The Boys' Book of the World War - Francis Rolt-Wheeler , may 1920
Alinces Before the War, page 27
vinces of Alsace and Lorraine with 5,605 square miles of territory and a population of approximately 1,500,000.
This seizure of territory, as President Wilson stated in 1918, " was a wrong which has unsettled the peace of the world for nearly fifty years." It may have been a moral wrong, but it was entirely justifiable from the point of view of international law. History is full of such instances.
There is no doubt, however, that the compulsory cession of Alsace-Lorraine was ill-advised and inexpedient It bred revenge. During the forty-seven years that the two provinces were in German hands, the statue symbolic of Strass-burg, the capital of Alsace, situated on the Place de la Concorde, in Paris, was veiled, in token that France still mourned her lost provinces and as a continual threat that they would be retaken. When Germany was finally defeated in 1918 and Alsace-Lorraine was restored to France, this statue was unveiled amid national rejoicings.
The Treaty of Versailles, therefore, formed one of the deep-rooted causes of the enmity between Germany and France. The frontiers of both countries became strongly fortified camps, and, in the soil of rancor, the noxious weed of belligerency flourished.
The two Balkan Wars may be regarded as parts of a fifty-year-long process of kicking the Turk out of Europe. The European nations had always felt that the Yellow Man had no place on the White Man's native territory. In 1871, when the Franco-Prussian War ended, the Turkish Empire in Europe was a vast state, as large as Germany, with a coast-line on the Adriatic Sea, on the Mediterranean and on the Black Sea. The government was non-European in type and massacres of Christian - such as the Armenians and the Macedonians - were the rule rather than exception.
Оф, што сум толку далеку, далеку од тебе Македонијо. Оф, што не можам да гледам, да гледам твојата убост мермерна. x2
Охридско езеро - убаво, убаво, Пирин планина - висока. Реката Вардар - крвава, крвава и Бело море - бескрајно. x2
Ти раѓаш само синои герои, храбри Mакедонци. Вечно се поробени и разделени, никогаш непокорени. x2
Болен си лежам в туѓина, в туѓина и тамо јас ќе си умрам. Последна желба си имам, си имам, в Македонија да дојдам. Македонија да вида, да вида и таму јас да си умрам.
Ќе те слезат во ад за Македонија Каде змии пиштат Очи закрвавени и зли Ќе те земат на нишан за Македонија Ако паднеш недоречен Љубовта одново ќе се роди И до што е народ по светов Во подземја и надземја И на сон и на јаве Ќе те довикува
Полн светлина е гробот на Прометеја! Накалеми врз посечена овошка слобода! Секоа твоја стапка е темел за престолнина!
Гоце:
Ме мачат прокоби Крвави играрии на векот Ни потопи ни суши Не ќе ме слезат од височини Не смрт без слобода Не без Македонија Та кој ми ја краде земјата И во очи ми ја фрла Кој ми го погани морето Ѕвезди крвави ќе му потопам Тука и тревка се бори За сонце и слобода Тука и семето јачка Во земјина утроба Та од каде прислушнувам плач Та кој ветер ми го корне Морето од душава Мајка ти во црнина те оплакува Јадра роса се нејзините солзи Морска длабочина е нејзината душа
Има денови кога се збогувам Со времиња – деца сирачиња што ми се По патишта оставени Како оголена шума Без лисја што е без деца таа жена сиротица Та додека едни народи Се гаѓаат во срце со Аморови стрели Овде под покрив од меч На дар се делат тирании
Гласник:
Има една куќа меѓу камени пустелии И има едно сонце и меч во темели И син на сонцето во камени одаи што се игра И во игра го прислушнува времето И тој убавец ќе слезе Меѓу народ во низини И од планини ќе се јави Со стада на морски брегови И народ од темнина Ќе изведе на виделина
Од за игра се е создадено тука Од бело камче што држи зданија До метеор во ноќ на ретки преданија Ќе се јави како надеж на еден народ Како плева за слобода ќе се крене И роден од оган во оган ќе трае Човек на човека Да му подаде рака во беспаќе
Кога ќе се покренат со силата од морето Кули во планиње ќе покршат Во црвено ќе ја облечат слободата И без да се плаши за породот Од друг поган народ што страда Зашто времињата Нечесно бродеа Од колено на колено
Гоце:
Та сега кога се шетам по морски брегови И кога со народот се веселам над црни векови Или кога во планиње јачат ветрови Или кога ќе ме снема се плашам Да не угине ова семе што го сеам Под ова ѕвездено небо што се сели Или лете кога боите на душата Здружено зреат и здружено умираат За секоја битка прстен кован Но она што и да се изроди Од човека против човека А и од кој и да е народ Ако е семе грабежливо и алчно Молчешкум проследете го И ако има жал за умилно живинче Ќе пробуди во себе успиеност човекова Постравотен од чума штом се крене Во себе првин одиграјте ја битката А потоа срцето само ќе зажали За оваа осамена куќа на Европа Ќе има видик кон морето Ќе има тајна на меч со темели Ќе играат крај огниште деца радоносни
Гласник:
И секој камен во природата Ако беше дел од слободата Како побунет роб ќе прозбори И ако беше грабежливо соѕидан ќе напушти туѓи престолнини Или пак од далечни покраини Во поход ќе кренат Со твојот лик Буропловсни галии На овој век Претскажано му е да гине За себе неспокоен а за народ Како татко загрижен благороден
Гоце:
Покрени се море градобран биди Пред налет на стрели сараценски Смрт или слобода и за бога Одлука стравотна а камо ли За народ унесреќен И ако умрам и не стигнам Да ве опоменам Во природата и надвор од неа Се што допрев и помилував Ќе загрми а ако сите вас Не ве збрав на покрив на слобода И ако во себе Не ја допрочитав вашата душа Се плашам да не ве измамат Оти има Лажно сонце и рана пролет Среде зима тешка Та така Да ги измами на видело Вљубениците во слободата А потем на нишан да ги земе ете од тоа нам ни страдаат поколенија
Востанието беше целосно национално македонско движење!
The insurrection was entirely a national Macedonian movment!
