3. BULGARIAN NATIONALISM - Part 01

3. BULGARIAN NATIONALISM

Nationalism to some degree is synonymous with patriotism. Patriotism is an expression of love for the country, i.e. for the land of our grandfathers.

Patriotism expresses love towards birth, tribe, people, historical memories and traditions.

Patriotism reflects on personal and social behaviour motivated by rational arguments, and from emotional and natural virtues of loyalty and duty, of love and of self-sacrifice.

Nationalism is a rational structure, built around its core values - the nation. It has the features of a unifying idea, giving significantly wider meaning and content. Included in it is the love and commitment for the homeland and for the nation, with its spirit, aspirations, ideals and values.

Representatives of the Bulgarian nation carry its distinctive mark -Bulgarian nationalism.

Nationalism is an active state of national spirit and knowledge. It is an active expression of concern for the historical destiny of the nation. It is sincerely attached to its interests, values, ideals and historical identity. Therefore, it is an active and dynamic state of the national identity.

There are many reasons for us, up until now, not having a clear idea of the essence, appearance, development and the role of nationalism. One is that the Bulgarian, almost always suffered no less from lack of ideas and concepts, than from lack of collective will and willingness to unite around one of them.

This contributes to an almost permanent necessity to oppose the anti-Bulgarizm and chauvinism practiced by some of our neighbours. Our inadequate responses to their behaviour, has been mostly an expression of lack of national self-esteem, which Father Paisei tried to awaken so long ago.

Over a period of almost 50 years, the term “nationalism” has been discredited here. It was deliberately leveled by the leaders of the “proletarian revolution” with national-socialism - nazism - social national movement - fascism, etc.

Nationalism, as an emanation of the spirit of any nation, in no form and means should be associated with the ideologies of national socialism and fascism.

The communist ideology declares nationalism a “reactionary and decadent” bourgeois doctrine for “a born expression of national awareness”, like one nation attempting to claim dominance over another. It led us to create a deformed representation of the essence of the concept, as well as deleted our historical memory of several generations of the true meaning and essence of nationalism. So, many young people including intellectuals today are afraid to use it, and if they do mention it, they give it only a negative sense.

It is necessary to cleanse the term “nationalism” by scientific means from the unjustified accusations, curses and deformations it has received from the ideologists of the totalitarian regime in our country.

Nationalism, in principle, can in certain circumstances mutate into three negative forms: 1) national extremism, 2) national chauvinism, and 3) national nihilism...

National extremism. National extremism is a phenomenon of bad national education, when national pride is turned to arrogance, when derogatory behaviour towards members of other ethnic groups or nations is exercised. This stands at the base of intra-national dislike, xenophobia, confrontation, and often turns into aggressive behaviour and lawlessness.

Chauvinism. Chauvinism is a term derived from the name of the French journalist “Shoven”, a sergeant in Napoleon’s army.

It means making unsubstantiated claims or grabbing territories and people who, historically, legally, politically, ethno-culturally, never belonged to a given nation and state. This kind of chauvinism was demonstrated by our neighbours during the wars. They grabbed ancient Bulgarian lands, fully inhabited with Bulgarians (Serbia -Bulgarian Pomoravje, Timochka Krajina, Zapadnite pokraini and Vardar Macedonia; Greece - Aegean Macedonia and Aegean Thrace; Romania - Severna Dobruja; Turkey - Odrin Thrace).

Never have the Bulgarian people and Bulgarian officials in Bulgarian history appeared or demonstrated chauvinism, because Bulgaria, from the day it was freed to today, borders only with its own lands and people.

There is not a single document that shows that Bulgarian politicians were aiming to wage war against the primeval lands of Serbia -Sumadija or Kosovo or Greece - Peloponnesus, Thessaly, Epirus, Crete and Cyprus, nor against the territories of Romania and Albania...

National chauvinism. This term reflects the connection in the manifestation of national-chauvinism and extremism.

National nihilism. National nihilism is the fruit of alienation and withdrawal from belonging to the nation and its value system. Concrete nihilism among us is manifested in our national reconciliation of the position of some of our statesmen and politicians, as well as our intelligentsia, who have hesitated to act against the denationalization and assimilation of the Bulgarians in Vardar and Aegean Macedonia, in Aegean and Eastern Thrace for nearly 80 years, as well as attempts to alienate significant parts of the Bulgarian nation in separate parts of our country.

