НАШЕ ВИДУВАЊЕ - Part 01

********************************** НАШЕ ВИДУВАЊЕ

Смелоста на учесниците во оваа научна дебата да ја изнесат вистината за темелите на денешната грчка држава заслужува внимание и поштовање, но прикаската ќе биде целосна и уште по веродостојна, ако и денешните грчки политичари ја прифатат горчливата вистина и им пружат рака на Македонците во знак на помирба и уште поширока добрососедска соработка.

Вистината излегува на видело и нема зошто да се преговара за нашето име. Македонија не била никогаш дел од Грција и нашата историја е само наша, како што нивната е само нивна.

Нашите политичари и научниците на Македонија имаат прилика да ја одбранат честа и достоинството на македонскиот народ од неправдите и понижувањата што сме ги преживеале од вистинските арамии на Историјата, само ако знаат како. Шансата им е дадена. Треба предизвикот да се прифати, зошто нечесната совест на непрјателот му ја јади душата и моли за прочка.

Ваш Сотир Гроздановски 13 октомври 2015 Brooklyn, New York, USA

Discussion with Ilias Petropoulos regarding Macedonian and Greek Issues

Ilias Petropoulos is a Greek poet and writer who in 1975 left Greece and went to live in Paris. Discontent with the way he was treated in Greece because of what he thought and wrote he fled to France to pursue what he loves the most, his writing. Petropoulos said he was fed up with the pretentiousness, intolerance, racism and chauvinism that goes on in that country and decided it was time to abandon it.

Ilias Petropoulos is one of those rare Greeks who has taken interest in studying the “real” aspects of Balkan culture particularly those of old Salonika (Solun) in Greek occupied Macedonia. As a Greek himself he understands the neo-Greek mentality and what it does to people in modern Greece, particularly to the Macedonians.

Petropoulos accepted to do this interview, conducted by Liljana Kotevska on March 14, 1992, because he felt it was time that he spoke up and let people know how he felt about his experiences in Greece.

Q. Mr. Petropoulos, why are you exiled?

My answer would be for freedom. The freedom to write without being afraid. The freedom to publish my works without fear of persecution. I have been jailed several times in the past. I always wanted to leave Greece so that I can write. I managed to do that in 1975 and since then I have never returned.

My writing is about ideas that are not appreciated by the so-called “intellectuals” in that country. In fact they hate what I write so I am forced to work without a bibliography which means I have to strictly rely on my own memory which is like a vault full of data.

Q. You have written a beautiful nostalgic essay about Solun with a picture of the 1912 Greek occupation of that city. What do you remember about that?

My father was a civil servant in the Greek government and as part of his service he was obligated to serve at various places in Greece. During the 1930’s he was ordered to go to Northern Greece and serve in Solun. At that time Solun was still a large and multinational city dominated by Jews. I remember Solun was a multi-ethnic city with a mottle of different people with their various languages. Solun was not a ghetto but a city of ethnic communities organized in different neighbourhoods each with its own Church, Mosque, or Synagogue and each supporting a different profession or skill. You had your Jews, Greeks, Albanians, Macedonians, Armenians, Bulgarians, Serbians, Vlachs, Grekophones, Turkophones, Karamans (Orthodox Turkophones from Asia Minor), Doimi (Islamized Jews) and Franko-Levantists.

Q. I understand that after Macedonia’s division Solun, the Balkan Metropolis you speak of, was transformed into a provincial city. What can you tell us about that?

Yes you are right. From that moment on Solun lost its place of being rich and famous and fell into misery. Before the Balkan Wars and before the First World War, Solun was a grand city with its harbours full of foreign ships from all over Europe. When Solun was taken over by the Greeks it not only lost its multi-ethnic character, it lost its luster and appeal and there was no longer reason for foreign ships to remain there. Then after more than 40,000 Jews left, Solun was dealt another death blow completely losing its place as a great city.

Q. Obviously you were negatively influenced by your experience in Greece and you feel a need to write and expose its chauvinism. What can you tell us about that?

The Greek racism and chauvinism we are witnessing today is mainly due to the educational indoctrination or the kind of education we have all received in Greek schools. From youth children are taught to be paranoid and confrontational towards their neighbours and towards the Balkan reality. Racism in Greece comes in various

forms and wears many different masks. I believe the best remedy for eliminating this sort of behaviour is to expose people to the truth and recognize all people for who they truly are. This reminds me of the time I sent a letter to Melina Merkouri, then Greek Minister of Culture, to let her know that a certain group of archeologists were planning to remove Bogomil graves from the territory of Macedonia to prove that Slavs never set foot in this Greek territory. I saw this with my own eyes and even took photographs which I later sent to Athens and Paris. Unfortunately, the Minister never answered my letter nor did she make any comment to the articles I wrote about that, which only proves that she not only knew about it, she was part of the conspiracy to cover up the existence of Slav graves in Macedonia. And by doing that did she really prove that Slavs never laid a foot in this “holy land of Greece”?

