MACEDONIANS

MACEDONIANS

Community

The strength of the Macedonian Community in the U.S.A. and Canada is about 50,000, grouped for the most part in the industrial regions of Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. They are largely employed in factories at Toledo, O., Cincinnati, O., Akron, O., Cleveland, O., Dayton, O., Indianapolis, Ind., Detroit, Mich., Granite City, Ill., Duquesne, Pa., Ellwood City, Pa., Steelton, Pa., and Johnstown, Pa.

2. Organizations

(a) The Macedonian Political Organization (M.P.O.) correlates the activities of numerous regional groups or societies, the headquarters of which are at Indianapolis. They have been in existence for about twenty years.

(b) Macedonian American People’s League is an obscure group, thought to be communists in its political leanings. Its leader is said to be one S. Voydanoff.

(c) Unimportant Local Mutual aid societies complete the organization of the Macedonian Community.

3. Macedonian Political Organization

This is the most important group. Its network embraced branches in Canada. In Akron, O., and Toronto, Ontario., there are said to be strong elements and there are other active elements in Indianapolis, Ind., and Detroit, Mich. The Toronto branch is reported to have split into two parts last year because a number of members, believed to be in the majority, opposed the Central Organization at Indianapolis.

The leading officers and supporters of the M.P.O. are the following:-

Chris (Cristo) Anastasoff, or Atanasoff, of Bulgarian origin. He is a Vice-President of the organization. Reports variously place him as a doctor at Detroit and a member of the staff of Washington University in St. Louis, Mo.

Kiril Chaleff, of Bulgarian origin. Vice-President of the organization. Believed to be a saloon-keeper in Indianapolis.

Peter Aceff, or Atzeff, Indianapolis; of Bulgarian origin: Secretary of the M.P.O. Associate editor “Macedonian Tribune”.

Tashe Popcheff, Indianapolis; of Bulgarian origin; Treasurer of M.P.O.

Pop Nikoloff, Detroit, a priest, active in the M.P.O.

Kosta Popoff, McKeesport, Pa., of Bulgarian origin, a baker by trade; an active member of thr M.P.O.

Alexander Dimitroff, Detroit; a student? Active member.

Luben Dimitroff, Indianapolis. Editor of the “Macedonian Tribune”. (See below).

Christo Nazamoff, Associate Editor of the “Macedonian Tribune”.

Vancha Miehailov. See special note below.

4. Political orientation of the M.P.O.

The fundamental purpose of the M.P.O. is the establishment of a free Macedonia. In such terms they express themselves through their organ, the “Macedonian Tribune”. For the satisfaction of such and end they are linked with the Macedonian Revolutionary Organization in Europe. A direct branch of the M.P.O. is said to exist in Pittsburg, Pa., but financial help is said to have been given by the Revolutionary Organization to their political counterpart in America and in order that Macedonian independence at home may be achieved and the cultural lot of Macedonians abroad may be improved. While absolute independence is no doubt the ultimate goal, relative independence from Serbian and Greek control, even at the cost of German and Bulgarian “protection” has been welcomed, Macedonians in America are therefore pro-Nazi. Being chauvinists in temperament, an added reason for their Nazi inclinations is their dislike of the communists. The personal link between the M.P.O. may be Vancha Mikhailov. (See below).

5. Press

(1) Macedonian Tribune (Makedonska Tribuna), 20 S. West Street, Indianapolis, Ind. Weekly.

Editor – Luben Dimitroff. Ass.Editor – Christo Mazamoff, Peter Aceff. Subscription - $ 3.00 p.a., Organ of M.P.O.

(2) Naroden Glas, Granite City, Ill. While this is a Bulgarian Weekly, there is a Macedonian colony at Granite City and no doubt it caters too to this community. It may be noted that the Canadian Postal Regulations forbid the transmission of this paper in Canada.

6. Vancha Mikhailoff, or Mihaylof, or Ivan Michailoff

In 1940 Vanche Mihaylof, as one of the leaders of the M.P.O. was reporte to be in Albania and receiving the support of the Italians. He

was also active in Bulgaria and Southern Serbia. It was Vancha Mikhailov who is alleged to have been implicated – from a distance – in the assassination of King Alexander of Yugoslavia.