Бугарскиот Премиер Петров во своето интервју за ЊуЈорк Тајмс, на 16 август, 1903 година изјавил дека Илинденското востание било целосно национално македонско движење. Овие официјални изјави на бугарските власти се значајни од две причини, прво, претставуваат официјални државни ставови, второ, одговараат на временските случувања, за разлика од поновите политичко- контроверзни тврдења на одредени бугарски кругови.
Ова е дел од неговото интервју, кое го претставуваме и фототипно на самиот крај:
„Во врска со извештаите дека Бугарија е одговорна за востанието, тој истакна дека центарот на вознемирената област во моментов е речиси двестотини милји од бугарската граница и одделена е од неа со региони главно населени со Турци. Поради тоа, тој рече, дека е будалесто да се каже дека востанието беше потпомогнато од банди од Бугарија,и дека е подеднакво неразумно да се рече дека оружјето на востаниците пристигнало од Бугарија.Доколку се погледнат фактите, рече тој, сите пушки користени од страна на востаниците беа од француско производство,и дека повеќето од нив биле купени од турските офицери и мажи кои не примаа плати, па беа принудени да го продадат своето оружје и муниција за да добијат пари.
Востанието, рече тој, беше целосно национално македонско движење организирано од страна на Македонскиот Внатрешен Комитет, кој самиот по себе е доказ.....“
Bulgarian Premier Petroff in his interview for NewYork Times , august 16, 1903:
Regarding the reports that Bulgaria was responsible for the outbreak, he pointed out thatthe centre of the disturbed area at present was nearly two hundert miles from the Bulgarian frontier and was separated from it by country largely inhabited by Turks. Consequently, he said, it was foolish to say that the movment was aided by bands from Bulgaria, and that it was equally unreasonable to suggest that the arms of the insurgents came from Bulgaria. as a matter of fact, he said, the guns used by the insurrectionists were all of French manifacture, and that most of them had been bought from Turkish officers and men who, receiving no pay, had restored to the sale of their guns and ammunition to obtain money. The insurrection, he said, was entirely a national Macedonian movment organized by the Macedonian Internal Committee, which in itself was proof.....
Истото го потврдил и најголемиот македонски преродбеник Крсте П. Мисирков на III-та седница на Петроградцкото Македонцко Научно-Литературно Другарство „Св. Климент“ одржано на19-ти Октомври 1903 г.
“Од самиот почеток на револуционерната организација Македонците во Бугарија или со бугарско образование,работеа под маската Бугари, прво за тоа, што така се викаше голем дел од населението, а друго, што по тој пат можеше да се добијат поддршката на бугарските власти, на бугарскиот народ и бугарската егзархија. “
“Македонците не се ограничија на таа двојна игра со различни замајувања на Бугарите и на Европа. Тие го пренесоа центарот на револуционерната оргнизација заедно со сите национално-политички прашања во Македонија,за да бидат слободни во своите постапки од бугарските власти. “
“Од тука е јасно, оти Бугарите ја голтнаа пилулата и доцна е да си ја исправат грешката.“
Krste Petkov Misirkov in 1903:
“Right from the very start of the revolutionary organization the Macedonians who were living in Bulgaria or who had been educated there began working under a Bulgarian mask. First, because the majority of the population was called Bulgarian and secondly because in this way they could gain the support of the Bulgarian authorities, the Bulgarian people, and the Bulgarian church.
The Macedonians did not limit this two-sided game to the various promises they held out to Bulgaria and to Europe; they shifted the center of the revolutionary organization, together with all the national and political questions it entailed, to Macedonia in order to be free from the interference of the Bulgarian administrators in all their actions.
Thus it is clear that the Bulgarians had swallowed the pill and that it was too late to rectify the mistake.“
The texts presented for analysis in this article were produced by the Institut Detudes Slave, De L'universite De Paris in 1958, and are a study based on words and phrases from Macedonia in the 16th century. It is one of the earliest manuscripts written in a purely Macedonian vernacular tongue, and its content was collected from the village of Bogatsko, which is found in the region of Kostur in the south-west of Macedonia. The author remains anonymous and the only likely conclusion that can be drawn is that he may have spoken the Macedonian language natively or acquired it as an additional tongue due to living in close proximity to people who spoke it. The texts were written using the Greek alphabet, which was not uncommon in the Balkans during the Ottoman period, as similar examples with the Albanian and Vlach languages have demonstrated.
Цитати за Македонците од генералниот секретар на грчкото министерство за образование и наука Талиа Драгонас:
"Грција не може да биде носител на единствена античка култура и не смее да има негативен став кон малцинствата во земјата.
Eтничките Македонци во северна Грција имаат право за себеидентификација исто како што луѓето од Атина имаат право да се нарекуваат Грци" - извадок од книгата "Што е нашата земја" од авторот Талиа Драгонас.
Цитати поврзани со Македонија од Проф. д-р Фридрих Краус (1858-1936), професор на универзитетот во Грац, Австрија и на Берлинскиот универзитет:
"Решението на балканскиот проблем го сметам за многу тешко, но мислам дека на балканските народи неопходно им е потребна автономија бидејќи нив им треба мир, а само автономијата е единствен пат кон мирот...Македонците имаат право на своја целосна територија на која можат да се развиваат, па тогаш ќе престанат и меѓусебните кавги, а може и ќе дојде до траен мир. Во целост ми се познати тешкотиите на таквото решение, но тоа не ми пречи да го посакувам. Она што најмногу му недостига на Балканот е - човекот! Човекот што ќе биде во состојба да го реши балканскиот проблем". - Проф. д-р Фридрих Краус, писмен одговор до Редакцијата на "Балканска федерација"
Цитат од Леон Никол (1887-1965), пратеник од Женева во собранието на Швајцарија со кој јасно се гледа дека тој бил против поделбата на Македонија помеѓу Грција, Југославија и Бугарија и се залагал за автономна Македонија. "Сигурно е дека поделбата на Македонија меѓу Југославија, Грција и Бугарија не е во согласност ниту со духот на правдата и слободата ниту со грижата на секој чесен човек за одржување на мирот. Принципот на слободно определување на народите ни налага да бараме политички систем кој ќе й даде автономна управа на Македонија. Мислам дека по досегашниот реакционерен балкански режим правата на етничките малцинства не се загарантирани на задоволителен начин...Се разбира дека диктаторските влади, какви што се, романската, бугарската, грчката и српската нема никогаш да ја остварат идејата за Балканска федерација. Таму прво треба не спорно да завладее демократијата. Преку демократијата ќе дојде прво до сојузи меѓу расите и народите, а потоа и до Балканска федерација, идеал на кој му посакувам сè најдобро" - Извадок од писмото на Леон Никол до "Балканска федерација"
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, interview for Washington Times.