Q. One of Greece’s most tragic periods is the Greek Civil War. What do you remember about that?

About that! In 1990 I published a book entitled “Corpses, corpses, corpses” in which I covered the German occupation of 1941 to 1944 and the Greek Civil War of 1946 to 1949. Even though the democratic movement in that period [during the Greek Civil War] was bathed in blood the real Greek tragedy came later during the Karamanlis dictatorship of 1955 to 1963. This is the period during which the democratic people of Greece were truly smothered. If you ask an outsider even if they are Europeans they will say the worst period in Greece was the Greek Civil War or the dictatorship of the Colonels but the truth is the Karamanlis era was the worst. If I can describe him in any way I would say he is the murderer of Greek culture.

Q. Mr. Petropoulos, are you familiar with the story of the 28,000 refugee children which were exiled during the Greek Civil War and since then have been displaced all over the world?

I am well aware of their story but not all the children are Macedonian, some are from other parts of Greece. What is more frightening than that story is the story of the children caught by the Greek Monarcho-Fascists. Did you know that the Monarcho-Fascists had orders to take by force, kidnap children from the groups

that were leaving? These children, under the protection of Queen Frederica, were all sent to isolated schools which existed everywhere in Greece from Solun to Rhodes. These schools were like jails and children taught there were destined to become the new Praetorian Guard or the janissary in Greece’s service.

Q. How was the defeat of the Democratic Army of Greece and General Markos treated in Greece?

This is a very intricate question whose answer can fill an entire book. In hindsight we know that Stalin abandoned the Partisans in Greece and left them to meet their own fate. Tito too gave up on them when he broke off his relations with the Democratic Army of Greece. We also know that Tito allowed the Monarcho-Fascists to enter Yugoslavia in 1949 to cut off the Partisans from retreating. As for Markos, I believe he was a good person and did his job during the occupation and during the Greek Civil War but failed to stop the political failures and subsequent liquidations.

Q. Mr. Petropoulos what can you tell us about the military dictatorships in Greece?

The so-called “Colonel Dictatorship”, I can tell you, was tragic but more comical than dangerous. It is well known that there have always been tortures committed in Greece. In fact no matter what regime was in power, it committed torture but none more than the Karamanlis regime. The Karamanlis regime was particularly brutal by its specific targeting of the leftists. When Papadopoulos, the leader of the dictatorship took over, he began to torture everyone, even those on the right. The Greek bourgeoisie was caught by surprise by this one because Greece had now regressed and had re-introduced the old classic method of torture only to use it against itself. How ironic? You can’t trust anything or anyone in Greece.

Q. There is an ongoing dispute between an Orthodox Cleric and a number of Greek artists like Kazanzakis, Angelopoulos and his latest film, etc. What can you tell us about that?

There are certain Metropolitans, voyeurs of a neo-Orthodox movement, who are trying to scare Angelopoulos and others like

Freda Ljana, Kazanzakis, etc., people involved in cinema. As for Kazanzakis himself, he is not really in serious trouble because he never was a revolutionary and he wears a ten meter cross on his chest. But in Rondis’s and Laskaratos’s case they are in real trouble that is why those two were in jail. Rondis is a good artist and may be one of the most important and most captivating of Greek writers.

Q. Going back to Solun. Nowadays we witness one massive manifestation of Greek chauvinism in Solun against the international recognition of the Republic of Macedonia. What can you tell us about that?

The massive meeting of the “people” as was presented by Greek authorities was organized and supported by all the political parties in Greece. This was a dangerous chauvinist manifestation. As I recall there was word that the residents of Solun were claiming they did not know who these “Slavo-Macedonians” were. Perhaps they were pretending they didn’t know because according to official Greece “Macedonians don’t exist”. If they don’t exist then how can there be a name for a people that don’t exist. And if they don’t exist how could the residents of Solun know about them? This is what the “sold-out” professors from the University in Solun were saying. These are the same “sold-out” professors who have been trying their best to prove “the Greek-ness of Macedonia”. And if I may add, these are the same “sold-out” professors who can’t even prove their own Greek-ness.

