Hmmmmm, ova jas go pisuvam ili ne? Pa neli ne ste tatari, ne znam sto vikaat ovie ovde. Ako ne ste tatari, togas ste Makedonci? Kako i da e, uzivajte, i me interesira sto mislite. Dali od sega moze slobodno da ve vikam Tatari ili ne? Ke go pocituvam vasiot izbor. ------------------------------------------------------------ The historical fate of Tatar People, its culture, arising and development of Kazan - the capital of Tatarstan - are intertwining with the history of Volga Bulgaria, Golden Horde, Kazan Khanate, Russian State. http://www.kcn.ru/tat_en/history/index.htm Volga Bulgaria "Black Chamber" Mosque in Bolgar (XIV century) Volga Bulgaria - the feudal state formed on the verge of IX-X centuries in Middle Volga region. The main population was bulgars - immigrants from Azov region, who conquered the native Finno-Ugrians and Turkish-speaking tribes. The largest towns Bolgar and Buljar in area and population surpassed London, Paris, Kiev, Novgorod and Vladimir of that time. Volga Bulgaria exported to Middle Asia, China, Vizantium, Russia the fur, timber, leather footwear, arms and other handmade goods. The capital of Volga Bulgaria town Bolgar in X-XIV centuries was built of stone and brick. Already the public water supply was here. Nowadays remained the ruins of "The Black Chamber" Mosque, Minor Minaret, Khan's Tomb, Northern Mausoleum, Cathedral Mosque. Khan's Tomb (Eastern Mausoleum) Smaller Minaret Bulgars were the pagans. In 922 the Embassy from Baghdad came to Bulgaria and the congress of Bulgarian tribes adopted Islam as the state religion. The ancient Turkish written language was substituted by the Arabic one. (In 1928 the Arabic alphabet was substituted by the Latin one; in 1938 the contemporary Tatar alphabet on the basis of Cyrillic alphabet was adopted). In the beginning of the X century there were schools in Bulgarian villages. Bulgars had their own scientists and poets. Jakub ibn-Nogman who wrote "The History of Bulgaria" lived in the first half of XII century. The scholar Burchan ibn-Bulgari wrote the book on rhetoric and medicine. The poem by Kul-Gali "Tale about Yusuf" (XIII century) was well known far from Bulgaria and greatly influenced the development of Bulgarian and Tatar literature. "Shamahil" wall panel with the text from the Holy Koran Velvet "kalfak" headdress worked with gold embroidery The characteristic elements of Bulgaria culture were the jewellery of gold, silver, bronze, copper; pottery with engraved ornament; metal open-work decorations; bronze locks in the form of animals; leather goods; clothes decorated with beads and silver.

Makedonec da ti e alaf za ova ,zatoa ovie bile tolku po Makedonija, na ovi mislam Bugarite mu e stram da se kazat Tatari a Makedonij-nebese samostalna drzjava base so Jugoslavija kolku dae nemashe sila da muse suprostavi na lazjnata istoria shto chetirite komsinski volci nia kradele i si ja pisat kako mu odgovara .uste ednas bravo za ovoj izvestaj...

Dear Macedo-Bulgarian Friend, named MAKEDONEC, Those who do not know their past are bound to repeat it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. Съпротива на македонските българи срещу въоръжените пропаганди А) Борбата на ВМОРО срещу сръбската и гръцката пропаганда Опитите на отделните агенти на македонизма, изобретен в Белград, не оставиха никакви следи в поробена Македония. Всичко, което се кроеше в тая насока, намираше само единични изяви вън от нея – в Сърбия, България, Русия и Цариград. Това явно говори за чуждестранния произход на македонизма, без почва в самата Македония, където революционната организация стоеше на поста си като страж на българщината. Затова както сърбите, така и гърците създадоха специални четнически организации за борба с тая българщина, която не познаваше никакъв македонизъм. Гърците издигнаха лозунга "Вулгарос нами мини!" ("Българин да не остане") и извършиха жестоки изстъпления над невинното българско население в Костурско, Леринско, Битолско, Марийово. Това бяха прочутите по своята безчовечност кланета: 1) в с. Загоричани, станало на 7 април 1905 г. под лозунга "да не остане никой жив от 16 години нагоре" (ръководени от капитан Цонтос, андартите избили 50 души, ранили 77 и опожарили 30 къщи); 2) в с. Зелениче (Леринско) избили цяла сватба; 3) в с. Смилево (македонското Оборище, опожарено и изклано през време на въстанието) избити са 15 души, ранени други, опожарени къщи; 4) в с. Неволяни (Леринско) също била нападната сватба от 50 души селяни и избити голям брой сватбари; 5) тъй е в Бърник (Марийово), Кладораби (Леринско), където биват избити 17 души, в Айтос, Герман, Арменско, Църничани – в Леринско и Костурско и къде ли не. В самата Битоля се водиха сражения между гръцки терористи и организационни работници... Кървавите жертви от гръцки куршум и нож потресоха света. За настървението, с което андартите действуваха, достатъчно говори следното Окръжно на гръцкия "Върховен македонски комитет" до гръцките андартски началници в Битоля: "Изтребете и последния българин, който ще посмее да оскверни македонската земя. Дано скоро огрее тоя ден, когато слънцето не ще срещне нито един българин в елинска Македония. Тогава мирът и законността ще царуват ще живеят спокойно гърци и турци в тая страна. Да очистим Македония от звероподобните и кръвожадни българи – това да бъде вашият девиз! – По заповед на Върховния македонски комитет, главен началник Мандрос". С почти същия по дух лозунг и в пълно единодействие с южните български врагове действуваше от север сръбската терористична четническа организация. В нейния устав намираме директиви от гръцки тип: “... Вменява в дълг на революционерите: - да избягват сблъсквания с турската войска; - да ратуват срещу българските чети – враговете на сръбските исторически права в Македония; - да покровителствуват ония славяни, които по независими от тях причини се казват българи; - да спечелят за сръбската кауза всички, увлечени от българската пропаганда села, като им посочват величието на сръбската нация... В случай, че четите бъдат преследвани било от войска, било от властите или от населението, те са длъжни да си послужат с оръжие. Притеснителите на народа ще бъдат изтребвани. На същото наказание ще се подлагат и българите, които се отнасят неприязнено към сръбската кауза..." [152] Тези лозунги признаваха, че в Македония има също българи и единични чужди агенти, но не и някакви македонци. Като се има предвид, че както андартите, така и сърбоманските чети бяха в съюз с турците и се бореха срещу Революционната организация при взаимодействие, можем да разберем, че борбата стана особено кървава на три фронта. Организацията бе принудена да се бори срещу всички тези нашественици по планини и поля, по села и градове, в защита на българщината. С това тя все по-ярко се очертаваше като български страж. Ще припомним няколко вълнуващи събития в разни места по Македония във връзка с тая нейна роля. В Солун бе наказан със смърт сръбският агент Илия Пейчинович, убиец на българския учител Ганов; в Прилеп бе съсечен от героя Стоян Лазов (възпят в народните песни) сърбоманинът Тоде Попантов; в Охрид безсмъртният войвода Христо Узунов, подпомогнат от героя Методий Патчев (по-сетне прилепски войвода, загинал със славна смърт в Кадино село) и от сина на Григор Пърличев – Кирил Пърличев, затри сръбския агент и турски шпионин Гърдан; в Костурско героят Лазар Поптрайков унищожи сръбските агенти Цуцулот и Клянчето; в Скопйе бе наказан сръбският агент Яневич, в Гевгели – Наумович, в Бащино село – Ташевич, в Дойран – Димитриевич, в Солун – Вангелович и пр. Но най-великото жертвоприношение в борбата срещу сръбската пропаганда и в защита на нападнатите околии във Велешко и Прилепско е славната битка на "Ножот" край с. Ракле, Прилепско, през 1907 г., когато съединените чети на организацията тръгнаха да очистят страната от четите на сръбската пропаганда, идващи от Сърбия, но, предадени от нейните агенти, бяха принудени да се бият с многохиляден турски аскер при небивал дотогава героизъм и дадоха 67 млади жертви, все бойци от Костурско, Прилепско, Леринско, Битолско и пр. Б) Българското национално дело през време на Хуриета Следващите три години през време на турския Хуриет (1908 – 1910) дават простор за мощна проява на българщината в Македония. Революционната организация се е легализирала и цялата българска общественост в Македония се организира в две политически формации: Съюз на българските конституционни клубове (с дясна идеология) и Българска народна федеративна партия (с лява идеология). Въпреки техните идеологически различия неизменното в двете е българското родолюбие, грижата за единството на българската народност. Това личи дори в самите им названия – "Български конституционни клубове" и "Българска народна федеративна партия". Така например в Устава на Българските конституционни клубове четем: "Българският конституционен клуб има за цел:. а) да даде гражданско и политическо възпитание на българския народ в духа на конституционните свободи – областно самоуправление на Македония и Одринско; б) да пази и развива българската народна култура." В правилника на Българската федеративна партия пише: "Член на българскаща секция на Народната федеративна партия може да бъде всеки българин, отомански гражданин, навършил 20 години..." и пр. Във всички писания на печатните органи на двете организации – в. "Отечество", респективно "Народна воля" – пише постоянно за правата на българския народ в Македония и Одринско. Нито мисъл, нито дума за някакъв национален сепаратизъм на македонска почва. Напротив, изрично се застава върху почвата на целокупния български народ, като обаче се обяснява защо все пак обединението не може да се осъществи. В това отношение забележителни са три статии във вестника на федералистите "Народна воля", където гласът на Сандански и неговите другари особено се чува. В първата, програмната статия на вестника, поместена в бр. 1 от 17 януари 1909 г., озаглавена "Нашите позиции", четем между другото: "Единство" и "Конституционна заря" (излизащи преди "Народна воля", б.н.) имаха временни задачи, главната от които беше да съдействува за ориентирането на обществено-политическата мисъл на българина в Империята след ненадейно настъпилите вътрешни промени... В средата на българския елемент в Империята се извършва организирането на демократическите сили. От една страна, имаше бързото изникване на Българската народна федеративна партия, от друга – наченките на Работническата партия... Като орган на БНФП "Народна воля" застава върху почвата на интересите главно на оная част от българското население, което съставлява подавляющото негово болшинство и най-главния елемент в тази партия – лишените от държавни грижи дребни собственици, безимотните или малоимотните чифлигари, дребни стопани, занаятчии и търговци. Тия слоеве са, чиито интереси днес са интересите на българската националност в Имиерията... Ние издигаме ония общи искания, около които ще се групира в скоро време грамадното мнозинство от българския народ в Империята." Във втората статия, поместена в бр. 6 на вестника от 21 февруари 1909 г. под заглавие "Национално обединение", изрично се застава на национални български позиции по въпроса за обединението на българския народ, въпреки че в момента трудностите са непреодолими. Ето по-същественото от нея в извадки: "Против обединението на нациите нищо не може да се възрази. То е едно естествено стремление... И нашата партия стои решително на идеята за националното обединение на разпокъсаните балкански нации. Стоейки на тези позиции, ние сме и за обединението на българската нация." Но вестникът все пак прави уговорка в смисъл, че обединението не може да стане чрез присъединяване на Македония и Одринско към България, защото се нанася "тежък удар на българското единство, за което ние милеем, борили сме се сега и ще се борим за в бъдеще. Как бихме могли да присъединим Македония към България, когато в нашето отечество не сме само ние българите?... Обединението на българите ... може да се постигне само като част от общото обединение на балканските държави и Турция." Последната фраза е вече тактика при оная действителност – турското ревниво бдение над целостта на Империята. В третата статия, поместена във в. "Народна воля", бр. 19 от 25 април 1909 г., посветена на годишнината от смъртта на Гоце Делчев, за лишен път се подчертана каузата на българщината в Македонии и националната ревност на нейните водачи. Ето съответните пасажи: "Българското население в Македония и Одринско... поставено в невъзможни условия на съществуване и развитие, трябваше да организира и да поведе борба на живот или смърт. В тази мъчителна и неравна борба българският народ в Македония прояви рядка издържливост... Той даде неизброима плеяда от скромни работници, пропити със светъл идеализъм... Този между тях който най-добре въплощаваше в себе си народните тежнения... – бе Гоце Делчев." Тъй пишат Гоцевите другари в негова памет и с това най-красноречиво изобличават скопските автори, които кощунствуват с името на безсмъртния син на Македония, правейки го идеолог на своя сепаратизъм. Тези Гоцеви другари и последователи, които свидетелствуват по горния начин за кристалните български чувства на Гоце, носят имената Димо Хаджидимов, Яне Сандански, Д. Миразчиев, Г. Скрижевски, Стою Хаджиев и толкова други учредители на Българската народна федеративна партия. Както ще видим по-нататък, всички те се обявиха категорично срещу македонизма непосредствено след Първата световна война, подчертавайки изрично българското си народностно съзнание. В) Македоно-Одринското Опълчение - връх на саможертвата за българското име Както е известно, младотурският преврат, т.