Introduction - Part 01

(1) Skoplje, consisting of the areas of Tetovo, Gostivar and Rostusa. (2) Kumanovo, consisting of the area of Kumanovo, Kratovo and Kriva Palanka. (3) Stip, consisting of the area of Stip, Kocane, Carevo Selo and Radovis. (4) Strumica, consisting of the area of Strumica, Berovo, Valandovo and Djevdjelija. (5) Veles, consisting of the area of Veles, St. Nikola, Negotin and Kavadar. (6) Prilep, consisting of the area of Prilep, Brod, Krusevo and Kicevo. (7) Bitolj, consisting of the area of Bitolj, Resen and Morihovo. (8) Ohrid, consisting of the area of Ohrid, Struga and Debar.

Balkan States – Report 5 - May 17th, 1945

Mr. Stevenson to Mr. Eden Belgrade, 13th April, 1945.

(No. 74.)

Sir,

I HAVE the honour to transmit to you herewith an interesting and useful memorandum on the partisan movement in Macedonia and its opponents, by Mr. Stephen Clissold, press secretary at this embassy.

I am sending copies of this -dispatch to the Resident Minister, Central Mediterranean. His Majesty's Ambassador at Athens and His Majesty's Political Representative at Sofia.

I have, &c. R. C. SKRINE STEVENSON.

Enclosure

The Partisan movement in Macedonia and its Opponents

MACEDONIA bas always presented one of the most complex and confusing issues in Balkan politics, and it cannot be said that recent events there have done much to clarify it.

The Yugoslav partisans claim somewhat naively that the problem has been finally “solved” by granting Macedonia the status of one of the federal units of the Yugoslav State. Apart from the highly controversial international implications of this “so1ution,” as far as Bulgaria and Greece are concerned, its acceptance within Macedonia itself has not been so unanimously approved as the partisans would have us believe. They have had to meet formidable opposition from two sides; from the exponents of the old centralist thesis that Macedonia is but an extension of Serbia and should be given no regional autonomy whatever, and from the separatists who claim that Macedonia should be given the status of an entirely independent State. It is in the light of these two opposing schools of

thought that the development of the partisan movement in Macedonia may best be reviewed.

Annexation by Bulgaria

It is generally admitted that the entry of Bulgarian troops into Macedonia was welcomed by the mass of the population as a prelude to national liberation. Official Yugoslavia had denied the existence of a Macedonian people and had regarded the inhabitants of “South Serbia” as Serbs corrupted by Bulgar influence. A strict policy of Serbianisation and centralism had therefore been pursued. Serbian co1onists were settled on the land and Serbian officials-often or a very inferior grade- sent to administer the province. What the Macedonians regarded with perhaps, pardonable exaggeration as their national culture was ruthlessly harried by the Serbs as an expression of Bulgarian irredentist propaganda. It is scarcely surprising that the sudden collapse of this unpopular regime should have been hailed as the dawn of a new era.

Disillusionment soon followed, as it become clear that Bulgaria cared as little as the Serbs for the national aspirations of the Macedonians. For the centralists of Belgrade there was substituted that of Sofia. But the false hopes with which the Macedonians had started, continued to colour their outlook for some time to come, and rendered the growth of the partisan movement there of peculiar difficulty. Macedonia, it was felt, had already been “liberated” by the Bulgarians; how then, could the insurrectionary movement sweeping over Serbia bring national liberation to them! If the Macedonians grew discontented under Bulgar rule, they sought to better their lot by a struggle for social, not national, resistance. The first Macedonian Insurgents formed themselves into units which they called National Detachments, not National Liberation Detachments, as elsewhere in Yugoslavia. They formed their committees, too, but these were National Committees, not National Liberation Committees. When they chalked up their slogans on the walls of the houses in Skopje and Bitolj, one would see not the customary “Death to the Invader,” but more often “down with the Filov Government.”

The Beginning of Resistance

The resistance movement in Macedonia threatened therefore to develop along entirely different lines from the rest of Yugoslavia. The first and most vital campaign which the partisans had to win was the conversion of all resistance elements to their own programme. They had to ensure that it should be a Yugoslav and not an exclusively Macedonian resistance movement. It must be made to conform to central directives and give full recognition to the authority of Tito and the Partisan Supreme Staff. This issue was fought out until August 1943, and it was only when the capitulation of Italy brought a fresh accession of strength to the partisans that Tito's line found general acceptance. Even so, the old separatist and pro-Bulgar trends continued - and still continue to- day- to trouble the consolidation of the movement.