Take a look at Karamanlis for example. His mother is a Slavic speaker and his father is a Turkish speaker. How about Manolis Andronikos? How Greek is he? This is not an exception; this applies to every Modern Greek. Every Greek has his own non-Greek story. That is why “Greeks” like these have an inferiority complex and need to boast about their Greek-ness, need to play the “super patriot card” and hold lectures on patriotism.

Q. As I recall Kostantinos Karamanlis, in the beginning of this year, wrote a letter to his European partners calling their attention to the Macedonian question. Will the Europeans give him their attention?

Karamanlis is of no significance in Europe. Europe is currently passing through a phase, a transformation of shedding its wool and this is complicating things in the Balkans. Greece has no strategy in its national politics and is nervously reacting to the changing situation. This nervousness is manifesting itself in bad politics and horrible diplomacy. Instead of acting rationally Greece is reacting irrationally to the new situation causing disharmony in the region. Whatever war Greece was fighting, it has lost it. Today Turkey is rising in dominance in the region between the Balkans, the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. Turkey will become a great power and fast.

Q. In the publication entitled “Minorities in Greece” published in Athens some time ago there is a mention that the “Slavo-Macedonians” are the third largest group of people. What do you know about that?

Unfortunately Greek politicians are unwilling to accept reality and are consumed by their destructive tactics of playing the nationalist or racist card. The Greek government was well versed with the term “Macedonia the country” from many international communications but now the instant that country became a reality Greece found a need to negate its existence. The Greek government is as blind to the existence of the country Macedonia as it is blind to a lot of internal problems to which it remarks with expressions like “we may not be far from the day when the Christians will ask for the independence of Crete”.

Q. What do you thing of Macedonia? What does Macedonia mean to you?

The Kurds before Xenophone’s epoch moved between Armenia and Mesopotamia but did not succeed in securing a country of their own but the Macedonians did. The neo-Greeks think they are the descendents of the Ancient Greeks and of the Byzantines and by that they believe they have exclusive right to the name “Macedonia”. These are the same people who insisted that Istanbul be called Constantinople. I think my Greek compatriots have many more bitter pills to swallow.

Interview Liljana Kotevska, March 14, 1992, Epoha, pages 34-36 Translation and editing, Risto Stefov

Greece’s invasion and occupation of Macedonia – The First Balkan War

By the turn of the 19th century the new Balkan nations Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria were flexing their economic and military muscles. Alliances like the Serbian-Bulgarian league against Greek-Ottoman collusion or the Greek-Romanian league against Bulgarian aims at Macedonia came and went. In world events on the surface it seemed that everything was normal but deep inside a rift was developing.

The rift became apparent when Russian-Austrian relations began to seriously cool. Dividing lines were drawn as Russia began to warm up to Britain and France while Austria began to warm up to Germany. Italy remained neutral for a while and took a few shots at the Ottomans but was prohibited (by the other powers) from attacking the centers of Ottoman power. (It was through these campaigns that Italy occupied the Dodecanese). Even though Italy was restrained from further campaigns, it weakened the Ottomans enough for the three new Balkan States to consider campaigns of their own. Italy’s actions were also a sign of things to come and created an atmosphere of urgency for the new Balkan states to expedite their own plans for territorial annexation.

Everyone wanted a piece of Macedonia but no one dared stick out his neck to get it. The three wolves of the Balkans (Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria), with Russian help, realized that each alone could not accomplish what the three could do together. They swallowed their pride, put their differences aside and by the end of 1911 they started negotiations on how to annex Macedonian territories.

As a way of preventing Austrian aspirations in the Balkans, Russia invited the idea of a Serbian-Bulgarian league. Russia hoped that, jointly, Serbia and Bulgaria would be able to withstand Austrian advances in Macedonia without its involvement. After getting them to agree to talk, Serbia and Bulgaria listed their terms but could not reach an agreement. Autonomy for Macedonia was one major issue of contention upon which they could not agree. While Sofia supported the idea of autonomy Belgrade opposed it. Finally, for the sake of expediting the negotiations, all parties agreed that the

“autonomy question” would be left separate and dealt with after the annexation of Macedonia.

Russia made it clear to both parties that they couldn’t invade Macedonia without its permission and only if the Ottomans became a threat to the Christian population. In the meantime Serbia was encouraged to take steps to annex Albania and Kosovo. A draft Serbian-Bulgarian agreement was reached and signed on March 13th, 1912. Included in the agreement was a crude delineation of prospective boundaries and suggestions that the final boundaries might be settled by force of arms. The Russians also insisted that Tsar Nikolas II would arbitrate any disputes regarding the exact territorial limits.