The entry of Albania, Croatia and Macedonia into NATO would be a stabilizing factor in the Balkans at a time when that is needed. They have proven their worth in being associated with a number of important security initiatives. It would be a pity if something that has to do with antiquity were to get in the way of what I think is a very important step for Macedonia.
Два речиси идентични артефакти (култни предмети) од железното време. Првиот е пронајден на територијата на денешна Република Грција, а вториот во Република Македонија. Доказ дека на територијата на географска Македонија, пред околу 10-13 века живееле луѓе со иста култура и обичаи, а веројатно и со исто потекло.
Лево Артефакт од денешна Република Грција, Егејска Македонија, Tsaousitsa, Кукуш (Kilkis) - Археолошки музеј. 11-10 век п.н.е.
Десно Артефакт од Република Македонија, локалитет Криви Дол, село Радање, штипско. Железно време.
“I’m too old to think of such foolish things as love, but when Macedonia is free, perhaps I may settle down and marry; for the present I have no thought on that subject”, reported the Seracuse Herald on Sunday Morning of January 3, 1904 as Katerina Arnautova saying to the special London Chronicle’s special war correspondant from Macedonia. Katerina Arnautova was a 26 year old Macedonian freedom fighter (komitka) who has joined the Macedonian Revolutionary Movement and was a fighter during the Krusevo Uprising of 1903.
She was described as beeing of “middle hight, well set up and strong looking. She was photographed in a full Macedonian military uniform of the time wearing a black fur hat, a gray tunic of a military cut and metal buttons. Aleather belt, gray trousers, and and legglugs of dull, violet collored wool.” According to the Business Woman’s Magazine, a Colorado Federation of Women’s Clubs, published in February of 1905, the brave Katerina was a young Macedonian woman soldier “shouldering arms against the Turks” with a “sympathetic expressions”. In the scrimishes against the Turks, Katerina has killed five Turks herself but didn’t know the exact number of Turkish soldiers she in battles. She herself was also wounded once. She has lost one of her own brothers and another had to flee Macedonia to Asia Minor.
Katerina was not to be outdone by her male soldier counterparts. She kept up with the men on the long and difficult marches and refused to be helped. “On the contrary”, she had said, “being lighter I can always walk up or run as fast as they can, or even faster”. But she had confessed that the “men had always treated her with great respect and kindness, wishing always to clean her rifle, leggings and sandals.” Indeed, Katerina shows that the Macedonian men can be both gentlemen and soldiers at the same time. Katerina sacrificed her youth for a free Macedonia. She did it with a sense of pride and honor. A woman soldier who was a forerunner and a true Macedonian hero.
Donald Rumsfeld US secretary of defence on Republic of Macedonia, Wall Street Journal:
Greece has threatened to issue a sole veto over Macedonia's entry because Macedonia refuses to change its country name. The future of the trans-Atlantic alliance and its credibility as the pre-eminent political and military instrument of the world's democracies are too important to be constrained by narrow disputes over semantics or to intimidation tactics more befitting the last century.
A larger, reinvigorated alliance, with three new members and two potential members, would augment NATO with countries that have a proven track record of not only recognizing today's challenges but also of consistently contributing to the alliance's efforts to promote and protect its interests. Expansion would bring operational expertise and a spirit of cooperation to an alliance in need of both.
Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality.
Концентрирајќи се главно на евроцентричниот национализам од 19 и 20 век, Eric J. Hobsbawm (Ерик Хобсбам), во своето дело Нации и национализам од 1780: програма, мит, реалност, се обидува да даде одговор на прашањето што е тоа нација и зошто токму овој збор очигледно изразува нешто важно во колективниот човечки ментален склоп, притоа потцртувајќи ја контраверзноста на поставувањето на националното прашање.
”Нациите” според Hobsbawm, не се стари колку и самата историја како што тврдат многубројни научници од оваа област, туку денешното сфаќање на овој термин не е постаро од 18 век. Во подоцнежните декади оваа мода на потенцирање на овој термин и негово разгледување ќе доведе до многубројни научни дела кои со своето влијание ќе го формулираат и формираат денешното восприемање на синтагмата „нација” и „национализам”. „Нацијата” односно „национализмот” секогаш е поврзувана со одредена географска површина или пак според критериумот за јазик или етничка припадност кои сами по себе се нејасни и повеќезначни. Но ваквото сместување на ,,нациите” во одделни групи и користењето на овие критериуми секогаш одат во прилог за градење на политички пропаганди и платформи. Иако „нација” и „национализам”секогаш се врзуваат за одредени територии, одредени нации за да изградат слика за својата припадност секогаш во своја корист како аргументи ги присвојуваат историските артефакти и пронајдоци за да се претстават како одделна нација.
Тоа најчесто се прави така што се користи аргументот дека културата која претходно постоела е наследена, за да се изгради сосема нова нација која сосема би ја избришала претходната. Според авторот она што прво се раѓа е национализмот со цел да се воспостави држава, а дури потоа се формира нацијата.
На овој начин во 19 век градењето на грчкиот национализам или грчката држава била инпирирана од филхелените кои се образувале надвор од Грција. Според Hobsbawm , најзначајните борци во Грчкото востание против Турците од времето на Бајрон, не биле Хелени туку Албанци – Сулиоти. Грци кои тогаш се бореле, воопшто и не зборувале старо-грчки „Грци кои тогаш се бореле, воопшто и не зборувале антички грчки колку што ни Италијанците зборувале латински.”
Целата античка култура која сега се Грците ја врзуваат за својата националност и својата држава воопшто не била препознавана од народите кои живееле на оваа територија.