The first phase of partisan activity in Macedonia - from the summer of 1941 to August 1943-was largely conspiratorial. Detachments were formed, but they lacked the cohesion of a common aim and leadership, and were mostly soon dispersed. Communist influence had always been considerable in Macedonia, especially amongst the workers and intelligentsia, and here, as elsewhere, the Communists took the lead in building up the underground organization. A partisan headquarters was formed consisting of Mihailo Apostolski, a major – in the old Yugoslav army, Lazar Kulisevski, secretary of the Macedonian Communist party, Straso Pindur, Mirce Acev and others. (The latter two have since been killed; Apstolski is now a lieutenant-general and until recently commander-in-chief for Macedonia; Kulisevski is President of the Macedonian Government.)

Military and Political Consolidation

By the autumn of 1943; partisan activity had reached a more serious scale. The partisan detachments assumed the designation (if not the reality) of a regular army-the Army of National Liberation-and nationalists could boast that Macedonia now had the first army of its own since the days of the Tsar Samuel. Public confidence began to grow. The partisans now no longer drew their recruits almost entirely from the ranks of the intelligentsia and workers; the peasants, too, began to take up arms. Non-Communist politicians

like Andonov-Cento began to identify themselves with the movement. The first towns (Debar, Tetovo) were liberated, and partisan patrols could steal through the streets of Skopje and Prilep without fear o being denounced by a hostile population.

In the autumn of 1942 Tito had sent his personal delegate Tempo (Svetozar Vukmanovic) to direct the organization of the movement, and during 1943 he established close relations both with the Albanian F.N.C. and with Greek E.A.M./E.L.A.S. (see Bari dispatch No.62 to the Foreign Office and 64 to Caserta of the 16th July, 1944). At the end of the year the second Macedonian Brigade was formed on Greek soil. It was composed of the Pindzur Battalion and the Kristov Batev Battalion of deserters from the Bulgar army under the command of Dico Petrov.

Tile Opposition –Cetniks

Cetnik opposition was mainly confined to the towns and does not seem to have been a serious factor. The anti-Serb feelings of the Macedonian population naturally prevented the Cetniks from obtaining any great measure of popular support. Their plan was not to offer open resistance to the Bulgar authorities but to build up a secret administration to take over from them on the day of their ultimate withdrawal. A group of Cetniks was arrested in Skopje by the Bulgar police in 1942, made little secret of their intentions in court and were subsequently released. The titular head of such armed Cetniks who did resist was Vojo Trbic, son of a wealthy landowner from Prilep, and Mihailovic's personal representative for Macedonia, and Krstic, who commanded a group of Cetniks in E. Macedonia until they were finally liquidated by the partisans in the Koxjak hills in the spring of 1944.

The Pro-Bulgars

A far more serious and persistent problem was provided by the existence of the various pro-Bulgar groups. A vigorous propaganda was carried on among the Macedonian émigrés in Bulgaria by Dr. Stanisevci, Danail Krapcevci and other leaders to induce them to return to their "liberated" homeland. The usual bribes were held out-land confiscated from evicted Serbian tenants, good posts in the

Civil Service, &c. To counter the growing popularity of the partisans, the Bulgars even began sponsoring, a rival movement of Macedonian extremists to demand autonomy, or even a greater Macedonia, including Salonica. The former I.M.R.O. terrorist leader, Ivan (“Vanco”) Mihailovic had been living in Zagreb since April 1941 under the protection of his friend Pavelic. He had, however, his henchmen in Macedonia - Ckatrov, Kiril Drangov and others, who readily lent themselves to these Bulgar-inspired plans. In September 1944 he himself visited Skoplje, under German auspices, to assess the possibilities of enlisting support for a Greater Macedonia under his control (see Belgrade dispatch No.45). It was, however, too late. The partisans had stolen his thunder and summoned their anti-fascist Sobranje for the National Liberation of Macedonia (A.S.N.O.M.) at the beginning of August. Macedonia was to be a federal State enjoying full autonomy within the frame work of the New Yugoslavia.

The Experiment of Home-Rule

The first A.S.N.O.M. was elected at Bitolj on the 2nd August; it was superseded on the 20th December by a second A.S.N.O.M. held at Skoplje, which was in turn developed into a full Government at the third session of A.S.N.O.M. in April 1945.

