Ancient and Archaeology permalink
Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.
Posted by Alex_MKD (U11201226) on Saturday, 15th March 2008
Can Rosetta stone give us an answer?
For almost a century scholars are divided between two standings. One has accepted the standings that the Ancient Macedonian language was dialect of Ancient Greek and therefore the Ancient Macedonians were no more than Ancient Greek tribe; the second believe that Ancient Macedonians weren't Ancient Greeks but separate nation and therefore their language is not dialect of the Ancient Greek (bringing the conclusion in opposite way).
Both sides have their solid arguments written in the archaeological findings and in the ancient texts of the ancient historians and biographers.
The differences between both sides are in the way they read the written testimonies of the archaeological findings and the historians of that time.
The biggest difference is in the way the conclusions are made.
One believes that: since there aren't any discovered preserved texts into Ancient Macedonian other than text findings into Ancient Greek alphabet (except some 100's words, mostly personal names), consequently the Ancient Macedonian is no more than a dialect of the Ancient Greek and therefore Ancient Macedonians are nothing else than Ancient Greek tribe.
Second believe that, because of the enormous number of testimonies in the ancient texts from many ancient historians and biographers (regardless the fact that there are no preserved scripts), Ancient Macedonians were not Ancient Greek tribe and therefore the Ancient Macedonian was not dialect of the Ancient Greek.
The one draw their conclusion:
Ancient Macedonian = Ancient Greek (which implies) Ancient Macedonians = Ancient Greeks,
The second draw their conclusion from the opposite direction:
Ancient Macedonians  Ancient Greeks (which implies) Ancient Macedonian  Ancient Greek.
Logically (mathematically), they differ only by direction of making the conclusion. Historically they differ because different (and same) sources are used in favor.
The above shows how opposite conclusions can be made from the same ancient sources. History is social science and should be relay on scientific basis and discussions.
I have been reading discussions on the web on this issue for a several years. Recently, I found a very interesting study of two Macedonian PhD's - Aristotel Tentov and Tome Bosevski (Bosevski is a member of MASA - Macedonian Academy of Science and Art).
The web link to their study is:
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
(it takes a very little time to read it, but its more than WORTHED!)
Reading their study (a must!), the word 'interesting' would the less describable, actually the word 'fundamental' would be more appropriate.
The subject of research in their study is decrypting the middle script, also known as 'Demotic' script written on Rosetta stone. The Rosetta stone is widely known as fundamental in decrypting the hieroglyphs. The immense importance of this archaeological finding lay in the three scripts written on it.
The written text is also important for dating some events: the Ancient Macedonian dynasty of Ptolemy's ruling over Egypt during 196 BC.
But, what is more important is that the text is parallel written in three scripts: hieroglyphs (the upper text), the so called 'Demotic' script (the middle text) and Ancient Greek (the bottom text). Since none has ever succeeded before in decrypting the hieroglyphs and because the text is written into Ancient Greek and parallel into hieroglyphs, decrypting the hieroglyphs was finally possible. As for the middle script, none has ever succeeded in decrypting this script.
Till the early 20 century (1920), scholars believed that the text was written in three languages (three different scripts = three different languages): Ancient Egyptian, Ancient Macedonian and Ancient Greek.
But, since non succeeded (till now?) to decrypt the middle text and the standings that the Ancient Macedonians were no more than Ancient Greeks, it was widely accepted that the middle text is written into Ancient Greek but with 'Demotic' script. In other words, the scholars assumed that the text on the stone is written in only two ancient languages: into Ancient Egyptian (with hieroglyphs) and Ancient Greek (with Ancient Greek letters and 'Demotic' script).
For almost a century scholars are divided on this issue. The question is: why would Ptolemy gave an order the text to be written into Ancient Greek in both scripts: Ancient Greek and 'Demotic' script? Even more, the ever lasting question: were the Ancient Macedonians an Ancient Greek tribe that spooked Ancient Greek dialect but used the 'Demotic' script?
The research of the Macedonian PhD's is founded on the scholar's standings before 1920: three different scripts were written into three different languages. The immense breakthrough is made by making several assumptions:
1. the middle script is syllabic and even more
2. the now days Macedonians must kept some words of the Ancient Macedonian in their contemporary Macedonian language.
The study is relay on well known linguistic and phonetic basics and is made with mathematically and linguistically precision. The study is a 'fundamental breakthrough' in several ways and brings up several conclusions that tear apart the now days views on Ancient Macedonians, now days Macedonians and their languages.
The study have suppressed the authors so much that it took 2 years for them to reevaluate the study from every angle before bring it in front of the public. Aware of the great pressure and denying from the scholars all over the world, their study bringing several conclusions:
1. The middle text ('Demotic' script) is written into Ancient Macedonian;
2. The Ancient Macedonian was pre-old-Slavic (the root of the medieval old-Slavic language that was coded by Cyril and Metody in Thessalonica in 9-th century when the Balkans and Macedonia were settled with majority of Slavic population - tribes).
2. The Ancient Macedonian left many words in modern Slavic languages, especially on the Balkans;
3. Many of the Ancient Macedonian words are still preserved into contemporary Macedonian language.
4. The grammar rules of the Ancient Macedonian are still preserved in contemporary Macedonian, mostly in some Macedonian now days dialects (making plural, the article 'the', est.)
There actually did succeeded in decrypting the middle script and there is nothing questionable about the method or the result. They used several assumptions at the beginning in order to prove them as right or wrong in further process. Their success is only because the assumptions that they postulate at he beginning, assumptions that haven't been made before.
They not only successfully decrypted the script, they also find out:
1. How the words were made (composed),
2. The grammar rules for forming plural, using the article 'the', est.
3. The names are completely according to the names mentioned in the other two scripts and
4. The meaning of the text and the words are exactly the same as in these in the other two scripts.
What is 'wrong' with their study is that the middle text is to 'Slavic' which is completely opposite to the common knowledge about history of the Slavs and Europe in whole. If this is putted aside then there is nothing wrong with their studies, the assumptions they made, the method they used and the result is as epochal as the decrypting the hieroglyphs.
The real trouble about their study is the conclusion and solid proof that the Ancient Macedonian is 'Slavic' language. Because of this too many questions are raised: did the Ancient Macedonians were actually a 'pre-Slavic' tribe that lived long before the 'new-Slavs' (or 'late-Slavs') came in Macedonia? Did the Slavs really came in the Macedonia (and further more on the Balkans) or they just returned? Even more, did they left at all? Are the Slavs descendants of the Ancient Macedonians or the Ancient Macedonians were pre-Slavic tribe?
What is more intriguing is that several artifacts were discovered with approximately dating in down to 8000 BC with preserved script 'identical' with the middle script on Rosetta stone. These findings have been discovered on Macedonian soil and further to the north in continental part of the Balkan Peninsula.
As I said before, if you carefully read the study you'll find nothing wrong about it. On the contrary it completely resolves and decrypts the 'Demotic' script. It was made by making only one (pretty logically) assumption:
'if modern Greek is descendant of the Ancient Greek, than modern Macedonian is descendant of the Ancient Macedonian too.'
To make that assumption they had to put aside the Slavic roots of the modern Macedonian language. By making this assumption they were completely aware of its 'contradictory' with commonly accepted knowledge about the Slavs and their migration into Europe and the Balkans, including Macedonia, and consequently, that the modern Macedonian has nothig in common with the Ancient Macedonian, because of its Slavic roots.
The results are stunning!
The study successfully decrypt the 'Demotic' script. But instead of resolving some of the everlasting questions concerning the Ancient Macedonians and their language, the study opened much bigger issues and questioned the 'truth' about Slavs, especially about their migrations.
I'll appreciate if you read the study completely before comment it at all, just in order to understand the way it resolve and decrypt the 'Demotic' script.
I'm anxious for comments.Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 2
Posted by Volgadon (U10843893) on Monday, 17th March 2008
I thought that 'est', 'is', or the present indicative of 'byt', in Slavic languages comes from the Latin 'est'. It used to decline. Don't recall the others, but 1st person singular was 'esm'.
Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 3
Posted by Alex_MKD (U11201226) on Monday, 17th March 2008
Actually, what I meant by 'est' was to sey that there a other items to be listed. It is way to end a list that have more bullets to be listed but order to save space and time listing them all You jyst say 'and others' = 'est'.
Lapsus lingua. Since English is not my mother thong I apologize for made and future lingual mistakes.
Anyway, thanks for the tip Volgadon!
I don't know why the moderators censured the link, since it is very simple to google it: rosetta+stone+mk, the first link is [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]. The .pdf file is the first link on the page.
I didn't offend anyone with my post and the document (the study) doesn't containing anything offending too.Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 4
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 1st April 2008
Aleks, just use your logic.
The land that is called Greece is not a huge place, it is not Russia, it is not France, it is not even the size of Italy! Naturally, back then everyone knew everyone else and most certainly the existence of a barbarian would be instantly noticed ... especially if this barbarian possesed the holy mountain of Olympus, participated in the Olympics and its leaders when visiting holy places like the Delphi claimed relation with several tribes of the south (that obviously had come from Macedonia!).
It strikes us that the first who came out to claim Macedonians were not Greeks were some losers in the Olympics only after Alexander I was already there winning his gold medal and Demosthenis who mostly accused Philip (and not so much the Macedonians as a tribe!) as barbarian with the most fashionable terms such as "isn't he a barbarian? Oh what am I saying, Philip is worse than a barbarian!" (the later being an absolute proof of the Greekness of Philip of course!).
I mean what are we sitting here to discuss? The evident?
Aleksander, you have a Greek name that means the one that keeps the (enemy) men at distance, you might speak a Bulgarian dialect but want to claim relation with Macedonians thus without so much realising it you want to claim relationship with the Greeks. That is not bad in itself as a statement and personally I have no problem if you declared yourself a Greek.
But forging a new hypothetic history were barbarians played in Olympics in pre-Roman times, were Persians were misinterpreting barbarians for Greeks, were barbarians travelled half the earth and only left Greek writtings, and were the name of an ancient kingdom is used to describe the very lands of the fierce enemies of this kingdom in modern days... you know... all that is surreal.
I do not understand what is exactly your belief about the ancient Macedonian language. I would advice you though to search also about the Dorian, the Ionian and the Aeolian dialects. Hence, if you go on to claim Macedonian as foreign to Greek then you can easily claim that Dorian is foreign to Greek and guess how much Aeolian is foreign to Greek.
In fact you will prove that the Greek language never existed and that the most well-monitored continuous language on the earth is just part of our imagination.
I am not being ironic and most certainly I am not kidding! This issue is not so much one of history but mostly of basic human logic... unless of course we take into account the modern affairs from the late 19th century, the effort of Bulgaria, then that of Yugoslavia... and the games of the powerfull ones in front of which even this very basic logic can bent to unimaginable levels.Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 5
Posted by Aleksandar_MKD (U2201635) on Wednesday, 16th April 2008
If you wan to continue our discussion we'll have to chose on which thread to post our writings. Since you already post on both of them I post my answers on both threads.
Hello Nik,
Sorry for my delayed answer, I was too much occupied lately to find time to read your post and to answer it.
Nik, I'm fully understand why you don't want to make any comments on the study of the Ancient Macedonian script and language. I do hope that you will read it, analyzed it and most of all I do hope that you'll consult some linguists friends of yours. What I was expecting was discussion on this study. I'm not going to discus on my "Bulgarness" , "Greekness" or "Serbness" because I'm Macedonian as more than three million Macedonians in Macedonia, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and Albania. We can start it all over again if it is what you want, but at the end it will end up with your negation of the national, cultural and historical identity of more than three million people at the very heart of the Balkan. What Greece did to Macedonians and their country is the biggest genocide and most brutal assimilation the Macedonians have had ever before. The Bulgarian and Serbian people can't even start to compare with Greece on this one. Even the Romans were more merciful. than Greeks toward the Macedonians.
Nik, Greece has almost achieved the 20th century goal: Aegean Macedonia without Macedonians. What is incomprehensible for Macedonians is what are today's goals of Greece continuing its politic of openly promoting the idea of Macedonia without Macedonians. As you'll see, this standings will very soon "fall into water" when Greece will have to explain to the EU and NATO members that there is only a dispute over the name of my country and not on the identity of the people, since Macedonia have agreed that will make compromise with Greece and in order to solve this dispute will allow additional explanatory word near our constitutional name Republic of Macedonia but only if Greece openly redraw the negation of Macedonian identity and finally recognize it.
As for yours stands about the "greekness" of the Macedonians I can ensure you that there are much much more historians that stands on the opposite standings of your ones. Now, I don't want to turn this thread into endless posting of quotes but I can't resist and not to post this ones (for a start):
1. The Greek orator Demosthenes, spoke of Alexander the Great’s father Philip II as "not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honors, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave" (Demosthenes, Third Philippic, 31).
2. Justin, the Roman historian from the 3rd century AD wrote: "Antipater was appointed governor of Macedonia and Greece" (Justin 13.4.5)
3. Arrian, the ancient Greek historian from the 2nd century AD wrote: "Darius's Greek mercenaries attacked the Macedonian phalanx… the Macedonian center did not set to with equal impetus… and the Greeks attacked where they saw that the phalanx had been particularly torn apart. There the action was severe, the Greeks tried to push off the Macedonians into the river and to reserve victory to their own side… There was also some emulation between antagonists of the Greek and Macedonian races" (Arrian 2.10.4-7).
4. Pausanias, the ancient Greek historian from the 2nd century AD wrote: "the united Greeks defeated the Macedonians in Boeotia and again outside Thermopylae forced them into Lamia" (Pausanias 1.1.3)
5. Plutarch, the ancient Greek historian from 1st century AD quoted Alexander’s words where the king himself separates the Macedonians from the Greeks as distinct nation: “When you see the Greeks walking about among the Macedonians, do they not look to you like demi-gods among so many wild beasts?” (Alex.51.2)
To point out as an argument that the word "philhellen" is equal as hellen i.e. greek is quite an argument. But in lack of arguments sometimes people need to re-read the history in order to create them? To make so many assumptions reading the ancient and roman sources just in order to prove the greeknes of the Macedonians?
Cheers.
PS: I'm looking forward to your post about the study of the ancient Macedonian script and language, the one that was subject of my first post on this thread.Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 6
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 21st April 2008
Ok, lets choose this thread here.
Aleksander, thanks for your thoughts but permit me be "harsh" on you (not a personal attack on you or your people but against a horrible dictator Tito and his propaganda that distorted your own history and made you think of being a hypothetic nation called "macedonians" despite you being Slavic people talking a Bulgarian dialect (to place it gently, not to say a Bulgarian idiom!).
You have to yet bring me 1 single concluding evidence of the existce of a "Macedonian" separate nation. The things you mentioned about the Macedonian language are typical riff-raff of the likes of that FYROMian amazing "research" that equated Greeks to Ethiopians (not to mention a highly racist since it used Ethiopians as an inferior race to belittle Greeks).
