Modern Macedonian History

Pr Loring Danforth: Macedonians(of the FYROM) are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians; they are Slavs.

2009-12-02T03:28:00.005+02:00

An intresting comment took place from Pr. Loring Danforth regarding the ethicity of the Slavmacedonians at the history-of-macedonia.com
Here is the abstract:

I have always stated, and I repeat here, that modern Macedonians (people who have a Macedonian and not a Greek national identity) are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians; they are Slavs. This means that they speak a Slavic language. Similarly Greeks are Indo-Europeans, since they speak an Indo-European language. This does not mean that Macedonians should be called Slav Macedonians, any more than Russians should be called Slav Russians or Greeks should be called Indo-European Greeks. In my opinion, Macedonian nationalists who deny they are Slavs and claim they are direct descendants of Alexander the Great and the ancient Macedonians are extremists. They are making inaccurate statements that are bad scholarship and bad politics. Building a statue of Alexander the Great in Skopje and naming the Skopje airport after Alexander the Great are in my opinion irresponsible acts that are not in the best interests of the Republic of Macedonia.

I have also consistently stated that people who have a Greek national identity and a Macedonian ethnic or regional identity as Macedonians also have every right to identify themselves as Macedonians. In my opinion no one has the right to monopolize the term “Macedonians” and deny others the right to identify themselves as Macedonians. References to “occupied” portions of Macedonia are also extremely irresponsible and inappropriate. I support the human rights of the Macedonian minority in Greece, as I do the rights of the Greek minority in Turkey, and the Albanian minority in the Republic of Macedonia.

My remark goes to the...regional identity as Pr Danforth quoted. There is not any kind of regional identity. There are two kinds of identity: .......
...National and Cultural.

A Macedonian according to several sources [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Macedonian][http://www.thefreedictionary.com/macedonian] is a native or inhabitant of the (Ancient or Modern) Macedonian region. Any usage diffrent from this that give from the dictionaries has political and ambiguous motives.The use of the Macedonian name as a state (or to name a ethnic group) appellation in no way confers the right to appropriate everything and anything derived from or pertained to the entire region of Macedonia. This needs to be legally clarified and remain binding erga omnes. The state name needs specifically to refer to and describe the present region of FYROM. It should apply erga omnes in multilateral and bilateral international relations and transactions and should be observed by all organizations, states, and other non-governmental international organizations, including the government and the agencies of FYROM. As Kofos said [ELIAMEP, April 2009, The Current Macedonian Issue between Athens and Skopje:Is there an Option for a Breakthrough? ] Greek and FYROM parties should accept the name used by the inhabitants of FYROM for their region of geographical Macedonia, i.e. Vardar Macedonia, or preferably Vardar Makedonija.

It is therefore clear that the appropriation of the name Macedonia by the FYROM, on which they have based all their propaganda and even their national existence, does not even correspond to their own false national identity since their artificially created state does not have any national homogeneity. This appropriation of the Macedonian name goes against every principle of justice and conceals other expediencies which directly insult Greek national and Macedonian Cultural Identities as shows the unchanging nature of their continuous propaganda.

I am a Macedonian , however I am in no way identified with or related to the newly formed independent state referred to as “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” ; I am instead insulted by the fact that I cannot be known as a Macedonian without being identified by others as related to FYROM. This is a rape of my identity and a continuing cultural genocide.

Antony D. Smith remarks [National Identity, Oxford,1991] that there are two main kinds of ethnic extinction in the full sense: genocide and ethnocide, which is sometimes - at times misleadingly — called «cultural genocide». In one sense genocide is a rare and probably modern phenomenon. It includes those cases where we know that mass death of a cultural group was premeditated and the basis of that targeting was exclusively the existence and membership of that cultural group.

My cultural identity has been usurped.

Encyclopedia Britannica Blunders (Greece – Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)

2009-11-27T12:59:00.000+02:00

Australian Macedonian Advisory Council

November 27, 2009

Dear Editor,

We (The Australian Macedonian Advisory Council) are writing to you regarding two pages of your online encyclopedia, under the section “Countries of the world”. As an Australian-Greek organization we are extremely disappointed with the sections aforementioned, as in the first article “Countries of the world – Greece” you incorrectly refer to the ethnic composition (under Demography) of 1.8% “Macedonian”. Greece does not recognize any such minority in its borders, as there are already 2.2 million Greek Macedonians who already refer to themselves as Greeks firstly and Macedonians secondly – just like people from Athens refer to themselves as Greeks firstly and Athenians secondly. This is a huge blunder on your behalf, as you have quoted your source as a year 2000 unofficial source. An OFFICIAL source is already available for your use (provided by the Hellenic Republic), and shown in the CIA Factbook – Greece (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gr.html) and throughout many other sources.

The second page in question is the page titled “Countries of the world – Macedonia”, in which you incorrectly use a blurb which states: “DId you know? – In Plutarch’s classic history of Alexander The Great, he claims that the famous Macedonian general was tutored as a youth by none other than Aristotle.” The fact that you present is indeed correct (i.e. Alexander The Great was tutored by Aristotle), but this fact has nothing in common with the country that you are associating it with i.e. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). The region of ancient Macedonia (the land of Alexander the Great) is in Greece, as confirmed by many classical scholars, including the 356 scholars involved with the “Macedonia Evidence Initiative” (www. macedonia-evidence.org). Alexander The Great was born in Pella (coordinates 40°45′36″N 22°31′09″E / 40.76°N 22.51917°E) and his father was born in Aegai (coordiantes 40°28′42″N 22°19′19″E). The Australian Macedonian Advisory Council (AMAC) demands an explaination as to why an unofficial source was quoted in the “Countries of the world – Greece” page, and why a blurb as such has been associated with the FYROM. A correction to both of these pages is quite necessary on your behalf. We patiently await your reply.

Please refer to:
(http://www.history-of-macedonia.com/coppermine/albums/userpics/10001/britanicaalmanac2010.jpg) and
(http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/2069/pagesfrombritannica2010.jpg) for clarification.

Thanking you,
Australian Macedonian Advisory Council
info@macedonian.com.au
http://www.macedonian.com.au/
www.macedonian.com.au/forum

The creation of UNSCOB and its investigation into the question of the "paidomazoma "(Greek Abducted Children)

2009-11-25T18:29:00.001+02:00

The Greek question was brought before the Security Council of the United Nations three times during 1946. The first two debates, which were occasioned by complaints from the Soviet Union and the Ukraine respectively, ended inconclusively.[1] The third debate followed an appeal by the Greek Government, made on 3rd December 1946 after detailed consultations with the United States, that the Secretary-General "give early consideration to a situation which was leading to friction between Greece and her neighbours". [2]

On 19th December 1946 the Security Council established a commission of investigation, but the report which was presented by this body on 23rd May 1947 was not unanimous, the western members supporting the views of the Greek Government, while the representatives of the Soviet Union and Poland rejected the findings of the majority. During the following debates in the Security Council, resolutions from both sides were defeated by vetoes, and the matter again ended in stalemate.[3]

The question was then brought by the United States before the General Assembly where there ....
...could be no Soviet veto, and on 21st October 1947 the General Assembly (by forty votes to Six, with eleven abstentions) voted to establish The United Nations Special Committee on the Balkans (UNSCOB). UNSCOB was to consist of representatives from Australia, Brazil, China, France, Mexico, the Netherlands, Pakistan, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Seats were "being held open" for the Soviet Union and Poland who refused to participate.

UNSCOB's principal task was to investigate the charges, made by the Greek Government, that the guerrillas in Greece were receiving support from Albania, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. These countries, however, refused to cooperate or even to allow the UNSCOB observers to enter their territories. On 1st December 1947 UNSCOB established its headquarters in Thessalonica. It had already been decided to set up six observation groups each composed of four observers and auxiliary personnel. Six zones were deliminated in northern Greece (sec map reproduced on page 156-157) and by the end of February 1948 groups 1, 2, 3,4 and 6 were in their respective zones.[5] The UNSCOB teams relied heavily on American logistical support, and the Greek Government, in contrast to its northern neighbours, declared its complete readiness to cooperate; in fact a Greek liaison representative "was available continuously from the commencement of the Special Committee's work".[6]

Both from the history of UNSCOB's establishment by the United Nations and from the fact that of those countries directly concerned only Greece was willing to cooperate with the Committee it is evident that UNSCOB could hardly be expected to approach to Greek question in a completely impartial manner. Indeed a recent American study has asserted that "the State Department virtually wrote the UNSCOB report": The American Secretary of State George Marshall on 13th May 1948 sent the US representatives in UNSCOB a detailed list of conclusions for UNSCOB to reach. These (wrote Marshall) were "framed so that desirable recommendations would flow naturally" from them. [7]

As already mentioned, UNSCOB was officially asked by the Greek liaison representative on 27th February 1948 to investigate the claim that Greek children were being abducted to the North, and on 4th March the Committee "formally took up the problem", instructing its observation groups to "give top priority to an examination of the Greek Liaison Service charges".[8] In their report dated 30th June 1948 (with a supplement dated 10th September) UNSCOB was able to present a great deal of information about evacuation of children carried out by the communist guerrillas. This information was based on three main sources: a) information supplied by the Greek Government, b) monitoring of radio stations in the other Balkan countries, and c) reports from the observation groups based primarily on interrogation of a large number of witnesses.

The witnesses, especially, supplied much important information which clearly had considerable influence on the conclusions reached by UNSCOB and set out in these reports. It is therefore important to know how the witnesses were selected and how the actual questioning took place. This was not explained in the reports from 1948, but a later report from 2nd August 1949 described the procedure which was eventually worked out. (It is not clear to what extent this procedure was also used in 1948).

The observers were instructed to "interrogate witnesses selected at their own discretion or brought to their attention by liaison officers of any of the four governments concerned".In practice this meant by the Greek Government, as none of the others cooperated. Witnesses were to be told, prior to interrogation, that they were not before a court of law, but before representatives of the United Nations Special Committee; that they were not obliged to answer any questions or to divulge any information which they did not desire to divulge, and they were to be assured that their names would be kept secret. It was recognized, however, in another section of this report that “witnesses have usually been presented by the Greek Liaison Service and many have been previously interrogated by Greek authorities”.

