ECHOES OF THE ASSASSINATIONS ABROAD

ECHOES OF THE ASSASSINATIONS ABROAD

European diplomacy and the European public which followed the revolutionary events taking place in Macedonia, to some extent, did pay some attention and somewhat showed some concern. Many of the European newspapers had regular columns in which, often in general terms, they informed their readers about what was happening in this part of the Balkans. Diplomats and the public were accustomed to reading about the armed conflicts, the robberies, the arrests, the harassments, the terror against the Christian population, the uncontrolled exploitation of the disadvantaged, and so on. And, despite the strong campaign led by the Ottomans and the Kingdom of Greece against the revolutionary movement, a large part of the public, especially from the progressive orientation in England, France, Italy, Russia and Austria, understood the plight of the Macedonian people and sympathized with them. They believed the Macedonian people were leading a struggle against the Ottoman Sultanate. Unfortunately, the same world public found it difficult to understand the Solun assassinations. The public in Europe was not only surprised but, more precisely, amazed by the assassinations. Even though the wider general public had been warned by these publications that “something” was being prepared in Solun and in other Macedonian cities, no one expected that the Macedonian revolutionaries would be angry enough to take direct action against European interests. “As for the impression that the news has caused on the political circles here, it is horrible,” wrote Ivan Geshov, a Bulgarian representative in Tsari Grad. “Almost all foreign officials

condemned these terrorist acts and, without hesitation, qualified them as anarchist...” (According to H. Srdianov, 267.)

The press took a similar attitude towards the Solun assassinations, particularly the pro-Ottoman German press. One German newspaper wrote: “If all of Macedonia died it would not have caused as much noise and outcry in Europe as was caused by the bombing of the ‘Guadalquivir’…”

Let us emphasize here that, except for a few people who were wounded in the bombing of the ship, there were no human victims. No one died!

Some newspapers, however, after the initial excitement and discontent had died down, came down to earth and began to reflect on the Solun events. Bearing in mind the “insanity”, heroism and self-sacrifice of the Gemidzhii, they began to look for the real reasons why these actions had taken place. After the attacks, in time, after the results of these actions became clearer, the picture, despite the contradictory news, began to change and the truth of what had really happened began to come out. Human and professional ethics began to take over and search for the real reasons why this happened. Unfortunately there were only a few publications that took this road, among them was the “Times”. The aforementioned “Di Information” wrote:

“The dynamite actions in Solun will be met with condemnation throughout the civilized world and will hurt more than help to liberate Macedonia. However, no matter how much it is necessary to condemn this offense, it should not be forgotten that we are talking about a people brought to despair by unbearable oppression. It is not necessary, of course, for dynamite bombs to be thrown in the streets of a large populated city, but whoever was doing this, was doing it to defend himself the best way he could. The dynamite actions should be condemned, but no less should the Ottoman government be also condemned…” (Ibid, 268.)

There were also people out there who knew the source of the real root of evil. They saw the suicide acts as normal and respected them. Victor Berar, a French scientist, a Balkan expert and an expert on

the Ottoman Empire, a glowing protector of the Macedonian cause and the Macedonian Revolutionary Organization, supporter of the Macedonian revolutionary struggle, raised his voice boldly in favour of the Gemidzhii by calling their actions heroic.

“...The Solun hurlers of dynamite are proudly reminding the world that Macedonians know how to die for their country. We again hear prominent publishers, government ministers and politicians shouting with one voice saying that this is madness and cruel behaviour and that these bandits forever have discredited their own Macedonian cause.

According to these newspapers and prominent politicians: events in Solun were investigated and a verdict was pronounced: The Macedonians were found to be criminals, Jacobins and murderers! They carry the ‘revolutionary mark’ or, as we call them today, they are anarchists. But the way I see it, their dynamite hurlers deserve to be called everything that Canaris and Miaoulis were called in 1825. (Heroes of the Greek Uprising against the Ottomans.) And even more... There are no apologies for them (Gemidzhii) as there were for the Greeks because they... are not descendants of the Marathon heroes. They only find examples of centuries of obedience, slavery and gratitude in the life of their ancestors. Just 50 years ago their grandfathers believed that they were honoured if they could take what the Ottomans would leave for them, and their grandmothers would be dishonoured by the most worthless aga (squire)...