„Во тој период Перикле, Еврипид, славните Спарта и Атина на Грците не им значеле ништо, а доколку биле и чуле воопшто за нив, тогаш тие не биле од никакво значење за нив.”
Инкорпорирањето на нереална историска рамка во своето национално постоење на Грција и други европски земји треба да им даде исправност т.е. оправданост за градењето на својот национализам и за себе изградување како нација.
„Што друго би можело да ги легитимизира монархиите на државите кои никогаш претходно не постоеле, како Грција.”
Бидејќи самиот термин за нација се однесува на група на луѓе која живее во граници на една држава, веќе критериумот за јазик во тој поглед се губи. Како пример за тоа авторот ја дава Франција која како нација ги впишува сите луѓе кои живеат во границите на нејзиното кралство, иако не го зборуваат јазикот на мнозинството кое живее таму. ,,Како што Французите ги негирале народите кои не зборувале Унгарски, меѓутоа биле должни во системот да се идентификуваат како Унгарци бидејќи живееле во границите на тоа кралство, така и Грците подоцна ги опишуваа жителите на деловите од Македонија кои тие (Грците) ги анексираа, како «Славофони Грци». Накратко, јазичниот монопол маскиран како не-јазична дефиниција на нацијата. ” Иако Грците се обидувале да ја остварат својата етничка кохезија преку дисторзирање на јазичниот критериум Македонците се разграничувале според религиозна припадност, историските рангирања од антиката и средниот век, како и етнографските аргументи за заеднички обичаи и традиции.
Сепак во средината на 20 век се уште постоеле националности кои немале свои држави како на пример Македонците и Каталонците. Hobsbawm, додава дека се до 20 век кога филолозите за старословенски јазик официјално декларираа дека македонскиот јазик е посебен словенски јазик, Грците останувајќи без својот главен аргумент компензираат со потенцирање на,,имагинарна етничност”, па самото ,,официјалното признавање (на Македонија) била недвосмислено саботирано од страна на Грција, која анексираше големи делови од Македонската територија во 1913. ”
"Ги сметаме штетни и опасни за македонската слобода сите надворешни мешања, насочени кон тоа да го отклонат од правилниот пат развитокот на македонското револуционерно движење, дури не се постигне политичко освестување на македонското население, особено во тие критични минути за балканските народи."
("Beogradske Novine" 65, 25. II. 1904 година, стр. 3).
На собранието се постигнала полна согласност во потенцирањето на едномисленоста и кооперативноста по повод македонското прашање. Посебно е поучна телеграмата што била испратена до грчките и романските студенти и вели:
"Српските и бугарските студенти, ослободени од секаков шовинизам и национални идеи и заблуди за остварување на некакви историски задачи на сметка на поробените народи во Турција и одушевени од најчисти хумани чувства, извикуваат: Да живее автономна Македонија."
("Beogradske Novine" 65, 25. II. 1904 godina, str. 3).
This view on which Professor Andronikos' final conclusions on the identity of the dead and the tombs of Vergina were based was, in my opinion, a serious historical error of facts in the field of archaeology.
"...Достојна на оние што ја подготвиле, верен израз на гнилоста на официјалните патриоти, точен отпечаток на нашата лакома буржоазија којашто бара освојувања, но за нив не сака да се заложува. Резолуцијата е срамно сведоштво за моралниот пад на нашата буржоазија и на нашите официјални патриоти. Таму воедно се бара чување на суверенитетот на Султанот, мандат на балканските заинтересирани држави да воведат ред и мир во Стара Србија и Македонија."
uvodnik "Patriotski Podvig", Radnicke Novine 44, 22. VIII 1903
As Bishop Titus was preparing for missionary work in Crete, St. Paul warned him to be weary of the Greeks because of their reputation as being “always liars, evil beasts and slow bellies (Epistles 1:12-13)”. What St Paul intended by these remarks is anybody’s guess, but most likely he was referring to Epimenides, an ancient Greek prophet from Crete who became famous for saying that all Greeks were liars. Of course, St. Paul was certainly not implying that there were no Greeks worthy of respect at all because he surely knew that not all Greeks came from Crete and at least one of the Greeks, namely Epimenides, told the truth. In all likelihood, however, St. Paul was reminding Bishop Titus to be extremely cautious when dealing with the Greeks because of their reputation as being cunning and unreliable people.
Regardless of St. Paul’s intentions, however, it seems only appropriate that the Macedonians, too, should take a clue from his warning and make good use of it in their negotiations with the Greeks on the name dispute. Throughout the two decades of this ongoing and senseless name dispute, the deceptive Greeks were able to manipulate the world’s major powers into believing that they are negotiating in good faith while at the same time portraying Macedonia as an unreliable and unconstructive partner. The reality is, however, just the opposite of their accusations. As the history of the events associated with the name dispute clearly shows, the Greeks’ real aim is to force Macedonia to cave in and accept Greek demands. In fact, the leading Greek politicians have openly acknowledged that they have staunchly followed a well-defined strategy of coercive diplomacy as the means for forcing Macedonia to relinquish its constitutional name of the Republic of Macedonia.
In April of 1993 the Republic of Macedonia was admitted to the United Nations under the interim name of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia because Greece objected to the use of the name “Macedonia” on the grounds of the irrational and outrageous claim that Macedonia historically and culturally is Greek. Moreover, the Macedonian membership to UN was decreed conditional “pending settlement of the difference that has arisen over the name of the State”. Aside from the legality of the United Nations Resolution 225 which admitted Macedonia under its interim name, the Greek blocking of Macedonia’s accession to the United Nation under its constitutional name of Republic of Macedonia was a disgraceful and cowardly act intended to expropriate the name “Macedonia” to the benefit of Greece only. Now the Greeks are trying to deceive the international community by advocating a desire to negotiate a mutually acceptable solution on the name dispute by means of coercive diplomacy.
In reality, however, the Greeks have from the very beginning played a very deceptive and intimidating political game with the Republic of Macedonia that completely undermined the idea of interdependence and mutual trust. In February of 1994, Greece imposed a 19-month trade embargo on Macedonia in order to force that country to accept the Greek chauvinistic demand of forfeiting the right to self-determination in exchange for the UN membership. Unfortunately for Macedonia, the Greek trade embargo succeeded because it initiated a severe economic crisis in an already weak Macedonian economy. Furthermore, not only did those sanctions badly damage Macedonia’s landlocked economy, but they seriously destabilized the Macedonian government.
