Introduction - Part 03

(For more information on the Ottoman occupation read chapters nineteen and twenty of my book “History of the Macedonian people From Ancient times to the Present”, published in 2005).

Dawn of the 19th Century and the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire

For the oppressed peoples of the Balkans, the dawn of the nineteenth century marked the beginning of national struggles for liberation from the centuries-long domination of the Ottoman Empire. The first was the Serbian uprising of 1804 followed by the Phanariot uprising of 1821. Macedonians, in an effort to liberate their Christian brothers from the oppressive Muslim Ottomans, took part in both uprisings.

It is important at this point to digress for a moment and explain who the Phanariots were:

According to Muslim law, ordinary Muslims were not allowed to handle money, speak foreign languages, or venture beyond Islamic held lands. Therefore, a select class of Christians from all ethnicities and cultures known as Phanariots handled official trade, communication and contact with the outside world.

The Phanariots were a group of wealthy Christians who got their name from the “Phanar” or lighthouse district of Tsari Grad where they lived. After the Sultan installed the Patriarch in Tsari Grad, the Phanar became a thriving community of wealthy and educated Christians. As mentioned earlier, the Sultan placed the Phanariot Patriarch in charge of the Christian Millet because he found him more agreeable than his other (poor) Christian counterparts. The Patriarchy functioned like a state within a state with its own administration and services. Having the Sultan’s favour, the Patriarch took the opportunity to expand his dominion over the entire Eastern Christian Church by replacing whatever legitimate bishoprics he could with his own corrupt people. For example, the Old Serbian bishoprics were abolished as punishment for helping the Habsburgs. At about the same time the Macedonian bishopric, including the powerful Ohrid bishopric, was also abolished. After becoming gospodars (masters), the Phanariots replaced all the Romanian bishoprics. As gospodars in Romania, the Phanariots abolished the Church Slavonic (Macedonian) liturgy and replaced Macedonian speaking clergy with Romanians. The Romanians didn’t care much for the Phanariots and pursued Romanian ways.

Eventually as more and more bishoprics were shut down the Phanariots redefined the old culture, Christian faith and Christian education to suit themselves and their corrupt ways.

The Ottomans trusted the Phanariots well enough to give them a role in the central Ottoman administration. This included the office of the “Dragoman”, the head of the Sultan’s interpreters’ service. Phanariots participated in diplomatic negotiations with outsiders and some even became ambassadors for the Ottoman Empire. Phanariots were put in charge of collecting taxes from the Christian Millet for the Ottomans and whatever they could pilfer from the peasants they kept for themselves. Many scholars believe that Romania’s peasants have never suffered more than they did during the Phanariot period. Phanariots also secured food and other services for the Ottoman court.

The Phanariots, through the Dragoman, were largely responsible for providing “all kinds” of information to the outside world about the Ottoman Empire, including their own desires to rule it some day. Some Phanariots were educated abroad in London and Paris and were responsible for bringing information into the Ottoman Empire. Towards the middle of the 18th century, the Phanariot dream was to replace the Ottoman Empire with a Christian Empire like the Russian model. In theory, they wanted to re-create a multi-cultural Byzantine Empire but with a Patriarch in charge. The Phanariots believed that with Russian or German help it was possible to achieve their goals.

The power and money hungry Phanariots were not content with only running the Ottoman administration but sought to possess all the eparchies of the Byzantine Churches. Pressured by the Phanariots, the Patriarchate of Tsari Grad increasingly began to interfere in the affairs of the various Archbishoprics including the Church of Ohrid. Using his influence with the Sultan, in May 1763, the Patriarch attempted to appoint a man of his choice, the monk Ananias, as head of Ohrid. Ananias, however, was rejected and the Archbishopric elected Arsenius, the Macedonian Metropolitan from Pelagonia. This unfortunately proved disastrous for the Archbishopric. The Patriarch retaliated and by means of bribery and intrigue, with the aid of the Ottoman authorities and his allies among the higher clergy

in the Ohrid Church, he gradually did away with the Archbishopric. On January 16, 1767 Arsenius was forced to resign his office voluntarily, recognize the Patriarchate of Tsari Grad and personally request the abolition of the Ohrid Archbishopric. The Sultan issued a decree making the abolition legal and annexing its eparchies to the Patriarchate of Tsari Grad. The Ohrid Eparchy itself was abolished and the town came under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Durazzo. Aiming to eradicate every single trace of the once autocephalous Ohrid church, the Patriarchate even changed Ohrid’s name to Lychnidos. The local bishops were replaced with Koine speakers throughout Macedonia and new ecclesiastical taxes were introduced.