A terrible and ruthless massacre of people has been committed in Solun (by the Muslims). Yet there is no justice and protest against it or any position taken to remedy it. And I, who know the price of blood, feel pain and anguish and sympathize with the Macedonians more than any other... If there is a principle, which I follow the most and which I support – it’s the old adage of the English liberals: ‘Nowhere is force a cure.’ But I direct my grudge against the true authors of the assassination, towards those who have been for 50 years pushing the Macedonian people towards that dead end. As for the perpetrators of the assassination, I cannot erase my belief that they, bearing bombs, knew that they were going to die. Without bloodguilt, they shed blood on others, they shed blood without scruples, but they did not hesitate to give up their own blood. Their

crime may be irreparable – but their courage is undoubtedly heroic!” (La Revue de Paris, vol. 12, 15. VI 1903. Berar for the Macedonians, “Nova Makedonija”, December 15 and 20, 1972.)

The noble Sister Pisi, who sincerely and wholeheartedly sympathized with the people who experienced the horrors in Solun, on May 7, 1903, wrote: “...The French freely forgave the assassins for attacking the ‘Guadalquivir’, as they increasingly understand the non-deliberate intention of the young fanatics. The French people increasingly perceive the unsustainable situation in Macedonia and are unanimously on their side. Our newspapers, which we regularly receive, are filled with protests against the destruction of the innocent and stubborn Macedonian population…”

The statesmen of Europe, more or less, knew what Victor Berar and other intellectuals knew about the Macedonian situation under the Ottoman yoke. However, state and party interests were placed before the wellbeing of the Macedonian people and therefore the crisis that was a result of supporting those interests was ignored. Their self-interests would not allow them to see the Solun assassination any differently than acts of anarchism. Like the Ottoman government, which used the assassinations as an occasion to brutalize everything that was stirred up in the ranks of the Macedonian people, the Great Powers too used the Gemidzhii actions to compromise the Revolutionary Organization and justify their passive behaviour towards the severe suppression of the Macedonian movement. By siding with the bloody Sultan, the Great Powers allowed the Ilinden Uprising to fail. This is particularly true for England and France, whose attitude towards the Macedonian movement was somewhat different from the purely hostile attitude of Germany, as well as Russia and Austria-Hungary. Delkase, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, best of all knew very well who the Gemidzhii were, why they committed the assassinations and what their relationship was with the Organization (MRO). But, after knowing all that, he still insisted that the assassins were part of the Organization and allowed the cruel attacks to take place against the innocent and peaceful Macedonian population. “Let us talk about the acts committed by dynamite. With the explosion of the ‘Guadalquivir’ in Solun we were the first to experience the new method of getting sympathy; we were the first to suffer, though we

did not hide our sympathies. Then came the bombing of the Ottoman bank... And how-so, to avenge their foes - the Ottomans! The insurgents repeatedly directed their acts against the Europeans... With those acts, the insurgents, who from the beginning gained general sympathy, gradually lost that sympathy... Even the governments at first sympathized with their cause, but that sympathy faded after the assassinations took place. All the European governments were in agreement that renewal of peace and order was needed and advised the Ottoman government to act before the entire region degenerated into anarchism. The rebels did not attack the Ottomans who were in fact their oppressors, but they decided to attack our ship and other things, almost exclusively non-Ottoman, and innocent people. By doing this, perhaps, the insurgents thought they were challenging the European cabinets to interfere in European Turkey in their favour? European cabinets, which would have eventually interfered if there was an uprising, by the nature of the uprising, as history knows, could not have taken the side of the dynamite hurlers…” (Liberation struggle, doc. 155.)

Delkase used “big” words at the expense of the Organization and to detriment of the Gemidzhii. Initially his rhetoric was quite unjustified and later it was filled with irony and sarcasm. It is difficult to believe that the Solun actions of a few could influence entire governments to not only lose sympathy for the Macedonian movement (France, England, and perhaps Italy) but to demand the Ottoman government to put a quick end to the struggle of a suppressed nation. But, contrary to what Delkase said, public opinion about events in Macedonia and the Christian situation in the Ottoman state was not only sympathetic to the Macedonians but also critical of the government policies towards the Macedonian Question. We should add at this point that the revolutionary movement did not truly earn the criticism it received. Delkase was biased against the Macedonians and did not hide his bias or his fears.