Thus economically weekend and politically crippled, Macedonia felt that it had no other choice but to accept the Greek demands. Namely, Macedonia was required to amend its constitution to remove any references of political support to ethnic Macedonian nationals living outside Macedonia ’s borders. In addition, Macedonia had to scrap the 16-pointed Star of Vergina from the Macedonian national flag. It was also agreed that Macedonia and Greece should hold talks on the name issue under a sponsorship of the United Nations in order to reach a mutually agreeable name solution.
But the trade embargo, which in itself obviously demonstrated that the Greek government had no intentions to negotiate on the principles of mutual trust and interdependence, was not an isolated incident. To the contrary, the Greek trade embargo was the beginning of a rigidly structured and carefully executed diplomatic strategy which targeted to weaken Macedonia’s negotiation position. In the past two decades Greece has fervently used its diplomatic muscles to prevent the use of Macedonia ’s constitutional name in any political, cultural and sporting event in which both Greece and Macedonia participated. The Greeks were able to accomplish this by invoking the UN Security Council Resolution 5 which requires the host countries to refer to Macedonia under the interim name of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia . The recent Olympic Games in China provide a compelling evidence of their belligerent policy of intimidation. The host country China originally intended to use the name Republic of Macedonia instead of Macedonia’s interim name, but then reconsidered its decision upon direct intervention by the Greek foreign minister Dora Bakoyannis.
More recently, on April 7, 2008 in Bucharest, Greece blocked the Republic of Macedonia from joining the NATO Alliance even though Macedonia met all the necessary admission requirements. By blocking Macedonia’s accession to NATO, the cunning Greeks once again seized the opportunity to coerce Macedonia into a name compromise. The NATO summit in Bucharest was chosen by Greece only as a useful tool to accomplish their desired goal. The Greek government was gambling that Macedonia would cave in under the pressure and would give up on its constitutional name in exchange for a NATO membership. This tactical maneuvering by the Greek Government was outlined by the Greek Prime Minister, Kostas Karamanlis, in his speech of March 27, 2008 given to the governing party’s Parliamentary Group shortly before the Bucharest NATO Summit. As reported by the Greek media, he had said that the Greeks “have taken timely, courageous” decisions in order to negotiate a mutually acceptable solution. The outcome in Bucharest, however, was disappointing for the Greek government because Macedonia, even under strong pressure from President Bush, flatly rejected the name compromise in exchange for a NATO membership.
Even though two decades of policy shaped by intimidation and blackmail has failed to force Macedonia to give up the right of self-determination, Greece hasn’t been deterred from continuing with the same unsuccessful policy of coercive diplomacy. The Greek government has already begun to threaten Macedonia with obstructing its accession to the European Union. The Greek plan of deception and coercion was made even more transparent by Prime Minister Karamanlis in his speech to the Parliament of February 17, 2007 where he said that for Macedonia “there is no other road that leads to its ( Macedonia ) accession to Euro-Atlantic organizations.” Also in the same speech, he further stated that Macedonia can “unlock and ensure objective prospects for alliance relations, partnership relations, relations of solidarity with the neighboring country” only if the country agrees to a “definitive and mutually acceptable solution.” It appears that Mr. Karamanlis either does not see that his speech contains an ultimatum to Macedonia which renders any mutually acceptable solution impossible, or he does not fully understand that a definitive and mutually acceptable solution requires a joint effort by both countries. But when Mr. Karamanlis spoke on the Kosovo issue in the same speech he made sure to define a “mutually acceptable solution” as an agreement which would “define and promote its (Kosovo’s) multi-ethnic character.” One is left wondering here, however, why Mr. Karamanlis is not speaking of defining and promoting the multi-dimensional character of Greek- Macedonian relations! Perhaps Mr. Karamanlis finally spoke the truth by letting the world know that Greece holds one standard when it comes to Greek-Macedonian relations but another standard for the rest of the world. There is no doubt, therefore, that Mr. Karamanlis’ words here are clear, cut and succinct: Greece has no desires to negotiate a mutually acceptable solution based on joint efforts by both countries, but rather Greece desires to coerce Macedonia to accept a Greek compromise.
A definite proof of the Greek deliberate deception also came from Mr. Karamanlis himself in his April 3, 2008 communiqué:“I had said to everyone – in every possible tone and in every direction – that ‘a failure to solve the name issue will impede their invitation’ to join the Alliance. And that is what I did. Skopje will be able to become a member of NATO only after the name issue has been resolved. This is an important development in this long-standing issue; a development in favour of our national interests; a development that shows that resolve and solid reasoning have results when they are used correctly.” Perhaps Mr. Karamanlis spoke the truth again: the Greek government has deliberately deceived the world by camouflaging their lies in the form of a mutually acceptable name solution.
The Greeks ought to be reminded that if they are truly interested in a mutually acceptable solution to the name dispute, then they should be willing to recognize, at the minimum, that a mutually satisfactory solution requires both countries to freely consent to it. Greece alone couldn’t impose a mutually acceptable solution to a joint problem, even though the name dispute is essentially a Greek problem. Be it as it is, a joint solution can only be achieved on the basis of fair and constructive negotiations through joint efforts and to the satisfaction of both Greece and Macedonia. No solution to the name issue, therefore, will be deemed mutually acceptable if Macedonia is forced to negotiate under duress, intimidation and coercion. In addition, Greece must also understand that if Macedonia doesn’t believe that Greece is truly committed to a mutually acceptable solution, then Macedonia must demand from the United Nations that Greece abandon their coercive negotiation strategy and be required to stay committed to the principle of interdependence and mutual trust.