нар. Хуриет, завърши с най-фанатични гонения на българщината в Македония. След две години избухна Балканската война за освобождението на Македония, които всъщност доведе до нейната най-голяма трагедия. Главен израз на родолюбието на македонския българин тогава цял свят видя в делото на Македоно-Одринското опълчение. Никога македонският българин не се е надигал така спонтанно да служи на народното дело, както в тия велики дни на народна радост. Към Българии от цял свят са се стичали емигрирали македонски българи със стотици и хиляди, като изоставяли всичко свое в чуждата страна, някои дори децата си, само по-скоро да се присъединят към борбата с вековния български враг. Това са били хора от различен социален произход: учители, търговци, занаятчии, прости работници – предимно бедни хора, които нямали пари дори да си купят дрехи, обувки и калпаци, но горели от желание да се поставят на разположение на военното ръководство. Повечето от тях не са били служили във войската и не са знаели да боравят с оръжие, но имали пламенни сърца. Развели българския трицвет, с бойни песни на уста и с пламък в очите, те бързали към сборните пунктове, нетърпеливи, развълнувани, сякаш отивали на сватба. Ентусиазмът им е бил равен на оня на шипченските опълченци, доказан след това в боевете. Военната литература, посветена на тия събития, ни дава най-вълнуващи редове. Класическо в това отношение е съчинението на подполковник Петър Дървингов "История на Македоно-Одринското опълчение", т. I. София, 1919 година. Там на стр. 2 и 3 четем: "Напливът от доброволци беше така извънреден още на втория ден от мобилизация (17.IХ. ст.ст. 1912), щото щабът, който се разположи в зданието на изпълнителния комитет на македоно-одринските братства на ул. "Сердика", се явяваше блокиран от тях. Всички нечислещи се във войската македонци и одринци се притискаха към него като към якор на спасението. Едни идеха за войводи, други за четници, трети за доброволчески отряди и всички приидваха на такива тълпи, шото смело може да се каже, улиците около щаба на отрядите бяха пълни от сутрин до вечер със свят, необозрим и невъобразим, от хора от разни положения.... вдъхновени... безсъмнено от най-силни чувства, между които чувството непременно да се вземе участие в борбата беше лудешко, стихийно..." – И това говори очевидец, защото подполковник Дървингов, в качеството си на майор (тогава) е бил в самия щаб като организатор. "Между това – продължава разкава си Дървингов – не само в столицата, но и в цяла България македонската и одринската емиграция беше в едно трескаво състояние. В щаба на партизанските отряди и изпълнителния македоно-одрински комитет на адрес комитета или Протогеров (главен ръководител в момента на организирането на опълчението, б.н.) ежедневно пристигаха с десетки телеграми, които очертаваха ясно извънредно високия дух на тая емиграция." След това се цитират безброй телеграми от цяла България със следното или подобно съдържание: – От Бургас: "500 души българи – македоно–одринци – емигранти, живущи тук, желаят да вземат участие в предстоящата война. Моля разпореждането за формирането на особен отряд и изпращането му след въоръжаването, гдето трябва." – От Варна: първа телеграма с дата 18.IX.: "Записаха се две хиляди доброволци. Дайте наставления. Средства нямаме никакви. Издействувайте да се обучават тук до тръгване, да се въоръжат и облекат". Втора телеграма с дата 19.IX.: "Емиграцията – Варна, избра комитета 16 септември... Разполагаме само с хора до тоя момент 3 300 души. Очакваме отговор вчерашната телеграма." – От Русе: записали са се 500 доброволци; Плевен – 200 души, от Ст. Загора – 120 души, от Видин – 200 души, от Враца – 125 души и т.н. и т.н. – откъде ли не и в най-различен брой, воички нетърпеливи, а може би охридчани най-нетърпеливи. Те телеграфират от Русе, и то още на самия ден на мобилизациита – 17 септември: "Всички македонци, живущи в Русе, способни за оръжие готови да тръгнат. Очакват минутата за тръгването. От охридчани". Оръжие не достигало, дрехи – никак, и – особено трагично – команден състав нямало: нищожен брой само запасни офицери, още по-малко подофицери; обикновени войници трябвало да обучават необучените. Военното командуване не е допускало такова чудно жертвоприношение за свободата и не било взело по-рано мерки. Телеграмата на запасния генерал-майор Генев, Шипченски герой, любим воин, способен ръководител, назначен за командир на цялото Македонско – Одринско опълчение, зове: "Македонското опълчение е поставено в невъзможност да се формира и обучава, защото е без всякакъв кадър. Моля от пристигащите запасни и допълващите дружини да се определят 50 офицери, 160 подофицери и 1000 редници за опълчението." "Опълченците бяха лошо облечени и нямаха оръжие" – пише в книгата "Балканската война 1912–1913 година", София, 1961 г., стр. 181 – "Още по-лошо бе положението със санитарната подготовка. Трета бригада нямаше лекар, не достигаха коли, коне и др. Наложи се опълчението да бъде въоръжено с трофейно турско оръжие, взето при първите сражения на българската армия." – По-нататък четем: "Но всички трудности бяха преодолени, тъй като доброволците горяха от желание да отидат на фронта, за да се бият за освобождението на своите бащини огнища. Когато нямаше офицери, на тяхно място бяха назначавани подофицери; когато нямаше вагони, с които да заминават, опълченците вървяха пеш." Още преди военните действия се формират 57 чети с изпитани войводи, които преминават турската граница и започват саботажите в тила на противника: вдигат мостове във въздуха, разрушават ж.п. линии, телеграфи и пр. Техният брой по статистика достигал още в началото 2174 четници, но четите с влизането си в Македония и Одринско нараствали от присъединили се пламенни българи от вътрешността. Самото опълчение в България се оформя в три бригади, състоящи се от 15 дружини, две картечни роти и всички тилови служби. На брой достигат 14 670 души или общо с четите – 16 844 души, оформени в дружини със следните наименования: 1 Дебърска, 2 Скопска, 3 Солунска, 4 Битолска, 5 Одринска, 6 Охридска и 10 Прилепска – всички организирани в София; в провинцията: 7 Кумановска, 8 Костурска, 9 Велешка, 11 Серска и 12 Лозенградска. Опълчението нямало артилерия и картечници, пушките не достигали; и все пак то тръгнало на бой без колебание, без страх, преодолявайки всички трудности. Първа бригада тръгва още на 17.IX. пеш до Саранбей; оттам с влака стига на 22 октомври в Свиленград и се отправя пеш към Лозенград. Другите две тръгват на 23 октомври и се съсредоточават в района на Търново – Сеймен. След това влизат в състава на Кърджалийския отряд под командуването на генерал Никола Генев. В този състав те участвуват в боевете срещу Явер паша, предвождани от бригадните командири: подполковник Ст. Николов от Прилеп (1 бригада), подполковник Пчеларов (2 бригада) и подполковник Ал. Протогеров (3 бригада от Охрид), с началник-щаб на отряда майор Петър Дървингов от Кукуш. Движейки се по посока на Гюмюрджина и Дедеагач, те участвуват в победоносните боеве при Мастанлъ (днес Момчилград) и Балкан Тореси, като по пътя си очистват от башибозук целия тоя край на Родопите (от Кърджали до Димотика); след това устремно вървят на югозапад и юг: превземат Софлу и Фере и стигат Дедеагач, като го заемат временно, тъй като неразгромените сили на Явер паша още са в Гюмюрджина и напредват за пробив към запад. Виждайки се пред обкръжение, Явер паша напуска Гюмюрджина и се движи към Марица, за да се спаси в Галиполския полуостров. Опълчението е на предна линия. То участвува в боевете при Малгара (Малград), отбива турското нападение за пробив и върви по петите на врага чак до морето, превземайки окончателно Дедеагач. С това корпусът на Явер паша бива притиснат между мочурищата на р. Марица, Фере, Софлу и планинските гребени срещу Мерхамлъ. На 15 ноември той бива принуден да капитулира при Мерхамлъ, неспособен да се прехвърли през пълноводната р. Марица отвъд. Тъй бива пленена най-голямата част от неговия корпус, състоящ се от 9 табора, две планински батареи, две картечници и целия боен материал. И всичко това е постигнато само за едно десетдневие. За тоя устремен боен марш дава заключителни думи полк. Дървингов в книгата си (с. 314) със следното обобщение: "Неприятелят, когото Кърджалийският отряд разби при Местанлъ, преследва през Родопите, атакува на Балкан–Тореси, обърна го в панически бяг по Гюмюрджинското поле и без да му дава отдих, го гони по петите до блатата на Марица, беше вече подписал потокол за предаване в момента, когато колоните дебушираха на няколко само километра от него и след като на 13 ноември, със смелата атака на Фере, му се внуши, че той вече е обкръжен отвсякъде. Тая победа беше още по-ценна, защото за обкръжаването и принуждаването на неприятеля да се предаде взеха участие 8 македоно–одрински дружини на десния бряг и две дружини от същото опълчение от левия бряг на р. Марица." Значението на ликвидирането на Яверпашовия корпус се състои в това, че бива осигурен тилът и флангът на втора армия, която е блокирала Одринската крепост, а също така и тилът и флангът на българските войски, действуващи в Източна Тракия. Тая победа освободила три български дивизии, необходими на българското командуване за действия в Източна Тракия (вж. "Балканската война 1912 – 1913" ДВИ. С., 1961, с. 308). За възхвала на Македоно–Одринското опълчение пак е необходимо да припомним следните вълнуващи факти: 1) Мнозинството от македоно–одринските доброволци са неслужили, без всякакво военно обучение; 2) облечени са били лошо, предимно с гражданските си дрехи; 3) тръгнали на война без пушки и се въоръжавали постепенно с трофейно турско оръжие, като непрекъснато са се довъоръжавали след победоноеннте боеве, използувайки дори пушките на ранените и убитите си другари; 4) при атака често пъти нямали ножове на пушките си; 5) командният кадър се състоял от низши чинове; 6) но главното им оръжие, водещо към победа, било тяхното високо българско родолюбие и готовност за саможертва за великото дело на освобождението и обединението на българския народ. За тяхната чутовна храброст говорят данните на техните командири. Например след победоносния бой при Саранлъ при устремното преследване на врага и настигането му при вододела на Родопите, опълченците се увличат от неудържим устрем и надпревара кой пръв да отнесе победата. Дори самото командуване се слисва от този устрем и бива принудено да ги въздържа, като дава разяснителна заповед. Върху това четем у Дървингов (с. 213 – 214): "За избягване на грешки и увлечения от 3 македоно–одринска бригада, без съмнение съставена и водена от смели хора, след внимателно проучване на донесението... и взето предвид темперамента на опълненците и офицерите им, както и факта, че първи сборен полк беше останал назад, намери се за необходимо да се изпрати следната заповед..." От нея забележително е особено следното: "...Едно прибързване да се сграбчи победата само от трета бригада е една примамлива задача, но извънредно трудна... особено ако противникът е по-силен от 3 дружини и 2 оръдия скорострелни." На друго място четем (с. 222): "При превземането на Малгара, когато навлизахме в с. Каливия, смутеното население беше наизлязло по улиците и акламираше дружината с ръкопляскания и викове "ура", на което отговориха ротите с радостни викове "ура" и "да живее войната". Духът на ротите беше много висок и с нетърпение чакаха момента да влязат в огъня." Този дух на опълченците продължил да се проявява с еднаква сила и в по-нататъшните действия до края на войната. Особено ярко се чувствува той при превземането на Шаркьой на 23 януари 1913 г., при отбраната на градеца след турския десант на 26 и 27 януари и при ликвидирането му на 28-и същия месец. Цялата тая акция извършва Македоно–Одринското опълнение само, тъй като след пленяването на Явер паша Кърджалийският отряд се разформирова на своите съставни части, които се прибират при главните си формации. Остават само трите македоно-одрински бригади за охрана на морския бряг от Инджебурну до Лимнабурну. Десантът при Шаркьой е бил най-голямото изпитание за опълченците, неподготвени за този род борба и изправени пред тройно по-мощен враг (цял корпус), без артилерия и под огъня на мощните оръдия на турските крайцерн и броненосци. Тъкмо затова от значение е да посочим оценката на нашите военни историци: "Действията на македоно–одринци – четем в "История на Балканската война 1912 – 1913", с. 400 – за ликвидиране на турския десант в района на Шаркьой са светла страница в историята на войната. В тия действия бойци и командири проявиха масов героизъм... Внимание заслужана и самоотвержената борба на изостаналите в Шаркьой ранени македоно–одринци, които изпълняваха дълга си до последна капка кръв. Тяхната мъжествена борба (сражавали са се до последния куршум в санитарния пункт, където били леглата им, б.н.) озвери турците, които при ликвидирането им извършиха нечувани зверства." В доклада си до по-нисшето началство подполковник Николов по този повод пише: "Те (опълченците, б.