*For explicative reasons I have changed (e.g. Macedonia to FYROM) and add some ethnological terms (e.g. Slav) and, I put it in the red.by Stefan Troebst
newbalkanpolitics.org.mkThe disintegration of the Yugoslav Federation placed the historians apart from the successor states before approaching the task of reconsidering the national composition and tendencies of the, until then, dominant common Yugoslav historical “masterpiece”
[1] . In this regard,
FYROM is an exception: the ideology of Yugoslavianism proclaimed in 1952 was here once again subordinated to the one of Macedonianism
[2] , when nation-building became at all possible in 1994, when this republic was constituted. The Yugoslav Communist Party clearly understood that the policy for Macedonianization of the Yugoslav Vardar Macedonia, as well as temporarily of the Bulgarian Pirin Macedonia, promises little success, when there is a parallel policy of Yugoslavization being carried out
[3] . Of course, the renunciation of this supranational concept is an insufficient explanation for the success of the project for creating a Macedonian nation, which was conducted from Belgrade. In 1995, the social anthropologist from the US, Kate S. Brown, tried to examine this success with the help of the “national imagination” in the now independent Macedonia, and, toward this aim, formulated the following leading question:
“In the 1990s,
Slav Macedonians speak a language codified in 1946, spoken by less than two million people, and with a very slender literature. They are members of an Orthodox Church whose authority was established by a socialist political regime in 1968. They are heirs to a 1903 revolution that until the 1940s was described by almost all sources as being Bulgarian. They are descendants from people who were called, and at times called themselves, Serbs or Bulgarians. They have no modern history of independent statehood; the last period that they can claim as boasting a Macedonian regime was in the 11th century. The Republic of Macedonia, established by consensus authorized by a referendum, has no internationally agreed name [...]. Yet its Slavic inhabitants have no doubt that they are Macedonians, and that the territory they occupy has always been and should always be occupied by Macedonians. The question that baffles many Western observers is simple: how do these people know who they are?”
[4] Let us assume that that “you” really know, then one of the two central components of the answer must be: since historians, like politicians, with the help of transmission belts, which were controlled by the state for a long time and became pluralized in the meantime (such as school, church, army, media, the communist party, etc.), transmitted to “you” the news first in one and then in another colour in the form of an historical “masterpiece”. Or, to put it differently, namely, expressed with the diction of the likewise young direction in the research of the analyses of the “historical politics”, led by the elite and the state: We are dealing here with a successful “public creation of the historical, and identifying images which would be developed through rituals and discussions”, that is, with an attempt “at building identities towards interpreting historical events”
[5] .
It seems that the second component of the answer is contrary to the first one: Brown’s question “do the
Slav Macedonians know who they are” is, in principle, meaningless, and it is substantial that they know who they don’t want to be, namely, neither Bulgarians nor Serbs, and, least of all, Greeks or Albanians. The decisive thing for this autochthonous option of “the nostrism”, (our-cism), is not only the policy of memories, conducted by the services of the authorities, which strives towards creating a collective identity, and described and analysed by Kate Brown with the help of the creation and proclamation of the so-called “Krusevo Republic” in 1903, but precisely a policy that strives towards the rational calculus of political-security, social, and last, but not least, economic kind.
It could be said that
Slav Macedonians, declare themselves “Macedonians”, if, for no other reason, than at least because they are, first of all, convinced as to the necessity and all-inclusiveness of the ethno-national self-determination; and, second, because the identification “Macedonians” seems to them to be the most attractive option out of all that could have been chosen from 1944 onwards.
The significant functionality of the state identification apparatus of the historical-political order of rules, led by the elite, which the ethnologist Brown, at first, has difficulties explaining to herself in the Macedonian case, acts much less surprisingly from the aspect of the other social and humanistic disciplines. Miroslav Chroh, Ernest Galner and Benedict Anderson described in the past decades what David D. Lytin expressed in the clearly enunciated formula: “Identities are not inherited like skin colour [...] but constructed like an art object.”
[6] The majority and the foreign historiography for Macedonia have always presented the process of creation of a Macedonian nation as a combination of autochthonous aspirations for integration “from beneath”, and of a state nation-building “from above”.
[7] At any rate, the beginning of the active national-historical direction with the historical “masterpieces”, which was for the first time possible in 1944, developed in Macedonia much harder than was the case with the creation of the neighbouring nations of the Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians and others in the 19th century. These neighbours almost completely plundered the historical events and characters from the land, and there was only debris left for the belated nation. A consequence of this was that first that parts of the “plundered history” were returned, and a second was that an attempt was made to make the debris become a fundamental part of the autochthonous history
[8] . This resulted in a long phase of experimenting and revising, during which the influence of non-scientific instances increased. This specific link of politics with historiography in the Socialist Republic of Macedonia (SRM) and in the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) is covered in detail in the great research project “Mutual Dependence of Historiography and Politics in Eastern Europe”, initiated by Gunter Schteckl in 1975. He set as his objective, despite the successes and the tendencies for development, to clear out, above all, the political function of historical science in the communist countries in Europe in the middle of the sixties. During the course of this work, the focus of the enterprise was the “production” of loyalty of an ideological and national kind
[9] . The result of the study for the Macedonian case, published in 1983, was that this was a case of mutual dependence, i.e. influence between politics and historical science, where historians do not simply have the role of registrars obedient to orders. For their significant political influence, they had to pay the price for the rigidity of the science. The summary is correspondingly pessimistic:
“The main obstacle for methodical revival of the
Slav Macedonian historical science is, no doubt, the typical symbiosis between the politically active temporary historians and those professional politicians, who, on the basis of the specificity of SRM, dedicated themselves intensively on creating a realistic political “operational” national history. There is no similar case of mutual dependence of historiography and politics on such a level in Eastern or Southeast Europe
[10] ”.
What then was directed to the Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia refers, in the greatest part, to present Macedonia as well. The titular nation of the Balkan state, which gained independence in 1991, and its political representatives used the “history” as an argument for retaining the concept of democracy on ethnic lines as a fully closed representation: according to the ethno-centric point of view of the Macedonian majority “well, they did not fight for more than a century” for independence to now divide their own state with the Albanian “immigrants” from the Yugoslav time!
[11] This level of reflection is the same as from the first Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia, in whose (in the meantime outdated) Preamble, the country is defined as a “national state of the Macedonian nation”, while granting lower status to the other third of the population, “the Albanians, Turks, Vlachs, Romani and other minorities”
[12] . Bearing in mind the modern history of the region around Macedonia, this is actually a completely unhistorical definition, because the movement for autonomy in the Osmanli Macedonia near the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, which the Constitutional Preamble refers to, operated in a multiethnic even supranational regional concept in which the notion “Macedonian” existed as a common term for the Bulgarians, Turks, Vlachs, Jews, Serbs, Albanians, Greeks and others
[13] . The ethno-national connotation of the signifier “Macedonian”, which was aimed at the Christian Orthodox, south Slavic language nation, and additionally at the Bulgarians and Serbs, and was itself unknown in the central Balkan region of that time, gained significance only after the Second World War.
