Chapters and Articles in Refereed Journal

An exaggerated pretentiousness by the Macedoslav researcher characterizes the discourse on the irredentism of the Macedoslavs, an arbitrary, in other words, falsification of the primary sources or a deliberate omission to mention the historical framework of reference, as a result of which the historiographic process becomes biased and the historical facts distorted. The Macedoslavs of the ‘Macedonia of the Aegean’, for example, are presented as the victims of genocide by the Greek governments and the Greek people because the latter “sought the assimilation and ethnic cleansing of the Macedonians” during 1945-1949. The involvement of 20,000 Macedoslavs in the civil dispute and the civil war itself are methodically concealed in the luxurious publication of the Academy of the Macedoslavs (1) so that the Greek authorities be accused with genocide: “they persecuted the Macedonians, using terror, murder, mass court proceedings, deportation, plundering, confiscation of property, clearance, resettlement…”.
The characteristics of such an unsubstantiated proposition and arbitrary statements used by their historiographers are commonplace on the aforementioned bibliography, employing the following approach: (a) the laboriously inflated use of the terms ‘Macedonia’ and ‘Macedonians’, even at the time when the nomenclature had not been tried, (b) the alleged persecution and genocide of the ‘Macedonians’, (c) Metaxas’ renaming of places and (d) the references to texts of macedonist historiographers, who have as their target the ideal of irredentism. (2) The method used by their historiographers in order to establish their sought-after ideal is subjective and expressed by the following stylistic mechanisms and textual indicators:
interventions (convenient selections of certain passages and deletions of words and phrases from the primary sources); hypertextuality of the historiographic process (general, selective and distorted references to older texts of theorists and “macedonists”), in other words a dynamic (not static) and eliminating process in the recording of the historical facts and of what is sought, aiming at an emotional overloading; metatextuality (selectively defining the point of reference through arbitrary and interventionist judgment); and a selective rhythm that disallows the text from being convincing.