н.) се хвърлиха върху врага дръзко, презрително и не се установиха чак до неговото качване на лодките; те го сметоха; не дадоха на врага да се закрепи, макар и да имаше добри позиции при с. Платана, подкрепен от силната артилерия на два военни нарахода... Аз видях и битолци, и дебърци; тяхното самоотвержено настъпление е гордост за българското име и гордост за нацията; велик пример за потомството" (вж. Дървингов, цит., съч., с. 435). Дървингов като очевидец съобщава, че опълченците в устрема си дори не са се окопавали, за да не губят време, и вихрено настъпвали. Със същия родолюбив пламък са действували и 57-те чети, разпръснати в тила на врага в помощ на съюзниците. Четата на Васил Чекаларов дори решила изхода на боя в Леринско, явявайки се в тила на турската отбрана и в помощ на гръцките войски. Всички прославени войводи на ВМОРО и техни по-млади възпитаници са били на първа линия – от Яне Сандански до Тодор Александров, от Михаил Герджиков до Петър Чаулев, Павел Христов, Георги Попхристов, Михаил Чаков, Милан Матов и пр. и пр. – видни дейци, без разлика на политически убеждения. Победата при Шаркьой осигури тила на фронта при Чаталджа. След падането на Одрин и подписването на второто примирие македоно–одринци започват все по-силно да копнеят за родния си край, откъдето взели да идват все по-тревожни вести за противобългарското поведение на сърби и гърци в окупираните от тях области. След дълга почивка в Гюмюрджина към средата на май те започват да се прехвърлят към заетата от българските войски част на Македония – по маршрута Гюмюрджина – Ксанти – Драма, Сяр, Демирхисар, Петрич, Струмица, Радовиш, Щип. На 23 май започват да се съсредоточават при Кочани в изходно тактическо положение в зоната връх Китка – Кочани – отвъд Щип. При започването на Междусъюзническата война (16 юни ст. ст. 1913 г.), те са на първа линия, с още по-голяма решителност да освободят родните си огнища от коварния довчерашен съюзник, на когото са помагали в борбата. Известни са подвизите им при Султантепе, гдето завладяха две последователни укрепени позиции на сърбите с множество пленници, при Каменица, връх Повиен, Редки буки, Падарли, а след 24 юни отбраняват линията Драмча - Баньо чуки. Печалният за България изход от войната (след нападението на Румъния в тил на войските ни) покруси опълченците, но не уби освободителния им устрем. Останали повечето от тия в емиграция, запяха новата песен: "Ей, нищо, нищо, не ще да жалим ний, че скоро, скоро Бай Ганю ще ги бий". И наистина, две години след това опълченците се видяха отново в Единадесета пехотна македонска дивизия, вече с боен опит, за нови подвизи в освободителната Първа световна война. Величието на подвига на Македоно–Одринското опълчение през Балканската и Междусъюзническа война е изразено и в данните за кървавите жертви: те възлизат на 3631 души или 25% от неговия състав. Ако към тази цифра прибавим и ония македонски българи, които са служили в българската армия като войници и офицери, ще имаме всичко 46 844 души бойци от Македония, дали своя принос за нейното освобождение. Това говори за висотата на българското съзнание и жертвоготовността за българското национално дело, без помен за македонизъм. Напротив, то е негово порицание. --------------------------------------------------------------------- If you want to continue: http://members.xoom.com/knigi/kc/index.html

Dear friend, named MAKEDONEC, Those who do not know their past are bound to repeat it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dame Gruev's Early Years Damian (Dame) Gruev was born in 1871 in the village of Smilevo, district of Monastir (Bitola), the southwestern part of Macedonia. He received his elementary education in his native village, Smilevo, and later studied in Ressen, Monastir, Salonica, and the University of Sofia, Bulgaria. While still in the Gymnazium of Salonica, Gruev felt the unbearable Turkish oppression and maltreatment of his fellow-countrymen-the Macedonians. Soon after he graduated from the Gymnazium he went to Sofia and there, in 1889-1890, entered the University of Sofia to specialize in history. Here Gruev found the opportunity to study the history of the Bulgarians and particularly the methods and deeds of the Bulgarian revolutionists-Rakovsky, Karavelov, Levsky, Botev, and others-who had been greatly responsible for the freedom of Bulgaria. Gruev now anticipated the idea of following the examples of the Bulgarian revolutionists and he soon endeavored to form a similar organization in Macedonia for the deliverance of the Bulgarians that were still held in bondage by the Sultan. He left the University and went to Macedonia to apply himself to the organization of the Macedonian people. In order to carry on his scheme of work more successfully and to avert the suspicion of the Turkish authorities he decided to become a school teacher. The first two years after his return to Macedonia he taught school, first in his native village of Smilevo, and later in the town of Prilep. The two years of teaching served him, also, as orientation for the work of the great conspiracy in Macedonia, against the corrupt and rapacious regime of Sultan Abdul Hamid. Later, Gruev established himself in Salonica and here laid the foundation of the IMRO (The Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization). With the cooperation of Dr.Christo Tatarchev, Peter Pop Arsov, and others he formulated the Constitution and By-laws of the IMRO. It was to be a secret organization under the direction of a Central Committee, with local branches of revolutionary committees throughout the Province of Macedonia and the Vilayet of Adrianople. These regions were to be divided into revolutionary districts or rayons. In accordance with the provision of the Constitution, the first Central Revolutionary Committee was organized in the summer of 1894, under the chairmanship of Dr.Christo Tatatrchev. Dame Gruev -the Apostle From 1894 to 1900, Gruev was an untiring apostle-a new Levsky-enlightening and recruiting adherents to the revolutionary movement. In the summer of 1894, he organized in the town of Negotin the first local revolutionary organization, and soon after, with the cooperation of Pere Toshev, he organized the first district committee in the city of Shtip. Gruev also visited the cities of Ressen, Ochrid, and Struga, and found the field quite favorable for the acceptance of his revolutionary ideas. In the city of Shtip, however, the conditions were even more favorable and here he remained as a teacher during the academic year 1894-1895. In the fall of the same year Gotze Delchev, who independently conceived the same desire as Gruev-that of organizing the Macedonian people into a secret revolutionary organization, arrived in Shtip in order to lay the foundation of a revolutionary movement for the express purpose of emancipation of Macedonia. Here Gruev and Delchev met for the first time. Soon after their acquaintance they found the similarity of their common mission, and as a result of this they became intimate friends. Delchev, with his gentle character, sincerity, and honesty, made an excellent impression upon Gruev. However, Delchev accepted the plan of the work which had been outlined already by the Central Committee of Salonica. After this, both Gruev and Delchev worked together in Shtip and environs. The growth of the IMRO was phenomenal, particularly after Gruev settled in Salonica during the years 1895-1897, in the quality of an Exarchist school inspector. Gruev now became the soul and body of the Central revolutionary committee. Under the direction of the latter they began to issue a secret revolutionary paper, introduced ciphers (secret writing), used pseudonyms or a nom de plume, established channels for secret communication among the various local committees and also abroad-Bulgaria. A representative of the Central Revolutionary Committee was to be sent to Sofia to take charge of purchasing and dispatching, through secret channels, the necessary war provisions for the IMRO. Gruev’s roaming from village to village , and from one city to another, resulted in a systematic revolutionary organization throughout the Province of Macedonia and the Vilayet of Adrianople. Unfortunately, for purely political reasons and in order to safeguard itself from complications, the Exarchy decided to dismiss Gruev in 1898. Soon after his dismissal Gruev moved to Monastir and there, with the cooperation of Slaveico Arsov, Paskov, and others, he began to issue another paper, secretly, of course. Sunday schools were begun, money was collected through a special "revolutionary tax", and a quantity of war materials was purchased . Gruev was again appointed to the teaching staff now in the city of Monastir, and as such, he also assumed the management of the revolutionary movement in the Vilayet of Monastir, while the active persons at the Committee in Salonica were Dr.Christo Tatarchev, Pere Toshev, and Christo Matov. The result of Gruev’s activities in the Monastir district was felt by the Turkish authorities. The numerous chetas (bands) which infested the mountains began to terrorize the tyrannical Turkish malefactors. Gruev, being suspected as a major factor in fostering this movement, was , as a consequence, arrested on August 6, 1900. He was held in the Monastir jail until May 1902. However, this confinement did not check his revolutionary work. By means of secret writings, ciphers, etc., he was in constant touch with the various local revolutionary committees, and from the prison he was able to direct the affairs of the revolutionary district of Monastir. Dame Gruev and the Ilinden Uprising In the latter part of May, 1902, Gruev was condemned to banishment in the prison of Podroum-Kale in Asia Minor. There he found Christo Matov and Dr.Christo Tatarchev, both sentenced to exile in January 1901. Gruev and his comrades were kept in Podroum-Kale for ten months. Although he was away from Macedonia itself, Gruev managed to keep himself informed as to the development and affairs of the IMRO. He kept up a steady correspondence, ciphers also, with Salonica, Monastir, and Sofia. On Easter of 1903, at the instance of a general amnesty, he was released. Gruev hastened to Salonica and there he found the that the Central Committee, which was in charge of the IMRO, had already resolved to declare a general insurrection which was to take place during 1903.Although Gruev was not in accord with the Central Committee’s decision, primarily because of the IMRO’s lack of preparedness, since it was too late to oppose or to follow any other method, he gave in to the decision of the central Committee. He left Salonica and went to Smilevo where the insurrectionary Congress was to be held. The purpose of this Congress was to set the date for the declaration of the general insurrection and to outline the methods and tactics in its prosecution. Here Gruev met Boris Sarafov, who had just arrived from Bulgaria. Gruev was elected as chairman of this Congress, and the latter decided that the day of the declaration of the insurrection was to be August 2, 1903. Gruev, Sarafov, and Alexander Lozantchev were elected by the Congress as the three members of the General Staff, and empowered to direct the insurrectionary forces in the Vilayet of Monastir. Dame Gruev's Heroic Death Gruev lived to see the frightful flight of the Turkish asker (troops) from his native village-Smilevo. He was engaged, during the course of the insurrection, in numerous skirmishes with the Turkish army and gallantly defended the temporarily freed Smilevo. But with the arrival in Macedonia of over 300,000 Asatics, any progress of the insurrection was made impossible and in a period of six weeks it was completely crushed. Gruev put himself to task now to tour the various revolutionary districts, disarm the insurgents, and store up the war materials for future use. The years 1903-1904 were the most disastrous for the Macedonian people. But Gruev and his fellow-workers kept up the spirit of the peasants and continued the work of organization and preparation for another opportune time to strike once more. "For great affiars,"said Gruev, "are necessary great forces. Liberty is a great thing: it requires great sacrifices." Gruev was an untiring worker. He rebuilt the temporarily wrecked organization, made it more systematic and far more powerful. But unfortunately, on his way through the village of Rousinovo (Maleshevsko district), Gruev and his cheta (band) were betrayed to the Turks. In a violent and heroic struggle with numerous Turkish troops he fell dead, on December 23, 1906. When the Turkish Central authorities heard that among the killed was Gruev himself, they immediately telegraphed to the local Turkish governor to uncover the burried bodies and take a photograph of Gruev. The augurs of the autocratic bureaucracy of Constantinople wanted to convince themselves of the fact that the great giaur-the disturber of the empire, Gruev-was really dead. Thus ended the epic life of the great Macedonian apostle-Damian Gruev! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- He was a Bulgarian. He fought for Macedonia. For all the Bulgarians living in Macedonia. He spoke the language you speak, yet he called it Bulgarian - it was simply the Macedonian dialect, different from the Thracian Dialect (which was later on adopted as official), the Moeasian Dialect, the Dobrudjan Dialect, the Rhodopi Dialect, the Shop Dialect.