It soon became apparent that the old opponents of the partisans' Macedonian policy- the Serb Centralists and the Macedonian Separatists-had by no means been subdued by the partisans' success. The Centralists, forced to abandon their former posts in Macedonia, have been obliged to confine their activity to expressions of impotent disapproval from Serbia and have been frequently denounced in the partisan press. The Separatists, on the other hand, have been far more active and dangerous. A.S.N:O.M. itself was permeated with them, and Marshal Tito found it expedient to send his right-hand man, Edward Kardelj, to attend the second session of A.S.N.O.M. and issue a strongly worded warning against the dangers of becoming giddy with success and harboring separatist and irredentist tendencies. These warnings have been repeated on subsequent occasions by such authoritative spokesmen all Cuckov, Minister for Macedonia in the Yugoslav Federal Government, and Kulisevski, now head of the Macedonian Government.

The prevailing mood of over-confident nationalism resulting from the expulsion of the Bulgar and German forces of occupation has found expression in many ways. Attempts have been made to close the frontiers to Serbs wishing to enter Macedonia, and the Federal Government in Belgrade was forced to issue a sharp reminder that every Yugoslav subject has the right of access to any of the federal units, regardless of his national origin. To bring the lesson home, a Serb doctor, resident for many years in Macedonia, has been included as Minister of Public Health in Kulisevski's Government. In Church matters too, a marked tendency can be discerned to break away from Serbian influence. The exact position in this respect is not yet altogether clear, but a start has already been made with the holding of a congress of Serb Orthodox priests in Skoplje as a preliminary to the establishment of an autonomous Macedonian Church to be associated with the Serb Orthodox Church in some sort of ecclesiastical federation.

Irredentist ambitions in respect of Greek and Bulgarian Macedonia have increased in proportion with the desire to loosen the ties binding Macedonia to Serbia. As early as November 1944 a Greek Macedonian Brigade had been, formed under Yugoslav auspices in Bitolj and this was followed a few weeks later by the setting up of a commission "to direct the struggle of the Macedonians in Greece." Finally, matters came to a head when certain Yugoslav units in Bitolj demonstrated their preference to fight for the expulsion of the Greeks from Salonica rather then that of the Germans from Yugoslavia.

The reaction of the Yugoslav federal authorities to all these manifestations of irredentism and separation has been vigorous. Whatever the ultimate desires of Marshal Tito and his advisers may be - and there are some grounds for thinking that they do envisage an eventual Great Macedonia, possibly comprising one State member of a Balkan federation - they are at present bent upon steering a middle course between the Scylla of separation and Charybdis of centralism. The extent to which they have succeeded in establishing their authority over the more impetuous elements is not easy to determine. It would seem that they still have a long way to go before those tendencies towards separatism and dependence upon

Bulgaria, which have so handicapped their movement in the past, are finally eradicated.

Balkan States – Report 6 - December 12, 1946

Notes on Serb-Partisan-Bulgarian Relations during the period August-November 1944. – (Communicated in Beri dispatch No. 209 of the 28th November, received in Foreign Office the 12th December)

THE information and notes set out here below deal solely with the experiences and actual incidents, or reported past incidents, in the areas through which Mission “Mozart” moved during the period under review. The mission landed in Serbia on the 10th August in Barje area south of Lebane, and then moved south to Oruglica and Rozdac, crossing the Morava near Mastanica, and thence to Nesverta. After some time in this area the Mission moved north once more to Crna Trava and thence to Dobro Polje. From there it made its way through Strelac and Babusnica to Pirot, where it was later joined by Mission “Entanglement.” The two Missions then moved with Partisan 13th Corps through Vlasotince and took part in the final advance on and the capture of Nis.

2. The majority of the following information about the Bulgarians and their relations with the Serbs was obtained in the period spent at the east of the Morava. Feeling here among the population were far more pronounced than on the other side of the ricer, and contact with the Bulgarians seemed to have been far more of a reality in this area. As a result of this, it was very noticeable that, as the Mission moved eastwards, so anti-Bulgarian feeling among both Partisans and peasants became more and more apparent.

3. Generally speaking, the Partisan attitude in Serbia to the Bulgarian occupier can be divided into four separate phases, namely; -

(A) An initial period which generally speaking had been going on since hostilities began. (B) The period immediately before the Russian declaration of war while British negotiations were still taking place. (C) The Russian declaration of war, armistice and post-armistice period. (D) The period of actual co-operation between the new Bulgarian army and the Partisans.

