IMMEDIATE

IMMEDIATE

It has come to our knowledge through what we regard as a most reliable source that for the last few days the Bulgarian Prime Minister has been "indisposed" and that Lieutenant General Terpeshev has been presiding over the Council of Ministers in his absence. M. Georgiev is, in fact, believed to have left Sofia in the company of Soviet officers for the purpose of discussing with Marshal Tito or his representatives the establishment of a South Slav Confederation. He is expected, according to the source, to return to Sofia within the next day or two when some declaration on the subject will be made.

2. The inference is that this has been timed so as to anticipate the forthcoming three-power conference.

3. Source also stated on March 3rd (anniversary of Bulgarian liberation and of accession of King Boris III) Bulgaria would be proclaimed a Republic. This development would be followed a few weeks later by the cession to the autonomous Macedonia State of the Pirin area of Bulgaria (see my telegram 86). Source however, thought that local inhabitants of that district might resist.

4. Finally source said that Soviet authorities were understood to have indicated that any claim which might be advanced by the new South Slav Confederation to Salonika would enjoy their support.

5. Though this may at first sight appear sensational, I report it as it is consistent with events as they have been developing. I am the more suspicious because as you know the Minister for Foreign Affairs has been persistent1y evasive whenever I have mentioned this subject.

6. Please show to Major General Oxley.

Foreign Office please pass to Belgrade as my telegram 9 (no priority).

[Repeated to Belgrade telegram No. 77].

(O.T.P)

From Sofia to Foreign office - March 12th, 1945

Mr. Houston Boswell No. 8 SAVING

Former Bulgarian Consul-General in Tirana Minkov recently returned to Sofia by way of Macedonia. He told members of my staff that he found the Macedonia was ruled by Partisans of the highest level of ignorance. They seemed determined to impose their power on the population (who appeared oppressed) and were unwilling to take the advice of older men who know more about local circumstances. He had become profoundly skeptical of the possible future of Macedonia as an independent state. It was a poor country Vlachov (see my dispatch No. 6), Vice-President of the Anti-Fascist Assembly for the National Liberation of Macedonia, was already an old man, and, although he knew more than the present ruling class, was not apparently paid much attention to. Minkov could understand why the partisans were so keen to enforce their power; after all they had fought in the hills and had suffered, but he felt that the essence of democracy was to learn to combine all the people's goodwill and interest in the, form of a state; this they were certainly not succeeding in doing. He was disappointed and depressed.

2. This picture, you will note, bears a certain resemblance to that of Bulgaria.

From Washington to Foreign Office - February 27, 1945

Earl of Halifax. No. 1527. 27th February, 1945.

IMPORTANT.

Your telegram No. 10825.

Following is text of substantive part of the State Department’s reply to my aide memoir on your telegram under reference.

The United States Government holds the view that the pre-war frontiers of Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Greece in the Macedonian area must be considered as the legal boundaries, and that revision of any of them should be permitted only if it conforms to the freely expressed will of the populations directly concerned and has international sanctions as a part of the general peace settlement.

If in the reconstitution of Yugoslavia, the government and the people of that country desire to set up a regional and de-centra1ised administration under which the area of South-eastern Yugoslavia would have a certain autonomous character there would of course be no grounds for objection on the part of the United States Government. This Government concurs however in the view of the British Government that there is no legitimate basis for any claim made on behalf of "Macedonia" whether as an independent State or as a part of Yugoslavia, or of a larger South Slav federation to territory within the boundaries of Greece on the ground that such territory is “Macedonian”.

With regard to the frontier between Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, the United States Government favour the retention of the present boundary but would not be inclined to object to any settlement calculated to contribute to the peace, stability and general welfare of the region if reached through free negotiations on the part of those two states at such time as it may become clear that their respective governments are in a position to represent the real desire of the

people involved, including also those inhabitants of parts of Yugoslavia still under enemy occupation.

It is in the view of this government that changes in territorial boundaries of Bulgaria should not be made during the period proceeding the general settlement with Bulgaria as an enemy state.