Which Flag? Historic Amnesia and the Macedonian Question Funny things have been happening lately in cyberspace: instead of celebrating the recent Athens-Skopje agreement for lifting the Greek embargo, people from the Republic of Macedonia are lamenting having to give up state symbols which never belonged to their country anyway On 25 Sep 1995 Bruce Smithoski wrote: "So, I am not sorry that the Sun is gone, but I am VERY UPSET that it was done in this way. I cannot express my anger that the flag was sold. Only people who don't care about nationality and tradition can shamelessly manipulate a national flag or ANY national symbol, like this. Regardless of how this new flag was introduced to the Macedonians, and whether I like it or not, it is a shame to sell a national flag, and also play with the feelings of those Macedonians who decided to bond with that symbol." Now, now, Bruce: You cannot take something that belongs to other people, "bond" to it, and then, when asked to return the stolen goods, cry out that you have been robbed. You explain clearly enough the story with the stolen state symbols: "Frankly speaking, this new designer's creation for the official flag of RoM (combination of the communist and Yugoslav SR Macedonia's old red flag with the Sun of Alexander the Great) as for practically all Macedonians a completely new thing... Without offending anyone, I know that there were my fellow countryman (in Macedonia and abroad) who, "didn't know that they were Macedonians until 4 years ago". In my experience, they are the ones who most strongly grasped the new flag. Among my friends those who were the biggest Yugoslavs before, and used to cry so loudly for Yugoslavia, became biggest Macedonians in 1991. Interestingly but not surprisingly enough, they were usually also absolutely clueless about our history." So, here is the crux of the matter: national amnesia. Amnesia caused by eighty-three years of cruel foreign domination over the people of Vardar Macedonia; eighty-three years during which the occupiers first tried to make them part of the Serbian nation, and when this failed tried to create an appendage to the Serbian nation called "Macedonia". No doubt, Bruce knows some of the historic truth, although his knowledge, as he admits himself, goes back to the Berlin Congress, 1878. He explains to his fellow countrymen: "Traditional Macedonian flag has two equal horizontal parts.., the upper half being red and the lower black... This traditional Macedonian flag had also a symbolic meaning - the same meaning as the slogan of the Macedonian fighters from the beginning of the century: "Freedom (red) or Death (black)". During the 1903 Ilinden uprising and the Krushevo republic the formal flag of Macedonian fighters was black-and-red. However, local flags used by different guerrilla groups (cheti) were more colorful. Usually they had a cross, a picture of a young woman (representing Macedonia) or a lion (also a traditional symbol), on a red, or red and black background, with the words "Liberty or Death" - "SVOBODA ili SM'RT" written in golden letters (needless to say, with the Cyrillic alphabet of Kliment Ohridski and not the one of Karadzich-Koneski)." The trouble with partial knowledge is that being incomplete, it can be also misleading. The flag of the uprising in Macedonia and Eastern Thrace in 1903 (Ilindensko-Preobrazhensko Vustanie) has its own history, and you should know it, because it is yours. It begins with a man from the Bulgarian town of Kotel, named Georgi Stoykov Popovich, better known as Georgi Sava Rakowski. In 1837 the 16- year old Georgi enters the Greek Gymnasium in Kurucheshme, Constantinople. Four years later he is in Athens to become a free citizen of a free country. His Greek passport (which later saves his life) carries the name of Georgios Savva Makedon. In Athens he forms his first revolutionary organization, the secret "Macedonian Society". His dream is to unite the Christians of the Ottoman Empire, regardless of ethnicity, in revolt against the Sultan. He speaks of a "federation" of culturally autonomous entities. Twenty years later, disillusioned by general indifference to his proposals, he moves to Belgrade, where he forms his first Bulgarian legion, a paramilitary organization intended to prepare future military leaders of an armed uprising of the Bulgarian people. The blue-green flag of the Legion bears in Bulgarian the motto of the Greek revolution, 'Eleutheria I Thanatos' - "Svoboda ili sm'rt". Beneath the arching motto stands a golden lion rampant (the heraldic symbol of the last independent Bulgarian kingdom). Rakowski did not steal "Freedom or death" from the Greeks. Although the idea of individual freedom is a Greek one, the motto of the Greek revolution was first heard in the New World almost a half-century earlier: "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" Patrick Henry, Speech in Virginia Convention, Richmond [March 23, 1775] Ideas cannot be stolen; they travel through time and space to whatever minds are ready to receive them. Patrick Henry had doubtless read, in the Agamemnon of Aeschylus, "Death is better, a milder fate than tyranny." The flag of Rakowski saw its baptism of fire in 1867, when Panayot Hitov and Filip Totyu led the first battles of the Bulgarians against the Turks. Vasil Kunchev, one of Rakowski's legionnaires, assumed his nom de guerre, "Levski" from the lion on the flag. He later became not only the leader of the Bulgarian revolution, but the ideal hero of Goce Delchev, leader of the Ilinden uprising. In the spring of 1876, the 20-year-old primary-school teacher of the town of Panagyurishte, Rayna Popgeorgieva Futekova embroidered the revolutionary flag on a piece of red silk, the best piece of cloth available. On the day of the April Uprising she carried the flag, for which she became known as "Rayna Knyaginya" (Princess Rayna). When the Uprising was crushed, she was held in detention for three months (during which she was beaten and raped repeatedly), but then released after international intervention and sent abroad to study. The 20,000 fighters of the Bitola Vilaet did not suffer from historical amnesia. They knew what flag they were carrying in the 150 battles against 300,000 Turkish soldiers. Nor were the leaders of the Krushevo Republic amnesiacs. It is their great-grandchildren who do not remember, and who dig for their roots in the grave of Philip of Macedon. It is those descendents who have never heard of the Krushevo Proclamation to the neighboring Turkish and Albanian villages: "Bratja zemljaci i mili komshii ! Nie se bontueme protiv tiranijata i robstvoto, protiv predatelite, protiv zolumcharite, protiv nasilnicite na nashata chest, i protiv tie, shto ni ja smukat nashata pot i ekspluatirat nashiot trud.. Elate, bratja muslimani, pri nas, da trgneme protiv vashite i nashite dushmani! Elate, da gi skrshime sindjirite na robstvoto, da se kurtulisame ot maki i stradanie!" [Brother countrymen and dear neighbors! We are rebelling against tyranny and slavery, against traitors, against rapists and violators of our honor, and against those who drink our sweat and exploit our labor... Come, brother Muslims, join us as we attack our common enemies! Come, let us break the chains of slavery, let us free ourselves from pain and suffering!] Now, in FYROM, the "dear neighbors" have become "stinking Albanians" - their great-grandchildren are not allowed to enter the same school building as the rest of the children. And you wonder to yourselves what the actual historical flag looked like. I doubt if the parliament in Skopje is going to choose the Ilinden flag as the new national symbol of the country. Its heraldic meaning is too unsettling for people who feel uneasy about their Bulgarian origins. My grandfather, a simple carter from Prilep, fought in 1903 for the freedom of his people. My grandmother, his new bride, cared for the wounded and comforted the orphans. The Ilinden uprising is part of my family history, and I do not suffer from amnesia.