Section 4 of the report of June 1948 was entitled "Removal and Retention of Greek children”. It stated that the Special Committee "after a careful study of the problem based on all its information" had been able to "establish the following facts":

(1) A census of children has been taken by the guerrillas in certain areas of Greece under guerrilla control. The evidence is that this census is in connexion with the removal of children.
(2) A large number of children has been removed from certain areas of northern Greece under guerrilla control to Albania. Bulgaria and Yugoslavia and, according to radio reports from Belgrade and Sophia, to certain other countries to the north. However, the Special Committee has not been able to verify, by means available to it, the precise number of children involved.
(3) While a number of parents have agreed under duress to the removal of their children, and some children have in fact been forcibly removed, other parents have consented- or at least failed to object, to such removal. It has not been possible for the Special Committee to determine the exact number of children removed under these categories.
(4) The number of cases reported point to the existence of a programme to remove children from areas of Greece under guerrilla control to certain countries to the north.
(5) Although the responsibility for the initiation of the plan is not known to the Special Commitee, it follows from the appearance of Greek children on a large scale in the countries to the north and the numerous announce ments of the radios controlled by these Governments that the programme is being carried out with the approval and assistance of these Governments" .[10]

The wording seems strikingly moderate. In view of the broadcasts made by the communists themselves, there could hardly be any doubt that an evacuation was taking place. The Special Committee was particularly careful in its discussion of three crucial questions: the number of children involved, the extent to which the evacuation was voluntary, and the question of who was responsible for initiating the plan. However, an annex to the report presented some details which permit at least tentative answers.

Concerning the area, the report stated that the census of children had been taken in the following two main areas of northern Greece controlled by the guerrillas:

(a) The Slav-speaking area of Western Macedonia: The region around Lake Prespa, Florina and Kastoria, which is inhabited mostly by Greek citizens who speak a Slav language.
(b) The eastern part of Greek Thrace: There have also been a few reports of census-taking in areas of Epirus and in central and eastern Macedonia under guerrilla control.[11]

Concerning the time: "the departures were reported to have begun as early as January, but, for the most part, to have occurred in March". [12]

Finally, on the question whether the children were removed by force, UNSCOB emphasised that the "sources have disagreed", and a large number of individual witness depositions were cited in summary form. Some spoke of children taken by force, or parents "firmly opposed to letting their children go". Three witnesses in the Lake Doiran area said that "they had fled with their children to avoid having them taken by the guerrillas." A witness from the Kastoria area said that "a large number of children from "his village took refuge in Kastoria to avoid being taken by the guerrillas, and that, in his opinion, only 10 % of the parents consented to the removal of their children". But it was also emphasised that the observation groups "found considerable evidence that many of the children, particularly in the Slav-speaking area of Western Macedonia, were taken with the consent of their parents". A witness from the lake Prespa region said that "many parents were happy to see their children go", and in the village of Kato Lefki (near Kastoria) Observation Group 2 “found no proof that any child was taken against the wishes of its parents”. [13]

The witness statements are cited in summary form and by their very nature do not allow any kind of statistical treatment, A resume of the reports from Observation Group 2 (based on Fiorina) stated that "a fairly large number of parents, and especially guerrilla sympathizers, favoured the departure of their children, but there was lively opposition from the majority of parents". It also postulated a marked difference between Slav-speaking and Greek-speaking villages:

"When a village sympathized with the guerrillas, the guerrillas left the parents free to refuse to hand over their children and in Slav-speaking villages the majority of parents willingly accepted the offer In Greek-speaking villages the process resembled conscription; attempts were made to convince the parents and, after a minority of them volunteered, a list of all the children in the village was drawn up notwithstanding the parents1 desires. The summary report of Group 2 did not, however, establish the actual removal of children from its area to foreign countries."[14]

Observation Group 6 (Thrace) "reported that, up to 31 March, the children sent to the countries north of Greece were the children of guerrillas or guerrilla sympathisers*' and found that "the plan to take Greek children into foreign countries has been carried out, to some extent at least, but there is no evidence to indicate whether these children were abducted by Force. [15]

NOTES
[1] - Sec Van Coufoudakis, The United Stales, the United Nations, and ihc Greek Ouesiion 1946-1952". in: John υ Iatrides (ed.), Greece in the 1940s. Λ Nation in Crisis (Hanover and London. 1981) 275-297, especially 278*281.
[2]- UNSCOB Report A/574 (1948) p. 1
[3]- Van Coufoudakis, op.cit. p. 281-285.
[4]- UNSCOB Report A/574 (1948) p. 1-3
[5]- UNSCOB Report A/574 (1948) p. 3.
[6]- UNSCOB Report A/574 (1948) p. 4. section 26.
[7]- Lawrence S. Winner. American Intervention in Greece, 19431949. (New York, 1982) 256.
[8]- UNSCOB Report A/574 (1948) p. 18. section 117-118.
[9]- UNSCOB Report A/935 (1949) p. 23.
[10]- UNSCOB Report A/574 (1948) p. 19. section 120.
[11]- UNSCOB Report A/574 (1948) p. 29 (Annex II).
[12]- UNSCOB Report A/574 (1948) p. 30 (Annex II.
[13]- UNSCOB Report A/574 (1948) p. 30 (Annex II).
[14]- UNSCOB Report A/574 (1948) p, 31. The distinction between “a fairly large number of parents” and "the majority of parents" is no! a very clear one. nor is it easy to see bow ihc authors of the UNSCOB report arrived at this estimate. In fact this is a point where the language of the report was, perhaps deliberately, vague. Summarizing the evidence gathered from the observation groups (on p. 30) the report slated that "observatitMi groups tound some evidence that children were taken from some villages without the consent of their parents", |...| "but the observation groups also found considerable evidence t that many of the children (...| were taken with the consent of their parents". (Sec also section 3 of the "established fads" cited above). From the information available toil, UNSCOB was unable to decide which group of children was the larger, and this would seem equally impossible today.
[15]- UNSCOB Report A/574 (1948) p. 31.

by Lars Baerentzen
Abstract from the article : The "Paidomazoma" and the Queen's Camps, pages 132-138
Book: Studies in the history of the Greek Civil War, 1945-1949
FOR FAIR USE ONLY

Fictitious Academia: Political activism, covered in academic cloak in the University of Utah

2009-11-19T17:20:00.005+02:00

By Nina Gatzoulis*

The presentations of the majority of the academics participating in the 7th “Macedonian”- North American Conference on “Macedonian” Studies at the University of Utah that took place from November 5-7, 2009, amounted to an anti-Hellenic delirium. The Universities of Utah and Chicago jointly organized the conference, in cooperation with the United “Macedonian” Diaspora (UMD) of Skopje based in Washington D.C.

Most of the presenters, with a few exceptions, aimed to launch an aggressive propaganda attack against Greece, presenting their views without scientific and academic research criteria, without references to sources thereby promoting unilateral research.

Dr. Vasiliki Neofotistos in her presentation “Alexander the Great and the mythic lands”, implied that ...educator Thanasis Lerounis approached the Kalash tribe in Afghanistan through an education program, funded by Greek ministries and thus created the myth of the Kalash as descendants of the soldiers of Alexander the Great. However, she claimed that “Macedonia” approached the tribe of the Hunza in 2008 on private initiative. Dr. Neofotistos used the term “Macedonia” freely, rather than the Republic of “Macedonia,” creating the impression that the entire region of Macedonia (in Greece, Bulgaria, and Albania) belongs to Skopje. Dr. Neofotistos referred to FYROM as “Macedonia”, and she only named the Slavs as “Macedonians”, while the Albanians citizens of “Macedonia” were referred as “the Albanians”, which is academically unacceptable.
...the

An unrivaled individual in anti-Hellenism was Dr. Philip Shashko, whose presentation titled “Tasos Kostopoulos on Macedonia and the Slavs in Greece: When a forbidden language speaks truth to power”, was an eruption of hatred against Greece. Dr. Shashko cited, and presented as scientific evidence, the contents of Tasos Kostopoulos’ book (journalist of the Sunday addition Ios in the Greek newspaper Eleftherotypia)!

The culmination of the political-activism and racism with a “scientific” cover was Dr. Loring Danforth’s presentations. Dr. Danforth spoke about the research he has completed for the book he has co-authored with the Dutch anthropologist who teaches at the University of Thessaly, Dr. Riki van Boeschoten, entitled “Macedonian refugee children from the Greek Civil War”. Although it was stated that during the Civil War in Greece, Greek and “Macedonian” children were kidnapped and led by the communists into communist countries, their research did not include any Greek children.

Mary Rossova from a village of “Aegean Macedonia" in her presentation “From Trnaa to Toronto: The life story of a dete begalec”, recounted how her family with the help of partisans fled to escape the “bad” Greek soldiers in locations across the Iron Curtain countries. She talked about her life in the communist countries and how she finally arrived in Canada, “although,” as she mentioned “a capitalist country” she lives happily with her family there. Trying to give a bad image of Greece she said that upon visiting her homeland in “Aegean Macedonia”, she found her old house in ruins and complained that one…Greek official at the border treated her with arrogance!

Traian Dimitriou, also a dete begalec (refugee child) in Dr. Danfroth’s research presentation titled “A Macedonian child in a Greek technical school during the Greek Civil War”, narrated how he ended up in a children’s camp of Queen Frederika in Leros. His vast criticism was that the trip by boat to the island “was awful because the sea was stormy!” He only took weekly baths (!) and was forced to sing the Greek national anthem daily! There was reporting by the ‘victims’ of the camps that many of the children were sold to wealthy families. When the members of the panel were asked by a representative of the Pan-Macedonian Association if there are documented sources for these allegations, they admitted they had none.