The attitude of the Serbian people themselves throughout this period was continuous and forms a background of the whole picture of Partisan-Bulgarian relations in this area. When considering each of the above phases in turn, this attitude of the Serbian peasants and people must be borne in mind as an important factor influencing the local situation, and also it must be remembered that during the first three phases named above, the Mission, as it traveled towards and along the Bulgarian frontier, was moving into territory more and more strongly biased against the Bulgars. (See para. 2 above.) As a result of this, the picture is inclined to become at once more local in character, and cannot be said to reflect the true attitude of the whole of Serbia, but only that of a badly hit section of the country, where feelings may have become distorted and enlarged out of all reasonable proportions by hate stirred up on the spot.

Phase (A)

4. The original Partisan attitude to the Bulgars was that the Bulgarian soldiers were an unenlightened enemy with Fascist leaders, who, as the occupiers, must be driven out of Serbia. Prisoners, when taken, were given the chance to renounce their Fascist leaders, and were allowed to join in the “movement” with the Bulgarian Partisans if groups were operating in the area. Only the leaders, officers, police and secret police organizations were considered completely corrupt, and as the instigators of all crimes and atrocities were executed out of hand when caught. To the ordinary rank and file an attitude of distasteful toleration was adopted, and if the prisoners decided to co-operate they were at once accepted as men, who in past had been lead astray by their leaders, and their lives were usually spared. At the slightest sign of these converts giving trouble, or when the military situation made it impossible to have this rather doubtful element within their midst, the Partisans were forced to dispose of them. This they did purely as a necessity, and without the hate which was sometimes shown to the German prisoners, and would seem to be the only sensible solution to the problem.

Throughout the whole period the Partisans persisted in their policy of co-operation with the Bulgarian Partisan Movement, giving their

help wherever possible. The standing arrangement to send all sympathetic Bulgarian prisoners to swell the ranks of the Bulgarian Partisans was only one example of this, and quite definitely serves to illustrate the sincerity of the Partisans as a whole, whose policy it has been since the beginning of the movement to strive continuously for harmony with their Bulgarian neighbours. The Partisan quarrel with Bulgaria was not with her people, but with her leaders and the system they stood for, a system which struck directly at the heart of the Partisan will for a friendly relationship with all Balkan people.

The above attitude of toleration and willingness to cooperate was essentially evident during the Lebane offensive, where the Partisans were able to gain a decisive victory over the Bulgarian army, and at the same time remain consistent in their former attitude towards prisoners.

There were, of course, extremists among the Partisans who contemplated the long list of past Bulgarian misdeeds through the ages, and argued that the whole Bulgar race was at fault. Bulgaria was to these men “the Germany of the Balkans” and would remain a danger until liquidated. That the Bulgars should pay for their past crimes was their slogan.

The present attitude, generally speaking, was one of fear mingled with inborn hatred which grew in intensity with the lessening of the distance to the old frontier. Every village had its stories of house burnings and killings in the district, and some had actual examples to show, getting progressively worst to the east. Perhaps the most antagonizing situation for the peasants was when Partisans came into a village with some ex-Bulgarian soldiers in their midst. The Partisans the people were prepared to feed but the Bulgars they were definitely not.

Phase (B)

5. The period immediately before, and leading up to the Russian declaration of war, when it became increasingly clear that the Bulgars really were on the verge of collapse, witnesses a noticeable stiffening in the Partisan attitude towards the Bulgars. Still the former policy of toleration existed on the surface, and all men

realized as they had stated so often in the past that some agreement must be reached with Bulgaria if future peace was to be ensured. Yet, at the same time, the feeling of the impending collapse brought out many expressions of real hatred that had hitherto been suppresses. Men began to recall instances where their own villages had been sacked and burnt, or friends and relations killed, and their women debauched. Formerly they had merely despised the Bulgarians, now they began to show hatred for them, and some even went so far as to express regret that Partisan policy was of necessity a tolerant one. Even such men as Mihailo Djurovic (see Appendix “A”) who was well educated and equally well-informed as to the general picture, besides being a great influence throughout the whole are stretching from Crna Trava to Kriva-Feja, expressed himself in strong terms when referring to the Bulgars. True, his are had suffered more severely than almost any other, and during this transition period even his broad view-point of the war in general, was far from being in line with the former and official policy. To him the Bulgars stood for culture on the German model in the Balkans.