Even before the Serbian-Bulgarian agreement was finalized, Greece was already having discussions with Bulgaria about negotiating a Greek-Bulgarian agreement. The Greek-Bulgarian negotiations, like the Serbian-Bulgarian negotiations, were conducted in secret known only to the Greek King, Prime Minister Venizelos and their negotiator “The Times” correspondent J. D. Bourchier, an old friend of Venizelos. Like the Serbs, the Greeks had always opposed the idea of Macedonian autonomy but the Bulgarians were unwilling to proceed until Greece agreed to the autonomy. The Greek-Bulgarian treaty was signed on May 30th, 1912. Both parties promised not to attack one another and to come to each other’s defense should the Ottomans attack them.

The “Balkan League of Nations” was spawned in June 1912. Shortly afterwards the Ottomans were given a signed ultimatum bearing the League’s signature, which in short read, “deliver the promised reforms in Macedonia or prepare to be invaded”.

There was much intrigue, agreements, counter-agreements and secret deals between the Balkan League of Nations (Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia) but from the outset each state was determined to exploit any situation that developed, purely for its own gain. “The Balkan League of Nations in fact was simply a device for synchronizing a military effort upon the part of the four powers (Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and Montenegro) which had come to realize that the simplest way to settle the Ottoman question, before it

was too late and while circumstances were favourable, was to attack the Ottomans simultaneously and present the European powers with a fait accompli.” (Page 440, Dakin, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia 1897-1913) All that remained now was to provoke the Ottomans into committing an offence against the Christian population and the invasion would become a reality.

Using proven techniques of terrorism to prepare the battleground, Bulgarian sponsored brigands masquerading as Macedonian revolutionaries conducted many raids inside Macedonia murdering, raping and plundering villages in hopes that the real Macedonian revolutionary bands would be blamed. When the Ottomans investigated the disturbances, both Patriarchist (Greek supported) and Exarchist (Bulgarian supported) authorities corroborated their stories and pinned these murderous acts on the Macedonians. As expected the Ottomans responded swiftly and dealt with the situation using violence in the usual manner. Their actions however were welcome news to the League’s spies who immediately dispatched communiqués to the European press. There was an outcry that the Ottomans were committing atrocities against the Christian population in Macedonia and something had to be done. It was now up to the Great Powers to decide the course of action.

Along with documents of Ottoman atrocities, the foreign press also received well-camouflaged Balkan League propaganda. The League had commenced extensive propaganda campaigns against the Ottomans, detailing every Ottoman committed act for European consumption. A war was imminent but, according to the League’s propaganda, it was a necessary war to “liberate” the enslaved Christians from Ottoman oppression. The League, through extensive media campaigns, called on all Christians in Macedonia to join the League and oust the oppressive Ottomans. But some Macedonians were not convinced those calls were genuine. Here is what Yane Sandanski had to say; “We ought to work on the awakening of the consciousness of the Macedonian masses that they are an independent nation...because those who seek to ‘liberate them’... will actually be coming to enslave them...” (Page 134, Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question)

As mentioned earlier, the Western Powers had not exhausted the full potential of the Ottoman markets and were unwilling to let the Ottoman regime in Macedonia collapse. At the same time Britain, France, Italy and Russia were greatly concerned about the aggressive attitudes of Germany outside of the Balkans. More importantly, they were concerned that the Ottoman regime was leaning towards an Ottoman-German alliance.

When Russia proposed the idea of a “Balkan League of Nations” it was welcome news for Britain, France and Italy. The League was viewed as an anti-German front, a way of ejecting the Ottoman regime from Europe and at the same time, safeguarding (British, French and Italian) interests and expansionary ambitions. The not so obvious Russian motive for sponsoring the League was to guarantee its own influence in the Balkans perhaps through Serbia or Bulgaria or both.

On October 18th, 1912 Montenegro declared war on the Ottomans with the League following suit. The battles that ensued were fought almost entirely on Macedonian soil, once again causing the Macedonians to suffer from someone else’s war.

Russia, the architect of the Balkan League, was against a war in 1912 and so were France and Britain. A war at this point might throw off the delicate diplomatic balance and escalate into a “world war”. Russia feared that the half-millennium old Ottoman Empire might not be as easy a target as the League had estimated. Britain and France feared a backlash from Germany and Austria now that the Ottomans were warming up to them as a prospective ally. To stop the League’s aggressive actions, both Britain and France threatened them with economic sanctions but that was not enough to suppress the appetites of the three hungry Balkan wolves.