In an intellectual area, such as the one described, in which, as in the vivid image of Eric Hobsbawm, “history” is the main ingredient for producing political dynamite
[14] , historians still have a truly important social function. However, professional historical science does not have an easy job. The historiography production in
FYROM in the nineties confirms the great domination of historical and political topics, which can be fully “nationally” instrumentalised
[15] . It is true that the leap into independence in 1991 and the devaluation of the ideological monopoly of the Union of Communists of Macedonia, which was taking place parallel with it, offered a chance for internationalising to the historical science, and thus for developing its professionalism as well, but that has hardly been used so far. The reasons for this are very clear:
The already strong interweaving of politics and historiography, which resulted from the leading role of historians in the
Slav Macedonian-Yugoslav project of nation-building from 1944, has now increased even further
[16] . If the task of historical research in Skopje so far was to promote historically the existence of the
Slav Macedonian nation and to propagate it outside – in the direction of Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia – now it gained another internally political function: the Albanian Macedonians in the new Macedonia, who for the greatest part are Muslims, were supposed to be qualified as an historically autochthonous group, as a tolerated community from “abroad”, which, when it “misbehaves” politically (or in another way) should go back to “where it came from”; according to the majority, it should return to Kosovo, even Albania
[17] . And in this it wasn’t necessary for the institutions that dealt with the historical and scientific research to issue a formal warrant for bringing “historical evidence”, since the post-communists and the nationalists among the
Slav Macedonian historians were unanimous in terms of the aversion towards the proven Albanian Macedonians
[18] , who were pejoratively called “Shiptare” in scientific publications. In a 1998 report for the “Ethnic Changes in the Republic of Macedonia after the Liberation in 1944”, Krste Bitoski, a long-time member in the narrow leading circle of the Institute for National History
[19] , which had a monopoly throughout the history, wrote that there is “exuberant alienation” of the country with “Muslim, and mostly Albanian population”. “The Albanian penetration” which, according to him, “was almost permanent in the last two to three centuries, assumed a form with a clearly defined aim when the Albanian state was constituted in 1913
[20] ”. His ethno-demographic prognosis for the future was this:
“As a result of these changes, the position of the Macedonian people as a majority was seriously threatened, despite the fact that with its struggles and numerous victims in the past, it accomplished Macedonian statehood. The ratio of 5:1 between the
Slav Macedonian majority and the Albanian minority in the first years after the liberation (until1991) were reduced to 3:1; this represents an alarming warning that in the not-so-distant future the Macedonian nation will become a minority, thus losing its constitutionality; and this is a unique case in the history of modern Europe”
[21] .
The fact that such rhetoric was accepted in the Review prepared for the 50th anniversary of the Institute for National History clears out significantly the degree of politicisation, and, at the same time, the scientific level of the Institute. The armed conflict in 2001
[22] between the “National Liberation Army” (NLA or UCK) of the Albanian Macedonians and the security forces of the Republic of Macedonia, which were mainly composed of Macedonians, was an occasion for both Ivan Katardziev and Blaze Ristovski
[23] , the most innovative and productive and at the same time the most well-known history experts, to give similar nationalistic, and, in the case of Ristovski, even racist statements
[24] . Hence, no one is surprised by the fact that there are only a few Albanian Macedonians among the historians working in the Institute for National History, the Universities in Skopje and Bitola, as well as in the Department for History within the Academy of Sciences and Arts.
And it is enough to say, that further to the exceptionally strong interweaving of politics and historiography, it can be concluded that there exists a clear institutional and personal continuity in the scientific area. Thus, more than ten years after independence was announced, the Institute for National History still has the same name – it has not changed, for example, to the Institute for History of Macedonia. Also, the Institute for Slav Macedonian Language “Krste Misirkov” has not been renamed the Institute for Languages of Macedonia; or the great historiography project – the six-volume publication of the whole history, which is in the process of realisation, is called in the same way as its predecessor that dates from 1969
[25] , “History of the Macedonian people”
[26] , and not “History of Macedonia”. “Macedonian people” in a legal sense is not defined as a constitutional nation, but unanimously ethno-national, thus explicitly excluding the non-Macedonian part of the population with its history.
The “masterpiece” for the history of this same “Macedonian nation” from 1944 has remained basically unchanged until 1991. This canonised perspective is focused on two points of culmination, namely first on the anti-Osmanli movement for autonomy from the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, which begins with the founding of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation – VMRO - in 1889. Its culmination is the Uprising on 20 July, i.e. according to the new calendar: 2 August, St. Ilija’s Day (Ilinden) in 1903, which resulted in the proclamation of the “Krusevo Republic”, in a small mountain town in a mountainous region. A second point of culmination is said to be the partisan fight against the Bulgarian, Italian and German occupation during the Second World War. Usually 1941 is taken as its starting point, and its end the constitutive session of the “Antifascist Assembly for the Popular Liberation of Macedonia (ASNOM) on St. Ilija’s Day 1944, as a predecessor to the government of the Republic of Macedonia, which was constituted in 1945 within Tito’s Yugoslavia. At that time the partisan fight was considered to be the completion of the Uprising in 1903, and the constituting of the Republic of Macedonia within communist Yugoslavia as a continuation of the “Krusevo Republic”
[27] . The epithet “Second Ilinden” became om mani padme hum of the politics and the historical science in Skopje. The mass celebration of the 50th anniversary of the first ASNOM session from 1944 should have been the most obvious evidence that even in independent Macedonia nothing should be changed in reference to it
[28] .
The reactions that occurred after the critical examination of how such a holy link was established between the “first” and the “second Ilinden” up to the nineties were described convincingly by the above mentioned Kate Brown using the experiences of both her and of the new historian Jovan Donev from the Institute for National History
[29] .