The news of the Solun assassinations was not well-received by pro-Ottoman Germany. The German government regarded the assassins as dangerous, pro-Bulgarian and the cause of the crisis in Macedonia. The German government took the Sultan’s side regarding the February reforms which, according to the Great Power

governments, were expected to aid the Christian population and neutralize the revolutionary movement in Macedonia. The German government argued that the reason why the reforms could not be realized was not because the High Port was at fault, but that the blame should have been placed on Bulgaria and indirectly on Russia. At one time the German government supported the reforms proposed by Russia and in that sense pressured the Sultan to accept them. However, now it could not support them because “how could the Ottoman government implement such reforms with this campaign of violence that the Bulgarians have instigated?” The Germans argued that the Ottoman government should not be required to implement reforms under these conditions. But later, after the Solun events, when the cheti began to be complemented with “Bulgarian dynamite hurlers”, the diplomatic action for the realization of the reforms proposed by Russia was to begin not in Tsari Grad but in Sofia. This is how the Germans saw the situation in Macedonia after the Solun assassinations. “The leaders of the military party” in Sofia, according to German beliefs, were inspired by Mahbetev, the Russian consul. His very presence in Bulgaria was enough to “encourage the dynamite hurling party” to act. According to German beliefs, it was well-known where the dynamite was manufactured… and that place was none other than Bulgaria. It was also well-known which route the dynamite took on its way to Macedonia. “But could the Russian representative in Sofia really know all this?” they were asking each other at the German Foreign Ministry. If Germany did stand behind the conflict in the Balkan Peninsula, and if it did take part in it at all, it did not do it on the front line and as a result of that it was in a relatively favourable position. If Germany was fighting to keep the peace, it did it because it wanted to help Russia at these critical times!! The only means of deterring a Balkan war, according to the Germans was to put pressure on Bulgaria. But how could Germany do that? Also doing this in Sofia, “where the real fire was burning”, would not yield it the necessary results. This had to be done by Russia, which had far greater influence on the Bulgarian prince. Germany also did not see how putting more pressure on the Sultan could motivate him to produce the desired results. (Die Grosse Politik, 19 Band, Vol. I, Doc. 5541.)

This was the proposed German diplomatic formulation for solving the crisis in Macedonia after the Solun assassinations. Germany fully sympathized with the Sultan and accepted his claim that the revolutionary events taking place in Macedonia were allegedly the work of the Bulgarians, and not a product of the Sultan’s system of governance. Through its press, Germany voiced its various assumptions of “its truth” and placed suspicion on Russian policies, accusing Russian diplomacy of creating ambiguity. However, it is well-known that the Russian Tsar had declared himself a friend of the Christian population in Macedonia and was not happy with the Macedonian revolutionary movement. The Russian Tsar had already put pressure on the Bulgarian government, forcing it to tighten and completely close its Bulgarian-Ottoman border and to declare war on the Macedonian revolutionaries. Russian policy towards the Macedonian Question, according to most Bulgarian ruling circles, was publicly and secretly anti-Bulgarian and did not take into account the “San Stefano ideals”.

However, it was wrong for Germany to exclude the Sultan’s part in the failure of the February reforms. It was also wrong for Germany to blame the Solun assassinations on Bahmetev, the Russian consul in Bulgaria, and on Prince Ferdinand. They had nothing to do with the assassinations.

Outside of the German Kaiser, Sultan Abdul Hamid had another associate, far smaller, but no less faithful. It was the Kingdom of Greece. The Kaiser was a friend of the Sultan but he still approved the proclaimed February reforms, even though the Sultan was against them. The Kingdom of Greece was unreservedly on the side of the Sultan.

It was the same in Greece as it was in Europe, regret for the innocent Gemidzhii bombing victims was expressed, but there was no sympathy or compassion expressed for the innocent victims who fell under the blows of the Ottoman army, police and “Bashibozuks”. On the contrary, thinking that it was time to erase all that was revolutionary and Slavic and all who did not serve Greek ambitions for the great Hellas, the competent political factors in Greece decided to stand on the side of the Sultan and offer him help against the “common enemy”.