http://makedon.mtx.net/fe_maced.htm --------------------------------------------------------- Serbian Geopolitics Nurtured Macedonism In 1822 the Serbian folklorist and linguistic, Vuk Stefanovich Karadjich (1787-1864), published the first work containing grammatical facts about the Bulgarian language. His primary aim was to point out that the Bulgarian language existed, even though it was absent in the dictionaries published in Russia during the late 18th century and which were deemed to contain all languages known at that time. Interestingly Karadjich's analysis of the Bulgarian language was based on the Macedonian dialects. Prior to formation of the Bulgarian Exarchate in 1870, there was a small, but influential group of Serbians, mainly politicians and some academics, who supported the concept of a "Greater Serbia". However, this was not the popular view and most Serbians saw Bulgarians as their Slav brothers and foresaw a close future relationship. For example in 1867 the Bulgarian emigrants in Bucharest had negotiated an agreement with the Serbians which included the following paramount clause The Yugoslavian kingdom will be composed of Serbians and Bulgarians, the latter comprising the territories of Bulgaria, Thrace and Macedonia Ilija Garashanin (1812-1874) was a distinguished Serbian statesman and the main architect of Serbian state policy between 1843-1868. In 1844 he published a blueprint, known as "Nachertanije" (Outline), describing future Serbian territorial ambitions. A plan modelled directly on Dushan's medieval empire - that is including both Macedonia and Old Serbia. But, at the same time Garashanin also encouraged a diplomatic policy of strong support for Bulgarian revolutionary activity against the Turks. In fact it was 1848 Garashanin who arranged for the Bosnian Croat, Stefan Verkovich (1821-1893), on the pretext of completing Karadjich's linguistic research, to tour Macedonia and covertly collect ethnographic data ultimately be used as support for long- term Serbian hegemony. However in 1860, when the Serbian Academic Society published Verkovich's first volume of "Folk Songs of the Macedonian Bulgarian" awarding him the Serbian "Uceno Druzestvo" (Scholar's Society), in his preface Verkovich said: I call these songs Bulgarian and not Slavic, because if someone today should ask the Macedonian Slav "what are you?" he would be immediately be told: "I am Bulgarian" and would call his language 'Bulgarian'. Another champion of "Greater Serbia" was Professor Jovan Dragashevich who identified all Macedonians as latent Serbs. For example during the time of the First Bulgarian Legion in Belgrade (1862-4), acrimonious debate erupted between the Bulgarians and their Serbian hosts, over Dragashevich's "teachings" that Salonika was an integral part of "Old Serbia". It was also then that Georgi Rakvosky became conscious of increasing Serbian fanaticism and a desire by its politicians to annex Bulgaria both politically and culturally. These issues, together with settlement of the 1862 dispute between Serbia and Turkey, contributed to the expulsion of the Bulgarian Legion from Serbia. Inspite of the close relationship between Serbians and Bulgarians, finance from the Serbian government for the "education" of the Macedonian Slavs was initiated in 1866. This led to the "Institute for Serbian Schools in Old Serbia and Macedonia" (1868), formed to coordinate both the building of schools and educational policy. The Serbian Church had lent support to the Bulgarians in their struggle to establish the Bulgarian Exarchate in 1870; Serbs in general rejoiced at the success of their southern Slav brothers. However when the limits of the Bulgarian Exarchate became defined in 1872, more Serbs began to reflect the long-term political implications. Moreover the Serbian Church had always considered itself heir to the Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid, because of its past subordination to the Pech Patriarchate. Consequently the Serbian Church had requested in 1869 that Turkey only allow Serbian clergy to operate within Macedonia. Milosh S Milojevich (1840-1897) was the first Serbian to publicly challenge the prevailing consensus concerning the Exarchate's boundaries and the ethnic composition of the Macedonian territories. In 1873 he presented a paper to the Serbian Scholar's Society which characterised the Slavic population of Macedonia as Serbian - a basic repetition of Garashanin's beliefs. Milojevich's thesis was severely criticised by two other Society members, Stoyan Novakovich (1842-1915) and Milan Kujundjich. The latter described Milojevich as ..a cheap, mischievous chauvinist, ignominiously condemned by his fellow countrymen for having committed an unfriendly act against a good neighbour. Thus Milojevich's effort to publish a collection of 740 folk songs, gathered in Old Serbia and Macedonia, as examples of the Serbian language and culture, was rejected by the Serbian Scholars' Society as being flawed. Nevertheless, Milojevich still found strong support and instituted a society (called by Hristo Botev the 'gang of blackguards') which sent money, books and teachers to Macedonia and parts of north- west Bulgaria. Editorials also appeared in Belgrade newspapers like "Istok", stating that the Exarchate was a chauvinistic institution intent on 'bulgarizing' the Serbs of Macedonian. In answer to such accusations many eminent Bulgarians, including Hristo Botev (1875) and Liuben Karavelov (1874), wrote scathing replies denouncing both the actions of Milojevich and his supporters as well as the Serbian government's surreptitious complicity. The Russo-Turkish war of 1878 had a number of dire consequences for Serbian nationalistic goals. Because of its support for Russia, Turkey closed all Serbian schools within Macedonia. The Treaty of San Stefano in 1878 demonstrated to Serbian politicians that there existed a strong and general acceptance that Macedonia was populated by Bulgarians. Later in 1881 Serbian hopes to annex Bosnia and Herzegovina had to be abandoned, which meant redirecting its quest for an outlet to the Aegean - via Macedonia. These setbacks led Serbia to instigate the Serbo-Bulgarian war of 1885, which ended in its convincing defeat. Thus to accomplish, what it had failed to do militarily, Serbia now pursued two separate tactics to enhance its future claims to Macedonia. The first was based on proving directly that Macedonia was actually populated by Serbs not Bulgarians; the second involved fostering nascent Macedonian separatism (Macedonism) as a counter to Bulgarian influence. In the late 1880s several Serbian academics, particularly Dragashevich, Milojko Veselinovich and Stojan Protich rationalised the seeming contradiction of the Macedonian population's non- Serbian identity as follows. First, the term "bulgar" within Macedonia was in fact a generic term meaning a "common person", and as such had no ethnographic meaning. The term "bulgar" had thus been misinterpreted by both the Greeks and European travellers to signify national affiliation, thus leading to the erroneous conclusion that the people had a Bulgarian self- identity. Second, after formation of the Serbian state, the Turkish authorities were anti-Serbian, therefore most Serbs preferred to call themselves "bulgars" to escape persecution. Third, in the post Exarchate era, propaganda forced people to identify themselves as "bulgars" so that the necessary signatures would be available to establish a Bulgarian Church - that is the Exarchate had become an "institution for the Bulgarization of the Serbs". Spiridon Gopchevich, a Serbian diplomat and Milojevich adherent, made a brief to Macedonia in 1889 and on his return published an ethnographic map which characterising the Macedonian population right up to Nevrokop, Salonica and the Grammos mountains, as Serbian. The renown scholar, Vatroslav Yagich (1838-1923), editor of "Archiv fur Slavische Philologie" (1875-1923) made the following comment on Gopochevich's study - to attack the tendentiously uncritical arguments of Gopochevich is unnecessary; his work condemns itself. It is a pity about the good paper and fine printing, the two most admirable aspects of the book. Nevertheless, Gopochevich's study was accepted, endorsed and promoted by the Serbian government as further vindication of their position on the Macedonian Question. While previously Stoyan Novakovich had criticised the chauvinistic policies of individuals like Milojevich, times had changed and now as an eminent Serbian statesman he felt it his duty to support Serbian claims to the Macedonian territories. Therefore initially Novakovich attempted to show that Slavic dialects of Macedonia were not part of the Bulgarian language but actually part of the Serbian language. However because his study was dismissed by noted academics of the period, including Yagich, Miletic, Oblak and Derzhavin, he realised that this strategy could not succeed. Subsequently Novakovich advanced a thesis that in the late 9th century Macedonia had three ethnic Slavic groups - Bulgarian, Serbian and "Slovene" - and that these divisions still persisted and were identifiable in the present population. He outlined his theory in "First Foundations of Slavic Literature Amongst the Balkan Slavs", a 300 page monograph published in 1893 by the Serbian Academy of Sciences. What Novakovich had produced was a blueprint for "de-Bulgarization" of the Macedonian Slavs by their "Macedonianization", if direct "Serbianization" could not be readily effected. The intent is explicitly confirmed by Novakovich's well known (and quoted) dispatch to the Serbian Minister of Education in 1888 Since the Bulgarian idea, as it is well known to all, is deeply rooted in Macedonia, I think it is almost impossible to shake it completely by opposing it merely with the Serbian idea. This idea, we fear, would be incapable, as opposition pure and simple, of suppressing the Bulgarian idea. That is why the Serbian idea will need an ally that could stand in direct opposition to the Bulgarianism and would contain in itself the elements which could attract the people and their feelings and thus sever them from Bulgarianism. This ally I see in the Macedonism or to a certain extent in our nursing the Macedonian dialect and Macedonian separatism. Novakovich's ideas were later amplified and extended, first by Iovan Cvijich, and later by Alexander Belitch. It is important to state that the theory of the three Slavic groups, propounded by Novakovich, Cvijich and Belitch was considered unsubstantiated by the available evidence; a position held by most academics including both Yagich and Niederle. During the 1880s Novakovich effected several important plans to expand the concept of "Macedonism" (Macedonian Separatism) amongst the Macedonian population. Although the Novakovich's strategy can only be described as a failure, its formulation and intent leads to some important historic conclusions regarding the national consciousness (within that era) of the Macedonian people. The Society of St Sava (founded in 1886) was the chief organ for dissemination of Serbian propaganda on the Macedonian Question and Novakovich was intricately involved behind its agenda and policies. During the same year four members of a secret Macedonian committee in Sofia, went to Belgrade to secure support for their proposed actions in Macedonia. Their plans included the restoration of the Ohrida Diocese, publication of a newspaper "Macedonian Voice" in Istanbul, opening schools where teachers used the "Macedonian" language, and to have all educational literature printed in the Macedonian dialect. Shortly thereafter Novakovich took up his appointment as Serbian consul in Istanbul, where he met with two members of the Macedonian committee to initiate the plan. Although this was only partially successful, Serbian schools were opened in Macedonia, and books were printed in the Macedonian dialect. The latter were based on an increasing Serbian language content as the educational standard increased. However in 1898 when asked with respect to the reprinting of these texts in the Macedonian dialect, Novakovich recommended only the Serbian language should be used - the anticipated attraction of the Macedonian dialect had not eventuated. The Society of St Sava also offered well-paid scholarships to Macedonians in the hope they could ultimately be turned against the Bulgarian idea. Between 1888 and 1889 quite a number of Macedonians accepted these scholarships and went to Belgrade. They soon became aware of the obvious underlying reasons behind the program however, especially when they were forbidden to possess "Bulgarian" literature. Subsequently some 30 to 40 students left Belgrade to continue their education elsewhere, mostly Sofia. Among that group were some later very well-known figures - Dame Gruev, Petar Pop Arsov and Krste Misirkov. It must be considered more than coincidental that two of the latter individuals (PPA, and especially KM) shortly thereafter proffered views on the Macedonian Question that in essence supported the covert intent of Novakovich's theory. However it was during Novakovich's appointment as consul at St Petersburg that the staunchest and most dogmatic advocate of "Macedonism", Dimitur Chupovski, arose. Again we note that Chupovski and his small group of followers were directly supported by the St Sava Society and had an almost identical agenda to that of the four Macedonians that met with Novakovich in Belgrade during 1886. It did not matter to Novakovich that "Macedonism" was also essentially anti-Serbian, as long as it opposed or slowed the spread of Bulgarian influence within Macedonia. An important historic issue is the reaction to both Serbian propaganda and Macedonism within Macedonia itself. First, it is known that one of the main reasons for the establishment of IMRO by Dame Gruev in 1893 was to block the spread of Serbian influence into Macedonia, less it hinder the ultimate unification of the Bulgarian people. Thus although IMRO's short-term goal was autonomy, its long-term goal was unification, as had occurred with East Rumelia. There can be no doubt IMRO was a Bulgarian organization, protecting the Bulgarian national interest against the Serbs. Several other organizations also formed within Macedonia (1897) to oppose Serbian propaganda - the Revolutionary Brotherhood and the Charitable Brotherhood - the latter to specifically undermine Serbian schools, a strategy in which it was quite successful. Even earlier (1891), Gyorche Petrov, later a famous IMRO committee member, was so concerned by the obvious Serbian schemes that he spent his time exclusively on ethnographic research in Skopje to ensure the availability of indisputable evidence to support the "Bulgarian" character of the Macedonian population. As for "Macedonism", the memoirs of Hristo Shaldev which discuss Dimitur Chupovski, plainly show how few adherents this concept had in 1903. We also have to accept that Krste Misirkov only promoted the concept of "Macedonism" when he felt the Bulgarian position in Macedonia was irrevocably lost - as in 1903 after Ilinden (when he wrote "On Macedonian Matters") and after WWI. At all other times he was a staunch advocate of the Bulgarian character of Macedonia. Misirkov's pro-Macedonism arguments were resurrected and re-packaged by the Comintern in 1934 as evidence for a "Macedonian Nation". Novakovich did not live to see the success of the strategy he first devised in the middle 1880s - a plan which undoubtedly has prevented the historic reunion of the Bulgarian people. Dame Gruev and IMRO were correct in their assessment of the danger of Serbian influence. In his memoirs (finished 18 Aug 1947) Hristo Shaldev speaks for all Macedonian patriots when he writes I am saddened that I cannot spend the remaining years of my life in Gumendje, and at the same time I am indignant that the youngest generation of Vardar Macedonia has disavowed both the achievements and self-determination of their fathers, grand-fathers and great-grand-fathers and has been misled by the Serbian theories of Professors Novakovich, Cvijich and Belich.