National nihilism in us was born as a result of: 1) ruined national ideals of unification after the Balkan Wars (ending with the Bucharest and Constantinople Agreement) and the First World War (complete with the Nice Agreement), sparking national pessimism

and complex “unrealizable national ideals”, 2) erosion of national awareness, at that time and then the growing leftist communist teachings, social democrats and anarchists, 3) international and bad national upbringing during the totalitarian regime in our country, 4) as a result of a de-nationalization policy, such as the one that was deliberately exercised in Vardar and Aegean Macedonia nearly 84 years ago, and in Aegean and Eastern Thrace 77 years ago, all working against the Bulgarian population.

National nihilism commonly manifests itself in two forms which are extremely destructive for nationalism: 1) internationalism, and 2) cosmopolitanism.

Internationalism. Internationalism is one of the basic attributes of Marxist ideology. It is derived from the formula “proletarians of all countries unite”, putting the unity of the working class in all countries above the unity of the nation.

Internationalism, instead of nationalism, was supported over a significant part of the last three generations of the Bulgarian nation.

Cosmopolitanism. The notion of cosmopolitanism sprouted like an antipode to the idea of a nation. That is why it was regarded as an antipode to nationalism. It is characteristic of disregard, indifference and contempt for national values, interests and ideals. In a broader sense it advocates renouncing the national state and cultural and national identity.

The philosophy of cosmopolitanism can best be expressed by the famous formula - “My homeland is where I feel best”. A variant of cosmopolitanism is “global-ism”. Here, the moral values of cosmopolitanism are transformed by the formula “I am a citizen of the world”.

Proper understanding of the term “nation” and “nationalism” is especially important today, when the complexes, dogmas and opinions of the recent past have not been outlived...

3.1.1. New national ethics

New national ethics are expressed in a tolerant attitude towards members of the entire nation, regardless of their ethnic origin, religious or political views, occupation and social status. Contribution to this is given by the inherent sense of the tolerant Bulgarians. It excludes disrespect and any other form of discriminatory behaviour towards members of our nation - Gypsies, Turks, Jews, Armenians and others, or the representatives of officially recognized religions - Muslim, Catholic, Protestant and other denominations. Sadly, many Bulgarians call their Bulgarian brothers living in Serbia - “Serbians” in Greece - “Greeks” in Macedonia - “Macedonians” in Bessarabia - “Russians”, etc. This is unfounded and offensive.

Following are the new national ethics underlying the new characteristic behaviour of the members of the nation:

- Renouncing all situations where members of the Bulgarian nation negatively relate to one another through offensive labels, expressions or other compromising means that would offend personal dignity;

- Renouncing the placing of interests of certain social groups, organizations, parties and economic groups over the interests of the nation and the state;

- Democracy, the foundation of equality and equal standing before the law of the country, social integration and national unification;

- Pluralism, which will not convert the differences into confrontation and into privileges or into the seeking of a foreign national identity;

- Nationalism, which sharpens the integration of the various social groups as the only reasonable form of national union;

- Recognition of national institutions and of the individuals who represent them;

- All encompassing of all Bulgarians throughout the world, as well as immigrants from other ethnic groups in the national spiritual space, to feel real support in their homeland;

- Giving consideration to the people of our neighbouring states, regardless of the contradictions that existed in the past and still exist today;

- Not allowing other countries to interfere in our country’s internal and external affairs;

- Wide integration into Europe, the preservation of our cultural self-determination, sovereignty and independence...

National self-esteem. This is a special, elevated status of the national spirit, reflecting the nation’s satisfaction with its spiritual and material achievements - the result of the nation’s individual and collective labour, talent and intellect.

The national self-esteem of the Bulgarian people, also determined by Bulgaria’s historical and political fate.

History shows that Bulgaria is one of the oldest countries in Europe. Indisputably Bulgarians have contributed to world and European culture and history. Bulgaria has been given recognition by world famous historians and cultural-ists as one of the European civilizations. Included in the discoveries in the Varna necropolis are golden treasures from the fourth millennium BC, which proves that the oldest golden European civilization sprang up there - older than the contemporary Cretan-Mycenaean and Egyptian civilizations.

By force of historical circumstances, Bulgaria became the real fatherland of Slavic literacy, created by the brothers St. Cyril and St. Methodius, and also the literary culture, which flourished between the Slavs and the Western part of Great Moravia. The Politics of Prince Boris and his descendants - the kings Simeon and Peter created the maximum beneficial conditions for the improvement of Slavic literature, which turned Bulgaria into a third parallel centre of European civilization in the same row as the Latin-Roman and the Greek-Byzantine culture.

The Bogomil movement was born and developed in Bulgaria, accepted by many as a rational cause because of its substance, which according to its content and reformation, was a religious philosophy, aimed at determining the authenticity of Christianity. The rational element in its philosophy found followers even outside of the country. In the West the Bogomils becomes known as the “Bugri” (Bulgarians). The Bulgarian Bogomils outside of Bulgarian space became known as Fundagiagiti, Babuni, Katari, Patareni, Albigoitsi, Bugri and Strigolnitsi, confirming the resounding Bulgarian contribution to the formation of pre-renaissance European culture.

