWII gave the communist parties of the
Balkans the opportunity to set the foundations of the Balkan federation, oscillating between the
socialist and communist understanding of such federation. The difference is that in the socialist
view the territories of each country would remain the same forming a gradual rapprochement of
existing communist regimes. In the communist view, Macedonia would form a new country and
the remaining territories of each country would form a new country, the Balkan Soviet Socialist
Federation. The last one would include Greece with its borders in Thessaly.
During the Greek civil war, former members of the IMRO fought in units known as the Slavo-
Macedonian National Liberation Movement, aka SNOF, having Bulgarian commanding officers
and political commissars or politruk as part of the Greek communist units of ELAS-EAM
(Mazower 2000, 4950). They were responsible for the kidnapping of about 28,000 Greek
children from all over Greece as documented in the U.S. Congress (HR 514/1950) and the UN
(UNGA Resolutions 193/1948 and 288/1949).
Upon defeat of the communist forces, the members of SNOF, while leaving Greece for
Yugoslavia, intimidated the Slavophone population telling them that when the Greek Army comes
to their area, they would kill them all. Those who believed them left with their families for
Yugoslavia. But not all the Slavophones fell for the communist trap. Those Slavophones who
stayed back were rewarded the same protection that all citizens of Greece enjoyed.
Conclusion
God helps those who help themselves.

.
12
One hundred years have passed since Macedonia returned to Mother Greece. The Macedonian
Struggle of Greece continues against the descendants of the komitadjis. More than one hundred
years later the aims of the modern komitadjis are the same, to bring Macedonia under their
control.
19
In the past, politicians and diplomats have used deceptive arguments in order to exploit
unsuspecting Clergy as their tool to their machinations at the expense of national interests. If
politicians were sure about the earnestness of their intentions, they should make their case known
directly to the Greek people. In the year 2012, the danger to Greece still does not come from
Turkey, but from the descendants of the Bulgarian komitadjis.
At present, the same countries, which in the mid 19
th
century created the problem known as
the Macedonian Question for their own political reasons, are offering their services to solve the
problem by implementing their past failed foreign policies. Support on the name issue offered to
the FYROM by political parties and individuals should not surprise anyone. They follow Stalins
prescription.
While the EU and NATO pressure Greece to compromise with Skopje on the name issue,
Skopje has launched a deceptive all out political and media attack utilizing its modern Sarafovs
i.e. the United Macedonian Diaspora (UMD) winning the hearts and minds of foreign
journalists (paying them, as well), governments (lobbying and donating money to politicians
campaigns), and the common folk. They work as the Narodniki had done more a century ago
following Marxism to the T.
The modern Narodniki give precious time and advantage to the FYROM, which hopes that
even if the country is forced to compromise on its name, the most valuable assets that
communism, i.e. Marxism through Edvard Kardelj, provided to them, the so-called ethnic identity
that did not exist before 1934 and language, unheard of before 1944, would not be touched. In
Skopjes prevailing opinion, the ethnic identity of a Slavic nation as Macedonian is the
threshold to future territorial claims in spite of any present agreement on the countrys name.
The standardization of the Macedonian[sic] language, the creation of an autocephalous
Macedonian [sic] Orthodox Church and the new interpretations of history reinforced the
Macedonian identity (Lampe and Mazower 2004, 112). The Macedonian Struggle is here to
stay, regardless of how modern politicians see it.
20
Endnotes
1
, [28] 1912.
, ,
,
, ,
.

.
, , .
, .
,
, ,
, .
,
, ,
, ,
, .
21.
2
In the 19
th
and early 20
th
century in Europe, Great Powers were the UK, Germany, Austria-
Hungary, France, and Russia. The Ottoman Empire had declined as a Great Power.
3
Patriarch Gregorios VI was elected for the first time on September 26, 1835, but the Sultan
dismissed him on February 20, 1840. He was re-elected for the second time on February 10, 1867
in order to resign on June 10, 1871.
4
Je btis de mes mains, un pont l indpendance politique des Bulgares.
5
"L'exarchat, mme dans sa forme la plus restrainte, offrait un noyau national qu'on serait libre de
dvelopper ultrieurement." " Ma principale proccupation dans la question, qui se dbattait, a
toujours ete de procurer aux bulgares, sans rompre avec les grecs, un corps national en les
prservant des efforts de la propagande catholique et protestante et en les conservant aussi
l'orthodoxie et a notre influence."
6
This area is called Old Serbia by Serbs. It includes the territory, which was the heart of
medieval Serbia, i.e. Raka (Sandak), Kosovo and Metohija and the present day FYROM (except
Pelagonia, which is Macedonia). Sometimes Old Serbia includes Montenegro.
7
Torlak dialects (Kraovaki, Svrlji, Luniki, Vranje, Prizren, Kumanovo Trn (Breznik),
Belogradik), are transitional between Serbian and Bulgarian). Of them, Bulgarians consider as
Bulgarian those dialects that were spoken inside the borders of Bulgaria before 1918, namely the
dialects around Belogradik, western of Berkovica, around Caribrod, Trn, Breznik, and
Bosilegrad, known as Belogradik-Trn dialect. On the other, Serbian dialects are considered
those spoken west of the previously mentioned ones around Knjaevac, Pirot, Leskovac, and
21
Vranje. Some linguist argue that the Torlak dialects constitute a separate Slavic linguistic group.
The dialect of Skopje is positioned between Prizren and Kumanovo dialects.
8
The BMRC changed a number of names before winding up with the name IMRO.
9
The names of the victims, their destroyed properties, their allegiance and other details are
recorded in the report of the Greek Consul in Monastiri (Bitola).
10
. . ;
11
What Radovi meant was that the Croats had adopted the Slavonian Ijekavian sub-dialect of the
to dialect as their literary language giving up the Kaj proper dialect, which is spoken in the
areas between Zagreb and Hungary. Croats living in South Slovenia and western Croatia speak
the south Slovenian Kaj whereas the Dalmatian Ikavian is spoken in Dalmatia, northwestern
Herzegovina, and central Bosnia. The a dialects (a jekav, a ikav, a - ikavo-ekavian, a
ekav, to - akavian Ikavian) are spoken in Istria and the islands of the Adriatic Sea.
A wealthy Athenian sailed with others. And after severe weather struck, and after the ship was
overthrown everyone else swam trying to save themselves, the wealthy man kept praying to
Athena. He was promising myriad things to Athena once he was saved asking for Athenas
intervention. One of the shipwrecked men went next to him and said: Along with prayers to
Athena move your hands.