Let me first nicely take your points and chop them up - see how easily your beloved uncle Tito's propaganda falls and why 100,000s of your cocitizens are starting slowly to believe less in that false history and turn to Bulgaria to seek their real past (the Bulgarian nation was practically born in FYROM - there was the medieval Bulgarian epicenter).Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 7
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 21st April 2008
1. The Greek orator Demosthenes, spoke of Alexander the Great’s father Philip II as "not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honors, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave" (Demosthenes, Third Philippic, 31).
Demosthenis was the first sad loser after 3 sad losers in the Olympics some 120 years ealier that doubted the Greekness of Philip. Watch out! He barely doubted the Greekness of Macedonians. He seemed to concentrate mainly on Philip. Guess why! And guess why it took him more than 4 anti-Philip speeches to convince the average Athenians that something had to be done agains the Macedonians, not because they were barbarians but because they were simply a dangerous opponent. Of course no Athenian ever took the sayings of Demosthenis abotu Philip seriously. Otherwise how can you explain that the other party (nearly half of Athens!!!) led by rehtor Aishunis (a really much more reliable source than liar Demosthenis) considered Macedonians as the best of the Greeks and Philip as a valid leader for all Greeks in a struggle against Persians? So how come you keep ignoring Aishunis? Why Aishunis would lie on something like that? And why ALL of Athens believed him and never tried him for treason (it wuold be treason to suggest that a barbarian was not only a Greek but also valid to lead Greeks). And what did Demosthenis said about Philip? You had to listen to him!!!: "So Philip is a barbarian, well no in fact he is worse than a barbarian"... heheheh... dear Aleksander, personally I have never heard any better proof of Philip being a Greek!
2. Justin, the Roman historian from the 3rd century AD wrote: "Antipater was appointed governor of Macedonia and Greece" (Justin 13.4.5)
You ignore the fact that it took Romans some 70 years and all the help that many Greek cities could give in order to win over the kingdom of Macedonia. You ignore the fact that after the first deafeat it was only Macedonians, Corintians and Epirots (if I forget others) that resisted the Romans. Epirus was raised to the ground. Macedonia nearly the same. Corinth the same. Who knows that back then Corinth was at times a more important city and larger than Athens? Nobody. Do you know many things about Epirus? No? How come? Well Romans did always their best to bury down those that resisted them. For the case of Macedonia they had actually separated the historic Greek kingdom into four arbitrary territories with arbitrary names and included of course territories in the north (i.e. in non-macedonian lands, those of thraecian tribes), clearly in an effort to break for ever the unity and the local feeling of Greeks. It was not rare that they used the name Macedonia to describe territories as far north as modern Serbia... not to mention up to Hungary.
If we are to take serious the Roman propaganda we are for the village fairs.
3. Arrian, the ancient Greek historian from the 2nd century AD wrote: "Darius's Greek mercenaries attacked the Macedonian phalanx… the Macedonian center did not set to with equal impetus… and the Greeks attacked where they saw that the phalanx had been particularly torn apart. There the action was severe, the Greeks tried to push off the Macedonians into the river and to reserve victory to their own side… There was also some emulation between antagonists of the Greek and Macedonian races" (Arrian 2.10.4-7).
Where is the strange thing? Exactly the same thing we find in the battle of Thermopyles were we talk about Lakaedemonians (Spartans) and Greeks. do you claim on that that Lakaedemonians were not Greeks? Imagine that in the case of Spartans there were 300 Greeks from Lakaedemona and 7000 Greeks from other states and still we talked about "Spartans" and "Greeks". In the case of Macedonians it was 30,000 Greeks from Macedonia and some 5,000 Greeks from other states. Hence, naturally the writer makes the distinction to explain better who did what in the battle. "Macedonians" here refers to their citizenship and locality and not nationality. You cannot expect the ancient writer to say things like "Macedonians and the rest of the Greeks", just because 3000 years later there would be some Bulgarians claiming Macedonians talked half-Russian followed by a weird Croacian dictator!!! Back then it was taken for granted that Macedonians were Greeks.
4. Pausanias, the ancient Greek historian from the 2nd century AD wrote: "the united Greeks defeated the Macedonians in Boeotia and again outside Thermopylae forced them into Lamia" (Pausanias 1.1.3)
Like the united Greek forces deafeated Athenians in Sicily during the Peloponesian war? Why is it so difficult to grasp it? Back then you had 100s of Greek states. When it came that one of them was strong and fought against most of others we talked about that state fighting against the united Greek forces. Funnnily enough in the battle of Heronia when Philip won over the Athenian-Theban army nobody talked about "Greeks" as it was merely the Athenian-Theban army. Hence it was a war between Macedonians and Athenians-Thebans.
5. Plutarch, the ancient Greek historian from 1st century AD quoted Alexander’s words where the king himself separates the Macedonians from the Greeks as distinct nation: “When you see the Greeks walking about among the Macedonians, do they not look to you like demi-gods among so many wild beasts?” (Alex.51.2)
Ohhhh phrases like these you have by the tons in the ancient Greek literature. Thoycidides who claimed to be said exactly the same for Eyrytaneans and I think him or somebody else said similar things for Aitolians and Akrarnanians, the very people around Delphi! Were they barbarians also? Of course not. Simply, that was the favourite past-time of Greeks and actually another proof that Macedonians were Greeks!!! Had they been barbarians Plutarch would not even bother to make negative comments like these, not to mention that they would be offensive to Greeks (for reasons you are not able now to understand of course - sorry to tell you but you are not that strong in history to grasp certain notions, not your fault though, it is uncle Tito's work).
To point out as an argument that the word "philhellen" is equal as hellen i.e. greek is quite an argument. But in lack of arguments sometimes people need to re-read the history in order to create them? To make so many assumptions reading the ancient and roman sources just in order to prove the greeknes of the Macedonians?
Aleksander, funnily you being a Slav, you insist of treaching me my own language? That is what people call quite a nerve. Take it easy, relax and sit down and learn this before you grab any riff raff to use it as an argument:
The first time recorded that the word "philellin" was used for a non-Greek person was in the 19th century!!!!!! After Christ! For Christ's shake!!! In ancient times this word was used as a title of honour for all those Greeks that fought for the common Greek cause - for all those that placed the interests of the Greek nation above the interests of their own locality. Alexander the I was clearly one of them and that is why he took this name. Had he been a barbarian not only he would not had taken that title but he would be ridiculed like all those barbarians that wanted to be "wannabe Greeks" (like some in the 20th-21st century....).Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 8
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 21st April 2008
Now lets make the list of the ancient Greeks that were not Greeks:
Macedonians! lived in the Greek holy mountain of Olympus, Dorians derived from them, kings of Dorian cities like Argos remembered their links with Macedonia and the opposite, other Dorians named the place Olympia like that etc. but no, Macedonians were never Greeks!
Epirots! Despite these being the very ancient Greek kingdom with the most ancient oracle (Dodone), 100s of years more ancient than that of Delphi and an example for the latter, well they were not Greeks.
Thessalians! Liked horses and never produced any philosopher. Other Greeks said about them that they "differed little from Persians". Not Greeks.
Spartans: These were Dorians isn't it? I.e. non-Greeks. Also there is not a single Spartan that ever mentioned himself as a Greeks. Another amazing proof of the non-Greekness of Spartans.
All South Italy: Dorians. Not Greeks.
Athenians: They had a myth that claimed that they traced their ancestry to the people that lived there before the "greeks", i.e. they derived from barbarians... thus Athenians were not Greeks. No Athenian ever claimed to be "very Greek" and they used the title mainly when it came to external politics and the expansion of their power...
Cretans: Ah! Derived from Minoans, clearly not Greeks.
Ok, can anyone explain this to me. If no-one of these was ever Greek... did ever the Greek nation exist at all? Aleksander is not far from claiming so. And me then will be close to claim that the Chinese never existed and are part of our imagination!
And say the Greek nation never existed. How can we expain that all the Balkans are habitated by people largely different to our idea about the "Mediterranean" people, i.e. Slavic people like Bulgarians and Serbians and then Albanian people. How come in the south habitate a nation called Greeks that looks so diffeerent to them? Where did they come from? From planet Mars? The friends of Aleksander of course had the answer... all these people came from ... Kenya and Ethiopia! Quite convincing. And how come ALL THOSE CALLED MEDITERRANEAN (i.e. eastern Spanish, South Italians, Ionian Turkish, Lebanese, etc.) are only called like that only because they happen to look very much like modern Greeks? Why don't we call Albanians Mediterranians? Why not the Bulgarians? How come? And how come all those that are called Mediterraneans are actually people that live in areas that were in the past to a varying degree, often densely populated by Greek-related populations?
Aleksander. Think of it. In your way you are a wannabe Greek. But just keep in mind that "when you are a Greek, you do not have to claim it, you just know it".Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 9
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 21st April 2008
Just love to hurt you Aleks. It is not you. It is your ignorance topped with your nerve to talk about "greek crimes against Macedonians". The only known crimes in the area were committed by the Bulgarian commitatzides and it was your Ottoman-Bulgarian-Nazi-comminist collaborating Bulgarian-talking people that commited them.
Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 10
Posted by Aleksandar_MKD (U2201635) on Tuesday, 22nd April 2008
Welcome back Nik! I don't want to make you nervous or to offend you. Whether you want or not you can't make me nervous. What I want is a prosper future for both Macedonians and Greeks.
I know that Greek governments for more than a century are denying the Macedonians in what they have succeeded at least within the borders of Greece state. At the end of 19-th century when in 1881 all three Balkan states were re-established (Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece) the western powers (France, England and Austro-Hungary) made pressure on Ottomans for giving the autonomy for Macedonia, the pre-step toward its independency. At that time Nik Macedonians were pretty real for these three powers including Germany. But, unfortunately for the Macedonians, neighbouring nations instead of helping the Macedonians in their struggle for liberty and independence Balkan states started to propagate their interests in Macedonia. The main argument was the non-existence of the Macedonians. Macedonia was proclaimed as an geographical region, not as an ethno-graphical whole. Since the Macedonians had less developed institution, opposite to Bulgarians, Serbs and Greeks (Macedonians didn't have their schools, their administration and their church under the Ottoman rule) the Ottoman Empire was obligated on Paris conference to implement autonomy status for Macedonians in Macedonia. The result was opposite, Ottomans continued in their unmerciful ruling and the situation in Macedonia become worse. Instead of helping the Macedonians in accomplishing their freedom and independence, Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia sent military units into Macedonia to torment the Macedonians and Ottomans. The "open season" for counting "Bulgarians", "Serbs" and "Greeks" in Macedonia was opened after Paris. What Greek and Bulgarian military units did in Macedonia is wordless. There are countless documents in Istanbul, Berlin, Paris and London even in Washington for the "zulums" that these military units did to the Macedonians. Yes Nik, Macedonians. These documents are eternal testimonies for the struggle of Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria for dividing Macedonia. Regardless of Macedonia neighbours, the west powers didn't have any problem using the name Macedonia and Macedonians in their reports and documents. What was unfortunate for the Macedonians and because of what things went wrong for Macedonians and Macedonia was the Russian politic toward the Balkans. Russians started to manage their interests on the Balkans through Bulgaria. San Stefano is the result of Russian politic toward Bulgaria and the Balkans. Because western powers didn't wanted Great Bulgaria as a Russian poppet on the Balkans (nether Great Serbia) they started the preparations for dividing of Macedonia. All visits from Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian officials into Berlin, Vienna, Paris and Moscow are well documented; the conversations and the "mutual understandings and interests" are well documented too. Just in case if some day some Balkan states become "unfaithful". Western powers ambassadors and other officials in the Balkans were continuously sending reports. Many of these reports were for Macedonia and the Macedonians. And once again, regardless of Macedonia neighbours, the west powers didn't have any problem using the name Macedonia and Macedonians in their reports and documents. NO PROBLEM AT ALL.
Anyway, instead of helping the Macedonians into liberating Macedonia, Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece "liberated" Macedonia in 1913.
Now, one question for you: if 51% of Macedonia and Macedonians become part of Greece Kingdom in 1913 with total population of 1.000.000, where Macedonians were majority, what happened to become 99,99% Greek in 2008? Europe is completely aware of the ethnic cleansing of Macedonians from Greece between WW1 and WW2 (population exchange between Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey regulated with Lozano agreement) and in 1948 when more than 150.000 Macedonians were expelled from Greece as "communists". Whether you like it or not it is also documented especially in Washington and London since they fought the war against communists in Greece till 1948.
Why is Greece stepping aside today when Macedonia and Macedonians are sending allegations toward Greece that it is not the name Macedonia but the name Macedonians that Greece is having problem with? What is going to happen is that the Macedonians will continue their campaign until we ensure that the whole Europe public is completely aware of denying the Macedonian identity from Greece is today reality and is completely fascistic method for solving problems in today Europe. What is Greece want to accomplish with denying Macedonians even today? Macedonia without Macedonians? Nik, we are neighbours that are determined to live together. Lets us put aside the past and turn the other page in our lives. We are, We were and We will continue to be Macedonians whether you like it or not. Sooner is better. So it will be the best for Greece to abolish this 19-th century politic of denying the Macedonians and take our hand that we are giving to you in the name of peace and prosperity. This kind of attitude will bring nothing more than war and war and war on the Balkans. It is time for all Greeks to start live the present, the other reality that was kept from Greeks for more than a century. Believe me Nik, there are plenty of documents that are presented by Macedonian historians that are presented in their original form and all there is you need to do is to read them. Nothing less, nothing more.
If you are interested for facts, wrote documents, from ancients till today I'll be glad to present them to you. For a start you can read the study I referred to in my previous posts. For a start.
Best wishes.Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 11
Posted by Aleksandar_MKD (U2201635) on Tuesday, 22nd April 2008
Welcome back Nik! I don't want to make you nervous or to offend you. Whether you want or not you can't make me nervous. What I want is a prosper future for both Macedonians and Greeks.