Since the second half of the 9th and until the mid 10th century AD, Bulgaria has experienced its “golden century”, which placed it in the leading countries of the Christian world. At that time, countries like Germany, France and England, according to their cultural opportunities, stood far behind the Bulgarian Empire. In the hierarchy of friends and allies of the most powerful Christian empire, Byzantium, the Bulgarians occupied first place.

It is an undeniable fact that the Serbians and Russians created their self-reliant literature with direct participation from the old Bulgarian educators...

Thirteen centuries of Bulgarian history gives us the basis to have high self-esteem and national pride in ourselves and in the fact that we are Bulgarians.

1.2.4.1. Birth of the Bulgarian nation

Serious changes took place in the socio-economic, political and cultural development of the Bulgarian people during the 18th and early 19th centuries. Specialized areas of agricultural production began to pop up in Bulgaria in the second half of that period. Textile plants began to take shape in regions with strongly developed livestock production. They facilitated trade in textile products in the Ottoman Empire. A series of villages on the slopes of Stara Planina and Sredna Gora transformed into skill producing centres. More and more Bulgarians began to migrate into the cities, with the Bulgarian element in many of them becoming dominant. This was one of the most important phenomena in the life of the Bulgarian people. The

first manufacturing companies began to appear in the early 19th century, and later the first factories (D. Zheliazkov’s textile factory in Sliven in 1834). The process of economic recovery strengthened and so did the pursuit of enlightenment, which was expressed in the opening of 1,500 schools in the churches, monasteries and municipalities. Hundreds of young people acquired modern education abroad. Cultural and literary activities were being developed and so was the Bulgarian publishing press. The Bulgarian intelligentsia began to develop. The political will of the Bulgarian people was being awakened with their participation in several Russian-Turkish wars (1768-1774, 1787-1791, 1806-1812) and in the Serbian (1804-1813) and Greek (1821-1827) uprisings. This testifies to the fact that the Bulgarian people had discovered their own slavish position and had started looking to get out of it.

Paisei Hilendarski, a carrier of enlightenment, opened the eyes of many of our countrymen with his publication “Slavo-Bulgarian History” (1762). In the few pages he not only reflected, like in a deep source, the glorious past of the Bulgarians, but he also revealed the road to national liberation and self-awareness. He gave the Bulgarian people faith that they “are not forgotten by God”, and that they should reject the political and spiritual oppression forced upon them by the Sultan and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Greek priests and bishops, and that they should struggle for an independent church and an independent state. Thus, Father Paisei’s “Slavo-Bulgarian History” appeared like a manifesto and put forth the principles of a national program for revival, for ecclesiastical and national independence.

Depicting the ethnic territory of the Bulgarian people, Paisei, with patriotic fervour, called on the people to protect their birthright and language and angrily chastised those who rebuked the fathers, fueling feelings of affiliation to the glorious past of the Bulgarians, who first created their own state from the Slavs.

Paisei Hilendarski’s work marks the beginning of the Bulgarian national revival. This was the beginning of a turbulent and unsustainable yearning for education, economic development, church autonomy and the recognition of our rights to our national identity.

The national idea was established during the process of the turbulent development of Bulgarian education and the educational system. In the chronicles of the Bulgarian Revival, with particular strength, shone the names of the major educational activists in Moesia and Thrace - Petar Beron, Vasil Aprilov, Neofit Bozveli, and in Macedonia - Neofit Rilski, Marko Teodorovich, Ioakim Krchovski, Kiril Peichinovich, Gligor Prlichev, brothers Miladinovtsi, Iordan Hadzhikonstantinov (Giant), Kuzman Shapkarev, Raiko Zinzifov, M. Tsepenkov, and others. Macedonia became the cradle of the Bulgarian national revival.

The community bore and engendered the spoken and written language giving encouragement to the national literature. The first forms of the newly born Bulgarian poetry were created in Macedonia (according to the words of Serbian linguist Vuk Karadzich). In 1861, brothers Miladinovtsi released their collection of “Bulgarian Folk Songs” in Zagreb. They also published many primers, textbooks and teaching aids in the modern Bulgarian language.

The Bulgarian literary company, presided over by Marin Drinov, was formed in 1869 in Braila. The company was renamed “Bulgarian Academy of Sciences” in 1911.