There was much speculation in Partisan ranks as to what was going to happen when the end did in fact come, and all were in agreement that the Bulgarians must withdraw from the country immediately, leaving their arms with the Partisans. Any feeling of hatred the Partisans had hitherto expressed were incensed during this period by the one great fear that the Bulgarian troops, even at the last minute before their collapse, might hand over their arms and material to the Cetnic and Nedic organizations with whom they were known to be in contact in all towns of any size throughout East Serbia.

It was during this period that the peasants’ feelings reached their peak in anti Bulgar intensity, and indeed in the whole are from Kriva-Feja to Crna Trava had good reason to hate. Examples were quoted of Bulgar soldiers coming into villages, shooting three of a family, shutting the remainder into their house and then burning the house and its pitiful intimated with it. Whole villages were seen with every house burnt down and with the villagers still searching among the ruins trying to salvage something from the ashes. In some cases new houses were just being built, but life was a very hand-to-mouth affair, as none of the essentials of the household remained. “Some of

the braver individuals were just uncovering their remaining worldly goods from holes in the ground beneath manure heaps that had been their hiding place for the past seven months, and on the other side of the valley smoke could still be seen rising from the ruins of two houses burnt less than ten days ago.” (Mission Diary-Nesverta)

The Bulgar destruction through the whole are had been systematic to a degree. In Novo Selo and Nesverta, for example, there was hardly a cooking utensil in the place, no cups, glasses or cutlery, all had been taken away when the Bulgars passed through. Many of the houses had been burnt or damaged, and their man-folk marched away to Bulgaria for internment or worse. The people from these villages all displayed an air of absolute hopelessness in their adversity.

The smallest incidents were taken by the Bulgarian occupier as an excuse for such action all over the area. If a village sheltered even a Partisan it was considered hostile and as likely as not liable to call down destruction on to itself.

The same situation was evident to an even greater extent in Crna Trava and the surrounding are, although the work was not so recent. In Crna Trava itself only three buildings appeared to be still intact. A typical example of the thoroughness of the Bulgar policy here was that they had even taken the trouble to erase all the names from the stone memorial to the slain of the last war. This type of behaviour can be dismissed as both futile and unimportant, but it assuredly serves to illustrate how deep-rooted the hatred of the peasant for the occupier must necessarily become, since it is connected with every aspect of his daily life, besides being a repetition of centuries of similar occurrences.

This was a period of universal East Serbian hatred for the Bulgars, which developed before Partisan policy and finally crystallized out into its present state. It was a breakaway from the previous Partisan attitude of disdainful toleration, and was due to the sudden possibility of a Bulgarian collapse, combined with the terrible local evidence to be seen an all sides of this particular are.

This condition of terrible fear amongst the peasants, and the newly-aroused hatred on the part of the Partisans, was typical of this phase, and persisted up to and even after the armistice in the case of the latter, while the former still does exist to a greater or less degree according to the locality.

It was during this period that too that the Bulgars themselves first started to show real signs, in a few isolated cases, of working out their own salvation. Desertions to the Partisans increased – 2 officers and over 100 men came over to the Partisans in the Surdulica area from a garrison in the hills. Actual fighting broke out between the Germans and the Bulgars, in Surdulica itself, yet the Bulgarians in Vranje, a few miles distant, declared themselves to be still whole-heartedly in support of the Germans, and the movement did not become general.

The reason given for these desertions were inveritably that, although they did not mind fighting for Bulgaria, they had no wish to remain with the Germans, only to be left with the prospect of being carried off to some obscure front to fight for Germany. They insisted they were not traitors to Bulgaria, but expressed grave concern at what their countrymen might thing of them for their actions which thy held to be completely justifiable, since their country was on the verge of suing for peace. All were most anxious to explain away the past atrocities by saying that it was merely the natural outcome of their own way of life in Bulgaria, where for the past 500 years they had lived in an atmosphere of secret police, killings, and house burning among their own countrymen. As a result of this, human life was rated very low indeed, and it didn’t mean a great deal to a man to have to commit similar crimes in an enemy country when ordered to by his Fascist superiors. (This information and opinion, was volunteered by a Bulgarian officer deserter at Nesverta, who spoke English learned at the American collage in Sofia.)