I know that Greek governments for more than a century are denying the Macedonians in what they have succeeded at least within the borders of Greece state. At the end of 19-th century when in 1881 all three Balkan states were re-established (Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece) the western powers (France, England and Austro-Hungary) made pressure on Ottomans for giving the autonomy for Macedonia, the pre-step toward its independence. At that time Nik Macedonians were pretty real for these three powers including Germany. But, unfortunately for the Macedonians, neighbouring nations instead of helping the Macedonians in their struggle for liberty and independence Balkan states started to propagate their interests in Macedonia. The main argument was the non-existence of the Macedonians. Macedonia was proclaimed as an geographical region, not as an ethno-graphical whole. Since the Macedonians had less developed institution, opposite to Bulgarians, Serbs and Greeks (Macedonians didn't have their schools, their administration and their church under the Ottoman rule) the Ottoman Empire was obligated on Paris conference to implement autonomy status for Macedonians in Macedonia. The result was opposite, Ottomans continued in their unmerciful ruling and the situation in Macedonia become worse. Instead of helping the Macedonians in accomplishing their freedom and independence, Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia sent military units into Macedonia to torment the Macedonians and Ottomans. The "open season" for counting "Bulgarians", "Serbs" and "Greeks" in Macedonia was opened after Paris. What Greek and Bulgarian military units did in Macedonia is wordless. There are countless documents in Istanbul, Berlin, Paris and London even in Washington for the "zulums" that these military units did to the Macedonians. Yes Nik, Macedonians. These documents are eternal testimonies for the struggle of Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria for dividing Macedonia. Regardless of Macedonia neighbours, the west powers didn't have any problem using the name Macedonia and Macedonians in their reports and documents. What was unfortunate for the Macedonians and because of what things went wrong for Macedonians and Macedonia was the Russian politic toward the Balkans. Russians started to manage their interests on the Balkans through Bulgaria. San Stefano is the result of Russian politic toward Bulgaria and the Balkans. Because western powers didn't wanted Great Bulgaria as a Russian poppet on the Balkans (nether Great Serbia) they started the preparations for dividing of Macedonia. All visits from Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian officials into Berlin, Vienna, Paris and Moscow are well documented; the conversations and the "mutual understandings and interests" are well documented too. Just in case if some day some Balkan states become "unfaithful". Western powers ambassadors and other officials in the Balkans were continuously sending reports. Many of these reports were for Macedonia and the Macedonians. And once again, regardless of Macedonia neighbors, the west powers didn't have any problem using the name Macedonia and Macedonians in their reports and documents. NO PROBLEM AT ALL.
Anyway, instead of helping the Macedonians into liberating Macedonia, Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece "liberated" Macedonia in 1913.
Now, one question for you: if 51% of Macedonia and Macedonians become part of Greece Kingdom in 1913 with total population of 1.000.000, where Macedonians were majority, what happened to become 99,99% Greek in 2008? Europe is completely aware of the ethnic cleansing of Macedonians from Greece between WW1 and WW2 (population exchange between Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey regulated with Lozano agreement) and in 1948 when more than 150.000 Macedonians were expelled from Greece as "communists". Whether you like it or not it is also documented especially in Washington and London since they fought the war against communists in Greece till 1948.
Why is Greece stepping aside today when Macedonia and Macedonians are sending allegations toward Greece that it is not the name Macedonia but the name Macedonians that Greece is having problem with? What is going to happen is that the Macedonians will continue their campaign until we ensure that the whole Europe public is completely aware of denying the Macedonian identity from Greece is today reality and is completely fascistic method for solving problems in today Europe. What is Greece want to accomplish with denying Macedonians even today? Macedonia without Macedonians? Nik, we are neighbours that are determined to live together. Lets us put aside the past and turn the other page in our lives. We are, We were and We will continue to be Macedonians whether you like it or not. Sooner is better. So it will be the best for Greece to abolish this 19-th century politic of denying the Macedonians and take our hand that we are giving to you in the name of peace and prosperity. This kind of attitude will bring nothing more than war and war and war on the Balkans. It is time for all Greeks to start live the present, the other reality that was kept from Greeks for more than a century. Believe me Nik, there are plenty of documents that are presented by Macedonian historians that are presented in their original form and all there is you need to do is to read them. Nothing less, nothing more.
If you are interested for facts, wrote documents, from ancients till today I'll be glad to present them to you. For a start you can read the study I referred to in my previous posts. For a start.
Best wishes.Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 12
Posted by Aleksandar_MKD (U2201635) on Tuesday, 22nd April 2008
Sorry for doubling the last post, was having problems with my internet connection.
Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 13
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 1st May 2008
What plenty of documents re Alex you are mubbling about and what bulls waste? I am from Thessaloniki, not from Hong Kong or Hawai... you can fool the ignorants but not us!
There are tons of documents about Macedonia since ancient times but the first time there appeared a nation of Macedonians in the region that was after 1945 and it was uncle Tito's (himself a Croacian) propaganda, a dictator that did not hid his will to conquer lands in north Greece.
What you falsely call now "Macedonians" was back then Bulgarians and most of them really fought hard for the Bulgarian interests in the region.
Ottomand NEVER EVER knew there was any nation called "macedonians" during their 600 years presence in the region. Even in their 1903 research where they had measured all populations from the Aegean up to Kosovo they had even mentioned insignificant minorities like gipsy-subgroups but they failed to recognise any "macedonian" nationality?
And please explain me this: What interest would Ottomans have to hide this nationality when their largest enemy back then was the Greeks? Had the Ottomans known that there existed such a nationality they would had jumped on the opportunity but see... the Ottoman fantasy and their propaganda was not at the levels of communist Croacian Tito....
Do you want me to tell you all these in your language (i.e. Bulgarian) to understand or is it hard for you to accept all that? Wake up and face reality boy.Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 14
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 2nd May 2008
Today I have a little bit more time and hence I should answer in a more elaborate way your misinterpretation of history and your terrible accusations against the true Macedonians, that is the Greeks.
1st: If you really believe all that Bulgarian propaganda of the eearly 20th century (which did not talk about any Macedonian nation but simply tried to convince the world that Macedonia was not Greek and thus should not be Greek but Bulgarian) and the propaganda of Tito that took the Bulgarian propaganda and distorted it even more by inveting this time the hypothetic nation of Macedonians (to drag these basically Bulgarian people of often unclear national identity to the side of Jugoslavia that also eyed the port of Thessaloniki despite being also unable being the Slavs they are to spell correctly the name of the city) that ancient Macedonians were not Greeks then I cannot do anything else but send you to the real Macedonia (or Egypt or Mesopotamia or India or Western China... everywhere the Macedonians went) to make a visit in all archaiological grounds: if you ever find any piece of evidence that there was another language and not Greek and that these people were another nation but fooled so good the Greeks that their Macedonian mountain Olympus was the Greek holy mountain and center of their civilisation but Greeks did not happen to realise it... well if you prove it to me I will personally give you 1 million euros all for you so you do not have to go and play "who wants to be a millionaire" cos with such knowledge in history you will not pass even the limit of 1000 euros. Do not mention your FYROMian historians, they are for long blacklisted in the international community for failing to abide to the basics of historical research (not mentioning the amazing archaiological destruction of in southern FYROM where they spent a lot of time scratching of the Greek writings in archaiological grounds).
2nd: Not only you are failing in history. You are also failing in geography. Who really told you that Macedonia reaches Kosovo? Next day you will tell me it reaches Hungary or Finland. Macedonia was a relatively thin strip of land above Olympus (including this holy mountain) around the turn of the land. This land is known to have been in ethnical and cultural unity with the rest of the Aegean since culture began in these lands (we have 4000 B.C. What is so strange? These are all lands around the Aegean sea and these are really a very very very small corner of the world... simply you could not fit in there a lot of nations no matter you wished... Not only that but Macedonians were also the archetypal Greeks since it is established that Dorians and a part of Aeolians sprung directly from them (from the more ancient groupd of Makedni) - something that both ancient historians and modern ones agree.
3rd: Of course history and reality are little things in front of your people's wish (living in a small weak country) to conquer and expel the natural owners of these lands. You have tried once with your Bulgarian co-nationals (oh yes, the infamous "commitatzides" that wanted to revenge the Basil Bougarkiller by tearing out the eyes of the Macedonians (Greeks), they also teared out the tongue in case these people insisted to talk in Greek! Back then Bulgaria was your bread and butter. Then you tried with the Ottomans and Bulgarians (2nd Balcanic war) and the side of Germans. Then in the 2nd world war you tried it along with Nazi Germans and Bulgarians. When these did not do the job for you you turned to communist Tito who became your best ally. All to achieve your dream of conquering the land of real Macedonia, reach the Aegean and throw out the natural owners of the place, the real Macedonians, the Greeks.
Tell me... what you Slavic people will do in the Aegean? Play the "Mediterraneans"? Rename Olympus to make the world forget the Greekness of this place? Name Thessaloniki Bardarska? Call people from everywhere else to populate the place and next day call them "local people"? Cos that is what Bulgarians were doing in the past (2nd world war).
The most disgusting thing is that you, someone full of hatefull propaganda and full of wishes for war and reshaping of borders (you cannot even hide all that in your as-if "for peace" speeches...) in the most disgusting manner dare accuse others of being. If for one reason your country resembles today to be stable that is only thanks to the aid from Greece that really feels sorry for you and do not want to just let you be divided between Albania and Bulgaria (that would be the natural outcome). You should at least say a thank you for not being let to starve (see Americans will only exploit you, they will not come to you aid when you will not be in use for their games).Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 15
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 2nd May 2008
And since you mention some recent history in your effort to explain your positions let me make the list of the recent events:
To aid this list I will underline that the term Macedonia may apply only for the land that reaches from the Aegean coast up to maximum an extremely thin strip of land within your FYROMian country, i.e. between Monastiri and Gevgeli.
1821:
Greek revolution. Like in all other times, Macedonia is of the first Greek lands to join the Greek national struggle despite being in the forefront and doomed to fail since Thessaloniki was actually the center of the Ottoman army in Europe! Macedonian fighters fight all over the place and when they lose, amazing reprisals start as usual by the side of Ottomans and a large number of them along with families descend to southern Greece and to the islands to continue the struggle. The famous battle of Chios (the one painted by the famous painter Delacroix) was fought mainly by Macedonians.
Bulgarians kept of course out of this struggle - these are the only Balcanic people that had never revolted against the Ottomans (even Albanians had revolted against them) till the time of its disintegration in the late 19th century.
1830:
When a small Greek independent state is created in the south a large number of Macedonians descend choosing to aband their home for freedom. It is needless to say that the creation of this little state in the south made the life of Greeks elsewhere really difficult. Especially in tightly controlled Macedonia that was an understatement. During the rest of the 19th century Macedonia saw a continuous reduction of the number of Greeks and Ottomans sought to cover that 'hole' with an influx of fresh Bulgarian people from the north that came down as financial immigrants.
It is true that Bulgarian talking people habiteted previously in Macedonia. In small numbers compared to the Greeks and even to other populations! Like the rest of Bulgarians in the north they were in a dormant condition without any ethnic consciousness other than "being christian". The fact that they were "quiet" made them popular among the Ottomans in contrast with the proud Greeks that made the one rebellion after the other. Naturally when in other parts of Greece, Greeks pretended to be even muslims to avoid persecution, at the aftermath of consecutive destructions in Macedonia it became a habit even among illiterate Greeks to adopt Bulgarian dialects and cloths to avoid the "bad eye" of the Ottomans.
1870:
The re-birth of the Bulgarian nation forwarded also by the interests of Russia, France (and partially a new Germany). Back then Russia saw them as their slavic brothers, France saw them as a new opportunity to the area since Greeks were deemed politically too close to the English (despite the imposed-by-all false-royal German/Danish family).
1880:
Bulgaria achieves autonomy at the aftermath of some Ottoman slaughter that made the news around the world (that was not as large as Bulgarians want to believe - at least if we compare it to what happened to Greeks or to Armenians...). This is around the same that Bulgarians realise that the international political environment could aid them to expand more than they could initially imagine including Macedonia, i.e. achieving access to the Aegean that they never ever had in their (arguably long) history.
This is the first time the term Macedonia is used to describe a really huge area from Olympus even up to north of Kosovo...!!!! And the writers of this false theory were Bulgarians supported by Russians and French. The English would not mind much as the false naming of this elarged area that included the most differentiated lands and people under one common name meant a lot of gepolitical trouble between the people, thus a chance to intervene. There was so much interest in France to show this region as "non Greek" and as a melting pot that even chefs named their salads after it (the salad Macedoine) - a very offensive statement to all real Macedonians. Naturally if you call France all the lands up to China then you can intitle name your MacDonalt salad "France".
Still though NOBODY talks about Macedonians in any other way than geographical: hence people even in this enlarged area can be either Greek, Bulgarian, Serbia, Albanian, Jewish, gipsy or Ottoman. But none sees any "Macedonian ethnic group".
It is noteworthy that all this time the Greeks outside Macedonia are largely ignorant of the extend of the games that are being played. The powerless little state of Greece afterall could hardly annex Thessalia in its lands and could not get activated for more struggle. The "greek propaganda was nowhere to be seen". However Bulgarian propaganda is everywhere and agents and spies criss-cross the lands to activate the Bulgarian element in Macedonia (the real), an element that mostly had been recent financial immigrants.
1890:
Bulgaria passes on to hard action. The "commitatzides" (bulgarian agents) had average success in Macedonia. They still find "too many Greeks" in the region and even a part of the Bulgarian talking populations refuses to call itself anything else than Greek. Bulgarians not being able to undestand that these people were Greek that simply due to a combination of Ottoman suppression, absence of schools, continuous contact with Slavic people had adopted Bulgarian dialects (albeit with tons of Greek additions) call them "Greekomaniancs" and pass to the offensive. Up to then only few schools in the region (even up to largely Bulgarian lands like northern FUROM) were Greek and that not because any Greek state paid for them but it was the local people, the real Macedonians that paid for them. Hence Bulgarians needed not only open their own schools for the Bulgarian talking populations but also make sure to close the Greek ones. The problem for them is that a significant number of the local minority Bulgarian talking populations refused to send their children to Bulgarian schools saying they were Greeks and that they accidentally spoke Bulgarian and that they had nothing to do with them and that if they were to send their children to school that should be Greek ones. Bulgarians mad with these "Greekomaniacs" (well since they were Greeks!) started armed attacks against towns and villages killing those that stood, tearing eyes and tongues of teachers and priests partly in a way to revenge the ancient story of Basilius the Bulgaroktonos (1012 A.D.) and partly to set an example. It is noteworhty that still at the turn of the century the "Greek state" is nowhere to be seen (where was the Greek propaganda?) and Greeks of Macedonia were left alone to face the Bulgarian cruelty. Ottomans despite being recently dissapointed by the "traditionally quiet Bulgarians" in fact liked all that cause "it kept the dangerous Greeks down". Afterall it could be only Greeks that could claim Konstantinople, not the Bulgarians ins't it? Thus if Bulgarians took more space in Macedonia then let it be!
1903:
The false revolt of Iliden (in Bulgarian "Prophet Elias day". Bulgarians disappointed with the lukewarm results of their efforts in Macedonia (always talking about the real not about the Bulgarian concept of Macedonia) try another plan. Planned in Sofia and carried out by their commitatzides they organised a revolt agains the Ottomans termed not of course "Bulgarian revolt" but "christian revolt". Of course the trap was that all christians and that meant mainly the Greek populations would be then grouped as Bulgarians in the region. Greeks always wanted to throw out the Ottomans but not under any Bulgarian flag thus the few that were fooled in when they realised the trap quickly they withdrew. The false revolution thus naturally did last to see many days. However it gave another excellent opportunity to the Ottomans to make generalised genocide agains the Greeks (for Ottomans it was always the Greeks the guilty ones). 100s of Greek villages passed by the fire, 10000s of massacred and a mass expulsion of Greek populations from the region.