The League’s plan was to surround the Ottoman army in Macedonia and force it out to Constantinople, the Ottoman capital. To everyone’s surprise, however, the League won a crushing and unexpected victory in just six weeks. Five Ottoman divisions were surrounded and defeated in two battles, in Bitola and Kumanovo. With the exception of Sandanski and a force of 400 Macedonians who fought back and liberated Melnik and Nevrokop, the League

received no opposition from the Macedonians. In fact, the enthusiasm created by the “liberators” not only helped the League fight harder but also encouraged thousands of Macedonians to enlist in the League’s armies. “A Macedonian Militia force of 14,000 fought under the Bulgarian command in the East. The ‘Volunteer regiment’, directed by the Macedonian revolutionary veterans, consisted of a thousand Macedonians, Turks and Albanians. In the Serbian and Greek armies, Macedonian detachments such as the ‘National Guard’ and the ‘Holy Band’ were given the task of encircling the Ottomans to fight their retreat.” (Page 143, Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question) Even Chakalarov, the protector of the Lerin and Kostur regions, joined the fight to help the League get rid of the Ottomans. The League’s victories and intense propaganda were so convincing that the entire Macedonian population welcomed the so called “liberators” with open arms.

The moment the three wolves evicted the Ottoman army from Macedonia, they quickly worked out a partitioning strategy along the following lines:

- Serbia was to receive the northwestern portion of Macedonia, which included Skopje, Bitola, south to west of Lerin, east to Gevgelija and west to the Albanian Mountains.

- Bulgaria was to receive all of Thrace, west to Gevgelija, south to the Aegean Sea and east from Solun.

- Greece was to receive north to Lerin, west to the Albanian Mountains, all of Epirus and east to Solun.

“To ensure their hegemony and quell any dissent, the occupying forces set up the apparatus of government and, by legislative decrees, extended their own constitutions to these new bodies, from which Macedonians were absent. Indeed, in many provincial centres, such as Gevgelija, a double or triple condominium was established, much to the detriment of the Macedonian citizens.” (Page 143, Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question)

In view of the Macedonian contribution to the League’s success in evicting the Ottomans, on December 12th, 1912 Sandanski called for

Macedonian autonomy. The League’s occupying armies, however, refused to budge and initiated a violent assimilation program. The Macedonian fighters, who fought side by side with the League’s armies, found themselves policed by a joint League command ensuring that no resistance or independent action would arise. The League also pursued Sandanski and his men. Sandanski resisted and stayed active in the Pirin Region until his assassination in 1915 by Bulgarian agents.

The changing conditions inside Macedonia forced the Macedonian Revolutionary leadership to seek refuge in foreign cities away from home. Some of the more prominent leaders moved to St. Petersburg and joined the Macedonian community living there. This small group of Macedonians consistently lobbied for Macedonian Statehood and, in the war’s aftermath, acted as a government in exile. The most outspoken advocate of the Macedonian leaders was Dimitar Chupovski who published the “Macedonian Voice” and continuously protested to the Great Powers against Macedonia’s partition. In June 1913 he wrote; “The division of Macedonia among the brother nations is the most unjust act in the history of these nations – it is trampling on the rights of man...” (Page 145, Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question) In total eleven issues of “Macedonian Voice” were published and distributed all over Europe.

“A great terror reigns in Macedonia now. The ‘freedom’ of the allies has no frontiers, no-one from Macedonia has the right to travel outside, to protest or complain before the European states. Whoever disturbs this order is either killed or imprisoned. The allies surround Macedonia with a Chinese Wall…” (Page 145, Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question)

The Macedonian people must not stand idly by and accept the unworthy fate of being divided so that others may profit from it. “In the name of the Macedonian people, we demand that Macedonia remain a single, indivisible, independent Balkan state within its geographical, ethnographic, historical, economic and cultural frontiers...Macedonia represents a unified body both from the historical and natural viewpoints, and cannot voluntarily end its many centuries of existence by agreeing to be broken up...Can we

allow a people to be, at one and the same time, Bulgarian, Serb and Greek? Is it not simpler to assume that the nationality attributed to us is dictated by the big power politics of the interested parties who wish to take over Macedonia?” (Page 145, Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question)

By November it was becoming apparent that the Ottomans were running out of options. On November 12th, 1912 they called on the Great Powers to bring about an armistice. To deal with the situation a peace conference was scheduled for December 16th, 1912, to take place in London. Having some time to adjust to the new situation, the Great Powers, for the first time, opted from the usual “status quo” recommendations and considered making concessions to the victors. Austria, however, was not too happy at the prospect of a “large Serbia” let alone allowing Serbia access to the Adriatic Sea. Austria was eyeing the Adriatic region as a prospective sphere of influence for itself. Being unable to make concessions by itself, however, Austria did the next best thing and agreed with Britain about the idea of “creating” a new State, Albania. Another reason why Austria did not want Serbia to have access to the Adriatic Sea was because a Serbian port might become a Russian port.