It was final rush to get into the right party by men who were clever enough to see what was taking shape, and who still sufficiently uncompromised to do so.

Phase (C)

6. The Russian declaration of war, the ensuing armistice, ant the post-armistice period is probably the most interesting of all, in that it may be said to pass through three main stages, viz, :-

(i) A period of complete confusion when Russia declared war on Bulgaria, closely followed by the complete collapse of the latter. No one could be sure during this period just what would happen. News was non-existent, although the Partisans in this area generally were fairly confident that at last the Bulgars would be forced to withdraw from the country at speed. The Russian attack, coupled with lack of directive as to Partisan policy, put local Partisan anti-Bulgar feeling at its highest, and on a genuine hate basis, 70 per cent, of the staff of the Pirot Bde, for example, stated on numerous occasions, and without reserve, what, they intended to do with the Bulgars, how they would be made to pay in full for their past crimes, and of how the attack should be carried into Bulgaria alongside the Russians and the countryside laid waste there as it had been in Serbia. Past atrocities were discussed and speculation ran high. Then came the armistice, and gradually a less irresponsible and more imaginative and realistic attitude began to take shape. This was the beginning of the second stage.

(ii) There was still no news, but as time passed and the Bulgars showed no signs of leaving the country, the Partisans began to look for a deeper meaning behind their prolonged stay and to think once more along the former logical lines of Balkan unity. Personal dislike and hatred generated by the thought of a vanquished Bulgaria was suppressed by all Partisans for the sake of their avowed ideal of friendship within the Balkans. They did not, however, basically alter their attitude to the Bulgars, or forgive the past, but merely looked at the matter in the light of hard facts. They reasoned that, although things would continue to be very vague until new directives came in, it was still certain that the Bulgarians would have to pay their price of their crimes, that the various leaders would be tried for their complicity in the atrocities, and that it now appeared that the Bulgars had been directed to fight against the Germans, since they were not going to leave the country. It was generally considered disappointing that the Bulgars had apparently been selected by the Russians to continue to fight against the Germans instead of being sent home as a defeater army after handing their material and arms

over to the Partisans who could then have continued the fight. It was disappointing but it was accepted, for it was obviously the only practical solution. The Partisans even admitted quite openly that, had they been given the tanks and guns, &c., of the Bulgarian army, they could not really have put them to good use, owing to lack of trained personnel to man them; they would obviously be better handled by the proper owners, who must therefore stay. At the same time it was thought and hoped that the Russians would soon find out what rotten and hopeless allies the Bulgarians were.

(iii) Time passed once more and the Bulgars did not see real fighting, but more and more material and men continued to pour into the country in the Pirot area from Carribrod. It was now that directives at last came through, which stated that the new intention of the Bulgars was to conduct a full-size offensive into Serbia against the Germans, and cut once and for all the escape routs through the Morava and Ibar valleys.

However, the scheme did not begin to take shape quickly, and once more criticism was heard. The Partisans began to feel suspicious of this large army on their soil which did nothing to hamper the enemy, but merely ate Serbian food and looked impressive. Concern was expressed over the possible political developments of having a large army in a static role in and around the Pirot area, which was already known to contain many civilians who were sympathetic to the Bulgarians having lived under them for many months without having their conditions of life made radically worse than under their own past.

This was the exception and also the exact opposite of the position elsewhere in eastern Serbia, where universal hatred on the part of the peasants was still the predominant feeling. Could the Bulgarians be here for some sinister political reason was a fear which now began to present itself. Even 13 Corps staff stated that they moved their Headquarters to Barje Civilic because they feared civil trouble with so many Bulgarians and their sympathizers in Pirot. Matters were made no easier by the fact that temporarily all arms had ceased to be sent to the Partisans, as at this time British supplies had been discontinued and Russian support had not began to arrive, while at the same time the Partisans had an ever-growing influx of the

“Narod” crying out for arms which were not available, yet when the Partisans looked around they could only see their late enemies with a surplus of material of every type at their disposal. Corps Commander Vuckovic himself stated that the inactivity had gone on too long and was becoming a possible source of future trouble, and that the moment had arrived when either the Bulgars must push through Bela Palanka and Vlasotince to Nis and Leskovac, or else get back to their own country. (The Bulgarians had been sitting across the roads leading to Bela Palanka for some three weeks without making any serious move in either direction.) A “fight or go” attitude was becoming noticeable in Parisian discussions about the Bulgars, and their attitude began to stiffen once more.