Nontheless, the whole issue started an outcry by the side of Greeks who demanded some basic justice. Under that light even Ottomans realised that they had used Greeks as scapegoats in a far-fetched case. Also they had all these French, English, Russian agents flying all over the place so it was hightime they made some survey in their own lands to see what % had all the populations that lived in the region.
The Ottoman census of 1903 (same year just after the slaughers after the Iliden false revolution) was carried out under this light. However, the target of Ottomans was to show that the region was largely multinational and that no-one could ever make a claim.
Hence to do the census they:
1) They included "vilayet" (ottoman administrative regions - nothing to do with the regions) both in Macedonia as in the Bulgarian north (modern FYROM and Bulgaria) up to Kosovo.
2) They were determined to make apparent even the most small minorities of the area... numbering a couple of 1000 souls (like... gispy-subgroups like the "Aromouni")
2) They decided to term as "Greek" only those that spoke "only Greek". People that were bilingual in Greek and Bulgarian were instantly termed as Bulgarian together with those that spoke only Bulgarian
3) People like the Vlachs who despite their latin language termed themselves as nothing else than Greek were not termed as Greek but as Vlachs.
4) The number of muslim populations had also to be somehow inflated to increase the "salad mix".
5) Villages in Macedonia that were up in the mountains were not even asked, thus not included in the survey. Of course it was only Greek villages as Bulgarians being mainly financial immigrants of the late 19th century concentrated in the agricultural low plains. It is needless to say that the largest part of Macedonia are mountains.
... as a 6th basic point one has to add also the fact that for the last 5 decades the Greeks were fleeing the region and that the very same year 1 massacre of Greeks had just been carried out and that 1) a lot of Greeks were killed, a lot more displaced and a lot more were fearfull to declare Greek thus would rather spell one two words in Bulgarian and "play the Slav".
Well the amazing results of the survey after all these points playing in favour of Bulgarians and against Greeks?
From Macedonia up to... Kosovo... you had numbers like the following:
Greeks: 600,000
Bulgarians 300,000
Muslims 200,000
and a long list of other small groups...
I do need to say that the real numbers were vastly different in favour of Greeks of course... and guess what could be the reality had the events of the 19th century been different.
The truth is that by the time of this survey was made the Greeks in Macedonia were fully conscious of the gales played and decided to take up to battle the Bulgarians (since Ottomans did not care much to set up an example).
And that is the Macedonian struggle. It broke out not of any Greek propaganda but out of local people. It is striking that the only southern Greek was Pavlos Melas an army officer that withdrew from the army to join forces with the Greek resistance groups and who was killed soon by the Ottomans (Bulgarians showed them where he hid). There was no intermingling from Greece, absolutely not official and needless to say minimum or non-existing unofficial something that even modern day Macedonians hold to the southern Greeks who often were lukewarm in helping other Greeks out of their little corner (apart Cretans who always fought hard for the Greek cause and who back then were also under the Ottoman Empire).
1912:
The first Balcanic war starts Initially as a combined action of christian nations of the area to kick out the Ottomans (some centuries due then!). But everyone knew that the whole game would be soon played between Greece and Bulgaria and the tension always lied beneath. During this time, the Greek troops liberate Thessaloniki and all Macedonia except Monastiri while Bulgarians go down to Greek Thrace (needless to say what happened there with the local Greeks...).
1913:
Not much later, i.e. next year, the 2nd Balcan war happens and this time Bulgaria is ... on the side of Ottomans in a desperate effort to keep Greek Thrace and extend to Macedonia. They fail.
After the end of the 2nd Balcan war, same year 1913, Greece and Bulgaria exchanged their nationals, apart a very small number of Greeks that remained in Bulgaria and some 80,000 Bulgarian dialect speaking Slavophones in Macedonia. However the same was not done for the case of Serbia that had just gone down to modern FYROM and for the first time they had borders with Greeks. What Serbia tried to do was to retain its Bulgarian nationals but to change their sirnames to sound more Serbian than Bulgarian and obliged their children to be taught Serbian at school.
It has also to be said that the Bulgarian talking people in Macedonia speaking Bulgarian were naturally seen in a negative eye by the Greeks understandably after all the crimes that Bulgarians had done in the area. However there was no recorded reprisal and the Slavic community survided nicely while Greek communities dissapeared in the Slavic north under more violent situations. The only thing that was not permitted to Slavophones was to have schools in their own language (where there any Greek Schools in Bulgaria or Serbia left for them to have Bulgarian schools in Greece?)
1914:
1st world war Bulgarians invade with German allies in Macedonia, Greeks fight them off (with English and French allies who anyway in reality were more of a trouble than of any big help). A part of Slavophones during this time emphasises their links with the Bulgarians of Serbia (i.e. modern FYROM) and collaborated with Bulgarians and Germans and thus that made the whole group even less popular among Greeks. Germans, Bulgarians and thus Bulgarian speaking populations in Macedonia failed as the WW turned agains them.
1918:
Surprisingly, no reprisals, no deaths and no massacres were ever recorded after the war. The Greeks had more troubles with the Turks and the post-WW English-ordered campaign of 1920 than to be occupied with a few marginal poor villages that preferred to call themselves Bulgarians (their choice, respected but back then in no way the Greek state, given what had happened earlier could allow bulgarian schools on Greek soil... unless England, France or USA had state German schools for the few thousand Germans that lived there!!!!).
1922:
After the genocide of Greeks in Minor Asia, a remaining 800,000 (out of the 3,000,000 million or more) moved in Greece. Most of them populate in Macedonia that is anyway the largest piece of land in the modern state of Greece. Bulgarian speaking citizens did not accept nicely the influx of more Greeks in the region. Afterall it had been only some less than 20 years back when their motherland Bulgaria fought and nearly achieved to conquer these lands and clear all the native Greeks from the area. Moreover they have the nerve under a dictatorship of Metaxas (that had successfully crashed even powerful opponent Greek political parties) to demand having schools in Bulgarian.
1930s
Oh yes cos we are now in the 1930s and these people are demanding tbeir "Bulgarian" schools, not any "Macedonian identity". They use still the term as a part of their Bulgarian identity. Of course Metaxas did not permit them (not that any democratic governement back then in such a war-climate would permit a handfull of people to use the states money to be taught in Bulgarian). There was some amount of persecution, but do not imagine huge massacres of billions of people that FYROMians are taught in their schools. The Metaxas regime was anyway equally harsh for Greek political opponents, it would not be a sweetheart to Bulgarian speaking and thus naturally constantly traitor citizens!!!
Up in Serbia (modern day FYROM) things were even worse for the Serbians that tried to suppress more the Bulgarians than what did the Greeks. Their endeavors to make Serbs out of the Bulgarians was really pathetic (despite the change of sirnames, language and schools) and it is deduced from the events that followed:
1940 - 2nd WW
War with Italy. Bulgarian speaking people of the by then 70,000 (some 10,000 had fled to Serbia and Bulgaria to escape Metaxas) naturally and understandably refused to fight for the country (not that anyone expected them to do so) but then going to the point of receiving the returning unarmed soldiers (walking on foot for 100kms from Epirus) after the German invasion with rifle bullets was too much.
It is highly intersting that as late as in 1941 when Hitler's army entered Skopje, there were thousands of Bulgarian flags there to greet them and the German army was welcome as liberators. Funnily even in 1941 THERE IS NO SIGN OF ANY EXISTENCE OF ANY MACEDONIAN NATION. King Boris of Bulgaria was received in 1942 in Skopje as a liberator and thousands of FYROMians took to the streets to celebrate. The Communist Part of Skopje left the C.P. of Yugoslavia and joined the Bulgarian Communist Party, and schools in Serbian ceased to be replaced by Bulgarian.
1945:
Nazis fail. Bulgarians (who did horrible crimes in Greece) fail and leave along with their Bulgarian emmigrants (the latter largely ashamed of what they saw their own folk doing there). Bulgarians of Bulgaria having failed so many times and being occupied with their internal strife between right wing and left wing fractions at last seem a bit more willing to forget their "national cause of reaching the Aegean and having Bulgarian ships travelling along that sea.
However in FYROM Bulgarians are about to see what they see as the "last chance". This time Jugoslavia is not ruled by a Serbian, but a Croacian communist called Tito who could care less about the ambitions of Serbians (in fact he chopped up Serbians to make the modern mess). He was aware of the failure of Serbians in "serbising" Bulgarians of FYROM and thus he sought another way to take them away from Bulgaria. In fact he saw an excellent opportunity to expand Jugoslavia even more south to Greece by renaming them Macedonians but this time not as Bulgarians but as a hypothetic separate as-if nation that should "rightfully" (in this distorted logic) occupy all of the Greek lands in the south. The use of the wider communist scope (that was waging on in Greece also) and since communism was "hyperthnic" meant that he could even rename Greek communists as Macedonians under this term and thus create chaos in Greece.
Needless to say that Bulgarians of FYROM juvilated at these news. First of all they had their Bulgarian language back, who cares Macedonian or not! Afterall that name could at last give them the chance to occupy the lands in the south, expel the native Greeks and take control of the port of lands (mainly the port) and exploit the benefits that follow. Hence, the whole false propaganda was largely accepted by the Bulgarian people of FYROMians while the part of Bulgarians that remained faithful to their nation was of course hunted down as "non communist". That was the power of communist propaganda.
In Greece, the 70,000 Bulgarian speaking community largely from a Nazi collaborator became a communist collaborator and actually along with their fellow FYROMian Bulgarians became the more than 60%-70% of communist guerillas fighting in Macedonia a fact that is not so well known today obviously for political reasons in the greek political scene).
However back in 1945 Macedonians did not even refer to communists as communists but referred to them as "commitatzides" or simply as Bulgarians!!!!
Once again, they lost their cause as Tito understood the failure of the war (after English told him also so... while in the beggining they did not mind much!!!) and retracted the mass of his FYROMian fighters and stopped all aid.
Hence by the end of the civil war another mass of 10,000 Bulgarian speaking people had already fled the country thus leaving a mere 60,000. As throughout Greece the hunting for communists has started and the most active of them were expulsed from the country, that meant that the rest of 60,000 were also expulsed along with them.
NOT FOR THEIR ETHNIC IDENTITY, NOT FOR HAVING REPEATEDLY BETRAYED THEIR COUNTRY, NOT FOR THEIR HORRIBLE CRIMES ALONG WITH NAZIS AND BULGARIANS AND COMMUNISTS... but
... but as a part of some 300,000 Greeks that were expulsed for being communist....
Alex... that is your shamefull story. You should bow your head and ask to be forgiven before asking for Greece money to feed your children then our names, our history and our lands.
Put it good to your mind. You will never become Greeks no matter you want it or not.Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 16
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 2nd May 2008
since you have a bit of difficulty to grasp the latter:
claiming to be Macedonian is like claiming to be Greek.
Thus you claim to be Greek but try also to claim that you are not Greek.
The truth is that you are Slavs, you are mostly Bulgarians. Your land is north of Macedonia and you have nothing to do with Macedonia.
Starting to ask back your 60,000 homes in Greece means that Greeks are entitled to ask 500,000 homes in Bulgaria, 300,000 in Albania, 1,000,000 in Roumania, 1,000,000 in Ukraine, 3,000,0000 in Turkey and of course some 200,000 homes with in your country.
Take the 200,000 all yours and even Monastiri (a nice Greek city in south FYROM) and shut up. You should be even happy to have gotten this.
End of story.
Rashbirashe bulgarski?Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 17
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 2nd May 2008
(the above is not at all aggressive... hehe! I just like to make fun of your combined ignorance-fanatiscism-aggressiveness!).
PS: Oh yes! Ottoman, Nazi, communist Bulgarian collaborators won't teach us humanity lessons. Sorry till the end of humanity! That is the same as when Turkey tried to do so. Absolute disgrace for the human race!Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 18
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 2nd May 2008
I do not know if I have to apologise for the copy paste that I did above (from older messages here and elsewhere)... I just wanted to have the longest ever message here. My homeland deserves this afterall! After all its a history channel and Macedonia apart from being Greek history IS part of the worlds' history, certainly not a part of history of people that came themselves and/or their culture from... Siberia.
Anyway people will not understand the amount of history lessons that people like Aleks need to realise the realities of their own accidental existence*.
And just in case you, Aleks, will start wondering what horrible crimes did FYROMian Bulgarians do in Greece I will only need to mention the "Arc of Zoe" in Sudan where the whole world was appaled to learn that they were trafficing 10-15 boys... wel FYROMians during the civil war in Greece had abducted about 20,000 Greek kids (known cases cos with the unknown the number might sharply rise). What happened to these Greek kids? Given to Bulgarian families or taught in Tito communist schools how the bad Greeks were and how they did not want them and throwed them out of Greece? Ha!
Are you or your father or any of your relatives coming from any of these kids Aleks perhaps? How wuold you know anyway? Tito would not tell you wuold he? Here he nearly convinced you that you Slavic people were Macedonians and your ancestors participated in the Olympics would he have a problem hiding 20,000 Greek stolen kids?
PS: Imagine that lately a high number of higher FYROMian officials do not hide it any more. On the one hand they come to terms with the reality of history, with the fact that they have nothing to do with ancient Macedonians nor with modern Macedonians and that they are Bulgarians. They enlist as Bulgarian citizens and not only for financial reasons (e.g. belonging to the EU) but for reasons of national identity as many of them go down in local elections as Bulgarians like any other. Prime example the ex. President of FYROM who is a proud Bulgarian citizen! What else can be said on that more?Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 19
Posted by Aleksandar_MKD (U2201635) on Wednesday, 7th May 2008
I must first apologize to the rest of the readers of this thread since this is an Ancient History msg board, but I have to elaborate the very recent 130-140 years that bring dividing and occupying of Macedonia and Macedonians. All that is follow is based on documents, reports and acts that are part of the European and USA archives and are completely free for publishing since they are more than 100 years old (these documents are already published by Macedonian historians and from some European and American historians that have anti-bias approach toward the Balkans).
The Macedonian question appeared in foreign relations in the 1870's during the great Eastern crisis when armed uprisings for liberation of the subdued peoples started in the Balkans. The uprisings in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1875, in Bulgaria in April 1876 and in Macedonia in 1876 raised the question of the further existence of the Ottoman Turkish Empire in Europe. Following its current policy for the Balkans, Russia opposed the policies of the great Western European powers to retain the integrity of the Ottoman state, guaranteed by the Treaty of Paris concluded on April 15th and supported the fight of the conquered nations for liberation and independence. The Russian political program devised several years before by counselor Gorchakov was announced at the end of I869 and included a solution to the Macedonian question. The Russian plans for the Balkans anticipated a direct involvement of Russia in the liberation of the Orthodox Christian peoples and creation of national states: independence and territorial expansion for Serbia and Montenegro (in their ethnic borders), establishment of two Bulgarian principalities (north and south of the Stara (eng = Old) mountain as counter-balance to the two Serbian principalities), and a separate, independent Macedonian principality.
The Macedonian question divided the interests of Austria-Hungary and Russia. The Austro-Hungarian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Count Abrashi, requested establishment of an autonomous Macedonian state in customs union with Austria-Hungary. Gorchakov in principle agreed to it, but it soon turned out that Russia could not accept it.