Both children of the Greek Civil War stressed that they did not want to leave their homeland, but had to remain in the former communist countries against their will. Since the communist governments kept them against their will in what way is it Greece’s fault? They failed to indicate that they had every opportunity to go back and stay in Greece when the Greek government through various U.N. resolutions, called on all Greek citizens who were displaced during the Greek Civil War in communist countries to go back to their homeland (see: UN Resolutions 382 (V Section C), 1950; 618 (VII), 1952; 517 (VI), 1952). There is no doubt regarding Greece’s and the UN’s position on this issue, even though Dr. Danforth implied that the U.N. resolutions were inconclusive. Therefore this claim is not true as is also evident by the strong support of the U.S. Government at the time at all levels. President Harry S. Truman addressing the Congress and with reference to Resolution 514, did not leave any doubt about the strong support of the U.S. to the U.N. resolutions: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=13766.

It is indeed noteworthy that FYROM accuses Greece that she banished her children, while the Slav/communists kidnapped the Greek children from all over Greece in order to “protect” them. Obviously they chose to forget that the mastermind behind the mass kidnapping of the children was the right hand of Tito, Edvard Kardelj. If the “child saving” was done to protect children, how do they substantiate their claim that the camps of Queen Frederika were not protecting the children?

The Danforth /van Boeschoten research was unilateral, and only examined the cases of children who willingly were led by their communist parents, or even sent to Iron Curtain countries with the consent of their parents. Conversely, among the expatriates who attended the conference was Mrs. Irene Damopoulou Karatzios. Mrs. Karatzios was one of the children amongst thousands of other children with or without parents who were abducted by partisans and were led into several Iron Curtain countries against their will. When Dr. Danforth was asked if Mrs. Karatzios could speak about her plight, he prohibited her to speak in a peremptory manner. In a private discussion with Mrs. Karatzios, Dr. Danforth said he read the book “The Cry of Irene” which was written about her and implied that her claims are untrue!

An excerpt of Mrs. Karatzios’ plight in the book “The Cry of Irene”, authored by Dr. Ioannis Bougas, is provided: (ISBN: 969-454-022-X email: erodhios@erodhios.gr):

My mother’s denial to give my little brother and myself away to the communist guerillas, so that we might be delivered into the iron curtain countries, a deed organized by the KKE, placed her in the ranking of a shady “ reactionary” and put the entire family as KKE’s target for revenge. First they took my mother to help the rebels in the mountains carrying materials, where she was often physically tortured. My brother, along with other residents of our village and I, were ordered to abandon our homes and forced to live in makeshift huts in the nearby forest.

Later, they led us cross the borders secretly and we entered Albania. After walking on foot for several days, almost without food or water, we arrived in a dirty prison labor camp. Once reunited with our mother, we spent some time in various prisons in Albania, and finally we were dragged in the galley of Loulé in Romania, where my brother and I attended the Russian-Romanian schools of their “father” and “god” Stalin. In addition we suffered incredible pressure from the leaders of KKE to give up our motherland Greece and become Slavomacedonians

One of the most balanced and informative presentations was that of Dr. Bill Darden titled “Greek articles vs. Slavic relatives in the Strumchki (Makedonski) Apostol and other early Slavic text” which focused on the difficulty of translating the Bible from Greek to Slavic.

Dr. Emilija Crenkovska presented on “The language of the Old Church Slavonic writing of Macedonia in the period of the Byzantine and Ottoman Empire”, in the “Macedonian” language, without translation or even a written summary of the content of her speech. Members of the Pan-Macedonian Association, knowledgeable of the language of FYROM and the local Greek slavophone idioms explained that Dr. Crenkovska spoke in the Serbo-Bulgarian language of FYROM that she named “Macedonian”. When a member of the Pan-Macedonian Association conveyed this information to the panelists he did not receive an answer, and some individuals in the audience urged the presenters not to pay attention to such interventions!

Quite notable was the reaction of the Dr.Victor Friedman, Professor of Linguistics and Balkan Studies from the University of Chicago. When a member of the Pan-Macedonian Association tried to approach him in a friendly manner, the academic exploded and started shouting, “the ‘Macedonians’ have a right to exist!” Also one could characterize as inappropriate the efforts of Dr. Friedman and Andrew Graan (doctoral candidate under the auspices of Dr. Friedman) to distract the university journalist who was interviewing Mrs. Karatzios and the writer of this article. Addressing the journalist, Dr. Friedman said: “take everything they say with a grain of salt…”

Members of the Pan-Macedonian Association U.S.A have attended several propaganda events organized by FYROM and its Diaspora in American universities. Unfortunately, while the Greek embassy is being informed of such events, the Greek state is absent in FYROM’s efforts to defame Greece. It is particularly important that representatives of the Greek State participate in such conferences to refute the ignorant argumentation of the academic community of FYROM. Moreover, relevant scientific conferences with the participation of foreign academics have to be seriously considered by Greece in the future. In addition the libraries of American universities should be enriched by contemporary English-language material on the issue of Macedonia. These failures generate “data” which Hellenism will be forced to face in the future.

*Mrs. Gatzoulis is the Supreme President of the Pan-Macedonian Association USA

Nina Gatzoulis
Supreme President of the Pan-Macedonian Association (USA)
E-mail: ninagatz@comcast.net

Tragedies of the abducted Greek children of 1948: the reality of the FYROM claims

2009-11-17T17:49:00.005+02:00

In 1948, Cominform, the first official forum of the international communist movement since the dissolution of the Comintern, put into action a plan to take hostage to communist countries children from Greece during the Greek civil war. The aim was to re-educate the children as well as blackmail the populace and the Greek government towards reaching a settlement leading to a partition of Greece and the subsequent creation of an internationalist "Macedonian" Republic. This move has favoured by the Yugoslav dictator Josip Broz Tito and had been a Comitern policy aimed at destroying the national states of the Balkans through the creation of internationalist republics. Today several FYROM sources claim or at least believe the abducted children were FYROMacedonian. Indeed that they were not abducted, rather they were refugees fleeing the Greek army.

It was in the month of November 61 years ago when the United Nations issued a resolution condemning the abduction of the Greek children. The text of the resolution and its context have been presented in my last article. The tragic stories of the abducted children that follow defy belief.

Last week a conference took place at the University of Utah, sponsored by the United Pseudo-Macedonia Diaspora (UMD), a lobby group campaigning against "Greek atrocities" in Cyprus and other out of touch with reality issues. There was....

..... a display of venom the revisionism of history condoned by segments of the FYROM government and media. An eye-witness in the audience attempted to speak about her experience during the child abductions, probably the only person in the entire conference with any real experience from their own lives. The response from one of the Yugoslav speakers was:

"This poor woman had probably been drawn into a Greek family or circle years before, and in order to keep peace in the family had decided to play dumb when it came to her linguistic and ethnic identity. To an outsider it appeared to be quite the sad spectacle, for her Greek handlers to parade her out at an academic conference as some sort of living proof of the non-existence of her mother tongue and ethnicity."
http://www.maknews.com/forum/general-discussions/report-macedonian-conferenceuniversity-of-utah-t17459.html

It defies belief that a people recently freed from Communism continue to otherwise believe that it is the rest of the world that has been brainwashed and go to such extreme extents of inverting reality to reassure themselves an their audience of this belief. Prof Christos D. Katsetos, MD, Dr philos, FRC Path, subsequently sent a letter of protest to the University of Utah commenting:

"I submit that Mrs. Damopoulou was denied at the University of Utah conference the common courtesy of being heard and respected as a member of the Greek Macedonian community and also as a credible eyewitness – by virtue of being a young victim of involuntary evacuation and forced migration during the Greek Civil War (1946-49).
Indeed, what Irene Damopoulou-Karatzios has recently experienced, both during and after the conference, is precisely the kind of dehumanization and disentitlement that is considered as one of the basic psychological substrates underlying the perpetuation of ethnic conflicts."

The children´s tragedies

Georgios Manoukas was the General Inspector of the 1946 Child Gathering (Paidomazoma) and also a former member of KKE (Greek communist Party). He returned disillusioned to Greece during the amnesty period in 1961 and published a book on the child abductions called Paidomazoma (Child Gathering, The Great Crime against our People, Georgios Manoukas, 1961). In it he examines Cominform policy towards the children and concludes that the Yugoslav government (Tito) falsified the numbers of these children, integrated them into the population of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and acculturated them into the new "Macedonian" culture. Some children were trained and sent back to Greece to fight, indeed as janissaries.

One of the five-member council during the child abduction era was a Slav Macedonian from Greece named Sikavitsas. This person according to Manoukas was responsible for the Slavophone Greek children. In the so-called Mountain Government of KKE were also two Greek Slavophone "ministers". Their names were Metrovsky and Stavro Kocev. They visited those children that were Slavophone and aimed at the elimination of their use of the Greek language. Their lectures used terms such as "Macedonian autonomy", saying "Greece was a creation of the Big Powers" (like Risto Stefov does today), claiming that "Slavic Macedonians were the only descendants of the ancient Macedonians", using language such as "freedom to the occupied Aegean Macedonia from the monarchofasists", the same language we hear from the children of some of the FYROMacedonian expatriates today.

Below are some passages from his book:

On page 57, Manoukas refers to a FYROMacedonian volunteer who was fighting in Greece. He heard from him, apparently for the first time, that "the Aegean Macedonia begins in a place in Yugoslavia and includes places in modern Albania, Bulgaria and Greek Macedonia while in depth it reaches to about Mt Olympus! This Slav was not illiterate. He was rather well tutored."

On page 107, George Manoukas explains the response of the Communist Block parties to the request from the United Nations for the repatriation of the Greek children. Representatives from the communist parties of several countries gave speeches and promises to the Greek Communist Party about the return of the children in a meeting held in Prespa (where the KKE government in exile was located, in modern FYROM) on the 29.2.1949, after calls from the United Nations for the return of the abducted children. The speeches show what kind of response there was among communist countries regarding the unanimous call from the UN for the return of the abducted children to Greece.

Lili Olt, Communist Party of Hungary: "The GREEK children we are hosting in our country are the best example of support for your struggle".

Zenova, Communist Party of Czechoslovakia: "We will return the GREEK children we are hosting in our country once they are grown up and educated".

Anna Roubou, Romania : "The children we are hosting will be returned to you after Victory!" – so were they hostages?