The modifications of the “masterpiece”, which followed after 1991 were, until recently, mainly cosmetic, which, above all, was due to the strong continuity in the institutions and among the personalities of Macedonian historical science and historical policy during the time before and after 1991. For the historical scene of Macedonia, the Yugoslav Republic, in which post-communist parties ruled until 1998, the same name was convenient as an incubator of the new nation and its state attributes – and not as a straightjacket of the authoritative regime from Belgrade. The reason for this was not so much that there were many emotional gaps between the former communists and their adversaries and victims, as the German diplomat who was familiar with
FYROM, Klaus Schrameyer, assumed in 1997
[30] , but because the possibilities for articulation were completely taken away from these “adversaries and victims” by the post-communist monopoly in the area of science and media
[31] until the change of the government in 1998 and the arrival of the nationalists. Their dissident viewpoint of their own national history sheds light on the true expression “third Ilinden”
[32] which refers to the Referendum for independence on 8 September 1991: The statehood, which was then decided, meant for the post-communists only a continuation of the process for state affirmation which had started in 1994; but the nationalists from the coalition government in 1998 – the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation – Democratic Party for Macedonian National Unity – VMRO-DPMNE, saw in the period from 1903 to 1944 only the first steps toward the edge of periodisation from 1991
[33] , which was essentially decisive.
This is, in fact, the main difference in the interpretation of the history and the historical politics of the nationalists and post-communists. The core of their content – at least from an observer’s viewpoint – may seem only moderately inclined to conflicts, but its institutional aspects point to a degree of sharpness of the conflict. The historical and political floodgate during Tito’s time, the Institute for National History, is still controlled by the post-communists, yet the newcomers have their own institutions for historical examination, among them the Archive of
FYROM from which they have turned into their own bastion
[34] . The director Zoran Todorovski and his predecessor Kiro Dojcinovski, both historians by profession and supporters of VMRO-DPMNE
[35] , succeeded in uniting recognised experts both from the “Ss. Cyril and Methodius” University in Skopje and from the Institute for National History, among them Ivan Katardziev
[36] . This national-conservative group also made a monopoly in the writing of textbooks for the schools – a circumstance that both announced their hasty abandonment of the ideology in a party-communist sense and signified a different interpretation in the national function
[37] .
Bearing in mind the dramatic ethno-political polarisation of the country during the conflict in 2001, it is improbable that there will soon be plurality in the Macedonian historical science to the same degree as there has been internationalisation and development in its professionalism.
However, it is certainly true that the taboos from the period 1944-1991
[38] , the obligatory pro-Serb tendency among the “socialist” basic orientation, a no-less obligatory anti-Bulgarian movement, disappeared during the meantime. Contrary to that, the principled consensus for antiquity, continuity and dignity of the
Slav Macedonian nation, i.e. the commitment to the national-historical paradigm, was put into question only at the very beginning. The historians gave up the ideological premises of Tito’s and post-Tito’s time relatively quickly. Thus, in those parts of the “masterpiece”, whose content consisted of those
Slav Macedonian political organisations from the time before 1944 and their fight against the forces that wanted to divide Macedonia, they introduced currents and persons who were until then taboos because of the ideology of the Communist Party. This refers to people such as Boris Serafov, one of the main actors of the Ilinden Uprising in 1903, who was until then excluded from the national pantheon under the suspicion that he was a “Bugarophil”
[39] ; to Todor Aleksandrov, who from 1919 until his murder in 1924 was president of the Central Committee of VMRO and who brought it onto a pro-world course
[40] ; to Aleksandrov’s anti-communist successor Ivan Mihajlov from 1924 to 1934, and who then became leader of the right wing of VMRO
[41] ; to the anti-communist leader of the partisans Metodija Antonov – Cento
[42] ; the national communist dissident Panko Brasnarov
[43] ; the Bulgarian party official Metodija Shatorov – Sharlo
[44] , positioned in Skopje, a city that was then under Bulgarian occupation; and it also referred to the Macedonian national revolutionary Pavel Shatev
[45] . One early evidence for the change of the perspectives was the short review entitled “Golden Book, 100 Years of VMRO”, published by the then opposition party VMRO-DPMNE in 1993, on the 100th anniversary of the founding of VMRO as a counter-draft of the post-communist representation, the review for the anniversary in which, besides the VMRO-DPMNE President, Ljubco Georgievski, there were the names of six other history experts, among them one from the Institute for National History
[46] .
It is true that it maybe no longer represents a taboo, but the history of the Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia still remains a “white spot”. The only publications that contain news do not come from the pens of the historians, but from party officials, politicians, members of the army, law experts, journalists, etc
[47] . Only two historians with critical and research tendencies from the Institute for National History are exceptions to the rule, namely Novica Veljanovski – the present director of the Institute – and Violeta Achkova, who work on the period 1944-1953
[48] , both of whom have fully expressed themselves about post-war history
[49] .
One concession which puts on pressure certainly stresses the present Macedonian “masterpiece” in comparison to the that before 1991: it shows its beginning. The Communist Party, when writing Macedonian national history, drew a level between, at first, the beginnings of the “Macedonian people” with the phases of the creation of the “Macedonian nation”, and in a Marxist-Leninist way established that they date from the start of the mature industrialisation of the Balkan area – therefore from the middle of the 19th century. In the fifties, this had already been already corrected, so that the Ohrid kingdom of Tsar Samuil from the 11th century – a date which was given advantage over the great movement of peoples and the settlement of the Slavs on the Balkans in the period following the 6th century – marked the beginnings of the “history of the Macedonian people”
[50] . As for the politically conditioned fixing on the “Slavism” of the
Slav Macedonians in the time of Yugoslavia in 1991, the perspectives changed:
“Macedonian” in a modern sense is no longer viewed equally with the “Slavs”, but pertains to its “antique roots” from the time of Philip II, who ruled Macedonia in the 4th century BC, and his son Alexander (the Great), who were now portrayed as national heroes, with their influence spreading over 27 centuries, and there is even a reference to the Macedonian gene, i.e. creating a non-Slavic, ethnic line from Macedonians of ancient times to Macedonians of the present. What in the first half of the nineties was only an imaginary idea for those who dealt with history as a hobby, such as the well-known politician Vasil Tupurkovski
[51] , now belongs to the cannon of the national history. The authoritative “Macedonian Historical Dictionary”, which was published by the Institute for National History in 2001 establishes a historical continuity between the ancient and modern
Slav Macedonians, even an ethnic continuity between their permanent residents:
“After the settlement of the Slavs in Macedonia (6th – 7th century), there was an integration of the greater part of the assimilated Hellenic and Roman descendants of the ancient Macedonians into a Slavic majority, and in this way they contributed to the creation of the new ethnicity on Macedonian soil, in which the dominant role was played by the Slavic element (the language, the habits) and Christian culture”
[52] .
This handbook excludes, in a most severe form, the non-Macedonian (in an ethnical sense) parts of the history of Macedonia from its national historical picture. Thus, if the Albanians from the western and north-west part of the country, where they make up the majority, are at all mentioned, then they appear only as groups who helped the Italian occupational power during the Second World War, or as ideologues of a greater Albanian and anti-
Slav Macedonian program of expansion, with the exception of being “good communists” in the partisan battle
[53] . Among some 60 authors of the short review, there is only one historian who is an Albanian Macedonian
[54] .