Now back to our story.

When news of the Serbian uprising reached Macedonia the Macedonian people were stirred to action. Unfortunately the Ottoman authorities were ready and concentrated large numbers of troops in Macedonia, quelling the rebellion even before it had a chance to start.

Macedonians also participated in the Phanariot uprising of 1821. Immediately after the outbreak of the Morea revolt Macedonians formed their own bands, particularly in the Voden district and joined up with the Morean rebels.

Strongly influenced by the ideals of the Phanariot freedom fighters who were calling on the entire Balkan population to take up arms against the Ottoman yoke, many Macedonians, particularly those in the Voden and Negush districts, did take up arms. In early March 1822, under the leadership of Atanas Karatase and Angel Gacho, a revolt broke out in the town of Negush. In no time the rebels put down the Ottomans and declared Negush liberated. The revolt quickly spread towards Voden engulfing a large number of villages. Unfortunately, effort and determination alone were not enough to stop the numerically superior Ottoman army. Isolated and besieged from all sides the rebels were suppressed and dispersed. After a fierce battle the Ottomans recaptured Negush and persecutions and pillaging followed. To avoid further problems, the population of Negush was either enslaved or resettled in other parts of Macedonia.

Russian expansionism in the Balkans alarmed the western Powers and initiated the “Eastern Question”; “What will happen to the Balkans when the Ottoman Empire disappears?” The Eastern Question of the 1800’s later became the Macedonian Question of the 1900’s.

At about the same time as Russia was making its way into the Balkans, the west was experiencing changes of its own. The industrial revolution was in full swing, coming out of England and progressing towards the rest of the world. France was the economic superpower but was quickly losing ground to England. The French Revolution (1789) gave birth not only to new ideas and nationalism, but also to Napoleon Bonaparte. As Napoleon waged war in Europe and the Middle East, French shipping in the Mediterranean subsided only to be replaced by the Phanariot and British traders. French trade inside Ottoman territory also declined and never fully recovered. By land, due to the long border, Austria dominated trade with the Ottoman Empire exercising its own brand of influence on the Balkans, especially on the Serbian people.

As the turn of the 19th century brought economic change to Europe, the Balkans became the last frontier for capitalist expansion. By the 1800’s Europe’s political, economic and military institutions were rapidly changing. Western governments and exporters were aggressively pursuing Balkan markets on behalf of their western manufacturers. This aggressive pursuit smothered Balkan industries before they had a chance to develop and compete. As a result, Balkan economies began to decline causing civil unrest and nationalist uprisings. While western countries were left undisturbed to develop economically and socially, external forces prevented Balkan societies from achieving similar progress. Mostly regulated by guilds, Balkan trades could not compete with western mechanization and went out of business. Without jobs, most city folk became a burden on the already economically strained rural peasants. The economic situation in the Balkans deteriorated to intolerable levels and like in the previous two centuries, people began to rebel.

Two overwhelming “forces” came into being in the 19th century, which transformed the Balkans. The first was the 1848 “western economic revolution” which thrust the Balkans into social and economic upheaval. The second was “increased intervention” from non-Balkan political forces. As the century advanced these developments merged, working not for the interests of the Balkan people but for the benefit of Europe's Great Powers.

Before continuing with internal Balkan developments I want to digress a little and explore the “external forces” and their “political desires” in Balkan affairs.

Besides the Ottomans, there were six Great Powers during the nineteenth century. They were Russia, Great Britain, France, Austria-Hungary, Italy and Germany. From time to time the Great Powers expressed interest in the Balkan population but, in crisis situations, each followed their own interests. When the Great Powers made compromises, they did so to avoid war with each other and often failed to address the real issues that caused the crisis in the first place. This is similar to what the Great Powers are doing in the Balkans today.

Russia tended to be the most aggressive and was usually the cause of each new Ottoman defeat. The 1774 Kuchuk Kainarji Treaty allowed Russia access to the north shore of the Black Sea, gave it “power to act” on behalf of the Orthodox millet and to conduct commerce within the Ottoman Empire. Russia’s goals in the Balkans were (1) to gain exclusive navigation rights from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean Sea for both merchant and military ships and (2) to annex Tsari Grad and Endrene (the Dardanelles) for herself, both of which were unacceptable to the Western Powers.