http://makedon.mtx.net/rev0.htm ---------------------------------------- Macedonian Day of Disgrace Ljubisa Tancevski [ltancevs@celece.ucsd.edu] once attempted to enlighten us all regarding this auspicious date: "In order to attract the Macedonian population for their causes they [Tito's Communists] promised independent Macedonian Republic within the Yugoslavia. That is why the population supported the revolution and the partisans. To refresh your memory the revolution started on the 9th of October 1941 in Prilep in Kumanovo. Attacked (and killed) were Bulgarian soldiers..." Here is the glorious event in Prilep to which Ljubisha refers as the beginning of the Revolution (it actually took place on October 11th, 1941) A crazy man from Prilep with an unprintable nickname received an order from the Tito's command to kill a Bulgarian soldier, so as to prove that the Bulgarians were occupiers - not liberators - of Macedonia. Late in the evening of this October day he approached a soldier on guard duty and started a small talk with him (and no translator needed!). Then he asked him for a match to light a cigarette. The soldier reached in his pockets for matches, and that is when the crazy guy stabbed him. As it became known to all later (and this includes Ljubisha) this poor soldier boy was a Macedonian, son of refugees from a village near Lerin, as most of the Bulgarian soldiers in Vardar Macedonia in 1941-44 were volunteers, mainly - children of Macedonian families. This was apparently the ONLY political killing in Macedonia by the much-sung N.O.B. (People's Liberation Struggle). If it wasn't, the Titoist regime in FYROM wouldn't have made this Day of Disgrace, Oct. 11, into a national holiday for the Socialist Republic of Macedonia, would they? And yet, the story about the killing of the soldier boy from Lerin hasn't ended yet. The man who identified the killer to the Bulgarian military authorities is still alive and in good health, in Prilep. It is said that everyone knows who he is and no one in the past 50 years has stepped forward to point him out to the government. Doesn't that say something about where deep loyalties lie, dear Ljubisha? [I personally feel that Bulgaria's involvement in the war in 1941 was by itself not only a failure of the political system in the country but also a national disgrace. But this is a different topic.] but Ljubisha has even more words of wisdom for us "Do you, likewise, imply that the 20 German Panzir divisions were expelled from Macedonia by the thought that Bulgarians might attack them? You were never able to liberate yourself from anyone, let alone liberate other from someone, and especially from the Germans. The truth is that all they wanted was to hastily move northwards for Balkans was of no strategic meaning to them anymore. Do you likewise imply that they were fleeing Greece because of the great fear Greeks might kill them?.. Germans were defeated by the Bulgarian Army!!! Good God, you are incredible." Well, Ljubisha, as you have put it, you might be right: the Germans were NOT defeated by the Bulgarian Army. However, in the fall of 1944, units of the Bulgarian Army expelled the retreating Germans from Vardar Macedonia and continued north to liberate Belgrade. I would not bother you with extensive bibliography from the history of the war. Here is a small excerpt from a reputable military encyclopedia: "1944, October 20 - December 31. The Balkans. Russian efforts to block movement of General von Weichs' Army Group F, moving from Greece into Yugoslavia to bolster the German right, were nearly successful. Tolbukhin's Third Ukrainian Front, with a Bulgarian army assisting on its left, took Belgrade (October 20), with Tito's (Josip Broz's) partisans fighting beside them..." Dupuy, R. Ernest and Trevor N. Dupuy, "The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History From 3500 B.C. to the Present", 4th Edition, 1993, p.1221 Of course, this is a very, very brief account. However, within the framework of military history spanning close to 5,500 years the authors saw fit to mention the participation of the Bulgarian Army in the liberation of Belgrade, and characterizes Tito's partisans as auxiliaries "fighting beside" the Soviet and Bulgarian forces. Note that, coming from the east, the Bulgarian Army was to the left of Tolbukhin's main force, which puts it squarely in Vardar Macedonia. By the way, the word "Macedonia" appears exactly twice in this military encyclopedia: first in connection with Philip of Macedon, and then in connection with the Balkan Wars of 1912-13. So you see, it is not the western historians who have never heard of Bulgaria's role in the liberation of Yugoslavia, but the Yugo-Macedonian "istorichari" - the same ones who don't like to go to international conferences. However, you should not limit your universe to the areas illuminated by them. You are floating in a sea of books, so Reach Out and Touch Reality.

----------------------------------------------------------------- The Sleeper Has Awakened: The Truth about Tito, Dimitrov and the New Macedonia Before a people can know who they are, they must first know who they were. This question, which can he answered by any Macedonian by mere reflection on parentage, is the continuing focus of a 45-year-old propaganda campaign of falsification and misinformation aimed directly at the obliteration of the history of the people of Macedonia and its replacement by a sanitized Yugoslav version. As an example, I call attention to the contents of the Macedonian Cultural magazine, Iskra, published in Adelaide, Australia [1]. The editorial draws attention to an article entitled New Macedonia. It is based, we are told, on Stoyan Christowe's "inspiring speech" delivered in 1945. Within the text of the story, an attempt is made to suitably motivate the reader by statements such as "...The new Macedonians must think of themselves as Yugoslavs first and as Macedonians afterward..." and it just gets better "...Tito is the father of Yugoslavia. Tito is Macedonia's godfather..". Based on available objective evidence, nothing could be further from the truth. Yet such matter continues to be published. Compare the ideology of the modern Iskra to that of the first Macedonian newspaper, Makedonska Iskra, published in Australia from 1946-1957. In one particular front page story the headline read [2] "...TITO TRAITORS, ENEMIES OF SLAV-MACEDONIANS..." It thus appears that time has allowed a "new Tito" to be recycled from his original components. A brief but accurate resume of the careers of Tito, and his Bulgarian companion Georgi Dimitrov, during the 1940s, is here provided as a counterbalance. Josip Broz Tito joined the Yugoslav Communist Party (YCP) in 1923. After some early set-backs, including a lengthy prison term (1928-34), he was appointed, in 1936, as the organizational secretary of the YCP Politburo. In the following year, 1937, Stalin ordered the liquidation of several hundred Yugoslav Communists living in Moscow. Tito, however, survived the purge of "undesirables." [3]. How he achieved this is open to speculation. The most credible account is that Tito was in fact Stalin's informant against the YCP. Not only did he wish to ingratiate himself further with Stalin, whom he adored, he also removed those who stood between him and final control of the YCP[4]. Not unexpectedly, in late 1937 the Comintern appointed Tito as Secretary General of the YCP. Georgi Dimitrov at that time was Secretary General of the Comintern. The Tito-Dimitrov clique had been established. In future years, Dimitrov, first through his role on the Comintern, then later as Prime Minister of Bulgaria, would support Tito's policies even when their consequences were detrimental, not only to the interests of the Bulgarian Communist Party, but also to the Bulgarian nation. Tito and the YCP had minimal support among the local population. Tito was so intent on accommodating Stalin's policies that he steadfastly refused to resist or disrupt the German invasion of Yugoslavia while the non-aggression pact between Russia and Germany was operative. Even when the call to arms came, he extolled the defense of Russia and its Communist ideals rather than Yugoslavia itself. Furthermore, as Beloff notes in her book, Tito's Flawed Legacy [5] "But Tito was fighting for a communist Yugoslavia and during most of the fighting the principal enemies were not the Axis troops but his own compatriots.." In November 1942, fearing that an allied invasion would rally the people to support Mihailovich, Tito offered the German command an arrangement to serve their mutual interests [6]: 1.All prisoners would be exchanged 2.A truce would be entered into to allow the Partisans to fight the Chetniks 3.The Partisans would oppose any Anglo- American landing on the Adriatic coast. The Germans refused the offer. In an ensuing operation, they destroyed the majority of the Partisan force, which in expectation that an agreement was imminent, became exceptionally complacent. This, therefore, is the ultimate hypocrisy of Tito. The fact that he could urge the general populous to fight to the death against fascism, while simultaneously attempting to make a pact with that same enemy, is the clearest example of this person's true character and tainted patriotic spirit. Tito also was having major problems with the Macedonian Communist Party (MCP). Their leader, Shatorov, refused to have anything to do with the YCP. Satorov preferred to deal with the Bulgarian Communist Party. Furthermore, Satorov supported an autonomous Macedonia[7]. In response, Kolishevski, a Macedonian lackey of the YCP, was dispatched to reorganize the MCP. Unfortunately for Kolishevski, devotion to Tito and the YCP were not quite the correct credentials to inspire the MCP membership. In late 1941, he found himself languishing in a Bulgarian prison for the rest of the war. It was not until 1943 that Tito had managed to infiltrate and corrupt the MCP to the ideals of the YCP. He accomplished this mainly by the elimination of "so-called" misguided leaders and their followers. In all his efforts to bring the BCP and MCP into line, he was well supported by the Comintern. Perhaps the most farcical issue of the war was the YCP's contention, at the 1943 conference, that the people of Yugoslavia, by their very armed resistance against fascism, had unambiguously accepted the establishment of a Yugoslav nation. The issue of self-determination promoted in the 1942 conference had now vanished. The question of the YCP and self-determination is succinctly presented by W. Connor [8] in his book, The National Question in Marxist-Leninist Theory and Strategy There Conner wrote: "the Communist party had the power to determine when and how self-determination had been exercised. There was simply no need to hold a plebiscite or otherwise try to determine public opinion on the issue. A proper exercise of right was whatever the party said it was..." Connor's thorough and lucid discussion of the "National Question" with respect to overall communist strategy is highly recommended. Tito's final split with Stalin may be directly attributed to an egotistic perception of his role to direct global communist revolution. This split came at a time when Stalin was desperately attempting to consolidate the communist position. He did not want to provoke the militarily superior allied forces. Stalin also had discussed and summarily agreed with Churchill on certain "spheres of influence" with respect to European territory. The following passage from McCagg's book [9], Stalin Embattled 1943-1948, is most pertinent to highlight the true basis of the confrontation between Stalin and Tito: "...Stalin's provocation of Tito in October stemmed from heightened fear of the West; exasperation that a 'peanut.' such as the Yugoslav leader should endanger the interests of the Soviet Union.." On June 28, 1948, the Cominform labeled Tito a person of "counter-revolutionary" inclination and expelled the YCP from their organization. The form of socialism subsequently established in Yugoslavia was appropriately termed "Titoism." Today we may clearly witness the pathetic results of its long-term application. Dimitrov, as leader of the BCP, first came to prominence in Bulgaria during the abortive September, 1923, uprising against the Tsanov government. It should be noted that the Communist leaders Dimitrov, Kolarov and Genov situated their headquarters quite close to the Yugoslav border, a facile escape route in event of failure. By September 28th the revolution was over and the Communist leaders were long gone. Dimitrov would not be seen again on Bulgaria soil until 1945. In early 1924, however, Dimitrov and other leaders of the BCP made a final desperate attempt to foment revolution in Bulgaria through the Agrarian Union. The BCP had little, if any, popular support and badly needed an ally. Dimitrov met the exiled Agrarian, Kosta Todorov, in Vienna and proposed that the two parties work together to overthrow the Tsanov government [10]. The Agrarian leaders, however, quickly perceived that the BCP had little to offer. It was in fact attempting to use the Agrarian union's large following. Consequently the Agrarians only offered the Communists the right to freely participate in elections once a provisional Agrarian government had been established. The BCP dismissed this submission and all negotiations were terminated. Reconciled to his exiled fate, Dimitrov, both through the BCP and his position on the Cominterm, worked tirelessly to undermine and weaken all attempts of IMRO to succeed in its goal of an autonomous Macedonia. On the occasion of the 4th congress of the Macedonian National Union (USA), an organization established to oppose the MPO, Dimitrov sent from Moscow a letter dated May 13, 1934. While the letter was hostile to IMRO, Dimitrov used it to offer his own solution to the "Macedonian" problem [11]. That solution linked the salvation of Macedonia to the acceptance of Communism. Dimitrov was, therefore, as early as 1934, preparing and initiating a continuous chain of events which would ultimately attempt to justify and rationalize the denationalization of the Macedonian Bulgarian people. Although he consistently and vociferously characterized IMRO as a terrorist organization, working directly against the interests of the people of Macedonia, it was, in fact, the BCP which perpetrated terrorist acts such as the April 16, 1925, bombing of the Sveta Nedelya Cathedral. Dimitrov vehemently denied this accusation at his infamous 1933 Leipzig trial. However, he admitted to it quite freely in 1948, when as Prime Minister of Bulgaria, he felt beyond reproach [12] In that same letter to the MNU, he falsely emphasized the cathedral bombing as a prime example of IMRO's cruel and utter disregard for human life. By 1944, Dimitrov faced a number of serious factional issues within the BCP. Traycho Kostov, who ran the party within Bulgaria in Dimitrov's continuing absence, and a large number of BCP members, were opposed to Dimitrov's leadership [13]. By 1949, Kostov had been tried, sentenced and executed as a fascist agent and for committing numerous other imaginary crimes against the state. When Dimitrov finally returned to Bulgaria in November 1945, he quickly liquidated all his adversaries, showing little distinction between Communists and non-Communists. He ensured that he would have absolute control of the BCP for his ambitious social reforms which loomed ahead. In July 1947, Tito and Dimitrov met, at the Bled conference, to discuss the concept of a Yugoslav-Bulgarian Federation and in particular the secession of Bulgarian Macedonia to Yugoslavia. There are also suggestions that the Greek Communist Party participated at the Bled meeting. The popular view, although exact details of the Bled conference have never been released, is that in a frenzied lust for power the Communist leaders decreed that the following events should occur [14]: 1.Yugoslavia was to receive Aegean as well as Pirin Macedonia 2.Bulgaria would receive West Thrace as compensation for the loss of the Pirin region 3.The Greek communists would receive unlimited backing from both Bulgaria and Yugoslavia in return for their territorial concessions. Tito and Dimitrov's egocentric ambitions are poignantly stated by Crampton [15]: "...for of what importance were state boundaries in the bright new dawn of proletarian internationalism.." Dimitrov was able to convince the upper echelon of the BCP of the necessity for the above program in the context of a South Slav federation to ensure strong Yugoslav support for Bulgaria at the peace conferences being conducted in Paris. He also desired to promulgate the global communist revolution. Tito and Dimitrov agreed that as a first phase, 93 Yugoslav "cultural" workers would enter the Pirin region to reeducate the people. This reeducation translated into the Titoists removing pictures of Bulgarian revolutionary heroes from schools and other buildings and replacing them with portraits of Tito and Kolishevski. BCP members were asked to take oaths of loyalty to Tito [16]. A groundswell of opposition began to erupt among BCP members, whose emotional comments may be summarized as follows (with apologies to Chomsky and Jesus Hernandez [17]) "...Bulgarian Communist leaders acted more like Serbian subjects than sons of the Bulgarian people. It may seem absurd, incredible, but our education under that brief Serbian tutelage had deformed us to such an extent that we were completely denationalized; our national soul was torn Out of us and replaced by a rabid chauvinistic internationalism..." By the end of 1948, Dimitrov began to realize that Tito's main aim was acquisition of territory to build a greater Yugoslavia rather than any Federation which might involve any sharing of power. Subsequently, Dimitrov attacked Tito's Macedonian policy as anti-Bulgarian, particularly as he and the BCP had acted in "good faith."