The mainstream of the
Slav Macedonian historical science is very much prepared for a consensus when it comes to the hiding of Albanian parts of the historical “masterpiece”, just as when it comes to the incorporation of antiquity into it. However, this does not refer to the newly opened discussion about the Bulgarian aspect of history and culture of Macedonia, which was taboo until recently, and which divides the governing party VMRO-DPMNE into “Bugarophiles” and “Macedonists”
[55] . Here, one can clear out one bitter as much as politically destructive struggle for the past between the new issue of the “old” Bulgarian “masterpiece” of
Slav Macedonian history and its “new” Macedonian variant. The potential influence of the suspicion of that “anti-Bulgarian or de-Bulgarizing aspect of the
Slav Macedonian culture”, which, according to Stephen E. Palmer and Robert R. King, in 1971 presented the main ingredient of the Yugoslav politics from the forties
[56] , was until recently considered by all the political actors and producers of the history in Skopje as being so dangerous that they had to put in every effort to keep this Pandora’s box closed. However, since 1999 this has significantly changed. Thus, Mladen Srbinovski, the Director of the Popular and University Library in Skopje, underlined the “Bulgarian character” of the “first Ilinden” from 1903 as positive, and contrary to that, the anti-Bulgarian, Serbian-inclined character of the “second” one from 1944 as negative, whereas he signifies Macedonianism as a “kitsch”
[57] . In October 2000, the Members of Parliament from VMRO-DPMNE participated in a religious ceremony organised in memory of the suicide-assassin from VMRO, Vlado Cernozemski, who, on orders from Mihajlov and his ethno-national VMRO, which was defined as Bulgarian, killed the Yugoslav king Alexander I Karadzordzevic and the French Minister of Foreign Affairs Louis Bareau in Marseilles in 1934
[58] . In January 2002, VMRO-DPMNE members unveiled in the centre of Skopje a memorial plaque for Mara Buneva, another suicide-assassin, who killed a high-ranking official from Belgrade in 1928 in Skopje, which was then under Serb authority,
[59] . This new pro-Bulgarian tendency of
Slav Macedonian historical politics is completely contrary to the raison d’etre of the Macedonian nation-building, which since 1944 has been conducted from “above”. The ethno-political polarising, which was caused in this way has a historical reflex, since, apart from the Bulgarian option, which has so far been forbidden, another option from the subdued past is beginning to become acceptable, namely the Serb one. The language historian Christian Voss goes so far as to suppose that within the “new positioning of the
Slav Macedonian identity, the academic elite in Skopje is divided into pro-Serb and pro-Bulgarian groups
[60] . If one day, according to the quoted worst case scenario of Bitoski, the Macedonian people becomes a minority and thus loses its statehood, then the culprits will not be the Albanians, but much more the new-old Bulgarian and Serb Macedonians.
The great degree of politicisation of
Slav Macedonian historical science has not disappeared but, on the contrary, has just continued to grow. The polarisation of the political system and the media in the 90s opened up new possibilities to the historians from Macedonia, and gave them a multitude of new impulses. And, when it comes to the internalisation of
FYROM historiography, the national vagueness combined with the deficit knowledge of foreign languages further disrupt the acceptance of non-
Slav Macedonian literature on the history of Southeast Europe in general, and especially the Macedonian one. As a consequence, there is limited international interweaving, and the process of developing the expertise of the historians in Skopje that started in the post-Tito period after 1991 has not accelerated. Yet, there are some flickers of hope: the Institute for National History marked its 50th anniversary in 1998 with a symposium entitled “Macedonian historical science – accomplishments and problems”. However, the anthology that was published contains 43 texts, among which there were not less than three of a (self)critical nature that referred to the typical Macedonian symbiosis between politics and historiography before and after 1991
[61] . The book also contains texts by seven foreign historians, amongst whom three are from Serbia, and one each from Bulgaria, Turkey, the Czech Republic and Germany. There is certainly no text by a Greek or an Albanian, let alone by an Albanian Macedonian. The historical science of this mini-republic, shaken by crisis, has a long way to go from “a history of the Macedonian people” to becoming “a history of Macedonia”. However, a turn in the direction of “the history of the Macedonian Bulgarians”, just as a turn in the direction of “the history of Southern Serbia”, cannot for certain be excluded.
Endnotes
^
back to top* An expose at the conference “One century of postcommunist historiography: Approach to the past in the 90s at the Austrian Institute for Eastern and Southeastern Europe, at the Institute for Eastern European history at the University of Vienna and at the Historical Committee of the Austrian Academy of Sciences“ from 27 to 29 September, 2001. The author expresses his gratitude to Nada Boskovska – Laimgruber (Zurich), Ulrich Biksensic (Berlin), Christian Vos (Freiburgrg/Br.) and to Heinz Wilemsen (Bohum) for the materials, directions and criticism.
[1] Ivo Banac [Historiography of the Countries of Eastern Europe:] Yugoslavia, in: American Historical Review 97 (1992) 1085-1104. – For the notion historical “maestral story“, see: Matia Middle, Monica Gibas, Frank Haddler Sinnsitiftung and Systemlegitimationn durch historisches Erzählen: Überlegungen zu Funktionsmechanismen von Repräsentationen des Vergangenen, in: Zugänge zu historischen Meistererzählungen, ed. Matthias Middell, Monika Gibas, Frank Hadler (Leipzig 2000) 7-36 (= Comparativ 10 [2000], 2).
[2] Wolfgang Höpken, Zwischen „Klasse“ und „Nation“: Historiographie und ihre „Meistererzählungen“ in Südosteuropa in der Zeit des Sozialismus (1944-1990) in: Jahrbücher für Geschichte und Kultur Südosteuropas 2 (2000) 15-60, ovde 55.
[3] Stephen E. Palmer, Robert R. King, Yugoslav Communism and the Macedonian Question (Hamden 1971); Othmar Nikola Haberl, Parteiorganisation und nationale Frage in Jugoslawien (Berlin 1976) 29-33. Vidi ja i glavata za Makedonija vo zbornikot Jugoslovenizam: Histories of a Failed Idea, 1918-1992, ed. Dejan Djokic (London – publishing in process).
[4] Keith S. Brown, Of Meaning and Memories: The National Imagination in Macedonia (Ph. D. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago 1995) 5-6. Potoa izleguva u{te edno izdanie pod naslov: The Past in Question: Modern Macedonia and the Uncertainties of Nation (Princeton, NJ, 2002).