Let us examine these issues: A Macedoslav historian of the Toronto University, A. Rossos (3), supports that the population of Macedonia before and after the Treaty of Bucharest “did not develop a Greek, Bulgarian or Serbian consciousness, but a Macedonian one. This is clearly evident by the references to the representatives of the Balkan States of the former Ottoman Empire and the church representatives in Macedonia”. The elements used arbitrarily by Rossos are: (a) he adopts as a fact the term “Macedonia” and uses it in order to determine a specific national formation at a time when neither the term or any formation of existed; (b) his references only to the Bulgarian Bishop of Skopje D. Rizov do not prove lack of self-identification of the inhabitants in the region with one of the three nationalities; and (c) by using the method of hypertextuality, he makes, systematically, selective omissions of views already expressed by Macedoslav theorists of the ‘macedonian’ ethnogenesis, e.g. Dzambasovski and Apostolski, who supported it and, in turn, made reference to Misirkov. Thus, the conflicting national ideologies of the Serbs, Greeks and Bulgarians of the region are interpreted [by A. Rossos] as a denial of the people for self-identification, while, in order to prove their “Macedonian” identity, he does not choose a source of the same chronological period (since it does not exist) but he refers, arbitrarily, to 1943.
The inability to produce evidence referring to the ethnologic use of the term “Macedonia”, without violating the historiographic content, leads the Macedoslav theorists continuously to identify themselves as “Macedonians” and as Bulgarian Macedonians. In an obvious attempt to give birth to a nation, particularly during the 19th century, arbitrarily and without relying on documentation and in order to express a national movement, the meaning of the word nas (ours) was used, interchangeably by the people to suggest a local peculiarity and was rendered as nash, as in “macedonism” which is etymologically wrong.
The metatextuality, which is challenged through selective definitions of the points or reference, with arbitrary and interventionist judgment is consolidated with the following mechanisms and indicators: (a) inconsistency in chronology; (b) contradictory arguments; (c) confusion of events; (d) transgressions in interpreting events; and (e) arbitrary violations of the primary sources. The metatextuality in the Macedoslav bibliography is mainly, characteristic of the discovery of the principle of ethnogenesis of the “Macedonians”.
The Bulgarian father of the ethnogenesis, Kriste Misirkov, first declared that the economic and cultural unity of the Macedonians should be looked up in the middle ages. (4) Even more daring is P. Stojanov (5) making a hypertextual reference to Misirkov and concluding arbitrarily that the ‘Macedonians’ “since 1860s accepted the name of their land as a national name”. Misirkkov, however, expressed the view that until 1860 neither the representatives or the inhabitants of Macedonia who lived together in the region were aware of their national and/or geographic consciousness; they simply used the prefix Slav - before the name of the medieval rulers of neighboring nations that ruled Macedonia, or simply identified themselves as ‘Bulgarians’. Later (1972) Konesci and Ristovski attempted, using the method of metatextuality, to put an emphasis on the Bulgarian consciousness by clarifying that the “Macedoslav identity was a compromise so that any lack of a clearly defined Macedoslav state and religious tradition were obtused". (6)
Older Bulgarian researchers (7) supported that the name ‘Macedonian’ was first used as a reaction against Bulgaria, after the Crimean war, by some Slav intellectuals, the ‘Makedonisti’ (Macedonists), who used the name of Macedonia in order to differentiate from the theorists of the Bulgarian National Movement; this resulted in the beginning of the conflict between Macedonism and Bulgarism a few years before the establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate (1870).
The Academy of Sciences and the Arts of FYROM, in essence, places the ethnogenesis of “the Macedonians” at the time of the arrival of the Slavs, but without discontinuing its derivation/ from the ancient Macedonians, since the latter “had no relation to the Greeks”. Therefore, since the ancient Macedonians “were not related to the Greeks” and since the Slavs settled in the region in solid numbers, they are the heirs to both, the region and the name. Evgeni Dimitrov, D. Zografski, and P. Ilievski, among other academics, in their recent publications (8) criticize the Greeks for denying them the right to their cultural, historical and linguistic existence and for repressing the “Macedonian” minority in the Macedonia of the Aegean.
According to the founders of the ethnogenesis discourse, the “Macedonian consciousness” was expressed in the form of Slavism and Macedo-bulgarism in the middle of the 19th century. (9) Others place the development of the “national Macedonian identity” in the period of the middle-war. (10) The creation of the ‘Macedonian Nation’ and ‘Macedonia’ is placed by other FYROM researchers to the beginning of the anti-fascist struggle immediately after 1941 (11) with the founding of the Skopje Partisan Unit, out of which “emerged the vision of an independent Macedonian State with the unification of Macedonia”.
The explanation about not including the causes which lead to the “Macedonian consciousness” in the international bibliography and in the texts of political negotiations and International Treaties until 1943 is equally arbitrary.
Squeezed from every side by the authority of the Ottoman State as well as by the force of three Balkan nationalisms the young and weak Macedonian intelligentsia and the movement they led lacked room and free atmosphere in which to function. They did not have and legally could not have any institutional foundations whatsoever on which to base their activities. Consequently, Macedonians could only operate illegally, underground, and, until the emergence of the revolutionary organization in 1890s, in forced isolation from the population they sought and claimed to represent.
(A. Rossos, Mecedonianism and Macedonian Nationalism on the left, in Review, p. 19-20).
The uncertainty of the historical and ‘Macedonian’ cultural development causes serious problems to their texts and bibliography through selective and eliminating interventions. The macodonisation of the Bulgarian cultural heritage is obvious. The Bulgarian manifesto (6 May 1924), the statements by D. Cupovski and Kriste Misirkov in publications of Sofia, are isolated from their wider geopolitical area by the Academy of Sciences and Research of FYROM so as to be interpreted as ‘Macedonian irridentist movement’; (12) the absence of the ‘Macedonian’ literary creation was only solved in 1933, when the post-Misirkov theorist of ethnogenesis, a Macedo-bulgarian named Vasil Ivanovski, published in Sofia their first newspaper Makedonsko Zname (Banner) and posed a necessary question “Why we, Macedonians, are a separate nation?”. After all, it was only at that same period (1934) that the Comintern recognized the existence of a separate ‘Macedonian language’ among the rest of the Slav world.