1.2.4.2. Self-determination - basis for establishing the Bulgarian national ideal

Besides the revival of general literature and the literary language, also revived were economic and business means, bookstores and schools, and a general Bulgarian national awareness was created. And thus the majority of the Christian population in the Slavic geographical regions of Moesia, Thrace, Macedonia, Dobrudza, Bulgarian Pomoravie and Timochko became known as “Bulgarian”.

In terms of that wonderful process of national unity and striving for self-determination, the Bulgarian nation formed the Bulgarian national ideal. Although it naturally included the idea of the middle ages, the creation of statehood and nationality, language and culture, the pride of our glorious kings, saints and the people’s army leaders

as a common past, the national ideal was a phenomenon of modern times. It was born under the influence of the new European ideas -primarily the idea of freedom for people and for citizens, the right of a nation to have an independent political life, i.e. independence and statehood.

Historical undertakings motivated the Bulgarian people to simultaneously look in all directions - Dobrudzha, Aegean and Odrin Thrace, Pomoravieto, Vardar and Aegean Macedonia.

This is because many compatriots, whose fate was violent and to which we are not indifferent, lived in this territorial coverage.

People without ideals cannot grow into a nation. National ideals determine national interests.

The ideal is constant and unchanging. But it can be developed and modernized in accordance with changes in the country and in the world. Sadly, our national ideals sometimes fold under the pressure of internal and international political conjunctures, unlike the example of our neighbours. And we are not just talking about change in geographical directions here, but also about the survival of these ideals.

(We have left out the twenty pages or so spanning from the history of the First and Second Bulgarian Empires, the Byzantine and Ottoman period, from the revival whose sections are full of appropriation from the rebirth of the neighbouring countries, events and personalities...)

(From third part) - 1.2.5. The third Bulgarian state

On February 19, (March 3) 1878, a prior Peace Agreement was signed at San Stefano. This Agreement suggested the creation of an independent Bulgarian state, which was to include about 80% of Bulgaria’s ethnic territory in the Balkans (see map 8). It was anticipated that the new state would be a principality and would have its own government and army.

The population in this principality numbered about five and a half million Bulgarians living in the regions of Moesia, Thrace and Macedonia, which accomplished the ideal of an independent State.

The prior San Stefano Peace Agreement, however, was not recognized by Great Britain, which, during the creation of the Bulgarian Principality, suspiciously saw a “little Russia” in the heart of the Balkans and so close to Istanbul and its water flow. France and Italy reacted coldly to the Bulgarian proximity to the Mediterranean Sea. The negotiations in London between Solbery, the English Foreign Minister, and Count Shuvalov, the Russian ambassador, ended on May 18, 1878 with the signing of a secret convention, which recommended splitting Bulgaria along the ridge of Stara Planina. The agreement for this division was confirmed by the May 25th agreement between Great Britain and Austria Hungary. At the same time, Russia’s representatives of the government and the emperor were showered with gratitude received from the thousands of signed messages sent to them by the Bulgarian people from Dobrudzha, from Moesia, from Thrace and from Macedonia, pleading with them not to have their “united nation” torn apart.

In accordance with the decisions made by the Congress of Berlin (June, 1878 (see map 9), San Stefano Bulgaria was divided into five parts:

1) The Principality of Bulgaria - The free Bulgarian state with the territory of Timok to the Black Sea and the Sofia Sandzhak;

2) Eastern Rumelia - an autonomous area under the direct political rule of the Sultan;

3) Macedonia and Thrace regions were returned to the Ottoman Empire;

4) The Bulgarian Pomoravie with the cities Nish, Pirot, Leskovats and Vranie were handed to Serbia.

5) Northern Dobrudzha was given to Romania.

The Bulgarian people found it impossible to come to terms with the unjust decisions of the Berlin Congress and continued down the road with their struggle for full liberation and unification of their torn up homeland.

The establishment of the whole “San Stefano Bulgaria” as part of the great national ideal of the Bulgarian nation - “for a united and indivisible Bulgaria” became the national oath.

In 1878-1879, in the Principality of Bulgaria, with help from the Russian government, the basic institutions of the Bulgarian state were built.

The Grand National Constituent Assembly adopted the Turnovo Constitution, considered one of the most democratic constitutions in Europe.

On June 17, 1879, on the recommendation of the Russian Emperor, Prince Alexander I (1879-1886) was installed as head of the Principality.

Immediately after the publication of the Berlin Congress decision, the “Unity” committee began to organize in the three unlinked parts of our homeland.

On October 5, 1878, the Kresna-Razlog Uprising began demonstrating against the decisions of the Berlin Congress. The failure of the rebellion did not curb the faith of the Bulgarians in the ideal of national unity. The “Merger” committee began its establishment in Eastern Rumelia.