This attempt to deny Serbia access to the Adriatic Sea not only left Serbia landlocked but also upset Russia, causing it to break relations with Austria. Italy too was affected by this diplomatic power play, pushing it to improve its relations with Austria. This, as it turned out, was the crucial historic moment which gave birth to the “Triple Alliance” (Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy) and the “Triple Entente” (Britain, France and Russia), a division that would have future consequences.

As a result of this sudden change of events, Austria began to amass troops along the Serbian border. At the same time, fearing German intervention, Russia ordered a halt to Bulgarian and Serbian advances towards Constantinople, the Ottoman capital. To fully curb Serbian and Russian expansionism: France, Britain and Italy voted to grant the newly created Albanian State full independence. This saved Albania from being partitioned by the Greeks and Serbians and made it a Great Power protectorate, which Albanians enjoy to this day.

I want to emphasize that by 1912 it was well known that a Macedonian Nation with a Macedonian consciousness existed and demonstrated its desire for independence. These actions were well documented and familiar to the Great Powers, yet even after pleading their case, the Macedonians were NOT ALLOWED to attend the London Peace Conference of December 16th, 1912. Numerous petitions made by the Macedonian revolutionary leadership affiliates from St. Petersburg were all ignored. Also Chupovski’s memo to the British delegation was not tabled. Here is what Chupovski (in part) had to say; “In the name of natural law, of history, of practical expediency, for the Macedonian people, we ask that Macedonia’s right to self-determination be admitted, and that Macedonia be constituted within its ethnic, geographical and cultural borders as a self-governing state with a government responsible to a national assembly.” (Page 147, Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question)

The London Conference adjourned on August 11th, 1913, officially declaring an end to the First Balkan War. In spite of all the wheeling and dealing that went on during the conference, the resolutions left all parties dissatisfied. Serbia was dissatisfied with losing the Albanian territory. Serbia appealed to Bulgaria to grant it access to the Aegean Sea via Solun and the Vardar valley, but its appeals fell on deaf ears. Greece also was not happy with Bulgaria’s invasion and annexation of the Dardanelles. To balance its share, Greece wanted Serres, Drama and Kavala as compensation. That too fell on deaf ears. Bulgaria too, frustrated with not achieving its “San Stefano Dream”, was bitter about Russia deserting it during the London Conference negotiations.

Seeing that Bulgaria was not going to budge and the fact that neither Greece nor Serbia alone could take on Bulgaria, should a conflict arise, Greece and Serbia concluded a secret pact of their own to jointly act against Bulgaria. In short, the objective was to take territory from Bulgaria west of the Vardar River, divide it and have a common frontier.

After stumbling upon this Greek-Serbian pact, despite Russian attempts to appease it by offering it Solun, Bulgaria remained bitter

and in a moment of weakness was lured away by Austria. By going over to Austria, Bulgaria in effect broke off all relations with the Balkan League. Russia, disappointed with the Bulgarian shift in loyalty, made it clear that Bulgaria could no longer expect any help from Russia.

Modern Greeks today believe Macedonian was liberated in 1912!

Source:

Stefou, Chris. History of the Macedonian People from Ancient times to the Present. Toronto: Risto Stefov Publications, 2005.

Macedonian was never a part of the Hellenic city-states

By J.S.G. Gandeto

One of the steps in the Scientific Method of Investigation is the publication of your obtained results so that others may independently, by repeating the same experiment derive to the same conclusion, and verify whether it is true or not what you have stated that you have accomplished with your hypothesis. When many independent laboratories-through their scientific research-arrive to same conclusions as yours, then, the hypothesis that you have proposed becomes accepted and your findings acknowledged.

I have said before, and I stand by my assertions, that Macedonia was never a part of any ancient Greek city-state, nor were the ancient Macedonians ever considered, by the ancient Greeks or by themselves, to be Greek. Macedonia was never a member of any Hellenic League. Macedonia was not a member of the Greek Amphictyonic League.

These leagues were reserved for Hellenes only. The boundary between Macedonia and Greece was the river Peneus and mount Olympus; to the south were the Greek tribes and to the north was Macedonia.