After the end of the Crimean war in 1856, by the Treaty of Paris, the Western Powers made sure Russia’s desires for expansion were curbed. First, all Russian warships were barred from the Black Sea and second, the Black Sea was opened to merchant ships from all the states. After that, all the Great Powers, not just Russia, became the guarantors of the Balkan states.

From 1815 to 1878 Great Britain was Russia’s strongest rival for Balkan influence. British interests led it to intervene against the Ottomans in the Morean revolution of the 1820s but went to war against Russia in 1853 (Crimean war) on the Ottoman Empire’s behalf.

The British goals in the Balkans were to maintain access to the eastern Mediterranean and to secure shipping lanes to India. Most of the trade routes passed through Turkish controlled waters. The Ottoman Empire was too weak to be a threat, so Britain was inclined to oppose France, Russia and Germany when they became a threat to the Ottomans.

To bolster its claim to the Eastern waterways, in 1878 Britain took control of the island of Cyprus and in 1883 occupied Egypt and the Suez Canal. After that Britain kept a close watch on Morea and Russian access to the Straits, interfering less in Ottoman affairs.

Britain also had important commercial interests inside the Ottoman Empire, and later in the successor states. Investors in railroads and state bonds took as much profit as they could, as soon as they could, which in the long term contributed to the Ottoman Empire’s instability.

France, like Britain, had both political and economic interests in the Balkans. During the Napoleonic wars, France was a direct threat to Ottoman rule (Napoleon invaded Egypt in 1798) but after it 1815 defeat it lost its military and political clout. France had commercial rights in the Ottoman Empire dating back to the Capitulation Treaties of the 1600s and relied heavily on trade with the Ottomans.

In the 1820s France joined British and Russian intervention on behalf of the Moreans. France did this mostly to protect its commercial interests but also to counter-balance Russian-British domination in the region.

More so than the British, French investors played a key role in Balkan policy. During the Eastern Crisis and the war of 1875-78, the Ottoman State went bankrupt and French bondholders were the biggest potential losers in case of default. So when the Ottoman

Public Debt Administration was created to monitor Ottoman State finances, French directors were right in the middle of managing them. Like the British investors, French investors forced the Ottomans to maximize their returns and ignored the needs of the Ottoman people.

Austria had been the main threat to Ottoman rule at one time, but after 1699 Russia replaced it. Austria retained a major interest in the Ottoman Empire mainly because it was neighbouring Hungary. In other words, Vienna had no desire to replace a weak Ottoman neighbour with a strong Russia or Russian allies like Serbia or today’s Bulgaria.

Austria’s goals were aimed at creating a western Balkan economic resource and a potential market. Control of the Adriatic coast was key to Austria’s foreign trade through the Adriatic Sea. Austria made sure it exerted enough influence to keep the hostile Great Powers away and to prevent the growing new Balkan nations from annexing it. Austria had no desire to annex the western Balkans for itself. The ruling German Austrians, or the Hungarians had no ethnic or religious ties to the Slavs in the region.

After 1866 Germany (not Austria) became the leader in central Europe. Austria now had only southeastern Europe where it could exert influence. Austria was too weak to absorb the Balkans by itself so it preferred to sustain a weak Ottoman Empire instead of “Russian controlled” states. This explains why Vienna took an anti-Russian position during the Crimean War and why it became allied with Germany later. Germany was an ally of both Russia and Austria, but Austria turned on Russia so Germany had to abandon the Russian-German alliance to please Austria.

Serbia and Romania created problems for Vienna, which it unsuccessfully tried to manage through political alliances and economic treaties. Romania feared Russian occupation and Bucharest generally accepted alliances with Austria. Serbia, however, had fewer enemies and less incentive to bend to Austrian wishes. The two states (Austria and Serbia) found themselves on a collision course which resulted in the war of 1914 (World War I).

Italy became a state in 1859 after fighting a successful war against Austria. In 1866 the Kingdom of Piedmont united the Italian peninsula and took its position as a new Great Power. Italy lacked economic and military might in comparison to the other Powers but made up for it in influence at the expense of the weaker Ottoman Empire.

Italy viewed the western Balkans, especially Albania, as its “natural zone of influence” and its leaders watched for opportunities to take the area away from the Ottomans. Italy’s Balkan goals were not only a threat to the Ottomans but also to Serbia and Greece who both had aims at seizing the Adriatic. Italy was too weak to seize Balkan territory so it followed a policy of “lay and wait” until 1911 and 1912 when it took the Dodecanese Islands and Tripoli (Libya) from the Ottomans.