The position of the Greek ruling circles and Greek propaganda against the revolutionary movement in Macedonia did not differ from that of the Ottoman government. It was unfriendly on both sides. This was due to the fact that Greece did not want an autonomous Macedonia - for which the struggle in Macedonia was waged. Despite the fact that the so-called “Greek” population (Patriarchates) in all of Macedonia was no more than 12% of the total population, the Greek ruling circles felt they had the right to all of Macedonia. To prove that they had that “right” they turned to history and to statistics for help (Bulgaria and Serbia did the same). The Greeks used “church affiliation” to prove their right to Macedonia. And, even though most parts of Macedonia were inhabited predominantly by Macedonians with some Vlachs here and there, if these people were affiliated with the Patriarchate Church in Tsari Grad, they were counted as “Greeks”. Even if they were not all “Patriarchates” they were all counted as “Greeks”. In Kostur Region for example, the Christian population was Macedonian, but most of it was affiliated with the Patriarchate Church. Because of this, the Greek statisticians declared the entire region “Greek”. In reality, however, these same people in Kostur were fighting for an autonomous Macedonia. The majority of the people in Kostur Region at that time were members of the Macedonian Revolutionary Organization. Despite the fact that both Greece and the Patriarchate despised the Macedonian revolutionary movement and all the people in it, labeling them “dangerous”, they still counted them as “Greeks”. They did this because it served their own long-term interests in convincing the world that Macedonia belonged to Greece because the people living in Macedonia were allegedly predominantly “Greek”. Therefore, the basic preoccupation of the entire Greek propaganda, led by Athens and Tsari Grad, was to compromise the Organization in front of European diplomacy and in front of the public as an instrument of Bulgarian propaganda in Macedonia. The assassinations in Solun served as an occasion for this.

Greek government interests closely coincided with those of the Ottoman government, which brought the two countries closer together. Greece wanted the Ottomans to stifle the Macedonian revolutionary movement and maintain the status quo, which was

good for Greece and the Ottomans but bad for the Macedonian people. Therefore, the Ottoman authorities took all possible measures against the revolutionary movement in Macedonia, even the kind of measures that caused disgust in the European public, except in the Greek government circles which believed the measures were justified and approved of them.

The Greeks in Solun joined the “Bashibozuk” rabid hoards during the pogrom against the innocent Macedonian population and were responsible for some of the massacres. Greek propaganda, especially the newspaper “Embros”, published in Solun, competed with Ottoman propaganda in attacking and slandering the Macedonian revolutionary movement. The Greeks took every possible measure to convince the Europeans that the Macedonian revolutionary movement was struggling more against the Greeks than it was against the Ottomans. Through their propaganda the Greeks wanted to show that the Solun assassinations were directed against Patriarchate facilities. Of course all their arguments were invented. Evgeniadis, as we said earlier, informed Athens that, according to “reliable information” he had acquired, the conspirators were planning to attack and blow up the Greek Consulate in Solun. To “fend off” the danger he naturally sought help from the local Ottoman commander. In an article published in “Embros”, the Greeks informed the public that the “bombers” had plans to bomb the Greek Consulate, the Greek Metropolitan building and the Greek gymnasium but failed to realize their plans. According to Greek accounts, on May 1, 1903, a young Bulgarian man was caught with a packet of dynamite. According to his “confession” he was sent to blow up the Greek consulate. He was sent to Solun from Sofia only a few days ago to “take part in the movement”. (Makedonika, 62-63.) Of course, all this information was invented. The Gemidzhii never planned to attack any of the Greek institutions or Greek property in the city. And it was only by chance that one Greek was killed during the Solun events.

The propaganda campaign against the Macedonian revolutionary movement inside Greece took unprecedented dimensions. There were hysterical outbursts of hatred against the Macedonian population fighting against the Ottoman government followed by great expressions of unheard of sympathies for the Sultan, greatly

approving the bloody reprisals he took against the innocent Macedonian people. When the innocent Christian population in Bitola was being massacred on May 6, 1903, during the Greek king’s name day, the Greek university in Athens was holding a banquet during which the march “Hamidie” was played. The march was not only received with a standing ovation but the Greeks in attendance were yelling “Long live the Sultan!” (How hypocritical!!!) A few days later, a group of Greek officers visited the Ottoman diplomacy in Athens and, on behalf of 1,000 volunteers, asked them to convey their sympathy to the Sultan and their desire to join the Ottoman service and help the Ottoman army in its war against the rebels in Macedonia. Expressing satisfaction with the sympathy given to the Sultan, the Ottoman envoy told them that they were grateful for the offer but that the Ottoman army and police would soon liquidate the “bandits”.