In 1876-77 an Ambassadors' Conference of the great European states was held in Constantinople. It was expected to reach a diplomatic solution to the problems of the conquered nations within the Ottoman state and thus prevent further escalation of the crisis. The USA, which did not have any special interests in Macedonia, initiated an appropriate inquiry and solution to the Macedonian question (Papers - Turkish Empire, 1876 - 1877). The American diplomacy in association with the American professors from the Robert College in Constantinople who were well-acquainted with the real situation, submitted to the Conference a proposition for the autonomy of Macedonia and Macedonians.
However, the Conference failed due to the opposing interests of the great powers. Russia changed its policy on Macedonia and abandoned the plans for creation of a Macedonian state and started working in favour of a greater Bulgarian state instead. This happened after the secret negotiations on the Balkans among Austria-Hungary, Russia and Germany in April 1878 when Austro-Hungarian diplomacy renewed the question of the creation of an autonomous Macedonian state, i.e. Macedonian principality, with General Radic as its governor. On that occasion the Russian representative, General Ignatiev, did not oppose that solution, but in May 1878 Russian diplomacy refused to clarify its view on the question or support the Macedonian demands for an independent state submitted in Constantinople to General Ignatiev by Dimitar Robev, a Macedonian representative in the Ottoman Parliament.
On July 13th, the International Treaty of Berlin (Art. 23), gave Macedonia a special autonomous status. The government of the Ottoman state was assigned to regulate the status of Macedonia and the other provinces with a separate. However, as there was no international control to observe the implementation of these resolutions or authorize sanctions for their non- implementation, the government in Constantinople did not fulfil its duties.
The Macedonian uprising from 1878-79 and the actions of "Edinstvo" ("Unity"), the Transitional Government of Macedonia (formed secretly at the meeting of the National Assembly held from May 21st to June 2nd 1880) renewed interest in the Macedonian question in the diplomatic circles of the Great European Powers. The Transitional Government sent an Appeal to the great powers accompanied by a Protocol of the National Assembly for liberation of Macedonia and its constitution as an independent state. Furthermore, on March 23rd 1881, it issued a Manifesto which was distributed among the diplomatic representatives in the Ottoman Turkish state.
Macedonia became an object of special interest in the relations between Russia, Austria-Hungary and Germany. The agreement on a secret alliance of the emperors of these three states signed in 1881 included a separate stipulation for the protection of Macedonia from a possible attack by Bulgaria (In The protocol of the Treaty Agreement, Die Grosse Politik der Europaeischen Kabinette 1871-1914, IV, Berlin, 1922, 178-9).
The beginning of the llinden uprising for national liberation of Macedonia in 1903, which the European diplomats called "The Macedonian revolution" (Die Mazedonische Revolution, Die Grosse Politik der Europaeischen Kabinette 1871-1914, IV, Berlin, 1922, 341) marked the Macedonian question as an acute one for European diplomacy. The uprising and the creation of the so-called Krushevo Republic proved that the Macedonians were ready to fight for their national freedom and the formation of their national state. At that time, the European powers were against the creation of a new state in the Balkans. European diplomacy had to intervene in order to calm the situation by proposing several projects for reforms among which were the Austro-Hungarian - Russian project known as the Murzsteg Reforms Programme and the British initiative that gave Macedonia a special status in its natural and ethnic borders. US diplomacy also became involved. The secretary of state and the USA president T. Roosevelt himself wrote to the British government acclaiming the British initiative for the autonomy of Macedonia and Macedonians. As regards the reforms in Macedonia, American diplomats in 1907 suggested strict control of their implementation by the mandatory powers.
In the beginning of March 1908 the government of Great Britain launched an initiative for the introduction of more radical reforms in Macedonia. Further Correspondence respecting proposals by His Majesty's Government for Reforms in Macedonia. Turkey, nr. 1/1908/, London, 1908). This initiative was readily accepted by Russia. The two state sovereigns (British and Russian) met in June 1908 in Reval (Tallinn) and adopted a new proposal for reforms as a preliminary phase towards full autonomy for Macedonia (ibid.). Nevertheless, this initiative did not take place due to the revolution of the Young Turks which declared and introduced a constitutional order and democratization of the Ottoman Turkish state.
However, the rule of the Young Turks with its Greater Ottoman politics stopped the process of further democratization and of a peaceful democratic solution to the Macedonian question within the Turkish state for which there existed the necessary conditions. It only led towards further deterioration of the situation which was used by the neighbouring Balkan states to interfere in the internal affairs of the Turkish state and to manifest openly their expansionist intentions.
Due to the worsening relations on the Balkans, in 1911 US diplomats undertook steps to influence the governments of the Balkan states to ease the tension and avoid the war they were preparing for, which could have led towards further involvement of the great powers in the solution of the eastern crisis. However, European diplomats showed no interest in preventing the military conflict on the Balkans. Moreover, they took part in its preparation governed by their original interests.
At the time of the Balkan Wars when Macedonia was occupied and partitioned by the neighbouring Balkan states which was confirmed by the Treaty of Bucharest of August 10th 1913, European diplomacy had its own interest in accepting the partitioning as such. This could well have been predicted as the European powers, divided into two opposite blocks, started hasty preparations for the forthcoming Great War.
Thus, the Macedonian question entered a new and extremely dangerous phase, not only for the future of the Macedonian nation, but for the peace on the Balkans and in Europe too. These fears soon came true with the beginning of the First World War.
At the end of the war the Macedonian question became a crucial problem in the negotiations and the plans for the post-war organization of Balkan relations. The high military and political circles of the Entente powers and the US diplomats considered the creation of an independent Macedonian state, under the protectorate of one of the great non-involved powers (having primarily in mind the USA) as an unbiased, just and permanent solution to the problem. The final aim of this idea was the establishment of radically new relations on the Balkans which would ensure permanent stability in that neuralgic region. Such a solution was also presented at the secret negotiations for separate peace between the powers of the Entente on the one side and Bulgaria on the other under the observance of the USA.
The interest in the Macedonian question was renewed yet again in the official diplomacy of the USA, with President W. Wilson's peace program. In the official American interpretation of the "14 items", the USA declared that they would support an objective and unbiased investigation of the problem (Documents of American history, Edited by Henry Stell Commander, seventh edition, II, New York, 1963, Doc. 423, The American Interpretation of the Fourteen Points, 142-3). An American expert group studied the Treaty of Bucharest of 1913 and concluded that it could not serve as a basis for a solution to the Balkan problems because that agreement was "an act of the corrupted Balkan bourgeoisies"(Foreign Relations of the United States - Paris Peace Conference, I, 50).
At the beginning of the Paris Peace Conference, twenty- five renowned intellectuals from different European countries, Great Britain and the USA signed a Memorandum on the Macedonian question and sent it to the President of the USA. They demanded the formation of an autonomous Macedonian state in its natural and ethnic borders, which in the south would stretch from the Lake of Kostur to the Vardar estuary, thus leaving the towns of Ber and Negrita and the Halkidiki Peninsula to Greece. Furthermore, it was suggested that in the beginning the autonomous Macedonian state be under the protectorate of one of the great powers, presumably the USA (The national Archives - Washington D.C., Microfilm Publication, Microcopy 820, Poll. 543, General record of the American Commission to negotiate Peace, 1918 - 19, vol. 517, Macedonia, F. W. 867 C 00/34, The Macedonian Question, Memorial to President Wilson). An unsigned Memorandum with identical contents was sent to Great Britain, too (PRO - FO 608/44).
The issue of the formation of a Macedonian state was the subject of an intense exchange of opinions and viewpoints among the members of the USA Peace Delegation, the American diplomatic representatives in the European states and the members of the American teams of experts. This was especially evident after the request of the Macedonians to be allowed a presence at the Paris Conference in order to present their demands.
C. Day, member of the team of experts for Balkan questions, informed A. Dulles in a letter about his numerous consultations with impartial experts on the Macedonian question who admitted the existence of problems arising from the issue, but were unanimously for the formation of an autonomous Macedonian state.
The envoy of the American President, his personal friend and an expert on European relations, Professor George Herron urged President W. Wilson and the American Peace Delegation to put the Macedonian question on the agenda of the Peace Conference, supporting the integrity and independence of Macedonia (Archive Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford, California. Macedonia. Doc. IV/26.V 1919, Herron ("Macedonia . . . integral and independent"). In a letter of May 26th to Colonel Haus, the leader of the American delegation and the most influential political figure after the President, Professor Herron wrote that the Macedonians were a separate nation, unified in their demands and wishes to form an independent state under the protectorate of the USA (Ibid., Doc. V/26.V 1919 George D. Herron to Colonel Haus ("The Macedonians . . . to be established as an independent state . . .")). Col. Haus himself supported "the cause of Macedonian freedom" (Ibid. Doc. XII/16. VIII 1919 G. Herron to Stowall, American Minister Berne (" . . . the cause of freedom Macedonians")).
Despite the favourable attitude of most of the USA representatives, the Macedonian question remained outside the agenda of the Peace Conference due to the categorical opposition of France and Great Britain who supported the aspirations of the Balkan Allies, Greece and Serbia (i.e. the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenians) to keep the occupied parts of Macedonia. At this point it is a must to note that France have formed special commission with only one task on its agenda: investigation of Macedonians wishes and the possibilities of forming an independent Macedonian state. The French representatives were stunned by the unity of the Macedonians in their demands in forming their own independent state Macedonia in their natural ethno-geographical borders. Beside the results of this investigation and the documents delivered to the French government including the final report in which the forming of independent Macedonian state is a must, the French government choose not to support the Macedonians in their rightful path.
At the Paris Peace Conference, when the peace terms were negotiated with the Balkan states, the Macedonian question was treated as a minority problem and discussed at the Committee for New States and the Protection of the Minorities. At its meeting on July 15th, 1919 the Italian delegation submitted a proposal for the autonomous status of Macedonia "within borders fixed by the Great Powers and their allies" with the highest possible degree of self-government, but within the borders of the new Kingdom of SCS (Recuel des Actes de la Conference, Paris, 1922, Vol. VII (Commission des Nouveau Etats), Paris, 1929, 175 - 8).
The meeting of July 18th discussed the stipulations which were to be introduced at the peace negotiations with the Balkan states concerning the protection of minorities. These stipulations also included the parts of the divided Macedonian people in the Balkan states, referred to as "Macedonians" (D.H. Miller, My Diary. At the Conference of Paris with Documents, New York, 1924, Vol. XIII, 291-2).
At the meeting of July 30th the Committee discussed the Italian proposal for the autonomy of Macedonia and the British proposal for the establishment of League of Nations control over Macedonia. As regards this, it was suggested that the League of Nations be authorized to send its representatives to Macedonia. The following meetings discussed the same proposals in a somewhat modified form. Due to the opposing views on the question, it remained open till the beginning of November 1919. The text of the Peace Agreement on minorities and the obligations of the government of the Kingdom of SCS for the protection of the rights of minorities were then finally formulated. On November 11th the Supreme Council accepted the proposed text of the document and obliged the government of the Kingdom of SCS to sign the agreement (ibid., 524).
The Committee for New States also prepared stipulations for protection of minorities in Greece where the Macedonian people were given minority status (NA -W. MP MC 820 GR ACNP Roll. 401, vol. 375, PPC 185.4132/24 Commission on New States, Draft Clauses concerning protection of Minorities in Greece). The Committee informed the Greek delegation about the draft-agreement for the protection of minorities and the stipulations included in it. The president of the Greek government and a leader of the peace delegation responded to this document issued by the Committee with a false statement that Greece had provided protection for the Albanian, Moslem and "Slav" (i.e. Macedonian) minorities (the latter referred to as "the Slav communities in Macedonia") and claimed that Greece was ready to accept the agreement. According to this, the president of Greece recognized the existence of a Macedonian minority (officially referred as "Slav" minority). The stipulations for the protection of minorities put Greece under an obligation to introduce minority languages in the state schools, but Venizelos resisted this and demanded reformulation of the decrees for the protection of minorities. At the meeting on September 18th the Supreme Council rejected all the Greek comments and on November 3rd ratified its agreement with Greece. (Resueil des Actes de la Conference., VII, 336).
Having imposed his plans for a reciprocal exchange of population between Greece and Bulgaria (NA _ W MP MC 820 GR ACNP Roll. 401, vol. 375. PPC 185.4134/5 Report of the Commission on the New States. Bulgarian Treaty: reciprocal and voluntarily emigration in Macedonia) the aim of which was only to conduct an ethnic cleansing of the occupied Aegean part of Macedonia with international approval, Venizelos presented himself as especially co-operative as regards the Agreement.
Accepting his demands, the Committee for New States formed a separate Sub-Committee which prepared ''special stipulations" for "voluntary emigration" of the citizens of these states during a period of four years after the effectuation of the Agreement (D. H. Miller, My Diary . . . XII, 312- 32). The Committee for New States only redefined this decree as an individual right for voluntary emigration, thus changing nothing essential in it. The suggestion of expanding these stipulations to refer to the Kingdom of SCS and Turkey was not accepted. The Committee prepared a separate convention for an exchange of citizens between Greece and Bulgaria on a voluntary basis. The Supreme Council approved of its text and obliged the Bulgarian delegation to sign it within 48 hours. The Bulgarian delegation signed the convention within the given period of notice (NA - W MP MC 820 GR ACNP Roll. 401 vol 375. PPC 185.4134/40 Convention entre la Grece et la Bulgarie a L ' emigracion reciproque. Signe a Neuilly sur Seine, le 27 novembre 1919).
The stipulations for the protection of minorities which also referred to parts of the Macedonian people were not respected by the Balkan states. The Macedonian people was subjected to very severe de-nationalization and assimilation. Greece applied such means of violent pressure that it forced a great part of the Macedonian population to accept "voluntary" emigration.
EPILOGUE:
Nikola, you are Macedonian as much as I'm Bulgarian or Serb or Greek.
Nikola, please note this: Greek children are still learning in their schools in Greece that their country is 100% populated with Greeks. You are educated in this way too. And it is very hard to accept the existence and consequently the presence of others, different in language, nationality and religion since you have never learned or heard of their history in Greece. The world today and European states too, are embracing the diversities in their countries. You my friend are way behind.
What you are going to achieve with this kind of bias standings is ruthless oppression of more than 2,5 million Greek citizens. There are more than: 600 000 Macedonians in the Agean part of Macedonia, 800 000 Albanians in Chemeria, 150 000 Vlavs in Epirus, and more than 1 million Turks in Thrace that are demanding their rights in Strasbourg. Macedonians have already won their battle in Strasbourg but not in Greece and Bulgaria too. When Greek state and Greeks are going to accept the minorities as Greek citizens that are different from them and have the same rights as Greeks do in Greece: to learn in their mother language, to express their nationality without any fear of oppression and fear of being blamed for it? Is Greece going toward a new "voluntary emigration" once again?