Canadian Legation - To the Allied Governments in the United Kingdom

February 16th, 1945 Berkeley Street, London, W.1. No. 89

Sir,

Following my telegram dealing with Yugoslavia from the 22nd January, the King Peter requested the resignation of Dr. Subasic’s Government, I have the honour to give a consolidation of the information contained therein and to supplement it where possible with information obtained in my conversations with the British Ambassador, Mr. Skrine Stevenson, with Mr. Addis of the Foreign Office, with Mr. Cankar and with Mr. Rybar. I should add that as I know Mr. Addis as a personal friend, his information cannot be considered as entirely official in nature.

2. The manner in which King Peter precipitated the “crisis” on 22nd January although sudden cannot be said to be entirely unexpected. To understand the reasons behind the King’s move a brief review of events subsequent to Dr. Subasic’s assumption of leadership of the Royal Yugoslav Government may be useful. After King Peter issued his declaration on 1st June, 1944 calling upon all Yugoslavs to ignore their differences and to form a united front under the leadership of Dr. Subasic, it became apparent that the National Liberation Committee with Tito at its head would have to be recognized as the actual force within the country. This de facto recognition became more evident with the Tito-Subasic agreement of 16th June and the agreement arrived at when Tito and Subasic met for a second time on 17th August.

3. With the capture of Belgrade on the 20th October it became a matter of vital urgency from the point of view of the United Kingdom Government that the Royal Yugoslav Government could be formed within the country as soon as practicable. As reported in my dispatch No. 61 of 1st February, Dr. Subasic at this time was given more or less carte blanche to work out the terms of an agreement with Tito, but it had been previously agreed that he

would refer the draft agreement to both King Peter and the United Kingdom Government before ratifying it. Unfortunately, for reasons best known to himself, he signed the agreement on the 1st November, thereby presenting King Peter and the United Kingdom Government with a fait accompli.

4. Following his trip to Moscow, Subasic returned to Belgrade on 4th December. On 7th December in concert with Marshal Tito he sighed two annexes to the agreement of 1st November. He then returned to London on 9th December; the United Kingdom Government decided to approve the agreement, but no intimation was received from King Peter of his intentions.

5. This, then, was the background to the King’s statement on 11th January, which he issued without previous consultations with either his own Government or the United Kingdom Government. Although it would seem that the King had a certain amount of justification in feeling that he should have been consulted more fully by Dr. Subasic, his precipitate action was obviously ill-advised and lost him whatever popularity he had with public opinion in the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as damaging his position vis-à-vis Marshal Tito. As reported in my telegram No. 35 of 26th January, his principle adviser seems to have been his mother-in-law, Princes Aspasia. It is still not certain who his other advisers may have been.

6. On 22nd January the King issued a second statement in which he told of proposals he had made to Dr. Subasic and Marshal Tito. From the text of this statement it is clear that Marshal Tito said he would deal with King Peter only through the Yugoslav Prime Minister. The statement concluded by saying that he had lost confidence in Dr. Subasic and had consequently requested his resignation. During the following week, Subasic, backed by the United Kingdom Government, refused to accept the King’s request for his resignation and attempted in every way to make the King see reason.

7. On 28th January Tito made a statement to a Serbian women’s anti-fascist meeting in which he once more elucidates his views. The following day an official announcement was released to the press

stating the King Peter and Dr. Subasic had reached agreement and that, following the terms of the Tito-Subasic agreement, a Regency Council would be formed and the Royal Yugoslav Government would proceed to Belgrade “as soon as possible” in order to form a coalition government with Marshal Tito’s National Liberation Committee.

8. It can be seen that throughout the whole painful process, starting with the first Tito-Subasic meeting in June 1944, it has been only through the patient efforts of the British Ambassador and the United Kingdom Government that eventual agreement was reached. In my last conversation with Mr. Stevenson he said that prior to June 1944 it had been a virtual certainty that civil war would break out in the country with all the grave results that such an unfortunate happening would have. Mr. Stevenson seemed of the opinion that the initial step towards agreement had been taken by Mr. Churchill and Marshal Stalin had med and agreed that their interests in Yugoslavia should be on a fifty-fifty basis. In this manner the Soviet Government had been able to place a restricting influence on Marshal Tito as, of course, had the United Kingdom Government through Brigadier Maclean. In a like manner, King Peter and Dr. Subasic had been made to realize the urgent necessity of establishing a unified Government in the country as soon as possible.