(iv) Suddenly this whole situation changed and the attendant tension disappeared overnight. Russian stores arrived for the Partisans and the Bulgars who were now presumably sufficiently prepared for their attack on the Morava and Ibar valley communications, carried out a very large switch of their forces from the Bela Palanka front, where the main effort had previously been concentrated, and thrust their main force into the Morava valley and through Vlasotince. Besides being a considerable military achievement in re-concentration and switching of available forces, despite the shocking difficulties entailed by making such a large movement of men and guns over an almost impossible road, the plan was also a complete success, and Vlasotince, Leskovac and Nis fell to the Bulgars in quick succession.

After the few days doubt on the part of the Partisans as to whether this was going to be a real or half-hearted effort was finally removed, and they admitted that at last things looked like working and genuine co-operation was in view.

After the capture of Nis, the Bulgars continued their advance westwards, chasing the retreating Germans through Prokopulje and onwards through Kursumlija. Their effort here seems to have been a genuine and wholehearted affair, and up to the present moment they have been fighting as hard as they can, as their heavy casualties bear witness.

The civilian population in the towns such as Nis did not appear to be nearly as violent in their hatred of the Bulgars as had the peasants, and through an indefinite dislike was expressed by many, no serious criticism was heard. In a few cases people returning to Nis after the liberation of the town did show disappointment at seeing the recent occupier once more in the town, but this was short lived, as soon the majority of troops had moved on towards the battle and Nis had to begin to think about picking up the threads of its life again.

Short Summary and Appreciation of Existing Relations

7. We have now traced the development and vicissitudes in Partisan-Serb-Bulgar relations during the last stages of the war in Serbia, and we have seen how it was and is still developing along the normal lines necessary for future peace.

First we had the Partisans facing the Bulgarian army as enemies and without showing any great demonstrative hatred towards them, and then, after the reasonable and natural phases of hate and suspicion, we find them eventually co-operating in making war on a common enemy. That this co-operation was a compulsory clause of an armistice agreement does not necessarily mean that any basis for real co-operation could not be built up from this point. In fact, the omens are heavily weighted in favour of future peace and eventual friendship.

The new Bulgarian Government and the purges carried out by the Bulgarian Partisans have effectively removed the main reasons standing in the way of co-operation with the Partisans, for the latter’s policy has been consistently, except for a few local misunderstandings as described above, one of a desire for friendship with Bulgaria, in the hope of obtaining a Balkan unity. This could not begin while Bulgaria was under the late Fascist leadership and while she played the role of occupier in Serbia. However, this is now no longer the case, and the two nations can now face each other on common ground. They will still remain recent enemies, but time, and a carefully-directed policy, should heal and deaden this as far as the Partisan movement and the new Bulgarian army are concerned.

That the peasants of Serbia are still bitter and nourish a great hatred for the recent Bulgar oppressor is both true and natural. It is the result of years of murder, pillage, house burnings and the like that has been carried out in successive wars. It is deeply ingrained into the national character, but should not prove an insurmountable difficulty, for if the Serb Partisans, who are also Serbian to the same degree as the peasants, are prepared to suppress their hatred in order to carry out the policy of a new Yugoslavia which is aiming at friendship and peace in the Balkans, then so also can the peasants and “Narod” generally do the same. Once the later has been absorbed into the Partisan movement and given proper instructions by the means of a gradual policy, then this very real stumbling block should disappear. It is the duty of the Bulgarian Partisan Movement to carry out similar reconstruction within their own country.

The Partisans have made a true noble sacrifice in this way by suppressing all their past hatreds for sake of a cause (see Appendix “B”), and there is no reason why this sacrifice should be set at nought.

The situation should be further assisted by the fact that in years to come, the new Bulgarian army will be remembered for the part it played in the liberation of Serbia, and it should be hard for the Serbs to hate those who came to their aid and who drove out the occupier, and who at a later date sent in food, leather, &c., as laid down in the armistice terms. If this last is done, and the “new army” leaves behind it the reputation of being a liberator, then the former period when the Bulgarians were the occupiers will gradually fade from memory, as the latter is usually a very short-lived affair.

That there is still much to be done, and a great deal of precarious negotiation to be carried out before a firm peace can be established, is obvious, especially on such questions as territory and populations, which cannot be discussed here at this present stage.