Germany, like Italy, became a Great Power at a later time after the German State unification of 1862 to 1870. Due to its strong military and economic might, Germany had more influence in Europe than Italy, but no direct interest in Balkan affairs. For the new German Empire the Balkans were only economic outlets.

After defeating Austria in 1866, Germany made Austria-Hungary an ally and to retain loyalty, Germany had to support Austria in Balkan matters. After 1878 Germany could no longer reconcile Russian and Austrian differences over the Balkans and by 1890 Germany and Austria strengthened their alliance and pushed Tsarist Russia into a conflicting partnership with republican France. After that, German policies in the Balkans supported economic and military investments in the Ottoman Empire. This made Germany a rival not only of Russia but also of Britain. The Great Power alignments of 1890-1914 established a pattern that dominated the two world wars.

Germany had no stake in the development of any of the successor states which left it free to support the Sultan (and later the Young Turk regime). German officers trained Ottoman troops and German Marks built Ottoman railways.

The Ottoman Empire of the 19th century was the weakest of the Great Powers, especially after the Crimean war. At the 1856 Treaty

of Paris, Britain and France granted the Ottoman Empire “legal status” in the Balkans that was far beyond its ability to control. The Western Powers desperately wanted the Ottoman Empire stable and intact.

The Ottomans, on the other hand, mistrusted the other Powers, partly because they were infidels and partly because of bad past experiences. Russia was clearly the Ottoman Empire’s greatest enemy, bent on dismantling its empire. To keep Russia at bay, the Ottomans cooperated with the other Powers but were always wary of falling under the influence of any single Power. From the 1820’s to the 1870s, Britain was the Ottoman Empire’s guardian. After 1878 Germany replaced Britain as economic and military sponsor. Ottoman relations with the new Balkan states were poor at best. Any gains for them usually meant losses for the Ottoman Empire.

The western Great Powers believed that if corruption, crime and poverty could be eliminated, Balkan unrest would end and the Ottoman Empire could remain intact. After all, they didn’t want anything to happen to their goose that laid golden eggs. So instead of kicking the “sick man” out of Europe, they pushed for reforms. However, it was one thing to draw up reforms and another to make them work. By examining Ottoman efforts in Macedonia it was obvious that the Ottomans lacked the resources and the will to carry out reforms. Also, Europeans failed to grasp that suggestions and wishes alone could not replace five hundred years of Ottoman rule. The Ottomans believed their way of life was justified.

In 1865 a group of educated Ottomans formed the secret Young Ottoman Society. Their aim was to revitalize old Islamic concepts and unite all the ethnic groups under Islamic law. Threatened with arrest, the Young Ottoman leaders went into exile in Paris.

In 1889 a group of four medical students formed another secret Young Turk Society. They rejected the “old Islamic aims” and embraced a new idea, “Turkish nationalism”. Turkish nationalism became the foundation for a secular Turkey in 1908 after the Young Turks came to power and again in 1920 after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in Turkey proper.

The next important event in Balkan history was the Crimean War of 1853 to 1856, which pitted Russia against Turkey, England and France. The crisis ignited over the issue of who was in control of Christian Holy Places in Turkish-ruled Jerusalem. Orthodox and Catholic monks quarreled over insignificant issues, like who should possess the keys to locked shrines. By old treaties Russia and France were the international guarantors of Orthodox and Catholic rights respectively, but in 1852 Napoleon III tried to undo that. He needed to distract French Catholic public opinion away from his authoritarian government so he instigated the problem.

Because the issues of dispute involved the highest levels of the Ottoman government, to the nations involved it became a symbolic struggle for influence. The Russians badly misjudged the other Powers and failed to see that Britain could not accept a Russian victory. Tensions rose as all sides prepared for conflict. A Russian army occupied two Romanian Principalities failing to see that this threatened Austria’s Balkan interests. Russia expected help and gratitude from Vienna for its help against Hungary in 1849 but Austria refused to give it. With support from the western Powers, the Ottomans refused to negotiate and in 1853 declared war on Russia.

The Crimean War pulled in the Great Powers even though none of them wanted to go to war. In 1854 Austria forced the Russians to evacuate the Principalities and Austria took Russia’s place as a neutral power. In 1856 the allied western Powers took Sevastopol, the chief Russian port on the Black Sea, by force. After that Russia agreed to their terms at the Treaty of Paris.

As a result of the Treaty of Paris, the Danube River was opened to shipping for all nations. Russia lost southern Bessarabia to Moldavia. It also lost its unilateral status as protector of Romanian rights. The two Romanian principalities remained under nominal Ottoman rule. However, a European commission was appointed and, together with elected assembly representatives from each province, was responsible for determining “the basis for administration” of the two Principalities. Also, all the European powers now shared responsibility as guarantors of the treaty.