These great Greek sympathies and flattery to the same Sultan who committed “bloody” crimes against innocent people, given by Greece, a Christian-Orthodox country, which, only six years ago, had fought bitterly against the army of the same Sultan (the Turkish-Greek War in 1897) caused astonishment in Europe and forced some Helleno-phils to react sharply. V. Berar said, “This convergence between Greece with the Sultan is a real moral fiasco,” pointing out that the Greek leaders who were leading this policy would bring shame to Hellenism. With much indignation Berar wrote: “Athens... is under the boot of Ottoman diplomacy. The king, the ministers and the politicians are extremely honoured to receive Abdul Hamid’s large cordon... When the Greeks raised a monument in Lamia to commemorate a hero of the Greek independence, the Greeks were careful not to be too enthusiastic about their desire for revenge. If one was listening to their speeches one would have thought that Diakos, Kolokotronis... (heroes of the 1821 Greek uprising against Ottoman bondage) were loyal followers of the Port and faithful servants of the whole... Do the Greeks not understand that from day to day it becomes more difficult to advocate their cause before the civilized world?” (V. Berar, Pros tus Hellinas, 1903; La Revue de Paris, C. Kn.)

An article was published in the “Di Information” on May 22, 1903, which among other things said, “because of this moral fall of the

Greeks Lord Byron, George Canning... and all other Philhellenes are surely turning in their graves... But they (the Greeks) are causing their own punishment. Deservingly, Abdul expressed his gratitude to those people who offered to help him do his bloody deeds but those making such offers should be ashamed for accepting such gratitude…” (According to H. Silianov, 269.)

The reforms proposed by Russia and Austria-Hungary, in late 1902, caused considerable anxiety among the ruling circles in Greece and in the Phanariot Greeks in Tsari Grad. This fear was a result of Great Power pressure to implement such reforms demanded by the revolutionary events taking place in Macedonia. Greece was reminded of 1875-76-78, when the Slavic speaking peoples stood up against the Ottoman authorities and when, for the most part, they engaged the European powers to correct problems by imposing reforms on the Ottomans. The thinking in Athens was that if the same thing was done now, as a result of the Gemidzhii actions and as a result of the Organization acting up, then the problems in Macedonia could be solved to the detriment of Greek interests. Therefore, official Greece was against any reforms in Macedonia and unconditionally supported the Ottomans in their bloody suppression of the Macedonian movement. Greece was ready to accept reforms, but only those which would guarantee successful development of Greek-patriarchal propaganda and its assimilation policies, as well as those that would enable the Ottoman gendarmerie to effectively wipe out the Macedonian Revolutionary Organization. Autonomy, for which the Organization was fighting, was not acceptable to Greece because it did not allow for “grabbing” Macedonian territories. Following orders issued by Athens, the Greek organs of the Patriarchate churches and schools in Macedonia became servants of the Ottoman authorities, informing on the Macedonian Revolutionary Organization and the Macedonian people. “...By subordinating themselves as instructed by the Greek consul, the Patriarchate clergy in Macedonia,” wrote Steg, “played the role of informants... As for me, I do not believe this behaviour will serve the interests of Hellenism…”

The Greek propaganda, as we mentioned, worked very hard to compromise the Macedonian Revolutionary Organization by accusing it of being “the bearer of foreign interests”. According to

an article published in the newspaper “Embros” on May 8, 1903, “The goal of the Committee, through its anarchist tremors, plots, uncertainty, and abnormal situation, is to force the Great Powers to send their fleets and take over the city. The Committee hopes that international occupation of Solun would lead to the definitive solution of the Macedonian Question in accordance with Bulgarian wishes…” (Makedonika, 82, note 1.)

While the Greeks paraded themselves as carriers of peace in Tsari Grad and Europe, they had the nerve to rise up and, in the name of freedom and human dignity, demand that the Sultan physically destroy the Macedonians. What is more bizarre than that is that the Greeks expected “understanding” from the Great Powers for their behaviour.

“Let us hope,” wrote Evgeniadis, “that Turkish judges will prove to be merciless to the perpetrators and will punish them deservingly and will not delay their execution just like it happens to convicted Committee killers…

They should do this to serve as an example to others and to also prevent new dangers hanging over the city because, according to some accounts, the assassins, for various reasons, were in a hurry and could not fully fulfill their ‘satanic’ plans…” (Makedonika, 82.) The Greek consul believed that, for some reason, the assassins had started their actions prematurely which resulted in failure. According to the Greek consul, if all the Christians were to be slaughtered, a great deal of damage would be done to the Greeks because it would cause European intervention, which with the “crimes”, “the movement” would achieve its objectives which would not be in the interest of the Greeks.