Chris Stefou (aka Risto Stefov) was one from the Slavmacedonians that use lies in order to expose his propaganda. He uses in the net name Risto Stefov but sell books with the name Chris Stefou. This article is an answer in his series book that supposed show Greek lies, produces nationalism and interism and of course has many historical un-accuracies and propaganda guide lines and can you read it here
Chris Stefou(aka Risto Stefov) once more use his Historical revisionism (also but less often in English "negationism"), .This term describes the process that attempts to rewrite history by minimizing, denying or simply ignoring essential facts. Perpetrators of such attempts to distort the historical record often use the term because it allows them to cloak their illegitimate activities with a phrase which has a legitimate. It is sometimes hard for a non-historian to distinguish between a book published by a historian doing peer-reviwed acedemic work, and a bestselling "amateur writer of history".
In the specific article Chris Stefou(aka Risto Stefov) used the most known forms , parts from the most common tactics of the Historical Revisionism-Negationism.
- The selective use of facts
- The denial or derision of known facts
- Argument from ignorance (hence the historian community's emphasis on the importance of historical memory and historical studies)
- The assumption of unproven facts
- The fabrication of facts
- The obfuscation of facts
Who is Chris Stefou(aka Risto Stefov)?
He is fun of the so call Macedonism. But what is Macedonism ?
Is the political prevalent in the FYROM advocates revising history in order to project an ethnic group that formed in the 20th century â€“ethnic Macedonians- in the context of the 19th century and even in the Middle Ages. For example, Bulgarian Tsar Samuil is denied the Bulgarian nature of his kingdom, despite overwhelming evidence supporting it, and is defined as a "Slavic" or "Macedonian" king. Further attempts are made to deny the Hellenic nature of the ancient kingdom of Macedon and to seek connections between present day ethnic Macedonians and the Ancient Macedonians.
But Chris Stefou(aka Risto Stefov) speak for ethnic Macedonians ?
Who are they ?
Loring Danforth quoted that "the history of the construction of a macedonian national identity does not begin with alexander the great in the fourth century b.c. or with saints cyril and methodius in the ninth century a.d., as Macedonian nationalist historians often claim. nor does it begin with tito and the establishment of the people's republic of macedonia in 1944 as greek nationalist historians would have us believe. It begins in the nineteenth century with the first expressions of macedonian ethnic nationalism on the part of a small number of intellectuals in places like thessaloniki, belgrade, sophia, and st.petersburg. this period marks the beginning of the process of "imagining" a macedonian national community, the beginning of the construction of a macedonian national identity and culture."
In the last article Chris Stefou(aka Risto Stefov) put some questions as about the Balkan wars and the Treaty of Bucharest. As Historical propagandists and clever user forget as usual to mention some historical facts.
Mark Mazower in "the Balkan"describes in equal distances the situation. He quoted(page 103)that the "Macedonia was a region with no clear borders and not even a formal existence as an administrative Ottoman entity. A bewildering mix of different peoples, hemmed in by newly created states - Greece to the south, Serbia and Bulgaria to the north - it became the focus for their expansionist ambitions at the century's close. Its ethnography, however, posed a challenge for the most ardent Balkan nationalist and had changed out of all recognition since the days of Alexander the Great. The peasantry of the region were predominantly Orthodox, and mostly Slavs; Greek-speakers fringed coastal areas and inhabited the towns.
Of course Chris Stefou(aka Risto Stefov) as clever politically Historical Revisionist-Negationist abandoned the initial paragraph (the title of his thread) and in the rest of the paragraphs we have a delirium of cutting quotes from ancient and modern writers that describe the diffrneces between the ancient Greeks and Macedonians!!!