You my friend are too blinded to see the reality, that more than one third of the Greek citizens are not Greek in language, nationality and religion. They are different, they were and they will continue to be different than Greeks.
Since Greeks citizens were doomed (and still are) to learn that Greece is populated only with Greeks, and don't have even a slices knowledge about the true history of their country, it will be very difficult for Greeks to accept that their country expanded its territory in the last 95 years by occupying Aegean Macedonia (51% of ethno-geographical Macedonia), Thrace and Chemeria and that significant parts of neighbouring nations (Macedonians, Turks and Albanians) left in Greece. Sadly and shamefully, till today this non-Greeks were ruthless and brutally assimilated and "voluntary emigrated". When this is going to end Nikola? Do you really think that this is the way of Greeks being good neighbours?
To blackmail my country to change its name and my people to change its identity in order not to veto its membership in NATO and EU, just to justify the past sins of Greeks toward Macedonians is .... I can't find the right words.
Opposite to this schizophrenic, paranoiac and fascistic politic of Greece, in Macedonia, Serbia and partially in Albania the minorities are part of the Constitutional acts with full respect of their rights and they are fully integrated and incorporated on all levels (schools, police, army, courts). We my friend are strong in our differences, it is who we are. We accept and embrace the diversity in our societies, in our schools, in our mass media since Macedonia is not country populated only with Macedonians, never was and will never be.
When Greece and Bulgaria are going to become European countries in their standards toward minorities?
I truly hope it will happen soon. Sooner is better.
Best wishes from a Macedonian friend!Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 20
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 8th May 2008
Masks fall easily Aleks:
Of course I did not expect you to commend the Iliden pseudo-revolution and the consequent Ottoman census of 1903 that notes the existence of even the most marginal tiny groups but ignores the existence of a "macedonian" nation - a nation for which we have the first note only after 1945 when Tito called you so. Amazing but it surpasses your critical ability severely deteriorated by years of Yugoslav education!
However, you have expressed clearly what is the evident wish of your people: try in any way possible to steal other people's land using the most devious plans, the most disgusting lies possible, with the collaboration of the worst regimes and that ever surfaced on the face of the earth: Ottomans, Germano-Nazis, Commitate-Bulgarians, Tito-communists.... ouaou! That is an amazing collection of criminals you have collaborated with! Who knows who will be next? Americans (when these will be become even "badder" than they are know?).
You are not intersted in your own history. You are not at all interested in your Bulgarian language, in your customs... it seems that your reason of existence is to call Olympus your new Slavic home and you are ready to sell your souls to every "great power" that wants to play games in the region.
You are so much into your lies that you do not even realise the ridiculous of your sayings:
Where did you find 1 million Turks in Greece when even the Turkish do not speak more than 250,000 muslim minority (2/3 of which is the Pomaks that they are anything else but Turks!). Where did you find 600,000 Bulgaro-FYROMians in Greece? Wow? Where do they live these people? In some Greek island? Do they dance syrtaki also and eat feta cheese? Cos if they live in Macedonia they must be some "first-contact" people cos it happens that I live there for too many years since my birth and I know every inch of my land - nowhere saw all these people. The Macedonians happen to be the fiercest of Greeks, hence the existence of Bulgarians there would be more than obvious!
Where did you find 800,000 Albanians in Greece?
Albanians there can be 3,000,000 (i.e. the whole population of Albania) in Greece as practically every Albanian is a financial immigrant that moves in and out for work. How all these fit within the 20,000 tiny minority of Chamour Albanians, a relic of the Ottoman administration and of course fierce Nazi-collaborators like your people?
Instead of coming in a history channel to talk whatever go get some decent education first before trying to sell "demodé" tito-like propaganda.
Put it once and for all in your mind. Macedonia is a land that reaches till Monastiri (in Bulgarian it is called Vitola) which is nowadays only a border town with Greece a few kms from the borders. Yugoslavia by accident occupied it. That means that the 95% of your country is north of Macedonia. The 95% of your land had never anything to do with Macedonia, unless China can be India and so we can name China India (cos that is what you do).
In the late 19th century, the international deliberate generalisation of the Greek name "Macedonia" (for obvious geopolitical reasons) to include the most differentiated lands (like the land of Olumpus, Chalchidiki, Veroia, Argos, Vergina etc.) with the Bulgaro-slavic lands of the Vardar north, birthplace of the Bulgarian nation and ex. capital of Bulgarian king Symeon (perhaps that is why till today the Bulgarian capital is Sofia that is only so near FYROM)... all that farse meant that the name included artificially all land sometimes up to ... central Europe including the likes of Bulgaria, Serbia and so on...
That ridiculous geographical error was only employed by a foreigner, Tito, a Croacian communist that wanted to steal lands from Greece to give Yugoslavia an access to the Aegean and it was ONLY THEN that your Bulgarian-originated people jumped on the surf of "macedonia". It was only then that your historians started all that mumbo-jumbo, it was only then that your "specialists" took the tools to scratch every Greek writing that was written in the ancient ruins (obviously anything written that is older than 100 years in the south of your country was Greek!).
At some point you should really wake up Aleksander. Wake up boy...Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 21
Posted by Aleksandar_MKD (U2201635) on Friday, 6th June 2008
Nikola,
Since you have nothing to comment to my previous posts, before post my comment on Antics about the Macedonian language and ethnos I'll make one more post on Macedonian rebirth in the late 19-th century and its struggle for independent state till 1944.
In the first half of the 19-th century Macedonians were not united because of the assimilatory character of the so called "milet" system in the Ottoman empire. The Greeks (the Phanariotes) were the only Christians that were allowed to literally rule over the other Christian population in the empire. In their hands were the Orthodox Church, the trade relations with other Christian part of the world and the administration part of the empire where Greeks were appointed to govern the Christian population in the whole Ottoman empire. Greek clerks, administration and traders start to brutally assimilate the other Christian people that were non-Greeks, something that even the Ottomans haven't done in the past centuries. This result in rebellion behavior at the start from others non-Greeks and lately ended with establishing of Bulgarian and Serbian Orthodox Church. At that point Macedonians managed only to establish liturgy into Macedonian in several Macedonian cities: Voden, Kukush, Lerin, Ber (all 4 today in Greece), Monastir (in nowdays Bitola in Macedonia) and others. The reason was the big majority of Macedonians in these cities and their surroundings. The same reason that the clerks from this cities writed and send it in a letter to the Sultan and the Tzarigrad Patriarchy. Beside the fact that all this clerks demand liturgy only into Macedonian (not into Bulgarian) the Tzarigrad Patriarchy held an assembly to throw an anathema toward this clerks in order to prosecute them and send the majority of them in to jail. New Greek clerks were apointed in the Churches and monastires and in order to assimilate the Macedonians into Greeks, new Greek schools were opened.
Because of this the situation of denationalization and assimilation of the Macedonians become more and more intense. The Macedonians started to declare them selves as Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbs. The Macedonian people become divided. At the start only small minority of the Macedonians accept the neighboring propaganda, but in time Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian propaganda and assimilation gave their results. Macedonians become half of what they were.
In 1875 the Macedonians rise for their freedom. The rise started in Kresna. They wrote an Constitutional act where the Macedonians of Christian and Muslim religion were the foundations of the modern Macedonian state. Macedonian language was proclaimed as an official one and all other ethnicities were made equal to Macedonians. The Kresna rise failed in 1879 mostly because the lack of support from the European powers at the time.
At that time The Macedonian rebirth movement was at its peak. Many Macedonians start to unite around one single idea: free and independent Macedonia. Several of them start to codify the Macedonian language and grammar separate from Serbian and Bulgarian ones. Many publications and newspapers were printed in order to awake the long-slipped Macedonians. Since all this prints were made into Macedonian, their mother language, understandable for all the Macedonians, their Macedonian rebirth was unstoppable. They continued their strugle for freedom and independence till 1944 when the first Macedonian state was established. I dont want to elaborate all the Macedonians risings since Karposh rising in 1689 (Leopold him self declared the suport for Macedonia and Macedonians, shame on him?) till Ilinden rising in 1903. But, regardless the Macedonian struggle for freedom, the European powers in 1913 divided Macedonia and Macedonians into four parts, one for each neighbor.
The intelectuals from the international community didn't accept the division as a solution for the Macedonians. Many letters were sended to soport the establishing of free Macedonian state, but at the end we all now what happened, didn't we Nikola?
Please don't mind me fo copy-paste this quote:
From La Macédoine et les Macédoniens, by Edmond Bouchié de Belle [E.B.de Belle], published in Paris (Librairie Armand Colin), 1922, completed in 1918. Translated from the French by Stavros N. Karageorgis C.Phil. Sociology UCLA. Original pages: 40-44.
Part I: Macedonia and the Macedonians Chapter 1: The disputed race: The Macedonian peasant
1- The Macedonian nationality
In the entire countryside of Macedonia, one finds a race of peasants, speaking a Slavonic dialect, of Greek Orthodox religion, which presents most of the ethnic outward signs customary of the Slav peoples. These poor people have the unenviable privilege of being claimed by three different nationalities. - "The Macedonians", say the Bulgarians, "are Bulgarians. They have such a language and such a heart. It was the entire Christendom of European Turkey which comprised the 'Great Bulgaria' created by the Treaty of San Stefano. It is under the Bulgarian name that the victims of the Treaty of Berlin fought against the Turkish yoke". -"The Macedonians are Serbs", replies an equally ardent voice. "It is all of Macedonia which included the Empire of Dussan the Great. It is the Serbian name which the literature and monuments that traversed the Ottoman domination invoke. The Macedonian language is not Bulgarian, as the mal-intentioned ignorants say, it is old Serbian, Serbian arrested in its development. Moreover, have you ever seen Bulgarians celebrating the Slava? Yet, the Macedonians do celebrate it." Now come the Greeks who declare the Macedonians, if not Hellenes by origin, or even by language, at least hellenised by culture. "It is not blood," they say, "but the spirit which creates a race. The barbarian Slavs who conquered Macedonia were organized, and provided with law and order, by the Greek Empire, converted by the Greek Church. We can speak of them as Greeks the same way we speak of the French as Latin. The Macedonians would not have their own ethnic character except for the fact that the dispute of which they are the object had given them one, at least provisionally. One should not perhaps, in fact, take on-the-field part in the quarrel, but at least one fact is undeniable; that is, these people exist, and that one had better attribute a name to them. Being a 'contested people' forms, in sum, an international status equivalent to that of 'contested territory'. But, an observer of good faith will go a bit further. He will state easily that if the Macedonian has a lot in common with the Slavs of the Balkans, he has absolutely nothing in common with the Hellene. What's more, if by some customs, worship, and language traits he resembles a Bulgarian, by others, he resembles the Serb, and is not identified exactly either with the one or with the other. Besides, that which makes a Bulgarian, a Serb, a Greek is, more than any ethnic or linguistic particularity, the conscience he has of his nationality and his participation in an organized national life. Yet, the people in question distinguishes itself from the three other peoples by the fact that it has neither national conscience nor national life. Ask a peasant from around Ostrovo or Monastir what/who he is! He will, nine times out of ten, reply 'Makedon'. But, this declaration does not at all have the character of a profession of patriotic faith. The questioned may equally simply have answered by "My name is Dimitri'. He states that he is an inhabitant of Macedonia, and that's all. An observer of good faith will therefore set apart this population as that to which the name "Macedonian Slavs" or simply 'Macedonians' appeared to suit them best.
Some quotes do speaks for them selves (another anti-Greek propaganda isn't it Nokola?)!
Now lets elaborate the most painful question for the Greeks and why still, even today "there are no Macedonians" in Greece and in the world at all ( :
)))))))) ):
After Greece was occupied in WWII several military organizations were established in Aegean Macedonia. Some were on the fascist side others were against the fascist. Now, you can freely check the documents published on this organizations and you can see that no Macedonian organisation ever been on the side of the fascist, as for the Greeks...
At that point only the Communist party of Greece had (CPG) sympathies for the non-Greeks in Greece and consequently in Aegean Macedonia. Seeing the reality Macedonians formed its own organisation NOF (People Front for Liberation) that start the liberation of Aegean Macedonia. Small number of Macedonians left behind in CPG still hoping that after the vicotry Greeks will give all the rights to the Macedonians but into Greece. Two strains were established: the minimalistic and the maximalistic. The minimalists were fight for Greece where Macedonians will have their ethnic, cultural and lingual autonomy. The maximalists were fight for Macedonia, one and united. The first remain under the CPG. The second conected with the maximalists in Serbia and Bulgaria. Macedonian books and newspapers were printed and Macedonians started their schools into Macedonin. When CPG bacome aware of the real potential of the People (Macedonian or "Slavic-Macedonian" by the Greeks) Liberation Front and the real risk of loosing Aegean Macedonia CPG demanded its dissemblance. But it was too late. Macedonians already were governing the Aegean Macedonia for the first time. After the WWII Britain stared operation for establishing Democratic governance in Greece. At that time the PLF (or NOF into Macedonian) united with DAG (Democratic Army of Greece). Because the Macedonians didn't succeeded in uniting in one Communistic party (the orders of the International Communist Comminterne for the Macedonian communists to stay under Serbian, Bulgarian and Greek Communist Parties) PLF accepted the minimalistic strain - Autonomy for the Macedonians in Greece. But lately, When DAG started to loose its positions, in order to maximilize the mobilization in Aegean Macedonia declare that the maximalistic strain will be enforced, i.e. the right of Macedonians to self-determination till forming its own state. What happened was the biggest genocide for the Macedonians ever! DAG started to loose the cities one by one supported by the British and USA Armies and Navies. Macedonians cities and villages in Aegean Macedonia were bombed to ground by the British and USA air forces, while the Greek army on the ground was literally killing and expelling the Macedonians from their homes in order to solve the Macedonian question in Aegean Macedonia once for all times. After DAG lost its last battle on Gramos, all DAG soldiers and local people (Macedonians) were expelled into Albania (since SFRY already closed the borders against Greece).
Today, the reality is that beside all the efforts of Metaxas and all exodus of the Macedonians from Aegean Macedonia, there are still living Macedonians that haven't been stopped to declare them selves as Macedonians since the Tzarigrad Patriarchy had arrested all the Macedonian clerks. Even more since general Picolomini and King Leopold declared their support toward Macedonians and Macedonia for their liberation back in 1689. Even more..., should I go back some more?
My dear Nikola, Macedonians are no more majority in Aegean Macedonia. They are now minority and as all minorities in Europe they demand Greece to establish full respect toward their ethnic cultural and lingual rights as minorities. Nothing more. Why Geeks like you are so scared so much from respecting European values in their own country? After a century of exodus of the Macedonians from Aegean Macedonia, there a no Macedonians left that will demand any maximalistic rights. Don't be worry. Aegean Macedonia will remain Greek for all times. There are no reason any more for continuing the denationalization and assimilation politic toward the Macedonians from the 19-th century noi in EU, in the 21 century.
Wake up!
PS.