On the surface it appears that the Ottomans won and Russia lost the Crimean war. In reality however, both Russia and the Ottomans lost immensely. The Crimean War financially bankrupted the Ottomans. As for Russia, it lost its shipping monopoly on the Black Sea and allowed capitalism to enter into eastern Europe. Russia not only lost influence in Romania and Moldavia but it was also humiliated in front of the entire world. This set the stage for future conflicts including the most recent “cold wars”.

As mentioned earlier, the Ottoman financial collapse opened the door for western governments to manipulate internal Ottoman policies as well as divert needed revenues to pay foreign debts. On top of that the Ottoman Empire was forced into becoming a consumer of western European commodities. While western Europe prospered from these ventures, Ottoman trades and guilds paid the ultimate price of bankruptcy. Lack of work in the cities bore more pressure on the village peasants, who were now being taxed to starvation to feed unemployed city dwellers, as well as maintaining the status quo for the rich. The Ottoman Empire became totally dependent on European capital for survival, which put the state past the financial halfway point of no return and marked the beginning of the end of Ottoman rule in Europe.

By 1875 the Ottomans entered a crisis situation owing 200 million pounds sterling to foreign investors with an annual interest payment of 12 million pounds a year. The interest payments alone amounted to approximately half the state’s annual revenues. In 1874, due to some agricultural failures, military expenses and worldwide economic depression, the Ottoman government could not even pay the interest due on the loans. On the brink of bankruptcy, to preserve Ottoman stability and to make sure the Ottomans paid up western European debts, the Great Powers in 1875 took over the management of Ottoman revenues. This was done through an international agency, called the Ottoman Public Debt Administration (OPDA). To continue to receive credit, the Sultan had to grant the OPDA control over state income. Therefore, control of the state budget and internal policies fell into foreign hands. The agents in control were representatives of the rich capitalists and were only interested in profit, and very little else. This was definitely not to the advantage of the local people.

(For more information on the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire please read chapters twenty-one and twenty-two of my book “History of the Macedonian people From Ancient times to the Present”, published in 2005).

Life in Macedonia during the 19th century

As well as paying heavy taxes to the Ottomans, the village peasants of the Balkans were now burdened with additional taxes to pay off western European loans. For some the burden was too great and it manifested itself in a number of independent uprisings. Discontentment with Ottoman rule, economic plight and pure neglect of human life precipitated the “Eastern Crisis” and in Macedonia it resulted in the Razlog insurrection of 1876.

The growing discontentment of the peasantry in the Balkans disturbed the Great Powers who now had a vested interest in protecting the Ottoman Empire from falling apart. A conference was convened in Tsari Grad in 1876 to discuss strategies on how to deal with the insurrections and the “Eastern Question” in general. Representatives of Russia, Austria-Hungary, Britain, Germany, France and Italy attended the conference and decided to place Macedonia and Bulgaria under the control of the Great Powers. The Ottomans rejected their demands and soon found themselves at odds with Russia.

By early 1877, war broke out in Serbia and Montenegro followed by a massive Russian invasion of Bulgaria. The Ottoman armies were decimated and the Ottoman Empire was forced to negotiate peace with Russia which, on March 3rd, 1878, resulted in the San Stefano Treaty, done without Western Power consent. Russia, as usual, was concerned more with self-interests and less with the interest of the people it was trying to protect, so it sought the opportunity to realize a long held ambition in the Balkans to gain access to the Mediterranean Sea.

Among other things, this Russian-Ottoman Treaty forced the Ottomans to provide autonomy to an extended Bulgaria that included Macedonia, western Thrace, part of Albania and a district of Serbia.

The conclusion of this treaty sent shock waves not only through the Western Powers, who had a lot to lose (financial investments in the Ottoman Empire), but also to states like Greece and Serbia who had territorial ambitions of their own towards Ottoman territories.

Disturbed by the Russian tactics, the Western Powers re-convened the Eastern Question in Berlin in July 1878. At this point the San Stefano agreement was revised so that, among other things, the territory of present day Bulgaria was divided into two administrative districts: Bulgaria proper and eastern Rumelia. Eastern Rumelia, Macedonia, Thrace, Kosovo and Albania were given back to the Ottomans.

On the verge of bankruptcy, Russia could not resist the Western Powers and gave in to their demands.