9. During the course of my conversation with Mr. Stevenson he made it quite clear that in his opinion the United States Government’s attitude towards the whole problem with Yugoslavia has been, to say the least, uncooperative. He understood that up until November 1944 the State Department had not wished to arouse United States public opinion prior to the Presidential elections and consequently had preferred to adopt a negative policy towards European affairs. He made it equally clear that following the Presidential campaign and the re-election of President Roosevelt, had the United States Government taken a firmer stand they could, his opinion, have brought about agreement in Yugoslav affairs far more rapidly. In my telegram No.49 of the 13th February I mentioned that Stevenson seemed to feel that the Crimea Conference had brought a change in the United States Government’s attitude towards their commitments in Europe and a realization that

they must take full responsibility alongside the United Kingdom and the U.S.S.R. for carrying out of a concerted policy in the Balkans and Central Europe.

10. Mr. Stevenson seemed to be well pleased with the outcome of events but he foresees a difficult time ahead. He is under no illusions concerning the difficulties involved, and he believes that implementation of the terms of the Tito-Subasic agreement will be by far the hardest part of the problem.

11. In presenting the United Kingdom’s policy towards Yugoslavia he also amplified his Government’s policy towards the Balkans and Eastern Europe generally. He said that it is not impossible that, following a successful settlement of the Macedonian problem, some form of loosely-knit federation of Balkan States could be formed. He intimated that some form of federation between Bulgaria and Yugoslavia would be welcomed by the United Kingdom Government, but only so long as it was related to some form of similar federation between all the Balkan States. From the manner in which he spoke I gathered that this is, in fact, the United Kingdom’s long-term policy with respect to the Balkan countries. He also said that it would not be a bad thing if some form of economic unity could be achieved between the Central European States (and here he specifically mentioned Czechoslovakia, Austria and Hungary) and a Federation of Balkan States.

12. In this respect it is interesting to note that the TIMES Diplomatic Correspondent, in an article appearing in the February 15th issue, gave an account of an interview he had with Dr. Subasic in the 14th February. Speaking in his future capacity as Foreign Minister in the United Yugoslav Government, Dr. Subasic said that in his view three questions dominated Yugoslav foreign policy: -

“(i) The general question of more effective security and of Yugoslav economic development in the Adriatic;

(ii) The rectification of the north-western frontiers unjustly traced after the 1914-18 war;

(iii) The realization by suitable stages of economic and political collaboration among the Balkan States for the insurance of peace and economic advancement in the Balkans.”

13. The article that quotes Dr. Subasic as saying “There are unmistakable signs that a final settlement of Yugoslav-Bulgarian relations is in sight. That alone will do much to make broad agreement among the Balkan peoples easier.” The article concluded by saying that Dr. Subasic is well aware of the necessity of maintaining “the friendliest relations with Great Britain and the United States” and that “he noted with pleasure the welcome support given by the British, American and Russian peoples to the agreement concluded with Marshal Tito.”

14. Dr. Cankar, with whom I spoke immediately prior to his departure for Belgrade, said that it was his own opinion that the question of the Regency should have been settled before Dr. Subasic left London. He confirmed the information contained in my telegram No. 46, that the majority of the Cabinet were unwilling to leave London without first having complete agreement on the choice of members for the Regency Council. Their hand had been forced by the Crimea Conference communiqué which, as Dr. Cakar said, that either Dr. Subasic should have remained behind in order to settle the Regency question or the whole Government should have waited until a settlement had been reached. Dr. Cankar was not quite clear as to how it was now proposed to reach agreement on the Regency Council because, with the exception of Rybar, there is now nobody left in London who can act as a link between the Government in Belgrade and King Petar.

15. A copy of this dispatch has been sent to Moscow.

I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant, John Starnes, Charge d’Affairs, a.i.

The Secretary of State for External Affairs, Ottawa