On September 6, 1885, led by the “compound” committee with Zahari Stoianov at its head, the people shouted “Down with Rumelia! Long live the union!”

Based on Petko Karavelov’s government decision, young prince Alexander I confirmed the unification of the motherland under his scepter (see map 9). And as such, the Great Powers were placed before a fait accompli. The blow against the Berlin Treaty, however, brought painful echoes in St. Petersburg, where they did not want to

cooperate with Alexander I in his attempts to conduct an independent policy. The Russian officers were ordered to immediately leave Bulgaria. Thus, the Bulgarian army remained without high ranking military commanders.

While Bulgarian soldiers were preparing defenses at the borders with the Ottoman Empire, on November 2, 1885, Serbian King Milan declared war on Bulgaria, in order to carve out new Bulgarian territories. He was asked directly by Austria-Hungary to do this, with silent consent from Russia.

And as such the Serbo-Bulgarian war began. At that time, the entire Bulgarian army was sent to the southeastern border, to preempt any possible Turkish intervention. The Bulgarian people became like one when it came to protecting their homeland. Our young troops, led by captains, amazed the world with their feats in battle. The Bulgarian army inflicted serious blows and broke the Serbian attackers at Slivitsa, Dragoman, Tri Ushi, Tsaribrod, Vidin and Pirot. The road to Nish was opened, when, on behalf of Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia, an ultimatum was issued to immediately stop all military actions. A peace agreement was signed on February 19, 1886 in Bucharest, under the supervision of the Great Powers, which contains only a single demand - establish peace without changing the borders and without any kind of financial compensation. Ironically, with the defeat of the Serbian army, also defeated was our first attempt at Bulgarian national unification. This, however, gave the Bulgarian nation the moral foundation to cry out the national motto - “Unity creates power”.

After the Serbo-Bulgarian War, tumultuous political events began to unfold in Bulgaria. Russia organized the dethroning of Prince Alexander I. The Bulgarian nation was divided into “Russophiles” and “Russophobes”. During those vital days, the head of the Bulgarian state was Stefan Stambolov. Bulgaria’s desire to lead an internal and independent foreign policy depended on the deteriorating relations with Russia.

The Grand National Assembly elected Prince Ferdinand I of Bulgaria without Russian consent. This further aggravated relations between Bulgaria and Russia.

For seven tumultuous years (1887-1894) the Stambulov Administration struggled uncompromisingly against all those who were willing to let foreign interference lead to limitations in Bulgaria’s national sovereignty and independence.

During his administration, Stambulov enacted legislation that protected private property and products built by the Bulgarian industry, which recorded significant progress. Our rural economy was improved. Trade blossomed as it spread to export markets. Foreign loans were used to build railroads and armaments. Bulgaria was gradually transformed into a European country with European capital. Gymnasiums and hospitals were popping up near barracks and factories, creating a new image for Bulgaria. In Plovdviv, in 1892, the first agro-industrial exhibition was opened.

In these difficult times for the Bulgarian nation, the fate of the Bulgarians from Thrace and Macedonia remained in the background.

Yesterday’s national-revolutionary, Stefan Stambolov, thought that the freedom of our Bulgarian lands should not be gotten by weapons alone, but by spiritual enlightenment and unification. He assessed that the Bulgarian Exarchate played a huge role in preserving the Bulgarian national awareness in Macedonia and in Thrace, with a means that everyone supported. With his savvy and ability, Stambolov harvested a means from the Sultan to appoint bishops in Macedonia and Thrace.

The Bulgarian Exarchate took root in Macedonia with seven dioceses, led by bishops in - Ohrid, Bitola, Skopje, Debar, Veles, Strumica and Nevrokop and seven deputies in - Kostur, Lerin, Voden, Solun, Polenie (Kukush), Seres and Melnik region, and two in Aegean Thrace - Drama and Odrin, with over 1,300 priests, 1,600 churches and 73 monasteries. The Bulgarian state, like a sister, helped the great work of the Bulgarian Exarchate. In Macedonia and Odrin Thrace there were 1373 Bulgarian schools opened, of which -13 were high schools in Solun, Skopje, Bitola, Ser, Lozengrad and Odrin, with 2266 teachers and 78,854 students in total.

The Bulgarian Exarchate played an extremely important role in the historical, cultural and national development of the Bulgarians in Macedonia and Thrace. It supported the unity of the Bulgarian people.

Along with its educational and cultural activities, the Exarchate also gave birth to the national-liberation movement in Macedonia and Odrin.