Scholars Georgi Stardelov and Aleksander Hristov, editors of the publications of the Academy of Sciences and the Arts of FYROM, allow not only an emotional overstressing of concepts but an arbitrary process of historiography. The lack of official and plain texts, references, maps, correspondence containing the ethnological terms ‘Macedonia’ and ‘Macedonians’ does not constitute a problem for the ethnogenesis. The official documents of the League of Nations and the journals are distorted (13) so that all references to ‘Bulgarians’, ‘Bulgarophones’ and ‘Slavophones’ are converted hypertextually and by means of metamorphosis in ‘Macedonians’ and “users of the Macedonian language”. (14) With this hypertextual approach, the Treaty of Bucharest and the Treaty of Sevron which followed (1920) had as a result, not the voluntary exodus of those self-identified as Bulgarian inhabitants of Macedonia, but “the violent exile of Macedonians to Bulgaria within an ethnic cleansing that Greece was attempting”. (15)
In 1925, the Greek Government, responding to a diplomatic representation of the United Nations, in relation to the language used by the Slavophones of north-Western Macedonia and in order to deter Serbian or Bulgarian claims, responded: “The population of these villages knows neither the Serbian nor the Bulgarian Language and speaks nothing but a Slav-Macedonian idiom”. This position of the Greek Government was adopted by the Academy of Sciences and the Arts of FYROM in order to conclude, in jubilation: “Thus the Greek Government officially recognized for the first time the separate national entity of the Macedonians within Greece’s borders”. (16)
Nevertheless, hypertextual interventions, selections and omissions aiming at intensifying both information and emotion, are the main characteristics of the irredentism of the Macedoslavs in their official bibliography. (17) Giving the impression of a documented historical statement with reference to the so called statistics and primary archival material of the FYROM Archives (18) the Academy of Sciences and the Arts in its recent publications (19) disregards the Greek Civil war and the events between 1945-1949, but refers to an “expedition of the massacre of the Macedonians” (p.82) and that “the terror, mass murder and other forms of repression proved ineffective when it came to breaking the spirit of Macedonians. According to the statistics 213,000 (Macedonians) were forcibly exiled from the Aegean part of Macedonia”; and, finally, offers as sources the newspapers Protoporos, Rizospastis and the association Macedonian People’s League of Australia (MAPLA) of the Macedoslavs of Australia. The attack of the Prilep Regiment which consisted of Serbians, Bulgarians and Greek patriots against the nazi forces, is described by the bibliography of the Academy of FYROM as “the official beginning of the armed struggle of the Macedonian people” (p. 89) and the internal conflict of the Communist Party of Bulgaria and Serbia as “the struggle for freedom of the Communist Party of Macedonia” (p. 91).
Despite the political confluence between Greece and FYROM, the publication of new historical documents by respectful research institutes of FYROM during the last ten years does not seem to change the distorted picture of the bibliography of the past, which aimed to present the Greek side as deceitful and hypocritical and the Greek governments as blood-letting and terrorizing. From the point of textuality of their bibliography the main omission still remains the correlation between subject and object, between reality and knowledge of reality, between historical facts and evaluation of the historical facts. After all, the reconstruction and reshaping of the past, in respect to how historical facts are viewed and assessed, depends on empirical evidence, the circumstances during particular chronological periods, and the ideological orientation of the historian who documents them.
Some are of the opinion that the achievement of the interim solution after Dayton, in essence, constituted a compromise on behalf of Greece and will have no dividend because it promotes an environment of fragile balances, which can be easily upset, unilaterally or bilaterally. The “wound” of the Balkans remain the various ethnic minorities of the region and the loose and suspicious relationship among them. The existence of Kossyfopedio and the constitutional nationalism in Bosnia and FYROM, for example, constitute a continuous cause that could spark off a war in the region. The existence of national minorities in FYROM watching over each other, whose irridentist inclinations towards the dominant minority of their country will cause instability and tension to the country, do not allow for optimistic forecasts. It is not possible for the Albanians of Kossyfopedio in the New Yugoslavia to resign from their rights and claims for the sake of a temporarily dominant minority, i.e. the Slavs.
To the above we could add the religious irredentism, which is after all propagated diligently by the Catholics and Protestants of the west, so they succeed in de-stabilizing the region or in promoting their own interests, to the detriment, mainly, of the Orthodox people in the region. A characteristic example is the war in Bosnia, which was brought temporarily under control only due to external intervention and the arrival of thousands of troops of the multinational force.
The “interim solution” of Dayton did not work out bilaterally and was attacked by the Macedoslav rigidity. Neither did the prospect of a policy of stability in the region work, with any amount of success, for Greece, considering its European and NATO roles.
It is perhaps reasonable to argue that the Macedonian issue will continue to exist and will be intensified, irrespective of the issue of the nomenclature which is promoted and which FYROM will use. Economic and cultural cooperation, functioning of diplomatic offices, the ingression of Greek trade in Skopje, the dialogue on issues of periphery and expanse, will always act as deterrent factors for less tension between the two countries; all these, however, cannot bring about a viable solution, stability and security in the region because political reality is perhaps a delusion, if we consider history (the cases of Vietnam and Afghanistan) and do not relate to the human factor. As well, the following are additional factors for greater tension:

(a) the different approach to history by the two peoples, which proliferates a persistence on irredentism as a state and constitutional ideology on the part of FYROM and (b) the emergence and imperative of revisionism in the Balkans by the decision-making centers in the USA and Brussels, which encourage the existence of multi-form ethnicities in the region and the fragmentation of all conjoining balances which have worked in the Balkans, so that their continuous mediation is needed and, hence, a continuous control by them is exercised.
The appearance and imperative of revisionism in the Balkans from the decision- making centres in the USA and Brussels will now constitute a determining factor in intergovernmental relations between the countries in Southeastern Europe. The emergence of revisionism will be a constant barrier in any effort for confluence and cooperation of the people of the Balkan countries. The only solutions will be: (a) a smooth and operable incorporation of FYROM in the New Yugoslavia, which, if achieved, will solve partially the problem; and (b) the co-signing of a reliable system of military security in the region, which will, as a result, weaken the interventionist role of the Troika and the Americans in the Balkans.

The biggest problem Hellenism faces is that, on one hand, Greece’s foreign policy is, in many ways, integrated in the rationale of self-interest and internal small-party political expediency of all the suitors to authority.

Notes

Academy of Sciences of Macedonia, Macedonia and its relations with Greece, 1993:8-81.
Earlier Kriste Misirkof and more recently I. Katardziev Vreme na Zreenje, I, pp. 85-106, S. Kisclinovski, Grckatakolonizacija vo Egejska Makedonija 1913-1940, Skopje, 1981, G. Abadziev, et. al. Egesjka Makedonija vo nasata nacionalna istorija, Skopje, 1951, A. Rossos, Review , “Macedonia and Macedonian Nationalism”, pp. 15-42 , 1996.
Review, v. 40(3), p.23, Institute of National History, 1996.
K. P. Misirkov, Za Makedonckite Raboti, pp. 127-130, Sofia, 1903; also D. Iaranov, Makedojia Kato Privodno; Stopansko Tsiato, Sofia, 1945); this was, however, crushed with the treaty of Bucharest (10 August 1913) according to A. Rossos, “Macedonianism and Macedonian Nationalism of the Left”, in Review, v. 40,3, p. 18, Institute of National History, Skopje, 1996.
Makedonjia ve Vremeto na Balkanskite i Prvata Svetska Vojna (1912-1928), Skopje, 1969),
Ristovski, Makedonskata Nacija, I, pp. 194-196, Skopje, 1972; Koneski, Kon Makedonskata, pp. 8-10, Skopje, 1972.
P. R. Slaveikov, “Makedonskitat Rypros”, Makedonjia, 5:3, Constantinople, 1871.
Macedonia and its relations with Greece, pp. 88-135, Skopje, 1993.
B.Ristovski, Makedonskiot Narod I Makedonskata Nacijia, 2 volumes, Skopje, 1973.
Ivan Katardziev, Vreme na Zreenje: Makedonskoto Nacionalno Prasanje Megju Dvete Svetski vojni, 1919-193, Two volumes, Skopje, 1977.
Novica Veljianofski, “The fiftieth anniversary of the first session of ASNOF”, in Review, v. 40, p.6., 1996)
Macedonia and its relations with Greece, p. 88 and p. 135.
League of Nations, Official Journal, Council, Geneva, 6th Year, no 7, July 1925, p. 950, Anne 772, C. 296/1/1925 I; United Nations Library and Archives, Geneva, Doc. No 41/46069 X 4.1.1926. Petition, 20.VIII.1925.
Macedonia and its Relations with Greece, pp. 75-76, Skopje, 1993.
Macedonia and its relations with Greece, p. 76, Skopje, 1993.
Macedonia and its Relations with Greece, p. 76, Skopje, 1993.
We shall avoid those publications, which circulate by nationalistic extremist organizations, for instance that of Krsto Dimitrov of the Macedonian Cultural and Educational Society of Australia, entitled Macedonia, Sydney, 1984, of Toronto and of Skopje.
Archives of Macedonia, AE: 142, 8/48; 206/45; 133/46.
Macedonia and its Relations with Greece, p. 82ff, Skopje, 1993.

Additional Selected Bibliography

Aron, Raymond, Politics and History, Selected Essays, London, 1978
Carr, E.H., What is History?, Palgrave, 1961
Collingwood, R.G., The Idea of History, London, 1946,
Documents University of Cyril and Methodius, On the Struggle of the Macedonian People for Independence and Nation-State, Skopjie, 1985.
Misirkov Petkov Christe, On Macedonian Matters, Sofia, 1904.
Tamis, A. M. The Immigration and Settlement of Macedonian Greeks in Australia, La Trobe University Press, 1994.