[5] Petra Bock, Edgar Wolfrum, Einleitung, vo: Umkämpfte Vergangenheit. Geschichtsbilder, Erinnerung und Vergangenheitspolitik im internationalen Vergleich, ed. Petra Bock, Edgar Wolfrum (Göttingen 1999) 7-14, ovde 9. Vidi i: Beate Binder, Wolfgang Kaschuba, Peter Niedermüller, „Geschichtspolitik“: Zur Aktualität nationaler Identitätsdiskurse in Europäischen Gesellschaften, vo: Gesellschaften im Vergleich. Forschungen aus Sozial- und Geschichtswissenschaft, ed. Hartmut Kaelble, Jürgen Schreiner (Frankfurt/M. 1998) 465-508.
[6] David D. Laitin, Identity in Formation. The Russian-Speaking Populations in the Near Abroad (Ithaca, London 1998) 11. Vidi i Miroslav Hroch, Die Vorkämpfer der nationalen Bewegung bei den kleinen Völkern Europas. Eine vergleichende Analyse zur gesellschaftlichen Schichtung der patriotischen Gruppen (Prag 1968); Ders., Social Preconditions of National Revival in Europe. A Comparative Analysis of Patriotic Groups Among the Smaller European Nations (Cambridge 1985; 2. Aufl. New York 2000); Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (Ithaca 1983); The State of the Nation. Ernest Gellner and the Theory of Nationalism, ed. John A. Hall (Cambridge 1998); Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Natonalism (London, New York 1983; revised edition 1991). - For the assumptions for possibility of proving the „collective identity“ with his words „Irgendwie-Molluskel“ i.e. a univeral „false concept“ during a discussion at the scientific seminar of the special area for examining 417 (Regionenbezogene Identifikationsprozesse. Das Beispiel Sachsen) at the Leipzig University on 26 April 2001, Luc Nithamer, the most fervent critic of this kind, admitted that the national movements of XIX and XX century can fully be evaluated only as an expression of the group consciousness. See Luz Nithamer in cooperation with so Axel Dosman, Kollektive Identität. Heimliche Quellen einer unheimlichen Konjunktur (Reinbek bei Hamburg 2000).
[7] Mathias Bernath, Das mazedonische Problem in der Sicht der komparativen Nationalismusforschung, in: Südost-Forschungen 29 (1970) 237-248; George D. Matzureff, The Concept of a „Macedonian Nation“ as a New Dimension in Balkan Politics (Ph. D. Thesis, Washington 1978); Stefan Troebst, Makedonische Antworten auf die „Makedonische Frage“ 1944-1992: Nationalismus, Republiksgründung und nation-building in Makedonien, vo: Südosteuropa 41 (1992) 423-442; Ders., Yugoslav Macedonia, 1943-1953: Building the Party, the State and the Nation. In: State-Society Relations in Yugoslavia, 1945-1992, ed. Melissa K. Bokovoy, Jill A. Irvine, Carol S. Lilly (New York 1997) 243-266; und Hugh Poulton, Who Are the Macedonians? (London 2. Aufl. 2000).
[8] Keith S. Brown, Contests of Heritage and the Politics of Preservation in the FYROM, vo: Archeology under Fire. Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East, ed. Lynn M. Meskell (London 1998) 68-86.
[9] Compare Die Interdependenz von Geschichte und Politik in Osteuropa seit 1945. Historiker-Fachtagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Osteuropakunde e. V., Berlin, vom 9.-11. 6. 1976 in Bad Wiessee. Protokoll, ed. Günther Stökl. Vervielfältigtes Ms. (Stuttgart 1977), as well as Günther Stökl, Schlußbericht über das Forschungsprojekt „Die Interdependenz von Historiographie und Politik in Osteuropa“. Köln, 6. Januar 1983, vo: Archiv der VolkswagenStiftung, Hanover.
[10] Stefan Troebst, Die bulgarisch-jugoslawische Kontroverse um Makedonien 1967-1982 (München 1983) 241. Compare with the Macedonian version: Bugarsko-jugoslovenskata kontroverza za Makedonija 1967-1982. translation Slobodanka Popovska (Skopje 1997).
[11] For multinationality in Macedonia see: Heinz Willemsen, Stefan Troebst, Transformationskurs gehalten. Zehn Jahre Republik Makedonien, vo: Osteuropa 51 (2001) 299-315; Magarditsch Hatschikjan, Reparierte Nationen, separierte Gesellschaften. Makedonien und seine neue große Frage. Ebd., 316-330; Keith Brown, in the Realm of the Double-Headed Eagle: Parapolitics in Macedonia 1994-9, in: Macedonia. The Politics of Identity and Difference, ed. Jane K. Cowan (London, Sterling 2000) 123-139.
[12] Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia, 1991. Translation Valentin Stojanovski, Barbara Utevska (Skopje 1992). For changes in the Constitution in 2001 see Ulrich Büchsenschütz, Die Verfassung der Republik Makedonien auf dem Prüfstand, in: Südosteuropa 50 (2001) 134-149, und Ulf Brunnbauer, Doch ein historischer Kompromiß? Perspektiven und Probleme der Verfassungsreform in Makedonien, ebd., 346-367.
[13] Compare Bernard Lory, Approches de l’identité macédonienne, vo: La République de Macédoine. Nouvelle venue dans le concert européen, ed. Bernard Lory, Christophe Chiclet (Paris, Montreal 1998) 13-32; Feroze A. K. Yasamee, Nationality in the Balkans. The Case of the Macedonians, vo: Balkans. A Mirror of the New International Order, ed. Günay Göksu Özdoğan, Kemâli Saybaşılı (Istanbul 1995) 121-132; Fikret Adanır, The Macedonians in the Ottoman Empire, 1878-1912. In: The Formation of National Elites, ed. Andreas Kappeler (Aldershot, New York 1992) 161-191.
[14] „I used to think that the profession of history, unlike that of, say, nuclear physics, could at least do no harm. Now I know it can. Our studies can turn into bomb factories like the workshops in which the IRA has learned to transform chemical fertiliser into an explosive.“ So Eric Hobsbawm, The New Threat of History, vo: New York Review of Books 40 (1993), 21 (16. Dezember) 62-64, ovde 63.
[15] Istoriografija na Makedonija. volume. IV: 1986-1995, ed. Aleksandar Trajanovski (Skopje 1997). See also Gorgi Stojčevski, Die Historiographie Makedoniens in den 90er Jahren, in: Österreichische Osthefte 44 (2002).
[16] Stefan Troebst, IMRO + 100 = FYROM? Kontinuitäten und Brüche in den makedonischen Nationalbewegungen in historiographischer Perspektive, in: Österreichische Osthefte 40 (1998) 217-234. Translation in Macedonian by Ivanka Solomonova see VMRO + 100 = PJRM? Politikata na makedonskata istoriografija, vo: Makedonskata istoriska nauka - dostignuvawa i problemi. Articles from the scientific gathering held in Skopje on 17-19 November 1998 for the 50th anniversary from the work of the Institute for National History, ed. Institute for National History (Skopje 2001) 123-140.