Since there are toooooo many links on Google that point out to written documents for Macedonia and how much Macedonia was "Greek" I'll live you with your nationalism, xenophobia and paranoia. Hope that you'll awake some day in the real world.
My next post on this tread will be on Rosetta stone and its revolutionary immense.Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 22
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 7th June 2008
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa it is very nice that you explain us that Aleksander (wrong pronunciation of this greek name anyway!):
It is exectly because Greeks are xenophibic that Slavic people like you hate them so much, want to steel their lands, kill them all and expel them from their homes.
Some nice humanitarian work there Aleks... nice!Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 23
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 7th June 2008
It is very difficult to expel people from their homes after you've killed them all, Nik. It is much easier if their legs are still working of their own volition. Even the Slavs would know that, I am sure.
Also, is there any excuse for a Greek person spelling "xenophobic" so wrongly?
There are time, Nik, I am nearly sure that you're not Greek at all but rather a Slavic imposter trying to destroy the credibility of the Greek people through "xenophibic" overkill on the 鶹Լ messageboards. The Slavic Intelligence Agency must be running out of ideas.Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 24
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 7th June 2008
generally I would not spend time correcting mistakes of words but like to spend time to correct false views. And the world it is full of them (not only in history issues), you being a nice example one too many times sorry to tell you that... cheers!
Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 25
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 7th June 2008
(oh yes, you did not seem commenting Aleks' views on Rosetta and his amazing reavealings... hehehe... the only thing you mind is this E-N-E that one too many times cannot counter-argue... sorry that is life, get on with it, change views, advance in your thinking!
Aleks, I am really interested to know where your fantasy will take us!Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 26
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 7th June 2008
Now I'm convinced of it. No self respecting Greek would compound the error of xenophobia with that of assumed infallibility, would he?
On second thoughts ...Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 27
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 8th June 2008
Now I am convinced of your incapability of recognising a single point in a text. Is it occasional or constant? Who on earth ever told you that I am xenophobic? Aleks? The one who has aspirations over other people's lands - strangely something you fail to see?
Get the facts right first then come back to the discussion.Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 28
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 8th June 2008
In anyway i am really expecting Aleks further comments on the Rosetta stone. I mean two years ago we had that Skopjan research (...in Spain, to give it an international flavour) that practically equated Greeks to Ethiopians (the similarities are obvious only to them!)... which was welcomed by the international community with laughter (perhaps apart Nordman... I mean I do not know, with all these views of yours you make me wondering!!!!).
The circus goes on and here we might have another formidable revelation that the Rosetta stone has Macedonian writtings on it.
Poor Aleks. We have enough of Macedonian writtings to tell us what language these spoke do not search for more. It is just that 99% of it is rejected by your historians for being from post-Philip's era, or related to local aristocracies (as-if hellenised), or from the Greek coloners to India and western China (yeah, Macedonians only went there, only Greeks coloners colonised - are you realising the kind of idiocy of all that?). We even have the development of the Macedonian language with the "katadesmos" of the later Roman times which makes a correct link with the earlier findings. Nothing else than a Dorian-silghtly Aeolian related dialect (no wonder: Dorian and Aeolian are off-springs).
First Aleks and once and for all you have to put it in your mind that Macedonia is a near-coastal area around the north-western Aegean, just north of Olympus. To put it in modern geography, Macedonia most northern points reached only a very thin strip of 10-20km within your country. That means that 95% of your country falls out of Macedonia, and no-strange back then was habitated by the fierce enemies of Macedonians: the Paionians and Dardanians.
Have you any info of Macedonians mass populating the Dardanian kingdom for example after Philip's conquest? It could be partially true as we find some Greek cities there but then strangely... everything found in your country was written in Greek!!! No strange. Macedonians had written it!!! Haha!!! It is known that it took a lot of effort to your archailogists to scratch off the writtings!Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 29
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 8th June 2008
Who on earth ever told you that I am xenophobic?
Ok, here's a dare E_Nik. Try writing your next five thousand words on the 鶹Լ messageboards (about three posts, I imagine) without once mentioning Greece, let alone how great it is / was / and always shall be, for ever and ever.Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 30
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Sunday, 8th June 2008
Amen
Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 31
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 9th June 2008
Hi Nordmann,
Ok, here's a dare E_Nik. Try writing your next five thousand words on the 鶹Լ messageboards (about three posts, I imagine) without once mentioning Greece, let alone how great it is / was / and always shall be, for ever and ever.
Never mind that - I'd like to see how far Nik can go before he starts frothing at the mouth with bile and hatred about how all the countries that border Greece aren't fit to kiss the soles of its 'embades',,,
Anyway, this argument between E_Nik and Aleksandar_MKD about who can lay claim to be the real descendants of the ancient Macedonians can be solved quite simply. We just need to measure their lack of height, love of silly headger and complete inability to hold their drink - the shortest, most ridiculously hatted and finally, most inebriated must surely be the real inheritor of Alexander the Grate.
Cheer,
RFLink to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 32
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 19th June 2008
This is a history channel. And since we talk about history we have to remain on the facts. None of you seems to be willing to do so. Not only that but not many of you seem willing to remain correct with the basics of geography (since when Macedonia included lands.
Some of you will have at some time to make the difference between history, facts and personal likes/dislikes. It is not "history's" problem if you do not like me. This is a history channel and we stick to the facts. If you want to express your dislike against me for general socialising. If anything, at least do not comment and show your inability to present any argument. From Aleks, a Tito's propaganda child I am not expecting any better but then from the rest I expect at least the basics.Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 33
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 19th June 2008
I nearly deleted to avoid re-talking but the truth cannot be hidden... take the whole phrase:
Comment on geography: "since when Macedonia included lands so far north and away from the Aegean, lands that saw the birth of the Bulgarian nation and hosted their capital from where Bulgarians raided repeatedly their enemies Greeks of Macedonia (the real one), lands that actually border with Serbia/Kosovo?Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 34
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 15th July 2008
Hi E_Nik,
This is a history channel. And since we talk about history we have to remain on the facts. None of you seems to be willing to do so. Not only that but not many of you seem willing to remain correct with the basics of geography (since when Macedonia included lands.
Some of you will have at some time to make the difference between history, facts and personal likes/dislikes. It is not "history's" problem if you do not like me. This is a history channel and we stick to the facts. If you want to express your dislike against me for general socialising. If anything, at least do not comment and show your inability to present any argument. From Aleks, a Tito's propaganda child I am not expecting any better but then from the rest I expect at least the basics.
I genuinely do like you - apart from your fine knowledge of the English language, you've got a sense of humour and come from the land where they wore funny hats and were ruled by that little guy with a drink problem. Trouble is that your posts often descend into rants against the countries that border Greece, which might I point out that apart from not being too neighbourly, isn't exactly 'history' either...
Cheers,
RFLink to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 35
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 22nd July 2008
Dear Rainbow, tell me now honestly:
When I say that Makedonia is a greek word for a greek tribe that also describes a greek land, a land that is around the north Aegean and not next to modern day Kosovo, northern Albania or Montenegro is it:
1) not historic?
2) not neighbourhly?
3) both?
When I say that FYROM is an articifial entity made up during an effort of communist Tito to annexe parts of Greece (in treacherous collaboration with some Greek communists also!) in 1945 and on the basis of Bulgarian speaking Slavs who in the beggining of the 20th century fought alongside Bulgarian commitates to expel the majority of the population that were Greeks from their lands in (real, that is around the Aegean and not any land next to Kosovo!) Macedonia and transform it in a part of Bulgaria
1) not historic?
2) not neighbourhly?
3) both?
When I say that Turkey is responsible for the genocide of overall 1,5 million Greeks, 1,5 million Armenians and 1 million Assyrochaldeans (not mentioning the equivalent numbers in refugees that fled in worst conditions) is it really:
1) not historic?
2) not neighbourhly?
3) perhaps both?
It is a known fact that international forces "in da hood" press many countries (including those in the Balkans obviously!) to shut up and not talk about certain things and take out from history books incriminating (for "some") details but here we try to make less of politics and more of history thus really I insist we have to remain to the facts.
Come on guys! If anything you learn a bit about real history at the end.
PS: I see no problem in writing comments on such issues regarding my region, I think it is 100% natural.Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 36
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 25th July 2008
Dear E_Nik, tell me now honestly:
When you say...
Take the 200,000 all yours and even Monastiri (a nice Greek city in south FYROM) and shut up. You should be even happy to have gotten this.
End of story.
...is it:
1) Not historic?
2) Not neighbourly?
3) Both?
When you say...
It is exectly because Greeks are xenophibic that Slavic people like you hate them so much, want to steel their lands, kill them all and expel them from their homes.
...is it:
1) Not historic?
2) Not neighbourly?
3) Both?
But when all is said and done, you do come out with some of the finest lines I've ever read, which will henceforth be known as "E_Nikicisms" in your honour. One of my favourites has to be:
If you do not find Mediterraneans very hairy well then you will find none very hairy at all.
eheheheheheheh....
Cheers,
RFLink to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 37
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 25th July 2008
For someone who knows the regional history, both statements of mine are very true and that is why I made them very explicit. Monastiri was a Greek city while there was a massive population habitating in FYROM that despite being bilingual was more aligned to Greece than to Bulgaria - much of the Greek population being in fact Vlachs (whose ver yown language is based on Latin). If anything at the turn of the 20th century and in the absence of any Greek propaganda in the area of FYROM (there was only Bulgarian one) the only local schools were Greek because the local population payed for them while Slavic people traditionally usually of lower social class remained illiterate. Do not forget that even in Bulgaria a large part even of ethnic Bulgarians went to Greek schools hence the numbers for the Greek presence in Bulgaria ranges from a minimum 500,000 that Bulgarians give to a maximum 1 million the Greeks give. However even Bulgarians recognise that a massive number of their cities - currently major Bulgarian cities, were Greek (Purgos, Sozopoli, Philippoupoli etc.). In anyway and since it was local people that paid for these schools, there was there a healthy and massive Greek element in both Bulgaria and FYROM which back then was no more than border lands between Bulgaria and Greece (i.e. there lived mainly Bulgarians and then quite many Greeks - of course others too like Albanians or Turkish but then nobody had noted the existence of any... Macedonian back then... only some 80-100 years ago!!!!).
However, the more I am getting into details the more embarassing it will be for our friend Alexander here (no matter if I am talking harshly to him I always wish him well). And you know I am an amateur of history ancient and modern - and here I will not talk about ancient Macedonia, the land of Olympus, a land that not only had been the birthplace of the Greek nation, not only provided the greatest power out of all Greek states, not only sent the Greek language up to India and China, but also had been at the center of all Greek civilisation since 300 B.C. till today and not any "marginal area" where "grey lines" exist that can give rise to aspirations from Slavs or others as Bulgarians like to say).
So will speak only about modern history. I have never tried to hide things such as the increased presence of Bulgarians and Bulgarian talking populations in Macedonia (that is not FYROM but the stripe of land around north Aegean that coincides almost exactly to the department of Macedonia of modern Greece). These Bulgarian-affiliated populations - some 100,000 in number - were as a percentage within Macedonia (and not including the rest of the departments of Greece), were less than the percentage of Greeks throughout the whole of Bulgaria! Imagine! Still they were used by Bulgarians to claim the whole of Macedonia (cos it was Bulgarians that first tried to falsify papers and history - so Tito was not the first, he had a basis to start!) and that is why you had the wars before the Balkan wars.
It goes without saying that during the guerilla wars, Balkan wars and WWI and since the Greeks liberated Macedonia, the position of those 100,000 Bulgarian-affiliated people living in Macedonia was very sensitive - these people no matter if they actively supported the Bulgarian raids in Macedonia or not were seen as the finger of Bulgaria in Greece. One will mention "nationalism" but not only it is true that Greek nationalism was the least violent out of all Balkan nationalisms (produced absolutelty no worthmentioning crime), then one has to keep in mind that Bulgarian raids had at times surpassed even the inhuman levels of Ottomans (eyes out, ears out, tongues out, burnings etc. - perhaps you know about the old story of Basilious in the 11th century A.D. well...).
Hence indeed Slavs in Macedonia had some hard time. And that is what Alexander here tries to tell us. However, he forgets that Greeks in Bulgaria (and his own FYROM) had simply to leave the country, become fully-Bulgarians or die (the first option was the most prominent of course)... at least the Slavs had been allowed to live in Macedonia despite of what had happened without much fear of their lives and without any harsh measure to make them Greeks... the proof is that "they had the nerve" (back then it was like that) to demand opening state-run schools in Bulgarian some 10 years after the Bulgarian slaughters which was of course not allowed. If anything, a highly oppressed people would not even think of schools in their language let alone demand public-paid schools in their language. In modern terms (for you to get the point) it would be the equivalent of moderate-Arabs, proud members of AL-Kaida living in US and publicly demanding Bush to open and pay Sharia-muslim schools in Texas (add also to that hypothesis that Mexico is fanatically muslim to get the full picture! hehe!).
I wonder if in Bulgaria-FYROM Greeks had really the same capacity to fo forward and make demands! If anything they had not even the right to talk within their homes in Greek, let alone demand the recognition of Greek as any official language. It is also strange that Pomaks in Thrace (muslim, bulgarophone) suffered no such "oppression" - for the simple fact that they had not co-operated with Bulgarians (despite living next to the borders) and posed no danger.
The funny thing is that the 100,000 Slavs started migrating (following a wave that anyway touched all Greeks in Greece) hence by 1940 there were there some 60,000 left who co-operated with Italians and Germans and a bit later with communist i.e. with all the enemies possible that could pass from Greece! However, the last was their fatal mistake as Greece dived into the civil war: at the end 350,000 Greek communists were expelled from Greece and natually among them the majority of the 60,000 Slavophones (some 40,000 people). There remained some 20,000 living practically in 2-3 villages for the simple reason they had not co-operated much with communists.
There is nothing in the above to impose that Greeks even in times of high-spirits and nationalism did anything to expel Slavophones on the national basis... they were expelled on political basis following a much more massive wave of expelled Greek populations!
Small letters for most FYROMians as they distort even that reality saying that Greeks ethnically cleansed the area and blah blah... My advice is that they should first short themselves out, go get some decent education and then come out and talk such... What else can we say?Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 38
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 25th July 2008
You owe me a fiver, Nik. Remember our deal?
Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 39
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Friday, 25th July 2008
Yawn...!
Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 40
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 25th July 2008
Stoggler gave a big yawn, and settled down to sleep.
And of course when Stoggler goes to sleep, all his friends go to sleep too.
The E_Nik were ornaments on the Greek-organ
Brewster and Hilda were just dolls,
And Professor Nordmann was a carved wooden bookend in the shape of a woodpecker.
Even Stoggler himself once he was asleep was just an old, saggy cloth cat,
Baggy, and a bit loose at the seams,
But Emily loved himLink to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 41
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Friday, 25th July 2008
Although my yawn might be more to do with the beery lunch I had rather than another long post from E Nik...Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 42
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 28th July 2008
Well these are areas of modern history you largely ignore and somehow do not interst you much. You are not also supposed to take a clear position favouring the one or the other, I am not expecting you so. However, I would like people that would wish to commend to know at least the basics of history and geography. As simple as that.
Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 43
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 28th July 2008
You don't suspect the "yawn" might have been directed against the over-lengthy and tedious style of your prose, Nik, and not the subject matter?
You do let yourself off lightly, don't you.
Another problem you have is that you blur the distinction between what are, in effect, two different debates about two very different stages in history. The modern era, in which post-war politics has played a huge role in defining artificial ethnic boundaries in a region where centuries of political Ottoman domination had already rendered them fluid and vague, is one that you seem on sure ground when you posit your views.
The debate concerning how Macedonia was perceived contemporarily in the ancient era is not well served however by juxtaposition or confusion with more modern wrangling, or through your incessant desire to over-estimate the cultural and political cohesion and continuity between the inhabitants of the hellenic world at the time of Alexander the Great and today's.
Your debating style works against you, as does your hellenocentric view of everything. Should you take a pause to reflect the purpose of public debate you might care to consider making your posts shorter, keeping them relevant, and most of all getting them to reflect the obvious enthusiasm you have for your subject through a style that renders them equally interesting for your dwindling readership.
You can send the tenner to me in drachma - I miss them too.Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 44
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 28th July 2008
Either you want it or nt this is a debate named under the term Macedonia thus intrinsically bound with the Greek history and I am Greek thus you cannot accuse me of anything aprt from being boring... I like lengthy analysis, if it is boring well let it be. Trying to counter argue with my arguments would be more interesting.
Past and present are bound intrinsically and if you deny it then you certainly are on some other political agenda as dear uncle Tito was. Claiming that there is an "over-estimation of the cultural and political cohesion and continuity between the inhabitants of the hellenic world at the time of Alexander the Great and today's" is not exactly my case as I would not argue much about something that is so obvious to everyone knowledgeable but also non-knowledgeable.
This is no issue here, the issue is very modern and very bound with current gepolitics that you are far from "capturing". The fact here is that there is a fossil of Tito's politics based on late 19th slavic expansionism (mainly Bulgarian, later Yugoslavian and communist), that also contains a 40% Albanian minority that I wonder how can they see it as a minority - hence becoming the perfect button for the likes of US or whoever else to control the region.
Let me give you a nice example:
Say Greece and Bulgaria sign for a gaz-pipeline that connects them directly to Russia. USA jumps on magic button FYROM and hurray!!! FYROMians are basically Bulgarians affiliated they demand lands from Greece (the real Macedonia), but they have also Albanians that are not particularly fond of anything Slavic. Call also some mujahedins from friendly Talebins in Afganistan to join Albanian forces there and let them short out the chaos. Problems in the area, project fails.
I would not even be occupied with the funny mumbles on pseudohistory of some random powerless state north of us if it was not for that very grave danger that will continue to pose as a threat to the area.
Instead of running to the US for aid and the establishment of more US bases in the area, FYROM could instead stop their senseless propaganda that practically de-natures its own people making them think they are something they are not and demanding other peoples' lands, divides its own multinational society into 1st and 2nd class citizens (Slavs and Albanians) and re-invent itself as a brand-new state that it is, without precedent, without searching in vain in the past to justify this or that - only aiming in re-uniting different Balkan people like Bulgarians, Albanians and Serbians without segmentation of the society.
For good or for bad their lands have nothing to do with Macedonia, simply bordering with it in the south - hence there is absolutely no reason to use this hellenic term. Under not only historic light but also very recent events, any use of that name even as a geographical error takes directly very aggressive connotations (i.e. implying a fanastic Macedonia that gathers all south-central Balkans and which was divided by Greece, Bulgaria and Jugoslavia). If anythign lands so far north of the Aegean have nothing to do with Macedonia that is a land intrinsically bound with the Aegean... let alone its people and culture that were the epicenter of the Hellenic world in Europe for more 1000s of years than the existence of Athens as a city (... since you talked about continuity).
You might not understand such details above: my only question is only on geography - if you really can locate Macedonia on the map? Or you will just dismiss the issue as non-important? In the latter case if something so important as geography is not really important then no reason to discuss.Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 45
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 28th July 2008
Why do you hide any valid points you wish to make in a mess of words, insinuations and irrelevancies?
Explain to me how the dialectic (or otherwise) status of the spoken language in Macedonia at the time of Alexander the Great has a direct correlation with modern Greek grievances against Bulgarian and/or Slavic incursions into former Greek territory.
And keep it to the point.
Otherwise you're simply wasting a load of your time writing diatribes too lengthy and containing too much off-topic insertions, not to mention written badly (which does not help digesting them), which no one is bothered reading anymore.Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 46
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 28th July 2008
Read "too many" for "too much" above, otherwise I culd well end up accusing myself of the same!
Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 47
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 28th July 2008
Hi E_Nik,
FYROMians are basically Bulgarians affiliated they demand lands from Greece (the real Macedonia), but they have also Albanians that are not particularly fond of anything Slavic.
Does your obvious dislike of these countries and their citizens have anything to do with the fact that all of them have higher adult literacy rates than Greece?
Cheers,
RFLink to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 48
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Monday, 28th July 2008
You don't suspect the "yawn" might have been directed against the over-lengthy and tedious style of your prose, Nik, and not the subject matter?
Spot on Nordmann
I have long since given up reading Nik's emails for the reasons you described. As someone who is very interested in linguistics, this could be an interesting topic. However, I quickly switched off by the impenetrable posts from our Hellenic representative (along with his "Greece is great, any achievements by others are obviously Hellenic in origin" attitude)Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 49
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Monday, 28th July 2008
Nik's emails...
Read that as Nik's posts...!!!!
Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
-
Message 50
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 29th July 2008
Rainbow, I do not know where did you find those funny literacy numbers about FYROM or Albania, the fact is that Greece has higher literacy numbers than the likes of England and France while if talking about university graduates Greece had in percentage more university graduates than England even back in 19th century with the percentage increased till nowadays.
Now Norman for the first time poses a nice question. After all that time we talk here he wants to know at last what has ancient Macedonia to do with late 19th and early 21st century politics.
Let’s jump into late 19th century. Ottomans are already disintegrating and a fierce battle rages on focused in the “populations’ borderlines” throughout the Balkans. It goes without saying that due to the existence of the Empire populations had considerably moved without though over-blurring the lines (contrary to some Europeans’ contemporary political views much influenced about “clean superior tribes and such” showing contempt showed for example by French in the denomination of a not-so-tasty salad called “Macedoine”). And that was because there is a certain geography in the Balkans that throughout history influenced considerably the “whoiswho” and “whowentwhere”. Greeks were the majority in coastal areas not only on the Aegean (naturally) but also in many placed of the Black Sea (modern Bulgaria) with many large Bulgarian cities speaking mostly Greek. Bulgarians were naturally the majority in the inner north (modern day central western Bulgaria and FYROM that was of course the birthplace and epicentre of Bulgaria). However, in a region between modern southern FYROM and northern department of Macedonia of Greece, there co-habitated Greeks, Bulgarians and Bulgarian-Greek talking population of non-defined identity. Also one has to note that while Bulgarian cities were often Greek speaking, there where enough Bulgarians in the city of Thessaloniki to be the 3rd community while there were numerous Vlachs in inner FYROM and Bulgaria that despite their own latin language were poruodly self-identified as Greeks (and were the ones that paid for the Greek schools there). If one wants to have an idea of numbers then one has to take the Ottoman survey of 1903 done just after an Ottoman mistaken purge against Greeks (were many were killed and more kicked out) to punish the Iliden Bulgarian rebellion (Ottomans were used to Greeks rebelling and thus it happened like that!) which despite including largely Bulgarian territories and branding as Greeks only those who spoke Greek-and-nothing-else it is very expressive of the facts above (search and read for yourselfs). Also very interestingly and despite the main aim of the survey that was to decrease the numbers of Greeks (main enemies of Ottomans) and increase the impression of “multi-nationality”, the survey makes completely no reference to any macedonian ethnicity of any kind for the very simple reason that Ottomans for 400 years were not informed so!
I hope these things are more or less clear to you but then what was the “Macedonian question back then”? It was all about the will of Bulgaria to have access to the Aegean. Their main aim was to increase their populations in the south, invade, convince the bi-lingual populations to become Greek (often even non-bilingual slavophones had full Greek cosciousness since these were clearly Greeks that changed language for various reasons like Ottoman violence, commerce proximity to Slavic communities etc.), expel through an organised guerrilla war of terror the indigenous Greek populations. Hence it was first the Bulgarians that opened the “dance of pseudohistory propaganda”. Based on unfounded references like Demosthenis (a politician with whom half-Athens laughed rather than believed!) they created first the idea that Macedonians were not related to Greeks, that later their nation was absorbed by the Slavs (i.e. the Bulgarians) and thus it is not Greeks nowadays but Bulgarians that should normally take control of the area. Hence, Bulgarians started the “fight against the real history” that did not fit their cause.
However, the most basic part of the propaganda was not of course based on history or anything but on geography: in order to “fight against the numbers” that were in favour of Greeks, they actually over-stretched the term Macedonia in order to include actually all of historic western Bulgaria naming at the same time one of the main branches of the Bulgarian national liberation struggle against Ottomans as “Macedonian Organisation” (the IMRO that later spawned the VMRO). It has to be noted that for foreign powers like France who directly backed Bulgaria, the over-generalisation of the term Macedonia to include lands as far more north than actual Kosovo (!) served very well their plans. These Bulgarian organisations went on a war of terror that ignited the Balkan wars.
Greek politics of that time had been extremely naïf. Not only not able to present any counter-propaganda (anyway what counter-propaganda can you present when one tells you Sparta was not Greek?), Greeks when talking about Macedonia they most often referred to the lands that start from Olympus and finish a bit north of Thessaloniki (maximum till the border-city of Monastiri). Bulgarians however when talking about Macedonia they meant the lands that start from Olympus and extended well into Serbia (i.e. north of Kosovo), i.e. including a huge part of Balkans. A difference in definition that made all the difference and still puzzles people (I think you also).
Hence, when after the Balkan wars the international “peace” treaties organised by the “great powers” made definitions on the basis of the Bulgarian definition i.e. including the very wrong term of “dividing Macedonia into Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbians” while in fact it was Greece that had taken (obviously rightfully) the whole of Macedonia.
Within Macedonia there remained some 100,000 Bulgarian speaking people (some 20,000 and more emigrated soon like Greeks did at those difficult times) who while not suffering anything special (unlike Greeks in Bulgaria) other than being refused their right to have state-schools in their Bulgarian dialect (in the same way Bush would refuse Sharia-schools in Texas especially if in case Mexico was all-muslim country). One has to note that still till the 1930s these people called for their Bulgarian language and not for any special nationality while when using the term Macedonia they used it only for the lands that start 100km northwest of Thessaloniki and go up to Kosovo in order to make the link with their Bulgarian-talking folk in Jugoslavia (i.e. by then having lost all hope to get Olympus or Thessaloniki…!!!). In the WWII they collaborate with Nazis in the hope of getting supremacy in their area and then directly with Tito communists who present to them the next opportunity.
Now in 1945 with Bulgarian army leaving along with Nazis from neighbouring Thrace after having conducted a mini-genocide (only 45,000 people in formal executions), and with a civil war in Greece between communists and nationalists, Tito has presents this special plan to gain access for Jugoslavia to the Aegean just like Bulgarians tried in the past. With this plan not only he achieves taking the port of Thessaloniki but also deters once and for all Bulgarian speaking populations in linking themselves to the enemy Bulgaria (Bulgaria and Jugoslavia even under communism were enemies and had at all times armies set against each other).
It should not be any wonder to anyone. Back in 1945 90% of the Slavic population in FYROM was illiterate while their Bulgarian dialect was repressed by Serbians. Tito gave them schools: “Macedonian schools”. Tito gave them “their language”, “Macedonian language”. People of the area accepted it with joy! But above all Tito gave them the hope that together they could have supremacy over the southern Greek lands – something for which one generation back they had fought with the Bulgarian IMRO-VMRO. Hence these people even more then started identifying themselves in contrast with the Greeks that have to be expelled from “Macedonia” that has to be united. A long propaganda (that only communist dictatorial regimes can ever set) started while during the civil war they had even convinced even a part of the internationalist Greek communists that Greek lands would better be communist than remain with Greece! One has to note that a variation of 40 to 60% of communist fighters in Macedonia were Jugoslavs and not local Greeks and naturally local Greeks saw them as another evolved form of Bulgarian commitates (sad realities hidden even today in modern Greek politics). When the civil war ended some 350,000 Greeks were expelled and among them some 40,000 out of the 60,000 Slavophones of Macedonia who had co-operated with communists – thus being expelled as communists and nothing else! However, themselves not any communists by ideology but by convenience saw in that an as-if effort of Greece to “exterminate them”, obviously not true as for Greece it would be anything but difficult to throw out the remaining 20,000. Hence these wherever they went – Jugoslavia, US or Australia they joined the effort of propaganda about “one united Macedonia” that continued well into Tito’s strange formation that was Jugoslavia. Greece was simply told by US to shut up as any talk about such would somehow intefere with the cold war politics.
Back in the 1980s the vast majority of Greeks did not even know that their neighbours were on such a propaganda. Suddenly in 1992 they realise that a new state is being formed called Macedonia and horrified they see FYROMian school books with maps showing “Macedonia united”(Kosovo to Thessalia!!!), with texts on the fantastic “unjustice to the nation of Macedonians” or pictures with king Alexander showing his sword against Greeks etc. … things that have already given birth to a generation of FYROMians that have lost complete contact with their real contacts and live in a fantastic world of “unjustice” even more complicated by the presence of the Albanian minority (…40%) and of course the usual feelings of inferiority that share with other Balkan people when facing Greeks – something like being the “poor neighbour”.
It goes without saying that Bulgarians also are horrified by FYROMian propaganda as it clearly makes a salad of Bulgarian history (proud Bulgarian king Samuel… a Macedonian?!?!?). However, while Bulgarians obviously do not recognise any Macedonia nationality, they still consider Macedonia to be a large land extended in the far north and ancient Macdonians to be of non-Greek identity. Obviously for future use…
Trust me in that. History and geopolitics can be tightly bound anywhere in the world, and especially in an “old” region like Balkans. Whoever laughs at such as “things of the past” and endorses “grey climates” for any reason, in future he might be in the position to hypocritically lament – exactly as it happened in Jugoslavia. EU is nice EU exists today, tomorrow but not necessarily the day after. If the EU receives any attack you know where it will start, isn’t it? This is not a local “funny’ and ‘incomprehensible” issue, the case of Greeks and their neighbours, it is very much a serious one and passes through a complex net of geopolitical games in the greater area (reaching as far as Middle East either you believe it or not).Link to this forum: Was Ancient Macedonian Language an Ancient Greek dialect?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
鶹Լ iD
鶹Լ navigation
鶹Լ links
鶹Լ © 2014 The 鶹Լ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.