These reasons conclusively point out that Greek actions were not a whim but a premeditated plan to force Macedonia to agree to the Greek demands. The Greek foreign minister Dora Bakoyannis summed it up the best when she said that “for 17 years, Greece held that the name of our neighboring country could not include the term “ Macedonia ”.The transparency of Bakoyannis’ statement here begs this question: if it is true, as Dora Bakoyannis so pointedly admits, that Greece all alone was engaged in a deceptive and coercive negotiation strategy, then what reasons do Macedonians have to trust the cunning Greeks? It surely seems like St. Paul knew something about Greeks that Macedonians don’t.
Цитати од големиот хуманист професорот по психијатрија д-р Огист Форел од кои недвосмислено се гледа дека тој се залагал за формирање на независна држава Македонија составена од трите нејзини дела Вардар, Егеј и Пирин, кои во тоа време биле окупирани од Југославија, Грција и Бугарија.
"Македонија мора да биде ослободена и во најскоро време да стане независна држава од Грција, од Југославија и од Бугарија. Таа досега до волно страдаше од соперништвата на овие три земји, кои и сам ги запознав престојувајќи таму во 1910 година... Не. Доста беше! Етничките, како и верските и јазичните малцинства би требало да бидат насекаде почитувани и праведно застапени. На Балканот сегашните влади ги газат спомнатите малцинства. Верувам во можноста за Балканска федерација под други влади, кои би биле навистина демократски, социјални и либерални, што би ги почитувале еднаквите права на сите, мажи, жени и деца. За да се постигне таа цел, секој поединец треба да научи да му ги подредува своите интереси на социјалното добро и на нашата човечка заедница. Меѓу другото, секој државен министер треба да знае дека еднаш мора да се врати во обичните редови. Долу тираните, било да се крвници или не!" - Писмен одговор од д-р Огист Форел до Балканска федерација. 1910 година
The Russian invasion of Georgia set off an immediate political urgency among NATO leaders regarding its future expansion. In this new political reality, the long overdue Macedonian membership in this military alliance calls for a resolution on a priority basis. Prior to this invasion, the Macedonian accession to NATO was held back by Greek objections over the name dispute even though Macedonia fulfilled all of NATO’s requirements. But the surprising Russian invasion of Georgia suddenly made it much more questionable that Greece would venture to repeat its veto act from Bucharest. As the resurgent Russia shook the foundations of Eurasian geopolitical landscape, NATO no longer enjoys the same luxury of stalling the Macedonian membership. If NATO succumbs to the Greek pressure again and fails to overcome the Greek threat of veto, then NATO will be ultimately responsible for leaving Macedonia outside of its protective umbrella and open to external political influence. Moreover, if Macedonia is left abandoned and forgotten, weak and unprotected, it is more than likely that this maverick country will experience a political and economic breakdown. Thus, if such a meltdown materializes, it could also have a disastrous impact on stability of the neighboring states. Under such chaotic circumstances, Macedonia could easily become a zone of influence for the newly reenergized Russian appetite for expansions.
Any suggestion that the Russians may be planning an immanent invasion of Macedonia would seem like a stretched out imagination. There appears to be no possible reason on the horizon why Russia would even have any remote designs on Macedonia. There are no Russian citizens in Macedonia. Moreover, Macedonia does not share a common border with Russia. Additionally, Macedonia is a small, landlocked country which is of no use to the Russian Black Sea fleet. Also, Macedonia has no known huge deposits of oil and gas that may spike Russia’s interest in Macedonia. Most importantly, however, USA doesn’t plan to host a missile defense shield in Macedonia. Therefore, it’s unrealistic to contend that NATO ought to be concern with a possible Russian political or military involvement in Macedonia.
But Russia’s intent on controlling the production and distribution of Eurasian oil and gas expands far beyond Russian borders and could reach to the remote corners of Europe. The projected route of the Russian Blue Stream Pipeline is presumably designed with a sole purpose of carrying Russian gas to Europe via Balkan countries as an alternative route. However, the projected Blue Stream route raises the possibility of Russia’s long term planning to use its energy power to gain a political foothold in the Balkans. This suggestion maybe debatable, but what is undeniable is that the Blue Stream Pipeline, once it is built, will unavoidably make the Balkan region a part of Russia’s sphere of influence. True, the Blue Stream bypasses Macedonia but this is a minor hurdle that may be easily overcome. “We’re convinced that to deepen our contacts in energy we need to strengthen mutual trust," Putin told presidents of Albania, Bosnia, Serbia, Macedonia, Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria and Montenegro on January 24th, 2007 in Zagreb, Croatia. Clearly, Mr. Putin seems to suggest that business and politics are two different sides of the same coin. Hence, one can’t rule out the possibility that there will be more than just gas flowing from Russia to the Balkans through the Blue Stream.
In the past, Bulgaria was Russia’s stepping stone whenever an occasion presented itself for getting involved in the Balkan political quagmire. Now that Bulgaria is firmly under NATO’s control, that door is closed to Russia. But Russia knows that the Balkan pot can easily be stirred up by agitating the Macedonian question. For instance, Russia can now turn the page of her own history of fomentation in the Balkans by encouraging the Macedonians in the Pirin region of Bulgaria to demand the right for self-determination. Once this conflagration is started it can be easily spread to the Macedonian minority in Greece. Russia could, moreover, also find a need to come to help their Macedonian Slav brothers to defend their national, cultural and religious identity if the Albanian unrest fares up again. After all, the roots of Russian Orthodoxy and Russian written language are based in Macedonia. Moreover, it is also possible that Russia could start encouraging a new union between Serbs and Macedonians. Therefore, as any aficionado of Balkan history can testify to it, there are plenty of pretexts for the Russian involvement in the Balkan affairs. Thus all Russia needs to do in the Balkans is to stir up the trouble, after that, just like a hurricane gathering strength in the warm ocean waters, it would be very difficult to predict how it would be played out. The danger is that “trouble” in the Balkans almost never ceases to exist out of its own exhaustion.