Zaboteska Stanislava, Communist Party of Poland: "We educate your children according to the example of your heroes, like Mitsos Paparrigas. We believe that your children, our children, are children of the great family of peoples. We will return them to you after final freedom and people´s democracy".

Bito-Karo of the Communist party of Albania: "We found your children pale when they came to our country. We opened our arms and embraced them."

The General Secretary [unfortunately not named] of the so-called NOF/SNOF, the so called National Liberation front for Macedonia said: "today we can proclaim an independent Peoples Republic of Macedonia that will be part of the Balkan Peoples´ Republics. The central council of NOF assures the Greek people that it will maintain unity between the Greek and Slavomacedonian people, because of our common aim: freedom – independence".

Independence of the Greeks from the Greeks? In any case note, this fanatical man used the term Slavomacedonian not Macedonian. Modern FYROM has pushed this kind of extremism further. The Slavomacedonians of 1949 communist propaganda have become the "Macedonians" of modern FYROM> this was clear from Nikola Gruevski´s speech in Australia mentioned in my previous article (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/128244).

But how ridiculous. This is the response of the communist parties of Europe to the request for the return of the Greek children! Indeed Manoukas says the representatives of the Greek communists Mpartzotas and Kokkalis (KKE), and Papadimitris (AKE) vowed to intensify the abductions! And now the Skopians speak of a Greek atrocity: the expulsion of 28000 children from Greece.

Manoukas next explains the ways in which the Communist Block tried to avoid returning the children to their parents.

"The task of the Greek Red Cross was exceedingly difficult.

On the one hand the communists unleashed in this regard and on orders of the KKE an unforeseen campaign of terrorism, so that the gathering of applications (by parents for the return of the children) could be discouraged, as well as any expression of a desire for the repatriation of the children.

On the other hand, the KKE, with the aim to have favourable concessions from the parents for the commission of the children to the Communist Block, gave orders to communist commissars to tour the regions held by the communists to obtain in every possible way favourable declarations from parents about their "willing" surrender of their children.

It is obvious that this policy of extortion was designed not only so as to reveal a great number of parents who "willingly agreed" to the surrender of their children, but to shake through fear the will of many parents so that, were they to be called in the future to express their wish for the childrens´ return to refuse to do so, for fear of reprisals."

Manoukas mentions that many parents had fled as far as Crete or the Peloponnese seeking safety. Then he adds:

"Many of the parents had been forcibly recruited by the "symmorites" and therefore it was not possible to have expressions of a desire for the return of their children.

But the most terrible of all was the fact that, because of executions by the symmorites of a great number of individuals, the natural guardians of the children were no longer in live and it was exceedingly difficult to find and determine which among the relatives were the nearest to the children so that they may have the right to apply for the return of the children according to the UN directive."

Further down Manoukas says how the KKE tried to avoid returning the children. One excuse they devised was that if they received an application from only one parent, they would reply that the child or children could not be returned because there was no agreement of the parents for their return.

On page 34, Manoukas describes a heart-rending story of the abduction of five children, brothers and sisters:

On Feb 14th, 1950, an announcement had been made in Greek from Bucharest in response to requests from the Voice of America for the return of the abducted children to Greece:

"The Voice of America cannot stomach the fact that 28,000 Greek children and Slav Macedonians were transported to the Peoples´ Republics with the full accord of their parents. These children will continue to live there according to the wish of their parents, will be educated in their own language and national spirit and will learn a trade…"

"Here is an example of the agreement of a family to send their children to the Iron Curtain to be "educated in their own language and national spirit and to learn a trade". The village schoolteacher in Zerma in 1947 was one named Mitsis. I do not know if he is still living. He had a wife and five children.

Budapest, August 1949. We had our base in Budapest. In August 1949 I was supervisor of the Central Office and "Inspector" again of the Paidomazoma. One day Yiannis, the colleague in charge of censorship says to me: "Comrade, a letter has arrived and it appears to be suspicious from beginning to end. Read it so that we may see what this fascist says".

I took the "suspicious letter", put it in my pocket and continued my work. In the afternoon after I had finished, I went by the Danube and I sat somewhere, watching the murky water of the Danube that flowed quietly. There I remembered the letter of the "fascist" I had in my pocket. I took it out, I saw it was well written and scanned to the bottom of it to see who was writing. I saw then it was from Mitsis, the schoolteacher of Zerma. What does he want - I thought to myself. What business does he have with us? And, my God, the wretched man wanted to know where his children were, where is his little one, whether he cries for his father and mother and whether they are all together, "Whether Spyridoula takes care of you" … and "try to find where your mother is because I do not know". I read it over and over again. I remembered it was his Encyclopedia that we had confiscated and he was one our men were hunting and wanted to kill.

I went back to my office. I started browsing through the "registers" to see in which country were his children, because the letter said he had many. Five children!

I was glad to find they were in Hungary, and some indeed in Budapest. I thought to go immediately to find one of them , to give him the letter with his father´s kisses… but then I remembered about their mother. I had to find in which country she was, to put them in contact with each other so as to make them happy, the poor little souls.

I went through all the "registers´. I found nowhere the wife of the wretched schoolteacher. I began to curse the commissaries of the various countries for their insufficient records!!

I left my office and went to the Children´s Town. It was late and they were asleep. I returned to my room, but I could not rest!

Next day I returned to the Children´s Town. I found one of them, a little girl and without letting her suspect that I had a letter, I began to ask: Where is your father? Your mother? Your siblings? And the little girl said to me: "My father stayed in Greece, I do not know where and if he is alive. Myself, my sister and a brother are here, I do not know about the other two. We do not know where our mother is. She may be in one of the countries. Because when the men took us and we asked for our mother, because we did not want to leave without her, they told us that we will find her here. "She has already left, she is ahead of you" they told us. I turned to leave when I heard again the little girl say: "Comrade, go see where our mother is and tell us! We have a year and a half to see her and we long for her, we are as orphans. Why, comrade, the men tricked us? Where is our mother? "

I was not satisfied by the little girl. She did not know much and so I went to find men and women from the region of Konitsa to find the end of this case.

And I found it! But what did I find! When I found out my legs and my arms trembled from the emotion. They informed me that the men shot the children's mother near her village. That when the children were taken she was already dead. The children did not know. Neither their father! And the little one was waiting for me to come by the Children´s Town again, to tell her in which country(!) is her mother! Our men had taken care of her in the ravines of their village! And the children? The Party "took care" of them. And here "not even one child has been taken by force!..." What would the Communist Party of Greece claim? And what the criminal voice from Bucharest?"

An article in Eleftherotypia of 17/07/2003 tells the story of 13 villagers who were abducted as children by the communist guerillas:

"In the bleak city hall of Kozane, a northern Greek mountain town, 13 peasants stood before a U. N. field team. The peasants had been hostages of General Markos Vafiades' communist andartes. In the mixed Greek-Slav-Albanian dialect of the Macedonian border people, they haltingly told their story.

Black-shawled Athena Papalexiou, 50, spoke first. "All children between 3 and 14 were being registered by the andartes," she said. The rebels had told the parents that the children would be sent to good homes in the Slav "democracies." "Would the children come back again?" asked an investigator. "It was forbidden to discuss the matter," replied Athena.

John Natsis and Zagarus Voiliotis had been billeted with a widower in Kranies, in the rebel-controlled northwest corner of Greece. They had watched the widower give the names and ages of his three children to a rebel officer and a clerk. "They told him he must be glad that his children would be taken away to the safety of other countries," said the two peasants. "They said soon the Monarcho-Fascists would bomb Kranies, and in Romania his children would receive a good education.""

Manoukas reveals the anger expressed by this crime worldwide in chapter VII of the book. A British professor Animbus wrote a letter to the United nations saying:

"Hell itself could not labour a plan more satanic. This heinous crime that defies description, was accompanied by cynical comments transmitted by the Albanian Radio Station, as well as the radio stations of Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, for the "warm" and "loving" welcome, which was extended to the innocent little victims in the capitals of these countries.. They were abducted to be tutored to hate their parents, their religion and their homeland as their common cultural inheritance. There is danger that these unfortunate young souls will be lost forever and if they ever return they may act as offspring of "snakes" against the breast of their motherland. Thousands of Greek children, abducted by the red criminals who added the tragedy of their heinous child abduction to the terrible crime against their homeland, are facing the terror and abomination of Soviet totalitarianism and are under inhuman pressure to change their national consciousness and to become enemies of their homeland."

In the National conference for the Protection of Children in Stockholm, August 1948, a unanimous declaration was made (I translate from Manoukas):

"The General Council of the International Union for the Protection of Children which met in Stockholm on 14-8-1948, informed that a considerable number of Greek children were abducted from their homeland without the consent of their parents and considering that such an act is an outright violation of the principles of the Declaration for the Rights of the Child, the so-called "Geneva Declaration". Resolves:

1. That the United Nations work to find the proper means such that the return to their homes of all the children that are held from their parents against their wish is achieved at the soonest time possible.

2. That the International Union for Child Protection offer their services, in coordination with other organizations, so that care may be provided to these children, wherever they may be.

3. That the United Nations may be requested to take measures such that the children of all nationalities may be protected against the violent transfer and detention far from their homeland without the consent of their parents"

A diplomat who visited a Children´s Station in Hungary and afterwards wrote in the newspaper Greek Star (16 May 1950):

"I was accompanied by an official who spoke Greek to the camp at BALATON FURE. The official talked to a young boy who, when he heard his mother tongue brightened up and started to talk in Greek. But a bigger child then came and pulled the little one by the hand and said that he must not disobey the orders, to speak Greek and in actual fact to foreigners…"

"They understand very well that, if they teach to the Greek children their false philosophy, their task in the world will be much easier".

K. George Christojaher in a radio interview in San Francisco.

"The Greek children were transported beyond the borders to be raised as communists and to be educated in communist schools, in an atmosphere of hate, so that when they grow up they return well armed against their fatherland".

From a speech of Donald Fleming to the Canadian Parliament, 22 April 1050.

Greek-Yugoslav border: the president of the Greek Red Cross Mr Georgakopoulos receives Greek children repatriated from Yugoslavia. From Paidomazoma, The Great Crime against our People, Georgios Manoukas, 1961.