[17] For the legislative parallel action compare: Law on Citizenship of the Republic of Macedonia. In: Official newspaper of the Republic of Macedonia No. 67 from 3 November 1992, 1245-1248, according to which one could obtain citizenship of the Republic of Macedonia only if one was born on the territory of the new state or this was their place of living for at least the first 15 years of their life. About 150,000 people, i.e almost 8% of the population, did not fulfil this criterion at the time.
[18] Katerina Naumoska, Albanci ili Shiptari vo makedonskata istoriografija i ucebnicite po istorija, in: Aktuelni problemi vo makedonskata istoriografija i nastava po istorija, ed. Union of the Associations of Historians of the Republic of Macedonia (Skopje 1996) 81-85.
[19] For this institution, founded in 1948, which in 1963 was joined with the historical department of the Central Committee of the Alliance of Communists of Macedonia, compare: 50 years from the Institute for National History 1948-1998, ed. Institute for National History (Skopje 1998), as well as Gunnar Hering, Mazedonische Geschichtswissenschaft, in: Österreichische Osthefte 1 (1959), 2, 104-110; Gorgi Abadziev, Report of the work of the Institute for National History in Skopje, in: Südost-Forschungen 14 (1955) 457-459; Rudolf Preinerstorfer, Das Institut für nationale Geschichte in Skopje, vo: Südost-Forschungen 23 (1964) 342-345; Jutta de Jong, „Institute for National History“ in Skopje – additional report in: Südost-Forschungen 37 (1978) 204-205; Troebst, Kontroverse, 43-66; und Keith S. Brown, A Rising to Count On: Ilinden Between Politics and History in Post-Yugoslav Macedonia, vo: The Macedonian Question: Culture, Historiography, Politics, ed. Victor Roudometof (Boulder, New York 2000) 143-171.
[20] Krste Bitoski, Etnickite promeni vo Republika Makedonija po osloboduvanjeto vo 1944 god., in: Makedonskata istoriska nauka 437-441, here 437-438.
[21] Ibid. 441
[22] See Ulrich Büchsenschütz, Die Mazedonien-Krise (Bonn 2001) (= Politikinformation Osteuropa der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Heft 95); i Stefan Troebst, Vom interethnischen Schlachtfeld zum ethnopolitischen Stabilitätspol: Gewalt und Gewaltfreiheit in der Region Makedonien im 20. Jahrhundert, in: Nationalitätenkonflikte im 20. Jahrhundert. Ursachen von inter-ethnischer Gewalt im Vergleich, ed. Philipp Ther, Holm Sundhaussen (Wiesbaden 2001) 35-55, hier 48-51.
[23] For Katardziev see his critical work „Inventar na makedonskata nacionalna istorija“ published after „the change“: Ivan Katardziev, Politika i istorija - istorija i politika, in: Istorija 23 (1987 [1991]), 1-2, 9-29, i Makedonskite politickite sili i istoriskoto nasledstvo na makedonskiot narod, in: Istorija 26 (1990-1991 [1992]), 1-4, 7-28, Compare his latest synthetized issues: Ivan Katardziev, Makedonija i Makedoncite vo svetot (Skopje 1996); Sosedite na Makedonija - vcera, denes, utre (Skopje 1998); i Makedonija sproti Vtorata svetska vojna (Skopje 1999). Ristovski also wrote two syntheses recently from his large opus: Blaže Ristovski, Macedonia and the Macedonian People (Wien, Skopje 1999), and Istorija na makedonskiot narod (Skopje 1999).
[24] For the identification of Katardziev of the requests of the Macedonian Albanians and the political participation with the „Great Albania“ program see the German translation of an interview from the Skopje magazine Start br. 116 od 13. april 2001 god. : za{tita od pu{ki, Ustav, 143 -146. Ristovski believes that he has to use the session: „Interethnic Coexistence and Dialogue in the Western Balkan Region. del I: Macedonia“ of the Munich agency for Southeast Europe,Ohrid, in May 2001 in order to warn the non-Macedonian participants of the „African natality“ of Albanian Macedonians. For the report from the session see: URL http://www.suedosteuropa-gesellschaft.com/index.cfm?page=aktuell.
[25] Istorija na makedonskiot narod, ed. Institute for National History, volume 3 (Skopje 1969). To the first issue from 1949 god., whose title speaks about the „Macedonian History“, compare Kratok pregled na makedonskata istorija (Skopje 1949). In the second half of the 40s, even more influential than this textbook was the propagandist article of Kiril Nikolov entitled: Za makedonskata nacija (Skopje 1948).
[26] Istorija na makedonskiot narod, ed. Institute for National History. 6 volumes. (Skopje 1998). Volume 1: Makedonija od praistoriskoto vreme do potpaaweto pod turska vlast (1371 godina), ed. Branko Panov (Skopje 2000); volume 2: Makedonija pod turska vlast (from XIV till the end of XVII century), ed. Aleksandar Stojanovski (Skopje 1998), and volume 4: Ivan Katardziev, Makedonija meu Balkanskite i Vtorata svetska vojna (1912-1941) (Skopje 2000).
[27] James Krapfl, The Ideals of Ilinden: Uses of Memory and Nationalism in Socialist Macedonia. In: State and Nation Building in East Central Europe: Contemporary Perspectives, ed. John S. Micgiel (New York 1996) 297-316; Brown, A Rising to Count On, passim. With this comes one almost parallel attempt at creating an independent Macedonian state by Adolf Hitler in the first days of September 1944 which is hardly taken into consideration in the Skopje historiography. As an exception compare Marjan Dimitrijevski, Obidot na Van~o Mihajlov za sozdavanje na "Nezavisna Makedonija# 1944 godina. Vo: Makedonskata istoriska nauka, 309-329, as well as Stefan Troebst, „Führerbefehl!“ - Adolf Hitler und die Proklamation eines unabhängigen Makedonien (September 1944). Eine archivalische Miszelle, vo: Osteuropa 52 (2002), H. 4.