Those Bulgars responsible for atrocities in the past will have to be caught and punished. There should be no weakening on this count, but simply proper justice done. But if these and similar storms can be weathered there is every indication now that a possible solution is in sight.

General Stanchev has already given a lead in his tremendous task of bringing the new Bulgarian army into being out of the sorry material of the old, a task which seems to be carrying out with success in the Nis area, and equaled only by his success in dealing with the Partisans themselves. Others like this man should be able to make Yugoslavia-Bulgaria relations at least into a working arrangement between the two nations. A step in the right direction has been made.

The Partisans under the leadership of Marshal Tito have always given “Federation with the Balkans” as one of the first principles of their whole movement. This they have striven for consistently in the past, and in so doing they have to suppress all personal feelings, after entailing great suffering and self-sacrifice to themselves, in order to bring about so great a change. Now, at last, the achievement of their aim is in sight, and the possibility of a real Balkan Federation, such as they have envisaged in the past, can become a reality.

The basis for co-operation has already been laid, and was proved by the joint operations throughout the recent fighting in the Nis area. With careful handling, a real friendship may well grow from these foundations, and Balkan unity would no longer remain a matter for mere speculation or academic discussion.

Appendix “A”

Mihailo Djugovic

CIVIL engineer, well educated, speaks French, and has traveled in France and other parts of Europe. Had experience of Yugoslav political and public life before the war. Interned by Germans, but later set free in order to be repatriated to Bulgaria as he was then subject administratively to the latter owing to frontier changes announced by the Axis.

Joined Partisan movement, where his chief task became civil administration in the south of Crna Trava.

Appendix “B”

Partisan Sacrifices for sake of Balkan Unity

AN example of this suppression of personnel hatred on the part of individual Partisans was well illustrated in the case of the Political Commissar to 13th Corps.

This man came from Crna Trava area and has been with the Partisan movement in Serbia since the early days. He had witnessed all the hardships endured by his countrymen during the Bulgarian occupation, had been forced to live in the hills for many months, and his wife had been killed by the Bulgars during an early reaction in the Crna Trava area. Yet this man could put aside all personal hatred that he must have felt for the Bulgarian, and during the liberation ceremonies in Nis he did his utmost to foster good relations between the Partisans and the new Bulgarian army, and gave frequent demonstrations of his own friendship for them, and in full public view.

Balkan States 7 - June 18, 1946

Mr. Clutton to Mr. Bevin

No. 223

Belgrade, 6th June, 1946

I HAVE the honour to inform you that the trial took place last February before the Supreme Court of Macedonia of eleven members of a secret organization known as the Democratic Front of Macedonia-Ilinden 1903. The organization was charged with being responsible for drafting a memorandum in favour of the creation of a separate Macedonia, to include Bulgarian and Greek Macedonia, as a protectorate of "certain foreign countries" to whom the document was or was to be addressed. This memorandum was referred to in Marshal Tito's speech at Skopje on the 11th October, 1945 (see Belgrade telegram No. 1872 of the 12th October, 1945). A dementi appeared in the press of the 2nd November, 1945, purporting to come from the committee of the Ilinden organization, denying that it, the committee, was responsible for such a document. The denial went on to say that those of the committee who “by chance have remained alive, true to the ideals of the I.M.R.O. constellation of the time of Delchev, Gruev, Petrov, Sandanski and Hadji-Dimov, consider that the free Federal Vardar Macedonia within the frontiers of Tito's Yugoslavia represents a firm basis for the full union of the Macedonian peoples and the final settlement by democratic means of the Macedonian question which for fifty years poisoned the political atmosphere in the Balkans.

2. According to the press, the activities of the accused men began in August 1945, and it was their intention to work on the lines of Mihailov’s organization, with whom one of them, Dr. Ilija Culev, was at one time associated. Plans included the assassination of national leaders, the disarming of the militia, and the liberation of political prisoners, to be followed by the taking over of authority. Efforts were made to establish connexions over the frontier near Bitolj with the ?itos organization, from whom assistance in the Liberation of Greek Macedonia was to be sought.

3. The accused whose names were: -

Konstantin Hrisimov-Smilee Kuzmanov Atanas Acov Lazarov Dr. Ilija Culev Dinev Luka Sekulov

Kiro Pecarov

Dr. Dimitar Zlatarov

Metodi Svitjiev

Stjepan

Serafim

Kosta

Were sentenced to terms varying from one to twenty years' forced labour.