In his book "The Cry of Irene", the same Irene who was shouted down in Utah in the recent Pseudomacedonian conference, Ioannis Bougas tells the true story of a young girl, Irene Damopoulou from Kastoria, in western Macedonia, during the years of the Greek Civil War (1946-49).

Irene recounts:

"Since my brother and I refused to declare that we were Slavomacedonians and refused to take courses in Slavomacedonci, we were also thrown out of the Romanian school for three days. Our dismissal from school above all created a problem of survival as we had no more right to food from the school mess hall. When my mother complained to the community leaders because we were not given food, she was told that there was nothing that they could do and that we should think of the consequences of our denial to identify as Slavomacedonians. Then my mother went to the school to complain. She found one of the teachers, a man named Mr. Nikos from Kilkis [Greece]. Unfortunately, I cannot remember his family name. "Comrade Niko, why have you thrown my children out of school?" she asked. "Because you are Slavomacedonians from St. Demetrios!" he answered. "Your children need to change schools and attend the Slavomacedonian school.""

Irene tells another haunting story that perhaps should put some sense into the remaining Greek exiles in former communist countries:

"Some mothers lost their lives trying to keep their children. For example that was the fate of Sultana Petridis. I happened to see it with my own eyes and hear with my own ears the terrible torture she suffered in the hands of the communist partisans because she refused to give her children away to the paidomazoma. Sultana Petridis was from the village of Polyanemos of Kastoria. She was divorced from her husband and had two small children, a boy and a girl, whom she refused to give to be taken into Iron Curtain countries. One day, as I was going from our house to my grandmother´s house, I met her in a narrow street of our village. She was walking between two partisans with guns, holding her head down and her hands behind her back. Two more partisans were following a few meters behind them. As the street was very narrow, I stopped and remained standing on the side for them to pass. When they reached the place where I was standing, auntie Sultana slowed her walk and asked me about my family´s name. When I told her, she asked me where my parents were. She asked first for my father, and then for my mother. About my father I said that I did not know, and for my mother I told her that she was at home. As the guerrillas pushed her to continue, she turned her head a little and told me to give "greetings to my mother from aunt Soulta".

Later that evening we started hearing Sultana´s cries and screams of pain from the torture she was obviously suffering in the hands of the communist guerrillas. The guerrillas had led her to my uncle Papagermanos´ house, which after his escape to Kastoria, was being used by them as their local headquarters. The torture of unfortunate Sultana Petridis continued late into the night. Next morning, the guerrillas put her on a mule and led her outside the village. Because of the torture she had suffered she could not stand on the mule. Thus, the guerrillas first placed a wooden structure on it and tied Sultana. As they were leading her on the mule by our house, she looked as having no life in her. Perhaps she was unconscious. My mother and I,saw this scene from a small window of our house. The guerrillas led her little further north from our village, inside the narrow valley and killed her.

The communists took Sultana´s children into the Iron Curtain countries. Later, they returned to Greece. Her son visited the area of Kastoria, and he was asking to find out "why the fascists killed his mother"? One of those he asked was my uncle, Leonidas Lazaridis, who related this to me. My uncle knew the real killers of Sultana Petridis, and informed him. He told him that the killers of his mother were exactly those people who had indoctrinated him and his sister with stories about "fascists killers," while he was away in some communist country. I do not know if he was convinced, or if he pursued the matter to learn all the truth about the torture his mother had suffered in the hands of the guerrillas of the Greek Communist Party before her killing."

This man and countless others, some living now in FYROM and others or their children living around the world, have been apparently indoctrinated since 1948 to believe that the children were not abducted but were Slavomacedonian refugees fleeing the Greek terror. The ones in former Yugoslavia have been apparently fully brainwashed. The surprising perhaps thing is that even some of those in Canada and Australia promote this idea. These people, who left Yugoslavia after Tito fell out with Stalin, had the opportunity to hear the outside view. Their hardline claims make one to suspect that they fled Yugoslavia for fear of reprisals when Tito was facing a change in his policy. From the tone of their preaching they sound like die-hard former NOF/SNOF members the chief promoters of the claim of fleeing fake "atrocities". The perfect audience for Gruevski´s inflammatory rantings. What a sad, miserable situation. A disowned people, some of them perhaps abducted Greek children, others their abductors, living a lie and wishing to join Greece in the European Union and NATO while accusing Greece for a phantom atrocity, attacking and defaming everything sacred and stealing the name and history of Macedonia. That is a perfect recipe for a failed start and a bad ending.

The United Nations should have finished the business of Tito´s and Cominform´s fake "Macedonia" in 1991.

A moving moment at the Greek-Yugoslav border: families reunite with their children returning from Yugoslavia. From Paidomazoma, The Great Crime against our People, Georgios Manoukas, 1961.

by Tymphaios
November 16, 2009
americanchronicle.com

A war crime against Greek children portrayed as a Greek crime against "Macedonians" (FYROM, Greece)

2009-11-14T16:27:00.004+02:00

by Tymphaios
November 12, 2009
americanchronicle.com

In a recent visit to Australia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) prime minister Nikola Gruevski spoke to FYROM expatriates about the inability for them to live freely in their FYROMacedonian motherland in Greece and Bulgaria: "Macedonians (sic) in Australia are enjoying a unique opportunity to live together with their compatriots of Aegean and Pirin Macedonia, which does not happen in our motherland". At the same time extremists such as Risto Stefov are accusing Greece of a war atrocity: expelling up to 50,000 "Macedonians" from Greece during the Greek civil war in 1946-49. These are presumably the FYROMacedonians now living in Australia free, while it is not possible to do so in the FYROMacedonian motherland - in Greece and Bulgaria.

These are extraordinary statements. Indeed there were even various documentaries (eg. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVCZTmXR1h0, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOFcR2yTKN8) full of hate and a tearful song sung by a seductive lady produced in FYROM since Gruevski was elected Prime-Minister, portraying refuges from Macedonia arriving in Yugoslavia in 1949. These documentaries show orphaned children in the custody of foster "mothers" offloaded from trains. The videos were uploaded on YouTube with English translations, accompanied by inflammatory statements such as :

"Don't be afraid of the truth, Greece is Nazi!". Risto Stefov cries out: "It´s time to expose the acts and atrocities they perpetrated against us in the name of Hellenism!" For such an atrocity, one ought to think there must be a record of it. The record is unfortunately not very favourable to this extremist view. Remember this extraordinary accusation is coming from a country that is requesting Greece´s help to enter the European Union and NATO, of which organisations Greece has been a long-standing member. This is also coming from a country that received Greece´s acceptance to enter the United Nations, pending a UN brokered Agreement never fulfilled. Lastly, this is how FYROM approaches Greece when and while in fact it needs Greece.

This article is not so much about bad diplomacy as about the actual reality of these claims. What are the atrocities we are concerned with? The FYROM propaganda claims that Macedonian children arrived as refugees in Yugoslavia during the Greek Civil War of 1946-49, fleeing the so far undocumented bombings by the Greek army. Have the United Nations recorded anything about these children "fleeing" Macedonia?

In the United Nations General Assembly of 1948, the Greek government made the following statement:

Plea of the Greek Parliament to the United Nations, 1948 :

"The Hellenic Parliament seeing that the communist bandits enforce systematically a program of genocide via the abductions of children and the taking of hostages, that the noted abduction of hostages is the outcome of armed and raw violence perpetrated against widows and orphans, whose protectors were slain by the bandits

Resolves

Protests to the entire civilized world and especially to the Parliaments of free nations and makes a plea to the U.N. that as a mediator in this unprecedented drama of the Greeks will proceed without delay into taking practical and effective measures for the repatriation of the abducted as well as the termination of this unheard-of tragedy."

Something seems not quite right. FYROM propaganda today claims the Greeks were chasing off the children in 1948, whereas Greece had submitted a plea to the United Nations protesting the abduction of the children. Why did Greece protest the abduction? Why was Greece requesting the children back when current FYROM propagandists say Greece was chasing them away?

In this context it is surprising the Eastern Block countries did not submit a complaint that Greece was causing a refugee problem sending thousands of children off to communist countries. Why were the Communist Block countries silent about this alleged Greek "atrocity"?

After sending a team to the area of conflict and examining the evidence, the United Nations General Assembly UNANIMOUSLY agreed in 1948 to a resolution (Resolution 193(III)) titled: Threats to the political independence and territorial integrity of Greece:

"The General Assembly having considered etc etc … (full text appended at the end of the article)

Recommends the return to Greece of Greek children at present away from their homes when the children, their father or mother or, in his or her absence, their closest relative, express a wish to that effect;

Invites all the Members of the United Nations and other States on whose territory these children are to be found to take the necessary measures for implementation of the present recommendation;

Instructs the Secretary-General to request the International Committee of the Red Cross and the League of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies to organize and ensure liaison with the national Red Cross organizations of the States concerned with a view to empowering the national Red Cross organizations to adopt measures in the respective countries for implementing the present recommendation.

Hundred and sixty-seventh plenary meeting,

27 November 1948"

The request was renewed by another unanimous UN resolution in 1949 titled again:

"THREATS TO THE POLITICAL INDEPENDENCE AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF GREECE - 288 (IV) (18 November 1949)

Noting the report submitted by the International Committee of the Red Cross and the League of the Red Cross Societies on the question of the repatriation of Greek children,and expressing warm appreciation of the efforts made by the two International Red Cross organizations to facilitate the implementation of General Assembly resolution 193 (III) C, Noting that the Greek children have not as yet been returned to their homes….

2.Urges all the Members of the United Nations and other States harbouring the Greek children to make all necessary arrangements, in consultation and co-operation with the international Red Cross organizations, for the early return to their homes of the children with the aforementioned resolution;"

These and subsequent UN resolutions were not answered. From 1950 to 1952 only 684 children were permitted to return to Greece. By 1963, around 4000 children had been repatriated. Of those who did not return many died of illness, some escaped to Germany and others have since returned or have yet to return. The reason no one from the communist countries complained about the children abductions at the Cominform meetings was precisely because the genocidal abduction of the Greek children was planned in a Cominform meeting early in 1948. By the summer of that year some 28,000 children had been abducted from Greece. However, the inhabitants of FYROM and their expatriates have been made to believe - and they try to convince the world - that the crime was conducted by Greece. An atrocity - nothing less!