I challenge all of you, including Professor Stephan Miller and his like-minded historians, to prove me wrong. When you loudly proclaim "Macedonia was always Greek", I dare you to find one shred of evidence and bring it forward. Find other like-minded authors from antiquity who will agree with your own assertion. Please, show the evidence and discredit my person in front of this sophisticated readership. I will state the following once more: Anyone who claims that ancient Macedonia was a Greek land and that ancient Macedonians were Greeks or that Macedonians are stealing Greek heritage, is nothing less and nothing more than a corrupt, deceitful fabricator of history whose scientific thinking is based on personal beliefs and mythology. Facts are not derived through beliefs and mythology. Scientific knowledge does not rest on feelings, nor is it supported by bed-time stories and la-la-byes. Science needs concrete proofs, and that is what you do not have.

I stand on the shoulders of others;

I stand convinced that (1) you will be unable to prove Strabo, Scylax, Dichaerchus, Scymnus, and Dionysius wrong. These biographers have stated that Greece commences at the Ambracian Gulf, and terminates at the river Peneus.

I am convinced that (2) you will be unable to prove Aeschines, Theopompus and Pausanias wrong, for not including Macedonia on their list of the Amphictyonic people of Greece.

I stand convinced that (3) you will have no answer as to why Thucydides found no room for Macedonia on his list of states on either side of the warring parties in the Peloponnesian War; Macedonia is found neither on the Athenian, nor on the Lacedaemonian side.

These are hard facts that cannot be dismissed with lame excuses and manipulation of text. One cannot disregard evidence of this magnitude and bring forward a pitiful assertion like 'Macedonians spread Hellenic culture in the East', instead. You cannot substitute and equate the words of a king (Philip V) "My ancestors Philip II and Alexander the Great conquered Greece", with "but Macedonians had same names as Greeks" nonsense. You can saturate the media with slogans and cry "thieves" as long as you want but you will not be able to subvert and change the evidence left from the ancient authors. Fact is that you have bought some professors to put their shoulder on your "Greek" wheel, but fact is also that you are stuck in the mud of lies up to you knees and cannot move.

The following piece of evidence reaffirms my position and demonstrates, once again, that truth cannot be suppressed for long.

As one of the powers which had guaranteed the independence of the Greek Kingdom in 1828, Great Britain held the position that the Greek claims to extension of their territories were greater (as of

1880) than the boundaries which the Greek city-states held in antiquity. This position was brought forward by Major J.C. Ardagh, (later became Sir Major-General). He was part of the British delegation that was attached to the Special Embassy during the Congress at Berlin on June 3rd, 1878. He was also appointed as her Majesty's Commissioner for the delineation of the frontier of Bulgaria (September 7th, 1878); and was employed during the conference at Constantinople in 1881. Sir J.C. Ardagh was born on August 9, 1840, and died on September 30th, 1907.

Before the Conference at Constantinople, Major Ardagh communicated with the British Foreign Office on the issue of the new Greek frontier with his "Memorandum on the Ancient Boundaries of Greece", which was received at the Foreign Office on February 24th, 1881. The information which Major Ardagh presented in his memorandum (quoting sources from antiquity) reaffirms claims made by Macedonians today that, Macedonia was never part of any Greek (Hellenic) state during ancient times. If ancient Greek sources did not see Macedonia as part of the "Ancient Greek World", how can the modern Greek state see Macedonia and its people as Greek?

What Major Ardagh's memorandum does raise is questions not only to the issue of the true Greek frontier, but also to the true identity of the people of Macedonia. Since 1913, the end of the Second Balkan War when Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia and Montenegro divided up Macedonia amongst themselves, Greece has been claiming that Macedonia was always Greek. Major Ardagh discredits this claims by quoting ancient Greeks themselves and shows that not only was Macedonia not Greek or part of ancient Greece and neither was Epirus or Thessaly.

Doc. 41 Memorandum on the Ancient Boundaries of Greece By Major J.C. Ardagh, C.B., R.E. (Received at the Foreign Office, February 24th, 1881)

The Ancient Boundaries of Greece

As the claims of the Greeks to an extension of territories are in some degree based upon the limits of the ancient Greece, I conceived that an examination of the early Greek geographers would throw some light upon them, and I have been able to procure, and annex extracts from them in Greek with translations.

Strabo, Scylax, Dichaerchus, Scymnus, and Dionysius all concur in making Greece commence at the Ambracian Gulf, and terminate at the river Peneus.