[17] Stalin's final intervention against Tito and the YCP ended any further negotiations on the Pirin region between Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. Dimitrov immediately attached responsibility for the fiasco to Traycho Kostov and several other members of the BCP who were duly branded as agents of Tito and the YCP. It is an incredible irony that Stalin, often bungling the "Macedonian Question," was in fact largely responsible for the final salvation of the birthright of the people of Macedonia and the prevention of their assimilation into the Yugoslav state. Many Macedonians, particularly those in and from Yugoslavia, view Dimitrov as a legendary figure who had the strength and tenacity to proclaim the existence of a Macedonian nationality. The details presented herein establish that Dimitrov, in fact, attempted to use the Macedonian Bulgarian people to further his own narrow views of Communist internationalism. Towards this end, nothing else mattered. He was prepared to sacrifice not only the heritage of the Macedonian Bulgarian people, but the actual soil of his ancestors. Among Communist parties, Dimitrov and the BCP were the only group which would actually countenance such an undertaking. The fact that Dimitrov on his death was embalmed and placed in a mausoleum in Sofia is incomprehensible. (Dimitrov's body now has been removed from the heart of Sofia. He was cremated recently.) Dimitrov was the man who delivered the very bones of Gotse Delchev and the literary works of the people of Macedonia collected and preserved by IMRO and other patriots to their vilest adversaries. The Macedonian and Bulgarian people are a single entity. They are indelibly linked through a millennium of time and history. The fact that the people of Macedonia were separated by artificial boundaries in 1878 (Treaty of Berlin), 1913 (Treaty of Bucharest), and 1919 (Treaty of Neuilly) cannot change their heritage or their rights. Nor can the YCP simulate a new Macedonian race with its own language, culture and history. The Communists themselves have repeatedly acknowledged, then conveniently forgotten, the true status of the people of Macedonia. Consider the contents of the Manifesto to the Communist parties of Bulgaria, Rumania, Serbia and Turkey prepared and delivered in April, 1920, by the Comintern [18]: " ..The Macedonian Bulgarians. the Albanians, the Montenegrins, the Croats and the Bosnians are rising up against the rule of the Serbian bureaucratic and landowning oligarchy.." Dimitar Vlahov, one of the main leaders of IMRO (United), a de facto extension of the YCP, in 1946 was elected a vice-president of the Yugoslav presidium [19]. However, his views on Gotse Delchev published in a jubilee issue of Makedonsko Delo (May 4, 1928, Vienna)to commemorate the 25th anniversary of Delchev's death must be noted: "...Gotse was a Bulgarian by nationality. he was educated in Bulgarian schools. Kukush, Salonica. Sofia. Although in the last two his education was in a spirit of narrow nationalism, Gotse regarded all Macedonians as his brothers. He struggled for the liberation of all Macedonians, not just the Macedonian Bulgarians. He did not struggle only for the Bulgarians in Macedonia to become the ruling nation, but rather that they and the other ethnic groups all be free..." Such beliefs are totally inconsistent with the Yugoslav concept of a unique Macedonian nationality. Yet Vlahov accepted one of the highest positions in the Yugoslav state. Can the sincerity or statements of such individuals continue to have any credibility? While people such as Vlahov succumbed to the intrigues of power and self-glorification and allowed themselves to be used as window-dressing by the Yugoslav state, others like Metodi Antonov-Cento took a firm stand on the basic principles of truth. As the President of the Anti-Fascist Council of National Liberation of Macedonia, he resigned in 1946, citing the lack of self-determination afforded the Macedonian Republic. This denial foreshadowed the denationalization of the Macedonians' Bulgarian heritage with respect to their language and the dependence of Skopie on Serbian administrators and experts [20] Cento was quickly arrested as a "reactionary" and an IMRO member. In their excellent and objective appraisal of the Yugoslav state and Macedonia, Professors Palmer and King provide the true reasons for Belgrade's continuing falsification of the Macedonian question. A forgotten generation of the people of Macedonia and their children are only now awakening to the massive fraud perpetrated against them and their heritage. The unbiased facts are steadily emerging and gathering momentum as the collapse of the totalitarian Bulgarian government is witnessed. The sleeper has awakened. Reference 1.Christowe S. New Macedonia in "Macedonian Cultural Society lskra", (Michael Radin, ed), Macedonian Orthodox Community of Adelaide and South Australia, Inc., 1985, Vol. 5, p35-41 2.Anonymous. Tito's Crodocile Tears for Greek Macedonia. "Macedonian Spark", 1953, 7(9):1 3."The New Encyclopedia Britannica" (Goetz PW ed.), 15th ed., Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., Chicago, 1988, Vol. it, p. 804-805 4.Beloff N., "Tito's Flawed Legacy, Yugoslavia & the West: 1939-84", Victor Gollancz, Ltd., London, 1985, p. 54 5.ibid., p 59 6.ibid., p. 81-83 7.Clissold, S., "Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, 1939-73: a documentary survey", Oxford University Press, London, l975,p. 153-156 8.Connor, W., "The National Question in Marxist-Leninist Theory and Strategy", Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1986, p. 161 9.McCagg, Jr., W.O., "Stain Embattled, 1943-48", Wayne University Press, Detroit, 1978, p. 53 10.Moser, C.A., "Dimitrnv of Bulgaria: A Political Biography of Dr. Georgi M. Dimitrov", Caroline House Publishers, Ottawa, IL, 1979, p. 33-34 11.Petrovski, T., "Macedonian Emigration to the USA", Macedonian Review, Skopie, 1981, 11(1)102-110 12.Moser, C.A., ibid., p. 37 13.Moser, C.A., ibid., p. 198 14.Palmer, Jr., S. E. & King, R.R., "'Yugoslav Communism and the Macedonian Question", The Shoe String Press, Inc., Hamden, CT, 1971, p. 125 15.Crampton, R.J., "A Short History of Bulgaria", Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987, p. 171 16.Barker, E., "Macedonia: Its Place in Balkan Power Politics", Royal Institute of International Affairs, London, 1950, p.105-107 17.Chomsky, N., "The Chomsky Reader", Peck, J, ed., Serpent's Tail London, 1988, p. 92 18.Connor, W., ibid., p. 132 19.Andonovski, H., "Revolutionary Work of Dimitar Vlahov", Macedonian Review, Skopie, 1978, 7(2):177-181 20.Palmer, Jr., S.E. & King, R. R., ibid., p. 137

http://makedon.mtx.net/rev0.htm ------------------------------------------------------- State Sponsored Revisionism The Bulgarian Cultural and National Revival (Until 1978) described on the pages of Glasnik Na Institutot Za Nacionalna Istorija (Voice of the Institute of National History) Skopje (1957-1980) Anna Melamed Bulgarian Academy of Science, The History of Dobrudja, Thrace and Macedonia The Bulletin of the Institute of History", 1988 v30, pp238-303 The subject of this historiographic study is the impact of the revival (until 1978), both cultural and national themes, connected with the Southwestern Bulgarian lands, as noted in the contemporary historical writings in the Socialist Republic of Macedonia. The works mentioned in the Glasnik na Institutot za Nacionalna Istorija, which began to appear in 1957, have been taken as the basis of the present research work. In order to draw a clearer and more exact picture of the manner in which the scientific - cognitive studies are carried out, and the means by which the reality of the National Revival is described in the historical science of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia, a brief review is given of its characteristics sides since the emergence of this science and up to the founding of Glasnik as a periodical published by the Institute of National History in Skopje. Aside from Glasnik, separate publications of a more conceptual and programmed nature are drawn upon or often used by the contributors to the periodical as a basis for conclusions. From its very first steps, historical science in the People's Republic of Macedonia set itself the task of constructing, developing and substantiating the political and historical thesis, that from remote times the population of Macedonia came into being as an independent historical ethnic and linguistic community within the frame-work of strictly defined territorial boundaries. This community gradually began to differentiate itself in the period of the National Revival as an independent national unit, with differentiated characteristics dissimilar to the Bulgarian ones. The Bulgarian ethnonym, which was predominantly used by the Bulgarian population in Macedonia during the National Revival period, has found a different and sometimes contradictory explanation in the studies of contemporary Skopje historians. The principal factors for the delayed "national differentiation" of the "Macedonians" from the Bulgarian community were explained in the following manner the delayed capitalist development of Macedonia in comparison with the remaining Balkan peoples; the ethnic variety in the region; the alien denationalization strivings --of the Greeks, the Serbs and chiefly of the Bulgarians. The Russian consuls in Macedonia, the Slavophiles in Russia and their policy in the Balkans, the European travelers and scholars, who usually served one Balkan policy or another and in most cases knew neither the population in Macedonia nor its language, also had a negative impact. The Bulgarian circles in which they moved, as well as the Bulgarian national institutions in Constantinople, were of special importance for the Bulgarian orientation of the "Macedonian intelligentsia" and of part of the "Macedonian bourgeoisie" According to the Glasnik, the church movement in Macedonia appeared and developed independently. Its basic aim was the restoration of the "Macedonian" Archbishopric of Ohrid as a "Macedonian National" organization. The identical tasks and situation determined the striving of the "Macedonian intelligentsia" to seek an ally among the Bulgarians against the Greek Patriarchate. The Bulgarians bourgeoisie, however, being economically stronger and having greater political possibilities, usurped the leadership and began to subject the struggle of the "Macedonian people" to its own expansionist aims. The secular in form and "Macedonian" in content movement for education and enlightenment also sprang up independently, but in the '60s it clashed with intensified "Bulgarian penetration" in Macedonia. The "Macedonian intelligentsia" reacted against this with efforts aimed at the publication of several textbooks for the first grades in a "Macedonian-Bulgarian dialect", as the authors of these books called them themselves, and by expressing several opinions at the time in the Bulgarian periodicals on the introduction of the South-western Bulgarian dialects into the literary Bulgarian language then being formed. According to the authors in Skopje, the struggle of the Macedonian people for independent national expression was particularly intensified after the creation of the "Bulgarian Exarchate, which became the principal coordinator and leader of "Bulgarian propaganda" in Macedonia. In the early 1870s a "Macedonian national program" was fully and independently formed, as well as an "organized Macedonian National Movement", whose chief ideologist was the 'semi-literate Serbian nationalist' [according to the S. Novakovich's comments in his Report to the Serbian Ministry of Education] Georgi Pulevski, who published two dictionaries in Belgrade with the financial support of the Serbian chauvinists - P. Srechkovich and M. Miloevich. Pulevski's two dictionaries are 1.The 4-language Dictionary: Serbian/Albanian - Albanian/Arumanian -Turkish - Greek (1872) 2.The 3-language Dictionary: S.-Macedonian (Serbo-Macedonian) - Albanian -Turkish (1875) The consolidation of the "Macedonian nation" continued until the creation of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia (1944), and, according to some authors, even after that. The conclusions and formulations in Glasnik, as well as in other Skopje publications, are built on an exceptionally poor collection of excerpts from documentary sources and of memoir literature, whose treatment suffers from subjectivism and bias. At the same time, in the use and publication of the sources in Skopje, some essential words, expressions and whole passages are frequently omitted, which changes their original meaning. The documentary material is falsified. Contemporary studies, whose conclusions are not to the taste of the authors in the Socialist Republic of Macedonia, are not quoted or are criticized from subjectivist positions. The development of themes is contradictory to the fundamental laws of contemporary gnoseology. In the process of their research, the authors in Skopje precede from the contemporary historical and political anti-Bulgarian thesis in the Socialist Republic of Macedonia about the Revival processes in Macedonia, which is turned into a dogma. From such a viewpoint they select material which is necessary to them, and formally and factionally change its essence in order to make it suit their initial positions.