What a disgrace for spokepersons and TV stations on behalf a people who desire to become a part of the European Union and Nato. This behavior is so inflammatory, no excuses can be made for it.

Not only the United Nations but the voice of church leaders was damming for the abductions of the Greek children to the Communist Block:

The Greek Orthodox Church protested against the child abductions and the Greek Archbishop and all Orthodox Patriarchs wished that the children would return to their mothers and their family and that the crime stops.

Pope Pius said 'We are mourning because in Christian Europe, hundreds of children were violently taken from their mothers, from their parents and from their schools, to be educated, or to say better brainwashed from foreign teachers, acting on orders of the blasphemous abductors''

Greek Cypriot Archbishop Makarios II also made a speech, hoping that the civilized world would help the Greek children return to their homes and family.

On April 19th, 1950, US President Harry S. Truman made the following statement at the House of Representatives:

"My dear Mr. Speaker,

I fully share the concern of the House of Representatives for the thousands of children removed from Greece to eastern Europe by the communist guerrilla forces, and I welcome the adoption of House Resolution 514 of March 22, 1950, calling for the speedy return of these children to their homes and homeland.

The rights of children and parents to share the protection, comradeship and beneficent influence of a family home are fundamental and have been implicitly recognized, in the case of the Greek children, in two unanimous resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly. It is morally inadmissible that political considerations or technical difficulties should be allowed to stand in the way of the reunion of these children with their parents.

The Executive Branch of the Government has been persistent in its endeavors to secure effective compliance with the United Nations resolutions in this case. These efforts will not be relaxed until the Greek children are back in their homes."

The text of House Resolution 514 is as follows:

"Resolved, That the House of Representatives expresses its profound concern for the thousands of Greek children removed or carried off into countries of eastern Europe by the Communist guerrilla forces during the course of the recent guerrilla warfare in Greece, and requests the President to exert all of his powers, acting through the United Nations and other international organizations and directly with the governments of the countries where these children are located, to the end that these thousands of children shall be speedily returned to their homes and homeland ."

History cannot be created. Reality cannot be reinvented. The world is not a former communist propaganda enclave. On the issue of the atrocity of the child abductions, the voice of most of humanity has been loud and clear. They were Greek children used as a pawn in the communist Macedonia gamble.

APPENDIX

United Nations Resolution 193 (III). Threats to the political independence and territorial integrity of Greece

A

The General Assembly,

1. Having considered the reports l of the Special Committee established by General Assembly resolution 109 (II))

2. Having noted the conclusions of the Special Committee and, in particular, its UNANIMOUS conclusion that, despite the aforesaid resolution of the General Assembly, "the Greek guerillas have continued to receive aid and assistance on a large scale from Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, with the knowledge of the governments of those countries, and that the Greek guerillas in the frontier zones have, as found by the Special Committee:

(i) "Been largely dependent on external supply. Great quantities of arms, ammunition and other military stores have come across the border, notably during times of heavy fighting. Strongly held positions of the guerillas have protected their vital supply lines from Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and, in particular, from Albania. In recent months, there has been less evidence of receipt of supplies from Yugoslavia by the guerrillas;

(ii) «Frequently moved at will in territory across the frontier for tactical reasons, and have thus been able to concentrate their forces without interference by the Greek army, and to return to Greece when they wished;

(iii) "Frequently retired safely into the territory of Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia when the Greek army exerted great pressure";

3. Having noted further the conclusions of the Special Committee that a continuation of this situation «constitutes a threat to the political independence and territorial integrity of Greece

and to peace in the Balkans" and "that the conduct of Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia had heen inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations",

4. Having noted the recommendations submitted by the Special Committee,

5. Considers that the continued aid given by Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia to the Greek guerrillas endangers peace in the Balkans, and is inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

6. Calls upon Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia to cease forthwith rendering any assistance or support in any form to the guerrillas in fighting against the Greek Government, including the use of their territories as a base for the preparation or launching of armed action;

7. Again calls upon Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia to co-operate with Greece in the settlement of their dispute by peaceful means in accordance with the recommendations contained in resolution 109 (II);

8. Calls upon Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia to co-operate with the Special Committee in enabling it to carry out its functions, in particular the function of being able to assist teh Governments concerned in accordance with paragraph 10 (c) of the present resolution, and upon Greece to continue co-operate toward the same end;

9. Recommends to all Members of the United Nations and to all other States that their Governments

refrain from any action designed to assist directly or through any other Government any armed group fighting against the Greek Government;

10. Approves the reports of the Special Committee, continues it in being with the functions conferred upon it by resolution 109 (II) and instructs it :

(a) To continue to observe and report on the response of Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia to the General Assembly injunction not to furnish aid to the Greek guerrillas, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 109 (II) and the present resolution;

(h) To continue to utilize observation groups with personnel and equipment adequate for the fulfillment of its task;

(c) To continue to be available to assist the Governments of Albania, Bulgaria, Greece and Yugoslavia in the implementation of resolution 109 (II) and of the present resolution; and for this purpose, in its discretion to appoint, and utilize the services and good offices of one or more persons whether or not members of the

Special Committee;

11. Decides that the Special Committee shall have its principal headquarters in Greece and, with the co-operation of the Government or Governments concerned, shall perform its functions in such places as it may deem appropriate for the fulfilment of its mission;

12. Authorizes the Special Committee to consult, in its discretion, with the Interim Committee with respect to the performance of its functions in the light oJ developments;

13. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the Special Committee with adequate staff and facilities to enable it to perform its functions.

Hundred and sixty-seventh plenary meeting

27 November 1948.

B

The General Assembly recommends that Greece, on the one hand, and Bulgaria and Albania, on the other, establish diplomatic relations with each other, the absence of which is harmful to the relations between these countries;

Recommends the Governments of Greece, Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia to renew the previously conventions for the settlement of frontier questions or to conclude new ones, and also to settle the question of refugees in the spirit of mutual understanding and the establishment of good-neighbour relations;

Furthermore recommends the Governments of Greece, Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia to inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations at the end of six months, for communication to Member States of the United Nations, of the fulfillment of the above-mentioned recommendations.

Hundred and sixty-seventh plenary meeting,

27 November 1948.

C

The General Assembly

Recommends the return to Greece of Greek children at present away from their homes when the children, their father or mother or, in his or her absence, their closest relative, express a wish to that effect;

Invites ail the Members of the United Nations and other States on whose territory these children are to be found to take the necessary measures for implementation of the present recommendation;

Instructs the Secretary-General to request the International Committee of the Red Cross and the League of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies to organize and ensure liaison with the national Red Cross organizations of the States concerned with a view to empowering the national Red Cross organizations to adopt measures in the respective countries for implementing the present recommendation.

Hundred and sixty-seventh plenary meeting,

27 November 1948.

Stifling the Cry of Irene at the "7th Macedonian-North American Conference" -A case of nuanced censorship through dehumanization and disentitlement*

2009-11-14T09:22:00.004+02:00

As someone who has vehemently opposed from the outset any form of political interference with the "7th Macedonian-North American Conference" at the University of Utah (November 5-8, 2009), I am obliged to report an incident, which, in my view, infringes on the right to freedom of speech.

Irene Damopoulou-Karatzios, an expatriate bilingual Greek Macedonian, who was present at the conference, was allegedly disallowed, by Professor Loring Danforth, the speaker of one of the presentations, to express a dissenting perspective (during the allotted Q&A period) concerning a local Slavonic dialect spoken in the Kastoria region of Greek Macedonia but most importantly, to offer a personal account of her very own childhood experiences dating back to the fateful days of "Παιδομάζωμα", i.e., the "Evacuation" or "Abduction" of Children (depending on different perspectives) during the Greek Civil War (1946-49)[1].

Even though I was not physically present at the conference, I have had the opportunity to speak on this matter with Mrs. Damopoulou-Karatzios, whom I know personally and deeply respect. I believe that....
..... her grievance has merit and have no reason whatsoever to doubt the veracity of her statements.

It is noteworthy that Irene Damopoulou-Karatzios was also portrayed -by another speaker at the same conference- in demeaning terms. In his blurb in MakNews, Dr. Michael Seraphinoff, Chair of the 10th Session of the "7th Macedonian-North American Conference", has openly belittled, humiliated and dehumanized Mrs. Damopoulou, in a most condescending way. Whilst infringing on the principles of objectivity, fairness and scholarly open-mindedness, Dr. Seraphinoff makes a farreaching and tenuous assumption of Irene Damopoulou-Karatzios' "ethnicity" when he rejects a priori her Greek Macedonian identity thus effectively rejecting the existence of divergent Macedonian identities [2]. Indeed, Dr. Seraphinoff's statement is quite telling in this regard:

"This poor woman had probably been drawn into a Greek family or circle years before, and in order to keep peace in the family had decided to play dumb when it came to her linguistic and ethnic identity. To an outsider it appeared to be quite the sad spectacle, for her Greek handlers to parade her out at an academic conference as some sort of living proof of the non-existence of her mother tongue and ethnicity.
http://www.maknews.com/forum/general-discussions/report-macedonian-conferenceuniversity-of-utah-t17459.html

The pursuit of knowledge calls for the free exchange of ideas and perspectives as well as the open expression of divergent opinions. The ability to participate in a fair and open debate is fundamentally hindered if the speaker of a presentation or the Chair/Moderator of a session decide to suppress dissenting opinions by exercising their "prerogative" to stifle discourse and cut off dialogue. Silencing a legitimate eyewitness at an academic conference, on the grounds of dissent, violates the academic code governing freedom of expression and standards of conduct.

Everyone is entitled to dignity and fair treatment. Such treatment ought to be extended both to scholars and non-scholars (lay members of an audience). I submit that Mrs. Damopoulou was denied at the University of Utah conference the common courtesy of being heard and respected as a member of the Greek Macedonian community and also as a credible eyewitness – by virtue of being a young victim of involuntary evacuation and forced migration during the Greek Civil War (1946-49).