This tactic use the
- The selective use of facts
- The denial or derision of known facts
- Association fallacy
- Hasty generalization
- The use of attractive or neutral euphemisms to disguise unpleasant facts concerning their own positions
- The use of unpleasant euphemisms to describe opposing facts
- The two wrongs make a right fallacy
- Constant attack against those disputing their views (Ad hominem) (close to slander and libel)
Before 1944 Carter-Norris characterized the slavophones of geographical Macedonia as a "shapeless mass of Slavs with no particular ethnicity."One thing, however, is certain: ethnologically, Tito's new "Macedonian" republic was always a fluid country inhabited by six or seven ideologically contentious groups with ties to Albania, Bulgaria, or Serbia .The 1940 official Yugoslav census recognized only two large ethnic groups in Vardar Province, Slavs(some other said Serbs) at 66% and Muslims at 31 percent. In 1945, 3 years after the formation of the People's Republic of Macedonia, the Slavs disappeared from the census which showed 66 % t "Macedonians."
And I am ask you Chris Stefou(aka Risto Stefov).
Was this remarkable transformation process an en lnasse genetic mutation or a census falsification?"
How could a group of people (Bulgarians and Slavs) change ethnicity, becoming "Macedonians" in five years?
Disregarding the shrill campaign about the Macedonianism of the People'sRepublic of Macedonia, who was responsible for the transformation of the Slavs and Bulgarians into "Macedonians" and the appropriation of the Macedonian name belonging to a neighbour?
How did the egregious political decision to create a new Macedonian ethnicity emerge? There are many documents available now leading to an indisputable conclusion.Kofos quoted Tito's ideologically Marxist authoritarian regime was responsible. The Marxist revolutionary theory on ethnic minorities, cleverly adjusted by Lenin and Stalin to compromise communist internationalism with their own nationalist aspirations, was also responsible.
In the question as about the historical rights in the Treaty of Bucharest Chris Stefou(aka Risto Stefov) as Historical Revisionist-Negationist forget to remmeber some historical facts. The British historian Dakin quoted that the trichotomy of Macedonia did not please the British foreign minister, Sir Edward Grey. He proposed revision of the treaty, strongly opposed by Greece, Serbia, and Romania. France and Germany also rejected Grey's proposal. In the end, Russia went along with France and Germany, with Austria-Hungary remaining uncommitted. Finally, England formally recognized the treaty in the spring of 1914. Most analysts of Balkan foreign and military policy of the early twentieth century would agree that the signing of the Treaty of Bucharest was an event of great historical and political significance. Temporarily at least, it settled the differences among the four Balkan allies and pushed the Macedonian Question to obscurity. George papavizas quoted that â€œit was a great event for Greece because it brought back a large part of Macedonia to Greece, all the way from the Pindus mountain range in the west to the River Nestos in the east. The end of the war and the withdrawal of the Bulgarian troops from sections of eastern Macedonia raised new hopes for cooperation and peace among the tired and devastated Greek Macedonian people, but the dreams were rapidly dashed. Peace was not to come soon in the land.
The Treaty of Bucharest would soon be challenged and undermined by Bulgaria with its great appetite for more Macedonian land and later by the columnists regimes of Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. With support from Austria-Hungary, the Bulgarians would still hold firmly the relay of the struggle for Macedonia, not as Macedonians, but as pure nationalist Bulgarians. Perhaps a final solution of the Macedonian problem could have been achieved if the Treaty of Bucharest had forced an exchange of populations among the three sections of Macedonia as was done later by the Treaty of Lausanne between Greece and Turkey.
George Papavizas make a clever historical quote....After the Balkan Wars and World War I, many leaders, diplomats, groups, parties, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) became involvedwith the problem, exacerbating it rather than solving it. Finally I quote a Cappeli (Bosnia issue) statement that point out "international recognition by no means necessarily endows a state with legitimacy, especially when the recognition has been granted in such an impetuous manner in the midst of a crisis and if legitimacy is held to have any connection with a common history and a sense of common destiny as characteristics of the state's population, without which no state can surviveâ
Every word of the above statement on Bosnia applies to FYROM .
Of course I have and my finally question to Chris Stefou(aka Risto Stefov).
Why avoid any serious debate as about the Macedonian Question if you have as you claim the historical facts with your side ?
- Mark Mazower,The Balkans.
- Loring Danforth, The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational Word.
- Douglas Dakin, The Macedonian Struggle,1966
- George Papavizas, Claiming Macedonia, 2004