With the exception of clause 23 that required the Ottomans to provide a small degree of economic autonomy to Macedonia, Macedonia was once again committed to Ottoman oppression. The conditions of clause 23, unfortunately, were never enforced by the Great Powers or complied with by the Ottoman state.

In the spring of 1878 the Macedonian people reached the crossroads of their destiny. They were one step away from overthrowing six hundred years of Ottoman tyranny when the Western Powers stepped in and prevented it. Why? Was Macedonia less deserving than Greece, Serbia, or Bulgaria? Were the Macedonians less Christian than the Greeks, Serbians, or Bulgarians? Was the Macedonian people’s struggle for freedom from Ottoman tyranny not convincing enough? No!

The real reason for throwing Macedonia back to the wolves had little to do with religion, nationalism, or human rights and a lot to do with economics, profit and access to the Mediterranean Sea. Russia desperately wanted to access the Mediterranean Sea but the Western Powers desperately wanted to prevent it. Here is what Trevelyan has to say about that. “Throughout the 19th century Russia was striving to advance towards Constantinople (Tsari Grad) over the ruins of the Turkish Empire. She was drawn forward by imperialist ambition, in the oppressed Christians of her own communion, many of whom were Slav by language and race, and by the instinct to seek a warm water port-a window whence the imprisoned giantess could look out upon the world. The world however, had no great wish to see her there.”

“Canning (a British politician, 1812-1862) had planned to head off Russia’s advance, not by direct opposition, but by associating her with England and France in a policy of emancipation, aimed at erecting national States out of the component parts of the Turkish Empire. Such States could be relied upon to withstand Russian encroachment on their independence, if once they were set free from the Turk. The creation of the Kingdom of Greece was the immediate outcome of Canning’s policy” (Page 372, Trevelyan, British History in the 19th Century)

It is important at this point to digress for a moment and introduce some new ideas that may have never before been openly discussed. It is well-known that the Great Power states were all kingdoms and each was ruled by a monarchy. It should also be understood that the monarchs who ruled the Great Powers and the little states they created out of the crumbling Ottoman Empire, such as Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria, were all related. One could not be a king unless he or she was born from a royal family. All of Europe during the 19th century was ruled by the same royal “family”. In actual fact it was this royal family which decided what Europe would look like in terms of states and people. This does not mean that members of this monarchic family did not compete with each other and did not disagree on issues. They each competed to get a larger piece of the “Balkan pie” but when it came to matters of “greater importance” they decided what was possible and what was not possible. The Macedonian people found this out the hard way. Just as they began to make their bid for independence from the Ottoman Empire, members of the Macedonian revolutionary organization appealed to the monarchs for help and were turned down. One member of the Macedonian revolutionary organization personally made an appeal to the Russian king and he too was turned down.

The reason for this, it would appear, was that the monarchies in Europe around 1878 had already decided to partition Macedonia and give it to the monarchs ruling Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria but were unsure what to do with the Macedonian people. Unfortunately the Macedonian people did not know about this and continued to prepare for an uprising to liberate themselves. Naturally the European monarchy wanted to create states which were loyal to it

and served its interests. The Macedonian people were not prepared for that. The monarchs were well aware that the Macedonian people “would never be their dogs”, as the wise man once said, and would always want to be independent and masters of their own destiny. So, allowing a Macedonian state to be created was counter-productive for the European monarchies and the Great Powers. Also, Macedonia had the potential to unify the Slav speaking world and create a super state, like Philip and Alexander had, which would be a threat to them.

This is not a joke. Sometime in early 2000 I was contacted by a person who said he worked for the United States State Department think tank and he wanted to ask me some questions. Specifically, he wanted to know why I was writing all these articles about Macedonia and the Macedonians and if this was part of a plan for us Macedonians to start something in the future… But when I asked him, “what possible plans could a little country like the Republic of Macedonia have?” he said, “being little has nothing to do with being capable…” He then asked me “how big was Alexander’s Macedonia when he took on the world?” At one point in our conversation he said, “There are a lot of people out there who can easily be convinced to believe that the Macedonians have a special relationship with them… on account of Alexander…” He also said that the “United States has a one hundred year plan and in this plan there are policies that call for ‘nipping in the bud’ all possible future threats to the United States.” He pointed to several of those threats. One of those “threats” at the time was Milosevic and Serbia.

So, one is left to wonder is that what is happening in Macedonia today? And is that part of the United States policy to “nip the Macedonian threat in the bud?” What possible threat could Macedonia be to the United States?