Indeed, what Irene Damopoulou-Karatzios has recently experienced, both during and after the conference, is precisely the kind of dehumanization and disentitlement that is considered as one of the basic psychological substrates underlying the perpetuation of ethnic conflicts.

Professor Christos D. Katsetos
MD, Dr philos, FRC Path

* Parts of this text were originally posted in the Modern Greek Studies Association List (MGSA-L) on November 10, 2009 under the thread "Conference Reignites Feud".
http://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/public/mgsa-l/2009-November/011489.html

FOOTNOTES
[1] Ioannis Bougas, "Η Φωνή της Ειρήνης" (The Cry of Irene)- the true story of a young girl, Irene Damopoulou from the Greek Macedonian region of Kastoria unfolding during the trying years of the Greek Civil war (1946-1949)
http://www.biblionet.gr/main.asp?page=showbook&bookid=113799

[2] For a balanced account of scholarly perspectives and critical reappraisals of the subject, see “Μακεδονικές ταυτότητες στο χρόνο” (Macedonian identities in time) Εκδόσεις Πατάκη - 2008

Anti-Hellenic movie “A Name is a Name” playing in FYROM diaspora festival

2009-11-14T01:39:00.002+02:00

At the so-called “Macedonian Film Festival” in Toronto. Made by a small European film company with the heavy support of the Skopje government and its allies and lobbies, and by its political party “Rainbow” (Grk: Ouranio Toxo) in Greece, it will be distributed throughout North America in coming weeks. It attempts to depict Greece as a human-rights-abuser

It projects a fictitious story of a Skopjian-American marine “Nick Stoyan” being tortured by skinhead look-alike Greek officials. In an attempt to dupe American viewers its has images of the American flag interweaved with the Star of Vergina.

One YouTube trailer we located says “Ellada the other Greece”

“A Name is a Name: A film about a Nation held hostage because of its name.”

http://www.anameisaname.com/

Here is the offensive Anti-Hellenic You Tube trailer in English:

You Tube: Nick Stoyan, eng

by Hellenic League of America (HLA)

The FYROM name issue

2009-11-11T11:40:00.008+02:00

The FYROM name issue is not simply a dispute over historical facts and symbols. It is a problem with regional and international dimensions, given that FYROM is exercising a policy of irredentism and territorial claims fuelled by the falsification of history and the usurpation of Greeces historical and national heritage.

In its current form, the FYROM name issue arose in 1991, when FYROM declared its independence under the name Republic of Macedonia.

Historically, the Greek name Macedonia refers to....

the state and civilisation of the ancient Macedonians, which beyond doubt is part of Greeces national and historical heritage and bears no relation whatsoever with the residents of FYROM, who are Slavs by descent and arrived in region of the ancient Kingdom of Macedonia at a much later stage.

Geographically, the term Macedonia refers to a broader region that includes portions of the territories of various Balkan countries (mainly Greece, FYROM and Bulgaria). However, the greater part of geographical Macedonia coincides with the area covered by the ancient Greek Macedonia, which lies within the boundaries of modern Greece. Some 2.5 million Greek citizens currently live in the Greek part of Macedonia, whose inhabitants have called and considered themselves Macedonians since time immemorial.

The name issue originated in the aftermath of the Second World War, when Josip Broz Tito separated the area then known as Vardar Banovina (now FYROM) from Serbia, granting it the status of a Republic within the new federal Yugoslavia, under the name Socialist Republic of Macedonia, concurrently promoting the doctrine of a separate Macedonian Nation. Obviously, the most important reason for opting to promote the doctrine of Macedonianism at clear variance with the geographical reality of the broader region of Macedonia was his desire to gain access to the Aegean Sea by cultivating the notion of reunification of all Macedonian territories.

This is the context of the irredentist efforts that have been mounted by FYROMs political leadership to nurture in the countrys citizens via school books and propaganda the notion that they are the descendents of the ancient Macedonians, thus cultivating the concept of a United Macedonia, a portion of which is FYROM, with other parts under Greek, Bulgarian and Albanian occupation. It is clear that the irredentist doctrine of a United Macedonia opens the way to claims on occupied territories.

Against this historical background, FYROM was admitted to the UN in 1993 under a provisional name, as the Security Council (Resolution 817) noted that a difference has arisen over the name of that state which needs to be resolved in the interest of the maintenance of peaceful and good-neighbourly relations in the region( Security Council Resolution 817 of 1993).The Security Council further called on Greece and FYROM (Security Council Resolution 845 of 1993) to enter into negotiations on a definitive solution to the problem. The obligation undertaken by both parties to negotiate an agreement on the name issue was set down in the Interim Accord signed by Greece and FYROM in 1995, establishing, at the same time, a code of conduct between the parties.

Since then, Greece has made every effort to arrive at a mutually acceptable solution on the name issue. Unfortunately, 13 years later, no significant progress has been achieved, due to FYROMs intransigence, bad faith, and provocative attitude, as it holds to the maximalist position of rejecting any name other than the constitutional Republic of Macedonia, thus rendering the negotiations under the UN aegis an interminable exchange of views.

At the same time, FYROM is systematically violating the bulk of the provisions of the Interim Accord,

-pursuing the imposition of its constitutional name, bypassing the obligation to work for a negotiated settlement, and

-proceeding to a number of irredentist and provocative actions and statements directed against Greece

The most recent examples of this conduct include putting up posters in FYROMs capital showing a Greek flag with a Nazi swastika in place of the Christian cross. A few months later, the Greek diplomatic mission in Skopje suffered serious damage perpetrated by a fanatical crowd, which enjoyed the tolerance of the countrys law enforcement authorities.

FYROMs political conduct constitutes a severe injury to good neighbourly relations and a destabilizing factor in the wider Balkan region, as the countrys leadership has chosen the treacherous path of extreme nationalism, in violation of the principles of international law.

At the April 2008 NATO Summit in Bucharest, the member states of the Alliance agreed with Greeces position on the need for FYROM to comply with the principle of good neighbourly relations and collectively decided (paragraph 20, Bucharest Summit Declaration) that an agreement on the name issue is a necessary prerequisite for FYROMs accession to NATO. The Summit Declaration states that an invitation to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will be extended as soon as a mutually acceptable solution to the name issue has been reached.

In a follow-up to NATOs Bucharest decision, the European Council stated in its Conclusions of 20 June 2008 and for the first time explicitly that the resolution of the name issue is essential for the opening of accession negotiations with FYROM.

Unfortunately, the calls of the international community have gone unheeded by FYROMs political leadership, which though strengthened by the outright majority achieved in the June 2008 elections has chosen not to show the political will to resolve the longstanding name issue, but rather to attempt to derail the negotiations under the UN, raising issues in no way related to the provisions of Security Council Resolutions 817 and 845.

For Greece, the definitive settlement of the matter and the finding of a mutually acceptable solution remain the sole objective. Greeces shift from its initial negotiating position accepting the idea of a compound name that includes the term Macedonia on the condition that there is also a geographical qualifier is proof of the constructive spirit and good faith in which Greece has approached the negotiations under the UN to date.

The Greek side calls for:

1. the adoption of a definitive composite name with geographical qualification of the term Macedonia, for all purposes (erga omnes) and for all uses, so as to avoid confusion with Greek Macedonia and to put an end to the irredentist policy and territorial aspirations of FYROM,

2. that FYROM genuinely renounces the usurpation of historical and national heritage of the Greek people,

3. Endorsement of the definitive solution by the UN Security Council, so as to ensure respect for its implementation.

Source: Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs

The truth about "United Macedonian Diaspora"

2009-11-05T23:44:00.005+02:00

This is a Q & A for those having difficulties comprehending what was posted in my previous messages.

Online version: http://paste2.org/p/500624

In both cases, beware of folding links - or just get the pdf (end of the Q & A).

=========START=========

The truth about "United Macedonian Diaspora" - Q & A

Q: What happened?

A: Maknews.com is a web forum frequented by "United Macedonian Diaspora" (UMD) members. A discussion explaining UMD's philosophy and goals, suddenly vanished.

Q: Why?
A: If you read the text, you'll understand why. This discussion could not continue publicly and was probably moved to a private forum.

Q: Where can I read the text?
A: The URL for the discussion is www.maknews.com/forum/post212232.html but, as said before, this topic was deleted or moved.

Q: So, how do we know what was written?
A: Several people saved copies of the discussion.

Q: Nice try, but one could easily forge these documents. Where's the proof?
A: Let's use an independent third party then. Google caches data across the internet and presents small chunks of text below the search results. Using the appropriate search phrases, a larger text can be reconstructed from these bits.

Q: Is that cheating?
A: Of course not. See http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?answer=136861 for advanced search techniques.

Q: OK, I believe you now. Still, I don't know what to do.
A: Just follow these links then.

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amaknews.com+%22There+is+only+one+Macedonian+and+that+is+the+ethnic+Macedonian%22

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amaknews.com+%22There+are+citizens+of+Macedonia+who+can+be+Albanian%22

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amaknews.com+%22occupied+part+of+Macedonia+who+may+be+Greeks%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amaknews.com+%22There+can+be+citizens+of+Bulgaria+who+live+in+the+occupied+part+of+Macedonia%22

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amaknews.com+%22There+can+be+citizens+of+Albania+who+live+in+the+occupied+part+of+Macedonia%22

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amaknews.com+%22There+can+be+citizens+of+Serbia+who+live+in+the+occupied+part+of+Macedonia%22

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amaknews.com+%22of+them+are+Macedonians.+They+just+live%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amaknews.com+%22who+may+live+in+Macedonia+%28all+of%29+or+anywhere%22

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amaknews.com+%22is+an+ethnic+term%2C+not+a+geographical+term%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amaknews.com+%22Read+this%3A+www.artofmacedonism.com%22+%22I+assure+you%22

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amaknews.com+%22UMD%27s+leadership+level+believes+in%22

Q: This is time consuming. What's the text?
A: Here it is.