http://makedon.mtx.net/rev0.htm ------------------------------------------------------ What's in a Name? I was attending this meeting of self-professed Macedonian activists, when one of the speakers complained that we urgently needed to redress the Government's major underestimation of the number of Macedonian citizens. As a start, he explained, his group had methodically surveyed the Sydney telephone directory and made a list of all the Macedonians. I asked how could he possibly decide who was Macedonian and who was not, from the telephone directory? He answered that Macedonians, have names ending in -SKI. Therefore all people listed in the telephone directory whose names end in -SKI are bone fide (chisti) Macedonians. In the Socialist Republic of Macedonia after 1944 an extensive campaign was set in motion to systematically change family names by adding the -SKI suffix. This plan was one of many ordered by the Yugoslav Communist Party aimed at directly erasing any vestige of the people's Bulgarian identity. Thus after 1944, to receive any benefits or privileges within Socialist Macedonia, politically "correct" names were necessary. Of course when any new identifying documentation was issued, the name was automatically altered. Therefore in 1944 we saw a process initiated which affected people in different ways. Some accepted these happenings in the context of change and conforming to the requirements demanded by the new political ideology. Others, predominantly communist party supporters, viewed it as the institutionalization of a new and necessary Macedonian "ethnic" identity. However for most people it was perceived exactly for what it actually was, an attempt to erase their very self-identity. Accordingly their were many personal tragedies regarding this issue, and these remain generally unknown and unpublicised to this day. People were executed in 1944 for not accepting the -SKI addition to their last name - individuals like Gligor Georgiev of Skopje. Countless others were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment, and some of them while in prison, refused for many years to receive letters from their wives (who in the meantime were forced to add -SKI to there last names) since the letters were addressed with the surname addition -SKI. At the graveyards, the workers who engrave names of the deceased on tombstones, would deliberately add -SKI after the persons last name. This occurred at Butel, near Skopje, as late as 1975. Also, in the late 1940s and 1950s many fighters from the 1903 Ilinden insurrection were still alive in the USA . One of them, Naum Hristov, originally from Bitolya, (he was a part of the Naum Bufcheto's revolutionary group in 1903), would return unopened, his brother's letters from Bitolya because they were addressed to Naum Hristovski, with an explanation "that cannot be from my brother, he knows my name". There are endless other examples. It has to be clearly understood, that in Macedonia, there is simply no evidence for the existence of surnames ending in -OSKI or -ESKI prior to 1944. Nor is there any justification for the establishment of these names based on any historical, linguistic or custom antecedent. Such contentions merely seek to disguise a 1944 political decision as some form of cultural continuation. For example there is not a single folk song that mentions a last name with an -OSKI or -ESKI ending. Not a single one. And there are thousands of folk songs with personal names in them - names like Mile Pop-Ordanov, Hristo Uzunov, Goce Delchev, Lenka Pingova, Georgi Sugarev, Vasil Chakalarov, Nevena Georgieva, Epsa Dimusheva, Metodi Patchev, Vasil Z'mbov, Stoyan Mandalov, Vaska Evgova, ...ad infinitum, The names of the most prominent writers from Macedonia in the last two centuries almost all had the -ov and -ev endings:- Konstantin Miladinov (Struga, born 1829), Dimitar Miladinov (Struga, 1810), Raiko Zhinzifov (Veles), Yordan Hadzhi Konstantinov-Dzhinot (Veles), Grigor Parlichev (Ohrid), Kuzman Shapkarev (Ohrid), Dimitar Matov (Veles, 1864), Naum Sprostranov (Ohrid), Iosif Kovachev (Shtip), Arseni Kostencev (Shtip), Georgi Dinkov (Salonica), Georgi Gogov (Voden) etc The names of almost all the organizers and participants in the Ilinden resurrection in 1903 had the -ov and -ev endings. Here there are a few examples: Goce Delchev, Dame Gruev, Pere Toshev, Hristo Matov, Mishe Razvigorov, Todor Aleksandrov, Boris Sarafov, Ivan Garvanov, Traiko Kitanchev, Todor Lazarov, Lazar Traikov, Vassil Chakalarov, Pando Klyashev, Toma Davidov, Hristo Tatarchev, Hristo Uzunov, Lazar Moskov, Slaveiko Arsov, Kolyo Rashaikov, Todor Saev, Nikola Karandzhulov, Georgi Sugarev, Luka Ivanov, Metodi Patchev, Hristo Chernopeev, Angel Sprostranov, Aleksandar Panov, Andrei Dimov, Alekso Turundzhov, Angel Andreev, Atanas Karshakov, Aleksandar Stanoev, Alekso Dzhorlev, Andrei Kazepov, Andon Zlatarev, Apostol Petkov, Atanas Lozanchev, Argir Manasiev, Boris Drangov, Boris Sugarev, Vasil Popov, Vasil Diamandiev, Velyo Markov, Vasil Monchev, Vladimir Slankov, Grigor Manasiev, Georgi Korubinov, Georgi Churanov, Georgi Muchitanov, Gono Yanev, Georgi Nikov, Georgi Kiosev, Georgi Peshkov, Grigor Popev, Deyan Dimitrov, Dimitar Gushtanov, Dimitar Vladev, Dimche Tsvetanov, Dobri Daskalov, Dicho Andonov, Dimitar Dalkalachev, Dimche Matliev, Dzhole Gergev, Dime Fildishev, Ekaterina Simitchieva, Efrem Miladinov, Efrem Chuchkov, Evtim Karanov, Ivan Naumov, Ivan Dulev, Ivan Dukov, Ilyo Kotev, Ivan Tsonchev, Yordan Varnaliev, Ivan Pop Kostadinov, Kuzo Dinov, Kosta Mazneikov, Kuzo Stefov, Krsto Asenov, Konstantin Nunkov, Lazar Madzarov, Lecho Gioshev, Mirche Atsev, Milan Delchev, Mitse Tsitskov, Mihail Mladenov, Maksim Kostov, Mihail Daev, Nikola Kokarev, Nikola Petrov, Nikola Ivanov, Nikola Andreev, Naum Petrov, be!ikola Ivanov, Petv'qar Atsev, Pesho Radev, Petar Samardzhiev, Petar Yurukov, Pandil Shishkov, Pavle Naumov, Pavel Hristov, Panayot Konstantinov, Petar Nachev, Petar Pogonchev, Parashkev Cvetkov, Psaltir Antonov, Petar Mihov, Petar Hristov, Petar Vaskov, Sando Kitanov, Stefan Petkov, Stoyan Lekov, Simeon Molerov, Spiro Kalemanov, Stefan Dimitrov, Spiro Dzherov, Stoyan Lazov, Sofroni Stoyanov, Sava Mihailov, Stamat Georgiev, Stefan Malchankov, Stefan Nikolov, Tane Stoychev, Todor Milev, Tase Milosov, Simeon Denkov, Tarpena Dimitrova, Trendafil Dumbalakov, Tushe Deliivanov, Hristo Silyanov, Hristo Dimitrov, Hristo Kuslev, Hristo Velyov, Hristo Sarakinov, Cvetko Panov While some family names did end with -SKI (-SKA for women), it has to be clearly understood that this suffix relates to its special use as either an adjective or as a place of origin or activity. The following examples illustrate this aspect explicitly: Makedonski m, Makedonska f - a person from Macedonia; Dobrudzhanski - from Dobrudja; Berkovski - from the town of Berkovitsa; Vodenicharski - son of a miller; Zidarski - son of a mason. Benkovski was a name of Polish origin assumed by Gavril Gruev Hlutev, the leader of the April Uprising in 1876 in Central Bulgaria. The name of the Bulgarian national hero, Vasil Levski, is an adjective form meaning lion-like. Arzhentinski - Argentina; Frantsaliiski - one who wears "French" (modern) cloths; Italiyanski - Italy, Persiiski - owner of a factory for Persian rugs; Ruski - Russia; Yaponski - Japan. Stambolov or Stamboliiski - one who visited or lived in Stambul (Bulgarian pronunciation of Istanbul, known to the Western world as Constantinople). We can understand that under Yugoslavia it was hard to address many things, particularly the changing of ancestral names. While numerous Macedonians may now be proud of their present family name and all it entails, it still does not alter events and policies that took place in the past. We only ask that the historic truth be known and respected. Macedonians deserve something better than Marxist-Leninist fabrications about their history. That is why after 1913 the Serb invaders in Vardar Macedonia changed all the last name extensions to -ICH, to show even by the names of the people, that the population in South Serbia IS NOT Bulgarian but Serbian And, that is why after 1913 the Greek state changed the personal names in Aegen Macedonia to ones with -IS extension or similar. To show that the population there IS NOT Bulgarian but Greek And, that is why after 1944 the Yugoslav Communists in Vardar Macedonia forced -SKI and introduced -OSKI and -ESKI extensions. To show that the population there IS NOT Bulgarian but ethnic Macedonian