Created on October 23, 1893 in Solun was the Bulgarian Macedonian-Odrin Revolutionary Committees (BMORK) by Damian Gruev, Petar Poparsov, Ivan Hadzhinikolov, Dr. Hristo Tatarchev and other activists. The creators of this organization fought to attain full political autonomy for Macedonia and Thrace, as a stage towards unification with Bulgaria. Later came the head of the organization Gotse Delchev, who built a comprehensive network of revolutionary committees throughout Macedonia and Odrin Thrace. Created in Sofia, in 1895, was the Supreme Macedonian-Odrin Committee (VMOK), with Traiko Kitanchev at its head. This was an organization of the refugees from Macedonia and Odrin Thrace, with the same goals and objectives. In 1902 BMROK was renamed to Secret Macedonian-Odrin organization (TMORO), and in 1905 it was renamed to the Internal Macedonian-Revolutionary Organization (VMORO).

On August 2 (Ilinden), on August 19 (Transfiguration) and on September 14 (Holy Cross in Sersko), 1903, VMORO in Macedonia and in Odrin Thrace began the Ilinden Uprising. The uprising was an expression of the impasse of the Bulgarians in Macedonia and Thrace, and their determination to give their lives for freedom. The European Great Powers remained silent, for lack of unity on the issue of Macedonian autonomy within the Berlin Treaty (Article 23).

Bulgaria was not able to directly help the uprising, due to reactions from all the neighbouring countries.

The smothered uprising encouraged about 50,000 abused Bulgarians from Macedonia and Thrace to seek refuge in Bulgaria.

Bulgaria’s independence from the Ottoman Empire was announced on September 22, 1908. This was one of the most important political acts in the history of our nation taken by Alexander Malinov’s government. Our country became a Kingdom, acquired legal equality in international relations and rejected its inheritance from the Ottoman Empire, a regime which capitulated to the Great Powers. In its 30-year-old free life, the Third Bulgarian state showed marked economic growth, built a network of railways, roads and ports and played a foundation for Bulgarian industry. Although Bulgaria was a rural-commercial country, it managed to achieve substantial economic and financial success. It created conditions for seeking political and military solutions to the realization of its national ideal - a united San Stefano Bulgaria.

Bulgaria could not engage in war alone, without allies, not only because of the significant resources available to the Ottoman Empire, but also because of the expected interference from the other Balkan states working against it. They would never allow Bulgaria alone to go after the Ottoman heritage in Europe.

Serbia set the conditions for respecting the principles for autonomy and for delineating spheres of influence in Macedonia. Any resulting difficulties were overcome by mediation from Petersburg, which aspired to build a Balkan alliance to defend against Germany and Austro-Hungary penetrating the region towards the flows and to the Middle East. With the agreement signed on February 29, 1912, the Serbian government recognized most of Macedonia as “indisputable Bulgarian” territory with Skopje Region labeled “disputed area”, which needed to be declared by the high arbiter, Emperor Nicholas II.

Due to the dispute as to who was going to acquire Solun, an agreement between Bulgaria and Greece was signed on the May 1, 1912, but a dividing line was never determined.

This unfortunately gave Greece an advantage, later putting it ahead of Bulgaria. When Bulgaria was busy fighting in Thrace, Greece reached out for Macedonia. With Montenegro joining the Balkan war, full of contradictions and characters of temporary coalition, the alliance ended.

King Ferdinand I and Ivan Geshov’s government’s political shortsightedness had no foresight to assess the long-term tragic consequences for Bulgaria resulting from the Balkan Pact. Only the Bulgarian Exarchate, headed by Exarch Joseph I, condemned this act with his prophetic words addressed to King Ferdinand I - “For thirty years I have been digging a well with a needle in Thrace and Macedonia and you buried it with a single stroke!”

Launching of the First Balkan War (1912-1913). The Bulgarian nation welcomed the news of the war with gusto and patriotic enthusiasm. They believed that it would unite the tattered homeland and so the entire nation mobilized. People from the Macedonian-Odrin resistance movement joined the Bulgarian army during the first days of the war. This included VMRO Macedonian and Odrin resistance bands consisting of about 70,000 people.

The Bulgarian army bore the full weight of the war on its shoulders. For four weeks the Turkish army was defeated in the battles in Lozengrad, Ljuleburgaz, Bulair and especially in Edirne. A million and a half “brothers outside of Rila and Rhodope”, in Macedonia and Thrace, were freed. The Bulgarian soldier who fought in these battles gloriously carried the battle flag and proved to the world that he was worthy of defending his family and homeland.

While the Bulgarian army was at war at the East Thracian military theater, the Allies occupied much of Macedonia. Breaching their agreement with Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece announced that the territorial division in Macedonia would not be based on ethnicity, but on the actual occupation of the territories. This was the main reason that sparked the disputes between the allies.