What is happening to Macedonia and the Macedonian people today may seem insane, but it is part of a master plan to eradicate everything that is Macedonian. And this plan does not stop with Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria and Albania. It extends back to the core of the Great Powers who allowed Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria to exterminate Macedonians for more than a century. This plan unfortunately has existed since Roman times and is being exercised

through proxies to this day. The creation of the People’s Republic of Macedonia in 1944 was simply an act of the will of the Macedonian people, in other words an accident not sanctioned by the Great Powers. The creation of the Republic of Macedonia in 1991 was done by the will of the Macedonian people, also an accident and was created without Great Power approval. This is why the Republic of Macedonia has great difficulty gaining international recognition. Greece and Bulgaria are not the only problem. Greece and Bulgaria are simply pawns in the games the Great Powers play. Remember, nothing happens without Great Power approval. Why the Great Powers do not want a Macedonian state is indeed a mystery about which we can only speculate! Are they afraid that Macedonia will bring a change in world order like Alexander did two and a half millenniums ago? I don’t know. I often wondered why the Macedonian people in 1903 made a bid to create a republic (the Krushevo Republic) in the midst of a powerful monarchic world. As is well-known republics are “anti-monarchic” by nature and the Macedonian people attempting to create a republic, in the middle of a powerful monarchic world, was not only counter-productive but suicidal. But they did it anyway. Why? Ironically the United States is a republic but it too refuses to help the Macedonian people free themselves from this eternal bondage.

Right from the start it should have been obvious to the 19th century Macedonians that the Great Powers would not allow them to create an independent Macedonian state. They were refused help too many times not to notice. So the question is why did they attempt to do it anyway and why did they start the 1903 Ilinden Uprising?

It should have been obvious to the Macedonian leaders right from the start in 1991 that nothing would happen without Great Power approval and that they would get nowhere unless they had sponsorship from the Great Powers which would have meant, like the wise old man said, become someone’s dog!

And now let us resume our story.

Russia had no economic stake in the Ottoman Empire so it wanted the Ottomans out of the Balkans. The Western Powers invested heavily in the Ottoman economy and infrastructure and were

anxious to keep the Ottoman Empire alive and well in the Balkans. The success of the Crimean War (Ottoman victory) convinced the British to slow down their policy of creating new Balkan States in favour of exploiting the lucrative Ottoman markets and collecting returns on loans made to the Ottomans.

By the stroke of a pen Bulgaria was freed (became autonomous) while Macedonia was sentenced to suffer further indignity and humiliation. Back in the hands of the Greek clergy and the Ottoman authorities, Macedonia now entered a new era of suffering and cruelty, destined to pay for the sins of all the other nations that rose up against the Ottomans.

Between the spring and summer of 1878 Macedonia’s fate was decided, not by Russia or the Western Powers but by England alone. England, who created Greece and introduced the curse of Hellenism into the Balkans, was now prepared to fight Russia, by military means if necessary, to keep it out of the Mediterranean Sea. To avoid war a compromise was reached. “The essentials of this compromise were agreed upon between England and Russia before the meeting of the European Congress, which took place at Berlin under the chairmanship of Bismarck, and formally substituted the Treaty of Berlin for the terms of San Stefano” (Page 377, Trevelyan, British History in the 19th Century)

“To our (English) eyes the real objection to the San Stefano lies not in its alleged increase in Russian power, but in the sacrifice of the fair claims of Greeks and Serbians, who would not have remained long quiet under the arrangements which ignored their racial rights and gave all the points to Bulgaria. Lord Salisbury felt this strongly, especially on behalf of Greece.”

“Beaconsfield’s success, as he himself saw it, consisted in restoring the European power of Turkey. It was done by handing back Macedonia to the Port (Ottomans), without guarantees for better government. This was the essence of the Treaty of Berlin as distinct from the Treaty of San Stefano. ‘There is again a Turkey in Europe’ Bismarck said. He congratulated the British Prime Minister – ‘You have made a present to the Sultan of the richest province in the world; 4,000 square miles of the richest soil.’ Unfortunately for

themselves, the inhabitants went with the soil. Since Beaconsfield decided, perhaps rightly, that Macedonia should not be Bulgarian, some arrangements ought to have been made for its proper administration under a Christian governor. Apart of all questions of massacres, the deadening character of the Turkish rule is well known. Lord Salisbury seems to have wished for a Christian governor, but nothing was done in that direction. A golden opportunity was thus let slip.” (Page 378, Trevelyan, British History in the 19th Century)

Remember, the statements made above were made in 1878 which meant that Macedonia, or parts of it, were promised to be given to Greece and therefore there was not going to be a Macedonian state if England had its way. And it did! Also, it was by no accident that England made no guarantees to safeguard the Macedonian people, as Bismarck rightly pointed out England left the Ottomans unchecked to take their revenge on the Macedonians. Was this done to “exterminate” more Macedonians? I would say yes because “exterminating” Macedonians subsequently became routine practice for the English, as we will show later.