[28] The continuity in the assessments of the ASNOM decisions allows for a comparison of the authoritative collection for the meeting on the 50th anniverary of ASNOM with those that took place of the 40th, 30th or 20th anniversaries during the Yugoslav period: ASNOM - pedeset godini makedonska dr`ava 1944-1994. Prilozi od nau~en sobir odr`an na 17-18 noemvri 1994, ed. Macedonian Academy of Arts and Sciences, Institute for National History (Skopje 1995); ASNOM vo sozdavaweto na drzavata na makedonskiot narod. Exposes from the scientific gathering held from 29 to 31 October 1984 godina in Skopje, ed. Macedonian Academy of Arts and Sciences (Skopje 1987); ASNOM - ostvaruvanje na ideite za sozdavawe na makedonskata drzava i negoviot megunaroden odglas i odraz. Simpozium posveten na 30-godi{ninata od ASNOM. Skopje, 23-25 oktomvri 1974 godina, ed. Macedonian Academy of Arts and Sciences (Skopje 1977); Razvitokot na drzavnosta na makedonskiot narod. Materials from the Symposium for the 20th anniversary from the first Assembly of ASNOM held on 23 and 24 October 1964, ed. Institute for National History (Skopje 1966). An issue was published for the 50th anniversary with the protocols of the ASNOM Presidium in the period 6 August 1944 - 28 May 1945. Compare: The Presidium of ASNOM Minutes, ed. Institute of National History (Skopje 1994). For the 40the anniversary from the Archive of Macedonia, the postcommunist government in Macedonia in 1993 decided to publish an explanatory edition of ASNOM documents: Dokumenti, ed. Archive of Macedonia, as a joint venture of the Archive of Macedonia, and the institution „Matica makedonska“ supported by the work of the Macednian Diaspora. So far have been published volume I, 1 i I, 2 (Skopje 1984), I, 3 (Skopje 1987), I, 4 i I,5 (Skopje 1994) as well as II,1 (Skopje 1995).
[29] Keith S. Brown, Would the Real Nationalists Please Step Forward: Destructive Nationalism in Macedonia, vo: Fieldwork Dilemmas: Anthropologists in Postsocialist States, ed. Hermine De Soto, Nora Dudwick (Madison 2000) 31-48.
[30] Klaus Schrameyer, Makedonien: Friedlichkeit, Maß und Vernunft – mit balkanischem Charme, vo: Südosteuropa 46 (1997) 661-694, ovde 665.
[31] Heinz Willemsem, Machtwechsel in der EJR Makedonien, vo: Südosteuropa 48 (1999) 16-28.
[32] For the „Third Ilinden“ see Vladimir Cupeski, A bre Makedonce. Abecedar i pamfleti za naci-bolsevizmot 1982-1990 (Skopje 1993) 33-36; i Brown, A Rising to Count On, 163. The difference about the „official“ movement of the history can easily be seen in the example from the chronicle published for the 50th anniversary of the existence of the Institute for National History in 1998 god. Here it refers to the „second Ilinden“. Compare Novica Veljanovski, Approaching the Fiftieth Anniversary, vo: 50 godini Institut za nacionalna istorija, 7-17, ovde 7.
[33] Brown, A Rising to Count On, 165.
[34] For the archive see its Homepage (URL
http: //www .arhiv. gov. mk /Ang1.htm) . (URL http://www. soros. org. mk /archive/index.htm).
[35] For the revisionist picture of the history of the director of the Archive of Macedonia compare Zoran Todorovski, Dejnosta na desnite strui i na organizaciite, vo: Aleksandar Trajanovski i dr., "Zlatna kniga 100 godini VMRO# (Skopje 1993) 152-192; Vnatre{nata Makedonska Revolucionerna Organizacija 1924-1934 (Skopje 1997); and Makedonskata istoriografija i politikata (aktuelni refleksii vo makedonskiot pluralisti~ki sistem), vo: Makedonskata istoriska nauka, 505-517. For a no less revisionist view of the world compare Kiro Dojcinovski, Makedonija niz vekovite (Skopje 1995).
[36] See "Antijugoslovenski memoari“ by Gligor Krsteski, Otpori i progoni 1946-1950 (Skopje 1994), as well as the two „revisionist“ editions: Nastani na Skopskoto kale na 7 januari 1945 god. Dokumenti, ed. Archive of Macedonia, Institute for National History, Matica makedonska (Skopje 1997), and: Italijanski diplomatski dokumenti za Makedonija. Volume 1, book 1: 1918-1924, ed. Ivan Katarxiev, Alenka Lape (Skopje 2001).
[37] Vidi Evangelos Kofos, The Vision of „Greater Macedonia“. Remarks on FYROM’s new school textbooks (Thessaloniki 1994), and Sofia Vouri, War and National History. The Case of History Textbooks in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (1991-1993), vo: Öl ins Feuer? Schulbücher, ethnische Stereotypen und Gewalt in Südosteuropa, ed. Wolfgang Höpken (Hannover 1996) 179-214, ovde 180-181. Among the 27 stated authors of history texbooks (212-213) there are names of only four cooperators from the Institute for National History – among them two with a clear orientation towards VMRO-DPMNE. See: Ivan Katardziev, Aktuelni problemi na makedonskata istoriografija, vo: Aktuelni problemi, 7-11, here 10, as well as Naumoska, Albanci ili Shiptari.
[38] Christian Voss, Sprach- und Geschichtsrevision in Makedonien. Zur Dekonstruktion von Blaže Koneski, vo: Osteuropa 51 (2001) 953-967.
[39] Brown, A Rising to Count On, 155-160.
[40] Compare the significant hagiographical performance by Dimitar Galev: Todor Aleksandrov od avtonomija do samostojna drzava (Skopje 1995), and Branislav Sinadinovski, Todor Aleksandrov (Sveti Nikole 1995).
[41] Ivan Katardziev, Predgovor, in: Ivan Mihajlov, Po trnliviot pat na makedonskoto osloboditelno delo, ed. Ivan Katardziev (Skopje 2001) 5-20 (Macedonian translation of „Bregalnicki“ [= Ivan Michajlov], Po trŭnlivija pŭt na makedonskoto osvoboditelno delo [O. O. 1939]). See Katardziev, Makedonija sproti Vtorata svetska vojna; Makedonija megu Balkanskite i Vtorata svetska vojna; as well as in: Vreme na zreenje. Makedonskoto nacionalno prasane megu dvete svetski vojni (1919-1930). Tom 2 . (Skopje 1977).
[42] Fidanka Tanaskova, Metodija Andonov Cento (Skopje 1990); Cento - covek, revolucioner, drzavnik. Anthology of materials from the Round Table held on 26.11.1991 in Prilep, ed. Orde Ivanoski (Prilep 1993); Blaze Ristovski, Cento i centovizmot vo istorijata i vo sovremenosta, vo: Sovremenost 43 (1993), 5-6, 167-175.
[43] Vo Nau~en sobir "Panko Bra{narov# & @ivot i delo (1883-1951)“, ed. Vera Veskovic-Vangeli (Titov Veles 1992).
[44] Riste Bunteski-Bunte, Metodija Satorov-Sarlo (Politi~ki stavovi) (Prilep 1997).