For the Bulgarians in Macedonia, their freedom ended in Vardar and Bregalnitsa by the abandonment of the contractual obligations on the part of the Serbian and Greek governments. On May 19, 1913, Greece and Serbia concluded their anti-Bulgarian alliance which was based on the ancient law of belligerence to stop “where the feet of soldiers stepped” and thus the Balkan alliance was destroyed from the inside. In his capacity as arbitrator, Nicholas II invited the four ministers to Petersburg to brief them on the necessity for

concessions in the disputed zone. Dissatisfied from the swallowing of “only” Silistra, Romania joined the anti-Bulgarian coalition. The Porte waited impatiently on the horizon to get involved in the new war to, at least, regain some of its lost territory. Bulgaria’s neighbours did not want to allow an educated and strong well-established state in the heart of the Balkans through natural national unification.

Subjected to a general suppression, the Bulgarian population in Macedonia sent urgent pleas for its protection. The unbroken “advantage” of the treacherous allies, according to their main command, was that they needed to obtain instructed resistance. And thus King Ferdinand, through his aide General Mihail Savov, issued the command “respond by all means possible”. (Confirmed by the Parliamentary Select Committee during the 17th regular National Assembly.) And thus on the night of June 17, 1913, Bulgarian forces attacked the opposing positions in Macedonia.

The long awaited occasion for war was shifted to Serbia and Greece.

Romania executed a mobilization and belligerently attacked the Bulgarian Army from behind. Turkish divisions pushed their way into Eastern Thrace and left it in disgrace, sowing death and destruction everywhere. Bulgaria was left alone to fight against the front lines of five countries. The Great Powers did not interfere, keeping themselves out in order to avoid a major war. The peace negotiations in Bucharest supported the right of strength.

The peace agreements that followed in Bucharest (July 28, 1913) and in Istanbul (September 16, 1913) gave Bulgaria only one ninth of Macedonia, also took away Southern Dobrudzha and Eastern Thrace, but preserved the exit to the Mediterranean Sea through Western Thrace (see map 10).

The Second Balkan (Inter-Allied) War, ended with a national disaster. Over 250,000 refugees from Macedonia and Odrin Thrace were expelled from their homes to Bulgaria.

World War I broke out in the summer of 1914 which strongly raised the political and military cost in Bulgaria. Bulgaria occupied a

pivotal position in the peninsula, had a strong and well-trained army and could act firmly against its neighbours.

Compromising diplomacy, particularly that of Russia, made a sustained effort to attract Bulgaria as an ally. It was proposed that it immediately take Eastern Thrace with the conditional promise that it could have the majority of the “indisputable zone” in Macedonia. King Ferdinand and the Bulgarian government, however, were convinced that Serbia and Greece, who had drastically expanded territorially in Macedonia, would not cede an inch of that land. The Serbian and Greek position was confirmed by the numerous declarations made in Belgrade and Athens.

Germany and Austria-Hungary, who were already at war with Serbia, showed greater generosity by unconditionally offering Macedonia, Pomoravie and Timok to Bulgaria. The Russian exit from the Carpathians and Visla in 1915, the collapse of the Dardanelles operation and the pacification of the Western Front put an end to the fluctuations in the political factors in Sofia.

On August 24, 1915, Dr. Vasil Radoslavov’s government signed an alliance agreement between Bulgaria and Germany. This subscribed secret agreement guaranteed Bulgaria’s acquisition of the disputed zone and undisputed Macedonian, Pomoravi and Timok territories. If Romania acted against the Central Powers, Bulgaria would get back the San Stefano Southern Dobrudzha frontier. And if Greece did the same, Bulgaria would get Southeastern Macedonia. An agreement was also reached between Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire regarding the transition of the lower course of the Maritsa, with the railway line Odrin-Dedeagach falling under Bulgarian control. (See map no. 11).

The Bulgarian army, included in which were approximately 150,000 Bulgarians from Macedonia (the celebrated 11th Macedonian division), as well as units from the 34,000 Bulgarians who had deserted from the Serbian army and 19,000 who had deserted from the Greek army, showed unheard of feats of bravery in battle for Pomoravie, Macedonia and Dobrudzha.

The Great War was lost. Bulgaria was again drawn into the fall of national ruins. A military rebellion began to take shape.

On August 27, 1918, in Radomir, the agricultural activist Raiko Daskalov declared Bulgaria a republic. The rebellion was crushed.

King Ferdinand was forced to abdicate. During his 25 years he had contributed much to the successful development of the Bulgarian state. However, in the last six years, with his direct participation, Bulgaria was embroiled in three wars which led to two national disasters, which negatively reflected on his reign.