The United States Government believe that union of Yugoslavia and Bulgaria to constitute a single unit [grp. under? or a] federation would under present circumstances be a disturbing rather than a stabilizing factor in south-eastern Europe since the neighbouring non-Slavic States, including Turkey, would consider it a threat to their security. In the opinion of the Government such a union in any case should not be permitted before the conclusion of peace between Bulgaria and the United Nations. This Government would be willing however to give consideration to a plan for regional understandings to include all States of southeastern Europe rather than an exclusively Slavic bloc, should all these States decide, with the concurrence of the principal Allied Governments that such a grouping represent a contribution to the welfare and progress of that area.

2. Foreign office please pass to Belgrade and Sofia as my telegrams Nos. 18 and 13 respectively.

[Repeated to Belgrade and Sofia under Nos.196 & 229]

OTP.

KKE and NOF - April 8th, 1949

Belgrade, Yugoslavia

No. 82

Sir,

Since sending my dispatch No. 66 of March 22nd regarding Macedonia and a South Slav Federation I have read the texts of the KKE and NOF (National Liberation Front of Macedonia) Resolutions given in dispatch No. 174 of March 23rd from the Canadian Ambassador in Athens, as well as the account of the KKE and NOF denials that a separate unified Macedonia state within the South Slav Federation (but dominated by Bulgaria) was envisaged.

2. Macedonia is very much in the limelight at the moment but the situation is far from clear, and speculation, though enriched by the dismissal of Kostov in Bulgaria, is still guess work while the evidence gradually accumulates. By reviving the idea of a Macedonian state Bulgaria has been able to spearhead the Cominform offensive against the CPY and at the same time to further her own traditional “Greater Bulgarian” interests. Yugoslavia and Greece have a common interest in thwarting Bulgarian ambitions in Macedonia but at the moment the Yugoslav Government can go little further than to reduce their anti-Greek propaganda campaign and their complaints to UNO (steps which already appear to have been taken) and to cease aiding the Greek guerillas. I understand that the Yugoslavs have discreetly let it be known in Western quarters that they can go no further as long as Tsaldaris remains Prime Minister.

3. I think you will be interested in the attached extract from a lengthy dispatch from Mr. Hilary King, British Consul in Skopje, who possesses a good knowledge of Macedonia. Mr. King examines the success achieved by the CPY in Macedonia with its policy based on the thesis of a distinct Macedonian language and national tradition. He feels that the idea or a "Macedonian National tradition" has not attracted a large following amongst the Macedonian intelligentsia, which in its younger branches probably supports the

present Yugoslav Government. Pro-Bulgarian sentiment is not widespread. He has, however, found evidence of fairly strong support for a Macedonian autonomous movement, perhaps under Anglo-American protection but probably not under the Kremlin's wing.

4. Autonomous tendencies, Mr. King thinks, are limited to some Macedonian intellectuals who form a very small group. Amongst the workers and peasants the situation is quite different. Although the workers complain of bad economic conditions and the low standard of living, they would give their support to the present authorities unless offered a dramatically better standard, which advocates of union with Bulgaria are unable to do.

5. The peasants, of whom a high proportion are very poor, have benefited by the land reform carried out by the Communist Party. For this reason, because of its war record, and through its establishment of producer cooperatives the Party will be able, in Mr. King's opinion, to secure the support of the peasant masses.

6. Mr. King concludes that there will be no popular pro-Bulgarian rising in Vardar Macedonia but that there will remain considerable support for some sort of Macedonian autonomy with no special Yugoslav association.

7. I am sending copies of this dispatch, with enclosure to London, Moscow, Warsaw, Prague and Athens.

I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant, (can’t make out the signature), Minister

JAM: aw

Secretary of State, for External Affairs, Ottawa

"We have unsubstantiated reports that elements in the Bulgarian embassy here are working closely with Greek colleagues on activities that are not in our interests."

US Amb. Reeker, Skoje, RoMk, 29-Jul-2009

---------------------------

http://wikileaks.org/cable/2009/07/09SKOPJE369.html

Viewing cable 09SKOPJE369,