After gaining status as protector of the Suez Canal and the waterways to India, Britain was awarded Cyprus. Content with its gains, Britain became lax and agreed that Russia and Austria-Hungary should oversee Ottoman affairs in Macedonia. “The British people, when left to themselves, neither knew or cared who massacred whom between the Danube and the Aegean. Byron’s Greece had appealed to their imagination and historical sense, but the Balkans were a battlefield of kites and crows” (Page 373, Treveleyan, British History in the 19th Century)

The Macedonian people were not at all happy about what went on in the Berlin Congress and showed their discontentment by demonstrating first in Kresna then in Razlog, but as usual their pleas were ignored. The Ottoman army was dispatched and the demonstrations were violently put down.

After 1878, for Macedonians to be Hellenized meant that they had to give up their Macedonian names, their Macedonian language, their culture, their history, their folklore and their Macedonia heritage.

Here is what Karakasidou has to say. “...The ideological content of notions of the Hellenic nation, which far from being ecumenical has shown itself to be intolerant of cultural or ethnic pluralism, has lead many inhabitants of Greek Macedonia to deny or hide those aspects of their own personal or family pasts...” (Page 125, Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood)

“The period immediately following the Berlin Congress demonstrated therefore, that Balkan chauvinist intent was not merely to occupy, govern and exploit Macedonia, but to eradicate the Macedonian culture, and superimpose its own culture upon a people alien to it. By guile, gun, religion and quasi-legal manipulation, the Balkan States attempted to divest the native Macedonians of their language, religion, folklore, literature, traditions and consciousness. The ultimate goal therefore, was to anaesthetize the Macedonian people, and then remold them into Bulgarians, Greeks and Serbians.” (Page 45, A. Michael Radin, IMRO and the Macedonian Question) And all this was done with English consent.

Did it not once occur to these westerners that in the heart of Macedonia, perhaps there was a unique Macedonian culture living there? Did it not once occur to them that perhaps the Macedonians with their multicultural and multiethnic character did not want to be molded to fit the western profile of what a nation should be? Yes it did occur to them and that was the point. The English and most western powers in general did not want a Macedonia and the Macedonian people to exist so they let their dogs Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria, as the wise man would say, do the work for them.

By throwing Macedonia back to the Ottomans the Great Powers made sure the Macedonian people would be punished for their stubborn ways, for refusing to be molded into a monolithic uni-cultural and pseudo-homogeneous nation-state, like Greece. Why did they do this? Only those who participated in the 1878 Berlin Congress and who forever committed Macedonia to suffer more cruelty and injustice can truly answer this question. One thing is for certain; as the West is now growing old and gaining wisdom and experience it has learned how to hide its cruelty behind impotent international organizations and words like “freedom”, “human rights” and “democracy” while still punishing those who refuse to

serve its interests. But, has the west really become wiser? Is the west really more tolerant of minorities or has it used the “minority rights” issue as a weapon to punish those who refuse to be its servants? Why hasn’t the west punished Greece for what it has done and is doing to the Macedonian people? Human rights, it seems, is only an issue outside of the west but not inside!

Here is a story published by http://www.minareport.com that illustrates my point:

Croatian MEP: EU and Democracy is an Oxymoron

By Mark Abramoff - October 6, 20181

One of the most popular Croatian politicians and MEP in Brussels Ivan Pernar blasted the EU as anything, but democratic during a speech at an EU session in Brussels.

Although we highly recommend watching his speech, here are his main takeaways:

In Macedonia 36.8% (the number now is actually 35.1% due to nullification of 2 polling places) of which 33% voted “For”, yet 67% said “No” by boycotting the Referendum. The EU says referendum is successful. In Catalonia 93% voted “Yes” in a much higher turnout than in Macedonia recorded at 43%, but the EU said the referendum is unsuccessful. Why is it successful in Macedonia with 36%, but unsuccessful in Catalonia with 43%?

The political elite in the EU is only interested in implementing the wishes of the global elite. The people cannot decide nor are they allowed to have a say about how they live their lives.