The throne was passed on to King Boris III (1918-1943). The entire national heritage was placed in his hands - the economic and social state of a ruined and divided society.

On November 27, 1919, Minister Alexander Stamboliski signed the Nice Peace Treaty (see map No. 12).

Under this Agreement:

- Serbia again received Vardar Macedonia and managed to win a strategic frontier in relation to Bulgaria. It further took Strumitsa, Bosilgrad, Tsaribrod and part of Kulsko-old Bulgarian regions;

- Greece, in addition to receiving Aegean Macedonia, also took Bulgaria’s exit to the Mediterranean Sea, between the rivers Maritsa and Mesta;

- Romania- kept Southern Dobrudzha.

This led to a new wave of about 200,000 refugees from Macedonia, Thrace, Dobruzha and Pomoravie to flee to Bulgaria.

Heavy reparations were also imposed on Bulgaria. The mounting casualties and the failure to nationally unify the various Bulgarian people and territories weighed heavily on the souls of many Bulgarians who were now convinced that their opportunities for a militarily realization were remote.

In 1920, during a difficult post-war crisis, the Agricultural Alliance Party headed by Alexander Stamboliski came to power.

A series of reforms were implemented, but the Agricultural Alliance government caused serious tensions, discord and strife in society. This was reflected in the social discrediting of the bureaucracy, of entrepreneurship, of the activists of the national-liberation movement in Macedonia, Thrace, and Dobrudzha and especially in the officer ranks, which held prestige in society. The reason for this circumstance was the relinquishment of the BZNS leadership from the Bulgarian ideal for national unity and its distancing from the wars that were led for its realization. Regarding foreign policy, Stamboliski implemented a line of rapproachement with Serbia, to a large degree, at the cost of Bulgarian national interests.

On June 9, 1923 the Military Alliance executed a coup and put Professor Alexander Tsankov’s government in power. The leadership of the Agricultural Alliance left for the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, where some of them made themselves available to the Yugoslav and Greek governments.

A special place in our most recent history must be given to the Comintern and the interference it played in the political life of our country. Its main goal was to succeed in implementing Lenin and Trotsky’s “doctrine of a world proletarian revolution”. The Comintern converted all communist parties worldwide into satellite sections. Under the guise of these legal communist parties, it organized sabotage and terrorist actions in almost all European countries. Our country was one of the countries subject to such action.

According to a Comintern decision, V. Kolarov and G. Dimitrov were sent to Bulgaria to work against the will of BCP President Dimitar Blagoev and to prepare conditions for an armed uprising here in Bulgaria. How could the impoverished nation, frightened by the long and exhausting war, which it was neither armed nor ready for, be pushed into anti-government turmoil - and then be quickly and fiercely suppressed. In 1924 this gave the administration reason to enact the “Law for the protection of the state”, which put a stop to all activities of terrorism and to conspiring parties and organizations.

On April 16, 1925 with a decision from the Central Committee, the BCP military organization conducted assassinations in the Sveta Nedela (Holy Sunday) Cathedral. It killed 147 and wounded 500 people, among them were many personalities from the Bulgarian political elite. It became an occasion for the mass execution of political figures and for causing a state of civil war in the much divided society.

Having learned its lessons from past national disasters, Bulgaria turned to peaceful attempts to calm the difficult and unfair revised solutions of Nice. The national program was divided into minimum and maximum, adjusted for moderation and gradation.

The “Peaceful review” required compliance with the development of international relations and finding cracks in the contradictions between the Great Powers. The struggle to garner Southern Dobrudza and an exit to the Mediterranean Sea had temporarily displaced the Macedonian issue as the main subject of foreign policy efforts.

At that time, the process of genocide and assimilation of the Bulgarian population in the Macedonian and Thracian territory occupied by Serbia and Greece was ongoing. The Bulgarian intelligentsia was persecuted en masse - priests, teachers and prominent figures. The people were extremely vulnerable to national and economic oppression. This raised the need for the restoration of VMRO and its armed and cultural-educational struggle against the new oppressors with demands for political autonomy and freedom for Macedonia. This struggle went through two periods - from 1918-1924, led by Todor Aleksandrov and from 1925-1941, led by Ivan (Vancho) Mihailov.

During this period, the Comintern made an exceptional effort to subdue the Bulgarian national liberation movement in Vardar and Aegean Macedonia under its class ideology. Its aims were to transform the IMRO into “a fist of the proletarian revolution in the Balkans”. To achieve this, the Comintern created its satellite organization the VMRO-United which worked against the VMRO. It used a number of communists from Macedonia and some leftist