Taking these possible scenarios as the background, the question which now arises is whether NATO can continue to play politics as usual by allowing Greece to dominate the Macedonian Euro-Atlantic integration! It is more than likely that Greece will assiduously push the idea that now is the last chance for Macedonia to join NATO. This type of strategy is designed to put maximum pressure on Macedonia to accept the Greek compromise on the name. Whereas prior to the Caucasus’ brief but vociferous war, the Greek strategy carried a considerable weight among some of NATO members, the same strategy now appears to be more like a bluff rather than a real treat. In fact, this type of bullying by Greece will hardly surprise anyone because even the Greeks themselves know that the Macedonian bargaining position has now jumped several notches higher. Though it seems somewhat surprising that a similar pressure also came from the US ambassador Jillian Milovanovic and some of NATO’s officials, their pressure was more about trying to close the Macedonian issue rather than forcing Macedonia to accept the Greek compromise. Therefore, there is a good reason to believe that a political urgency is being felt among NATO members to find a way to enlist Macedonia at its next meeting in December.
Georgia’s invasion shows that NATO can no longer afford its individual members to decide the alliance’s future enlargement. As NATO took heed from Russia’s compelling statement about her “near abroad” zone of influence, it now became an imperative for this military alliance to set straight its priorities. NATO no longer has an option to debate on the Greek-Macedonian bilateral issue, but NATO needs to act in face of the Russian expansion. Otherwise, if NATO allows Greece to influence the future of its enlargement process by putting her interest first, than NATO’s future collective ability to act effectively and decisively will be significantly weakened. There can be no doubt that NATO is aware of Greece’s suffocating hold of Macedonia, but will NATO also permit Greece to suffocate the entire Western World? There is nothing Macedonia can do to facilitate NATO’s internal decision-making process. All that Macedonia could do is to be ready to join NATO when the call comes. Undoubtedly, by fulfilling NATO’s requirements and by the resolve to support the fight against terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan, Macedonia proved that her place is in NATO. But now it is up to NATO to live up to its commitments.
There was a time not so long ago when NATO could afford to take or leave Macedonia, but now that option very quickly vanished away. Nobody could tell for certain what Russia’s future intentions for the Balkans may be, but NATO no longer can stay indifferent to Macedonia. All that NATO really needs is a political will to convince Greece that, in a longer run, Macedonia’s membership in NATO is also in the best interest of Greece. Of course Greece will resist such a pressure, but England and USA should remind Greece of the events immediately following World War II. Surely, nobody wants that, including Greece. True, Stalin is since long gone but Russia now has Mr. Putin. In the same speech in Zagreb, Croatia, Mr. Putin also pointed out that “Russia’s economic activities were aimed at making the region a zone of stability and security”. In light of Georgia’s invasion, the reverberation of these words sounds quite a bit louder now than even last year. For now only Mr. Putin knows what his future intentions are, but the Blue Stream Pipeline is an ominous writing on the wall those who happen to be located in the proximity of its route. There is doubt that Greece, too, understands what these words really signify.
In the aftermath, the Eurasian geopolitical implications following Russia’s invasion of Georgia dwarfs by comparison the Greek irrational strangle hold on Macedonia. NATO’s global interests go beyond the Greek –Macedonian name issue. That is why NATO must find a way in order to make sure that Greece doesn’t again jeopardize Macedonia’s NATO membership.
Каде сме, та во Австрија да не смееме да зборуваме за турските ѕверства?... Дали стигнавме толку во Австрија толку далеку, што владата сака да угаси секоја појава на симпатии за нашите сиромашни браќа?
Ниедно предавање не би можело да влијае општественоста така како што влијаеше таа забрана и сметаме дека ќе дојде до патот, кога Љубљана, како средиште не словенечката нација, ќе го издигне својот глас за несреќните словенски браќа на Балканот, да обрне внимание на државата и нејзината должност.
Мислиме и прави сме ако тврдиме дека вчерашната забрана беше направена заради тоа, да не им се истапи уште еднаш словенечкиот народ за праведното дело и за кое на извесни кругови не им е пријател сложниот настап на Словенците.
...Браќата на Балканот да го чујат гласот на Словенците пред се, во голема бројност да се огласиме на поканата на словенечкиот одбор за македонските бегалци..."
"Slovenec" 283, 7. XII. 1903, str 3-4 - Ljubljanske novice
In their haste to distort the truth about the Macedonian nationality many Greeks often rely on groundless and foolish contentions. When on April 10, 2008 The New York Times told the truth about the Macedonian nationality and scolded Greece for obstructing the Macedonian accession to NATO (thus, interfering with NATO’s future expansion) the Greeks barraged the newspaper with all kinds of foolish arguments in defense of the Greek action. Many of the slanderous comments were even aimed at the USA, which shows how disloyal and anti-American some Greeks can be. One of those comments to NY Times, also published in a Greeks Online, seems to be quoting a certain L.D. Woodruff, who allegedly was an official from the US State Department, to have claimed that there was no distinct and separate Macedonian nationality. It appears that the reference to L.D. Woodruff was intended to suggest that his claim was an authentic US Government position. However, a further inquiry into this claim reveals not only that this deceptive montage is one more Greek ring added to their string of lies about Macedonian nationality, however, more importantly, this time this deceit was conspicuously brushed with Bulgarian spices.
The reference to L.D. Woodruff takes us back a century ago at the time of the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, when the fate of Macedonia was being decided. At the end of World War I Macedonia once again became a hotly contested country and a source of clandestine and diplomatic machinations. Greece and Serbia were trying to retain their parts of Macedonia which they secured for themselves with the Bucharest Treaty of 1913 while Bulgaria, after loosing the Second Balkan War and World War I, was trying to figure out diplomatic ways to either regain Macedonia for itself or to wrestle her away from Serbia and Greece by supporting a creation of an autonomous Macedonian state. Meanwhile, President Woodrow Wilson was also considering whether to make Macedonia an autonomous state or how best to protect the Macedonian minorities in Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria. This diplomatic stage on which the Macedonian drama played out was, therefore, a cause for an intensive lobbying for the Macedonia pie by Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia. However, to England and France the peacemaking of Macedonia was a means to promote their own individual interests in the Balkans.