The catalogue of the ships in the Iliad, the various lists of the Amphictyonic tribes, the states engaged in the Peloponnesian war, the travels of Anacharsis I the description of Greece by Pausanias, and the natural history of Pliny - all give proof of the same fact, by positive or negative evidence; nor have I found anywhere a suggestion that Epirus was Greek, except that Dodona, the great oracle, though situated amid barbarians, was a Greek institution, and the legend that the Molossian Kings were of the house of Aeacidae. When Epirus first became powerful, 280 B.C., Greece had long been under the complete ascendancy of the Macedonians, and after the fall of the Empire at the battle of Pydna, 168 B.C., it became a Roman province in 148 B.C. The establishment of Greek independence in 1832 was exactly 2,000 years after the battle of Pydna.

Strabo:

1 .The tribes extending beyond the Ambracian Gulf to the eastward, and contiguous with the Peloponnesus, are Greek.

2. The tribes from the Strymon to the Pontic passes and Haemus are all Thracian, except on the coast which is inhabited by Greeks.

3. On the right of the entrance (of the Ambracian Gulf) dwell the Acarnanians, a Greek tribe. On the left is Nicopolis and the Kassopaeans, an Epirote tribe.

4. The Peneus divides Lower and Maritime Macedonia from Thessaly and Magnesia, and Haliacmon Upper Macedonia.

5. But the Peneus bounds Macedonia towards the north, and Thessaly towards the south.

Scylax: Periplus:--

1. From Ambracia Greece is continuous (along the coast) as far as the river Peneus.

2. Up to this point (the country of the Magnesians) Greece is continuous from Ambracia.

Dicaearchus:

1. I therefore draw the limits of Hellas at the country of the Magnesians, i.e., to the Vale of Tempe.

Scymnus:

1. Above Tempe towards Olympus is the region of the Macedonians. (The writer describes the Thesprotians, Chaonians, Molossians and the inhabitants of the interior of Epirus, as barbarian. 430-460.)

2. Greece is continuous from Ambracia to the Peneus.

Homer:

In the catalogue of the ships in the second book of the Iliad, Acarnania, Aetolia and Thessaly are the most northern districts mentioned. The others are Boetia, Phocis, Locris, Euboea, Athens, Salamis, Argos, Mycinae, Laconia, Messenia, Arcadia, Crete, Rhodes, and Isles.

The Amphictyonic people. The names are given by Aeschines, Theopompus and Pausanias:

Aeschines:

Thessalians, Boeotians, Dorians, Perrhaebeans, Magnetes, Locrians, Aeteans, Phthiotes, Maleans, Phocians.

Theopompus:

Ionians, Dorians, Perrhaebeans, Magnetes, Achaeans, Maleans, Dolopes, Aeneans, Delghians, Phocians, Phthiotes.

Pausanias:

Ionians, Diopes, Thessalians, Magnetes, Maleans, Phthiotes, Dorians,

Of these, none belong to Epirus; indeed there are neither Aetolians nor Acarnanians.

Thermopylae:

The next catalogue which throws light on the subject is that of forces under the command of Leonidas at Thermopylae. They are enumerated by Herodotus, Pausanias, and Deodorus as follows:

Peloponnesians, Thespians, Thebans, Phocians, and Locrians (or Milesians).

Forming in fact, something less than the present limits of Greece.

Thucydides:

In book II of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides gives a catalogue of the states ranged on either side as follows:

With the Lacedaemonians:

All the Peloponnesians except the Argives and Achaeans, the Megareans, Locrians, Boeotians, Phocians, Ambraciots, Leucadians, and Anactoreans

With the Athenians:

Chians, Lesbians, Plataeans, Messenians of Neopactus, most of the Acarnanians, the Corcyraeans, Zacynthians, with certain islands and colonies.

Anacharsis:

Travels in Greece, 357 B.C. There are 14 other nations in Epirus.

Pausanias does not even mention Epirus

Pliny:

Natural History, book IV: He places mount Olympus in Thessaly, but does not precisely define the boundary of Macedonia, which he describes as extending to the Adriatic.

With this illustration by Ardagh, the Greek cries of "Macedonia is Greece" is shown once again to be nothing more than a fabrication; the ancient boundaries of Greece do not coincide with the modern Greek borders. These ancient frontiers of Greece are the basis which the present Greek state is using for the claims on Macedonia.

This is certainly another piece of evidence that reaffirms the inadmissibility of the Greeks' claims that "Macedonia was always Greek". Time and again, this blatant lie is being exposed for what it really represents - a flagrant and shamelessly executed subversion of historical truth - heist of unparallel historical proportions never before seen in the history of mankind. What is so arrogantly flaunted as Greek heritage is nothing but a stolen property from the Macedonians. Between these rampant Greek lies and deceptions and the silence of the European academicians, who, certainly, know the truth, runs the menacing current of the biased and the hypocritical attitude of Europe itself. Human rights are at issues in Greece and Europe stands silent.