[45] Pavel Satev: vreme - zivot - delo (1882-1951), ed. Institute for National History (Skopje 1996). The Archive of Macedonia also announced an anthology for Satev : Zbornik Pavel Satev, ed. Arhiv na Makedonija (Skopje – prepared for publishing).
[46] Ljupco Georgievski, VMRO – DPMNE (1990-1993), follower of VMRO’s ideas, in: „Zlatna kniga 100 godini VMRO“, 249-255. For the publications of the postcommunists for the anniversary compare: Sto godini od osnovanjeto na VMRO i 90 godini od Ilindenskoto vostanie. Articles from the scientific gathering held on 21-23 October 1993, ed. Macedonian Academy of Arts and Sciences (Skopje 1994), and Ivan Katardziev, Sto godini od formiranjeto na VMRO - sto godini revolucionerna tradicija (Skopje 1993).
[47] Radoslav Ogwanovski, Makedonija vo sedumdesettite godini (Skopje 1990); Slavko Milosavlevski, Strav od promeni. Krizata na politickiot sistem na Jugoslavija vo sedumdesettite godini (Skopje 1991); Ilija Maksimovski, Politickiot zatvorenik za Makedonija (Skopje 1991); Dimitar Mircev, Dramata na pluralizacijata (Skopje 1991); Stojan Risteski, Sudeni za Makedonija (1945-1983) (Skopje 1993); Stavre Xikov, Makedonija vo komunisti~kiot triagolnik (Skopje 1993); Mitre Arsovski, Hronika na eden neminoven raspad (Skopje 1995); Ilija Maksimovski, Makedonija vo strategijata na pretsedatelot? (Skopje 1995); Grozdan Cvetkovski, Za {to se borevme (Skopje 1995); Krste Crvenkovski, Slavko Milosavlevski, Nasiot pogled za vremeto na Kolisevski (Skopje 1996); Kole Mangov, Vo odbrana na makedonskiot nacionalen identitet (Skopje 1998); Nada Aleksoska, Smiljan Griovski - agentot na CIA (Skopje 1999); Jovan Pavlovski, Misel Pavlovski, Vcera i denes - Makedonija! Praktikum po istorija (Skopje 2000); Kiro Gligorov, Makedonija e se sto imame (Skopje 2001).
[48] Novica Veljanovski, Administrativno-centralisticiot period vo drzavno-pravniot razvoj na Makedonija (1945-1953) (Skopje 1992); Makedonija vo jugoslovensko-bugarskite odnosi 1944-1953 (Skopje 1998); Violeta Ackoska, Zadrugarstvoto i agrarnata politika 1945-1955 godina; Zadolzitelniot otkup vo Makedonija 1945-1953 godina (Skopje 1995); Agrarnata reforma i kolonizacijata vo Makedonija 1944-1953. Dokumenti, ed. Violeta Ackoska (Skopje 1997).
[49] Novica Veljanovski, Obid za periodizacijata na istoriskoto minato po Vtorata svetska vojna (1945-1991), in: Glasnik na Institutot za nacionalna istorija 42 (1998), 2, 7-26; Violeta Ackoska, Mestoto i ulogata na vladite na Makedonija. Some aspects of their consituting and work 1945-1995 godina, in: Glasnik na Institutot za nacionalna istorija 39 (1995), 1-2, 15-31.
[50] For this, see the published anthology of standard sources from the Faculty for Philosophical and Historical Sciencies at the Kiril and Metodij University, Skopje, for the Macedonian national history, whose first volume covers the period from the arrival of the Slavs in Macedonia till the end of the First World War (Dokumenti za borbata na makedonskiot narod za samostojnost i za nacionalna dr`ava. Tom I: Od naseluvaweto na Slovenite vo Makedonija do krajot na Prvata svetska vojna, ed. Faculty of Philosophical and Historical Sciences at the „Ss.Kiril i Metodij“ University - Skopje 1981) as well as the one-volume synthesis of the Macedonian Academy of Arts and Sciences, in Russian translation, published in 1986, and whose first volume covers the period from the 4th to the 14th centuries, (Makedonija i makedonskij narod. Istorija makedonskogo naroda, ed. Makedonska akademija na naukite i umetnostite [Skopje 1986] 5-64).
[51] Vasil Tupurkovski, Istorija na Makedonija - Filip II (Skopje 1995).
[52] O. A., Anticki Makedonci, in: Makedonski istoriski recnik, ed. Institut za nacionalna istorija (Skopje 2000) 39-40, ovde 40. sporedi i Nade Proeva, Studii za antickite Makedonci (Skopje 1997).
[53] While the topics „Albanians“ and „Albanian“ are missing; under the expression „Greater Albania“ is that „The idea for greater Albania today presents the constant political orientation of the Albanian national-chauvinist circles.“ (O. A., Golema Albanija. In: Makedonski istoriski recnik 131).
[54] Ibid. 6.
[55] Thus, Prime Minister Georgievski in 1996 changed the orthographic form of his name from the Macedonian variant „Ljupco“ into the one with Bulgarian way of writing „Ljubco“.
[56] Palmer, King, Yugoslav Communism, 134.
[57] Mladen Srbinovski, Obedi nistoznost (Skopje 1999) 59.
[58] Bugarska propaganda u Makedoniji. Počast atentatoru. In: Vreme od 2 noemvri 2000 god., 40. For the assassination itself look in Stephen Clissold’s “Murder in Marseille“. Chapter 3: Marseille, in: The South Slav Journal 7 (1984), 1-2 (23-24) 18-26.
[59] Utrinski vesnik from 14 January 2002. The memorial plaque was erected at the site of the assassination, where during the years of the Bulgarian occupation of Skopje from 1941 to 1944 there was a similar memorial plaque. – For the act and its consequences see Buneva see Stefan Troebst, Mussolini, Makedonien und die Mächte 1922-1930. Die „Innere Makedonische Revolutionäre Organisation“ in der Südosteuropapolitik des faschistischen Italien (Köln, Wien 1987) 279-288.
[60] Voss, Sprach- und Geschichtsrevision, 954.
[61] Violeta A~koska, Politikata i istoriografija 1944-1998, vo: Makedonskata istoriska nauka, 487-503; Todorovski, Makedonskata istoriografija i politika; i Troebst, VMRO + 100 = PJRM?.
by Aristede Caratzas
'book´ "The Macedonians in Victoria" published in October 2007 by our very own Victorian Multicultural Commission, provides an example of the quandary a ´multicultural´ organization can find itself in, when caused to ´adjudicate´ not only between two opposing forms of nationalism among ethnic minorities but when members of those minorities, in this case, those purporting to be ´Macedonians´ appear to abuse the goodwill and benign interest of the authorities in promoting ethnic harmony, by misapplying their resources towards indulging in polemics that may cause inter-ethnic strife.