One of those lobbyists at the Paris Peace Conference was L.D. Woodruff. He also believed that Macedonia should be made an autonomous state. In his letter to E.H. Kerr, secretary to Mr. Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister, dated April 9, 1919 in Paris, after first expressing doubts about the idea of a Yugoslav federation, Mr. Woodruff wrote that “the next best thing, I’m convinced, is an autonomous Macedonia. That would give the 250,000 refugees in Bulgaria a chance to return to their Macedonian homes.” It seems that Mr. Woodruff is implying that the Macedonian refugees in Bulgaria were not displaced by the war but by a political persecution. “Under their own government”, he further wrote, “the Macedonians could freely decide their future fate.” Clearly Mr. Woodruff here is in line with President Wilson’s idea of some kind of self-determination for Macedonia, including that of autonomy, because the Macedonians were not free. But if Mr. Woodruff claims that there are no Macedonians but only Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians, Gypsies and other nationalities living in Macedonia, why would he want an autonomous Macedonian state for the Macedonians!
Perhaps one way to understand what Mr. Woodruff has in mind here is that the Bulgarians, Greeks and Serbs of Macedonia consider Macedonia as their home country rather than the countries of their brethren. In this sense, which ever state rules Macedonia, the Macedonian population, because of its mixed nature, would consider themselves as dominated by a foreign power. For example, as Mr. Woodruff further explains, “the Macedonian population cannot enjoy free expression while under Greek domination.” He then asked this question: “if the Greek imprison, as they have recently done, American missionaries in the city of Salonika, what would be the state of the Macedonia population, especially in the provinces?” Mr. Woodruff did not live long enough to witness the fulfillment of his premonitions, but Greece indeed proved Mr. Woodruff predictions accurate by implementing “pacific measures such as imprisonment murder and exile” against the Macedonian population.
But this notion of autonomous Macedonia was not the reason why L.D. Woodruff came to Paris. While he was careful not to expose his true reasons behind his claim for autonomous Macedonia, he nonetheless, gave us some clues as what his impression of autonomous Macedonian state may look like. In an autonomous Macedonia, “whether the population of Macedonia is Serbian, Greek, or mixed”, he writes, “it would than enjoy freedom from foreign yoke.” What is immediately conspicuous in this passage is the omission of the name “Bulgarian” from this grouping of oppressors of the Macedonian population. He again, in defending his cause for independent Macedonia, repeated this line of thought when he wrote that “free expression cannot be possibly given with impunity while under Serbian and Greek domination”. Thus it seems quite obvious that Mr. Woodruff came to Paris to promote the Bulgarian vision of Macedonia.
In this letter to Mr. Kerr, L.D. Woodruff came close to reveal his true reason for arguing for an autonomous Macedonia, but he was careful not to cause a furious British reaction. However, in an earlier letter to President Wilson, dated Dec. 11, 1918, Mr. Woodruff clearly revealed his true Bulgarian sympathy. He wrote President Wilson that “in fulfillment of your high purpose to apply the principle of nationality alike to conquered and conquering nations, we respectively urge that, in the settlement of boundaries in the Balkans, due and full consideration be given to the evidence of unbiased wittiness, that the world be may be spared a repetition of such a disastrous wrongs as were perpetrated against…the Bulgarian nation in 1878 and 1913. Moreover, he also pointed out to Mr. Wilson that “in the territory of our Macedonian field, existing fromSkopia andOchrida toDrama, the great bulk of the population is Bulgarian in origin.” Clearly there is no ambiguity here as to on which side of the Macedonian field L.D. Woodruff resided.
But this is not the first time for Mr. Woodruff to manipulate the truth in the Bulgarian favor. As a missionary to the American Board in the Balkans, Mr. Woodruff also stood on the Bulgarian side even when the entire world observed the atrocities committed by Bulgarian army against the Turkish soldiers following the fall of Andranople. In an article of the New York Times, published on October 25, 1913, he wrote that while he was in charge of relief efforts among the Turkish prisoners he “found them in a bad way, as during the siege we ran out of food, and the majority of the prisoners almost died of starvation. This condition, however, was in no way attributable to the Bulgarians, who did everything possible after the fall of the city to relieve conditions. I was given carte blanche by the Bulgarians to draw on the Bulgarian military supplies for anything I considered necessary for the well-being of the Turkish prisoners.” There should be no doubt that Mr. Woodruff took upon himself to defend the Bulgarians against the accusations for which the rest of the world condemned Bulgaria.
Mr. Woodruff died on June 14, 1922 in Sofia. He was a pastor at Congregational Church in Cleveland and performed missionary work in Bulgaria. While in Bulgaria he was teaching at the Samokov Schools. During the Paris Peace Conference he represented the Bulgarian government. For his outstanding service to the Bulgarian state, in 1926 Bulgaria awarded the American Missionary Schools a sizable land of 114 acres in Gorna Banya, near the foot of Mt. Vitosha and only five miles from Sofia, where the American College of Sophia was built. Thus, Sophia became an inspirational center for the growing Protestant movement in Bulgaria. Even the Metropolitan of Sofia, Archbishop Stefan, as the archival records of Samokov Missionary Schools reveal, wrote: "We welcome the idea with joy and feel that it will serve to strengthen and ennoble our national character." Indeed, an exemplary missionary work by L.D. Woodruff in exchange for little bit of Bulgarian soul.
This is, therefore, the truth behind the Bulgarian sham. It is now quite obvious that Greeks this time got their facts about L.D. Woodruff’s connection to US State Department totally confused with the Bulgarian state. It is so sad to find out that the Greek foolishness leads them straight to the fox’s trap. However, what is so hard to figure out here is whether the Bulgarians are that shrewd or the Greeks are that foolish!
Артикли од весникот "Slovenski Narod" за Македонија и Македонците, откриени од Misirkov:
"Интересот за објавеното предавање за положбата на Македонија во Љубљана беше огромен. Како пак беше непријатно изненадено многубројното граѓанство кога ја најде салата кадешто требаше да се предава, затворена, со објава дека предавањето е забрането... Таа забрана во сите кругови направи најмаќен впечаток и силно огорчување.... Немало никаква политичка заднина... да се пробуди сочувство во човекољубивите срца за страдалните Македонци и да собере помош за нивната сиромаштија."
"Slovenski Narod" 283, 7. XII. 1903, стр. 3
"Бурите се Германи, а Македонците пак се Словени... и нам на Словенците ни се забранува да им потпомогнуваме во таа благородна и човекољубива замисла само заради тоа што Македонците се наши крвни браќа"