"There is only one Macedonian and that is the ethnic Macedonian.
There are citizens of Macedonia who can be Albanian, Turkish, Vlach, Roma, etc.
There can be citizens of Greece who live in the occupied part of Macedonia who may be Greeks, Vlachs, Pontians, Albanians, etc.
There can be citizens of Bulgaria who live in the occupied part of Macedonia who may be Bulgarian, Turkish, Roma, etc.
There can be citizens of Albania who live in the occupied part of Macedonia who may be Albanian, Turkish, etc.
There can be citizens of Serbia who live in the occupied part of Macedonia who may be Serbian, Albanian, etc.
But NONE of them are Macedonians. They just live in Macedonia.
The only Macedonians are the ethnic Macedonians, who may live in Macedonia (all of) or anywhere in the world.
The term Macedonian is an ethnic term, not a geographical term.
I don't think I can be much clearer than that.
Read this: www.artofmacedonism.com
I assure you, that's what everyone involved at UMD's leadership level believes in and supports. That's what UMD is all about."

Q: Granted, it doesn't look good. When did that happen?
A: March 2009. See Google's preview text at http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amaknews.com+%22posted%22%2B%22author%22%2B%22rogi%22%2B%22There+is+only+one+Macedonian+and+that+is+the+ethnic+Macedonian%22 for more..

Q: How is UMD connected?
A: Participants in the discussion are UMD members. For an example, see http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amaknews.com+%22I+believe+there+are+some+good+people+in+the+UMD%2C+with+Rogi+being+a+member%22 (same author as above).

Q: Well, that could be a misunderstanding, right?
A: Wrong. By now we've established bigotry and irredentism, using publicly available, independent third party means.

Q: What about artofmacedonism.com?
A: This site (now defunct) was mentioned in the maknews.com discussion. The registrant was UMD.

Q: How do you know that?
A: Just whois the domain.

Q: What is whois?
A: Whois is a procedure used for querying the domains' databases, in order to determine information about them - such as registrant data.

Q: How do I do that?
A: Use any free service available.

Q: I'm not that technical.
A: Use NetworkSolutions and DomainTools. These are the results from http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/artofmacedonism.com and http://whois.domaintools.com/artofmacedonism.com regarding registrant data.

United Macedonian Diaspora
Private Avenue
Melbourne, NA 3000
AU

Q: What was the content of that site?
A: You'll find the complete text at http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:AKSn2LpDRQkJ:www.artofmacedonism.com and a small excerpt below.

"The Macedonian Cause

...national unification of all Macedonians living in all parts of Macedonia; the Republic of Macedonia, Aegean Macedonia, Pirin Macedonia, Mala Prespa & Golo Brdo and Gora..."

Q: Can you explain the part about "...Aegean Macedonia, Pirin Macedonia, Mala Prespa & Golo Brdo and Gora..."?
A: "Aegean Macedonia" is the greek and "Pirin Macedonia" the bulgarian part of the modern wider region of Macedonia (51% greek, 11% bulgarian). This terminology is frequently used by irredentists. "Mala Prespa & Golo Brdo" and "Gora" are regions of Albania and Kosovo respectively.

Q: Aren't these parts inhabited by different ethnic groups?
A: Today, 75% of the 5 million people living in the region of Macedonia do not identify as "ethnic Macedonians" but as Greeks (half of them), Albanians, Bulgarians, Roma, Turks and Serbs.

Q: What about the "national unification" then? It doesn't make any sense.
A: Irredentism isn't rational.

Q: Where can I find more information to download, print out and share with my friends?
A: There is a document (now updated) containing links, texts, screenshots and photos. Try the links below.

ORIGINAL - https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B-Di5LBUFNo8ZWI3NWQ0YWUtZWE4OC00ZWZhLTkzYmEtNmIzMDY1YTRiNzAx&hl=en
SHORT URL - http://bit.ly/umdiaspora
MIRROR - http://www.scribd.com/doc/22120849/

=========END=========

Regards,

Milos Petrovic

=======================================================
SOURCE: MGSA

The President of the Hellenic Republic on the FYROM Name Issue

2009-11-04T23:32:00.002+02:00

In his address at the lunch in honor of the UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon in Athens on November 4, 2009 the President of the Hellenic Republic Karolos Papoulias in regard to the issue of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (fYRoM) noted: “The problem is simple. The geographical area of Macedonia is since the Middle Ages a multiethnic region. It is not the homeland of one single nation.

The tort of Skopje is that while as a state and an ethnicity is a Part, it portrays itself as if it is the Whole. They call their country ‘Macedonia’, their ethnicity and language ‘macedonian’, because through these names they are trying to register mortgages in all of Macedonia. The rhetoric for the great macedonian dismembered homeland is serving this view. “

The President made clear that Greece is not seeking to baptize the neighboring state, but resists to this attempt of usurpation.

“We support a composite name with a geographical qualifier for the state that is for all uses, with the exclusive aim of the names to reflect the reality of the region so as to act as a factor of good neighborhood and not as a factor that poisons the bilateral relations and the climate in the wider region.”

“Good neighborly relations between countries are not built on outstanding issues” said the President, with a particular reference to his personal efforts as a foreign minister.

“We signed the Interim Agreement in 1995 just to give the possibility to find in a consensual climate a compromise to be grounded in the reality of the region. Unfortunately, Skopje turned the planned negotiation to a speculation process.

As a result, Greece has no choice but to set as a condition for the membership of the fYRoM in the European Union and the NATO, a mutually acceptable solution. As long as this outstanding issue finds no solution, Greece cannot give its consent. “

“fYRoM itself has the key to its integration into the Euro-Atlantic institutions” he concluded.

http://www.kathimerini.gr/4dcgi/_w_articles_kathremote_1_04/11/2009_306008

http://www.macedonian.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=11121

Papandreou and Gruevski meet

2009-11-03T01:12:00.001+02:00

Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou and Nikola Gruevski, his counterpart from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), met for half an hour on the sidelines of the European Union summit in Brussels on Thursday.

It was the first meeting between the two since Papandreou took over as Prime Minister and the first meeting between prime ministers of the two countries since March 2006.

Both agreed that a mutually acceptable solution to the name dispute is a priority for both countries. In conversation with Mr. Gruevski, Mr. Papandreou is reported to have said that Greece intends to play a leading role in the EU accession of southeastern European states but that a resolution of the name dispute which respects Greece’s positions of a name with a geographical qualifier is a condition for accession talks.

The meeting followed on from the lightning three day visit of Mr. Gruevski to Australia earlier in the week.

The purpose of his visit was the signing of a bilateral Social Security Agreement between the FYROM and Australia.

http://neoskosmos.com/news/en/papandreou-gruevski-meet

Pr. Nikos Zaikos as regards the FYROM name issue*

2009-10-31T11:29:00.002+02:00

In the international relations, every state is free to choose the name that wants. But when exercising its right to choose its name and indeed when exercising any other right, it must do so in a manner that will not obstruct other states’ exercise of their own right or do, that does not differ in its aim from the aim for which this right was accorded, and that does not cause injury to another state. Prohibition of the abuse of rights is a general principle of law found time and again in international legal practice; and it comes higher up in the hierarchy than the rules governing the exercise, by the subjects of international law, of their individualized rights. [Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Amsterdam, Elsevier, I,1992, pages 4, 7-8).

As regards the specific issue (the onomatology of states in international law) that examined in this chapter , international practice chows clearly and unequivocally that a state’s right to choose its name or its symbols may be ...

restricted if international peace and security be placed in jeopardy by such name or symbols. It is also well known that the maintenance of peace may not only be endangered through the use of violence, but also by acts that are not at the outset contrary to international law.

In the case in question, the practice of the United Nations and of the European Union shows that Greece’s claim that a state’s choice of name may constitute a form of aggression is not without foundation. Moreover, there is recognition of the possibility in theory that a state’s choice of name may be taken as hostile propaganda against a neighbouring state, inasmuch as that name is adjudged to conceal territorial ambitions.

From this point of view, it is no secret that maps have been repeatedly published in FYROM with the current international boundaries altered in such a way as to portray the country with broadened geographical and ethnic borders taking in what FYROM refers to as Greece’s ‘irredenta territory’. It should be noted that the purpose of maps is not simply to give geographical information; they are a record of the limits of a state’s territorial sovereignty and may be cited in evidence as proof of title in international law. Though to speak of ‘cartographic aggression’ might seem excessive, publishing misleading maps does give the injured state, in this case Greece, every right to make a formal protest.

But it is not just on maps that there is misinformation. To quote a claim from a speech made by FYROM’s former ambassador to the US, Ljubica Acevska, and published in the Valparaiso University Law Review:

‘The name controversy pertains to Greece objecting to the Republic of Macedonia referring to itself as “Macedonia” because Greece annexed a territory known as Aegean Macedonia earlier this century in the Balkan Wars and fears that Macedonia may seek back this land, populated by ethnic Macedonians’.(34,Summer 2000, 477 f, with 484 n. 9)

At all events, going by current international regulations, in the six official languages of the UN list of country names, FYROM’s name is being referred to as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Consequently, the claim made by FYROM’s representatives at international meetings that the name FYROM is not the real name of the country is, besides being a direct violation of the Interim Accord, not acceptable by international organs. Going by current international regulations, FYROM has never been released from its legal obligation to choose a name after negotiation with, and agreement with, Greece.

*This text is translation of the article “the onomatology of states in international law: the case of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” from the book “Macedonian identities” (Makedonikes taftotites, Patakis, edition 2008)

We need History Lectures based on FACTS not political motives! (The case of the so-called 7th Conference on Macedonia Studies at Utah.)

2009-10-30T13:21:00.009+02:00

First of all I want to apologize from my bad English grammar. As native Macedonian [1] my mother language is Greek and not Slavic as the postmodernists [2] professors that will participate in this Conference claim arbitrarily.[3]

In November 5-8 ay the University of Utah in Salt Lake City will take place the so-called "7th Macedonian-North American Conference on Macedonian Studies".[4] Although a number of presenters strictly deal with subjects of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, there are politically motivated lectures that attack and disparage the people of Greece, the Greek Cultural identity and as they twist historical facts through their disturbing presentation. These motivated lectures are influence under the umbrella of the Slavmacedonism [5], a post modern nationalism ideology.

In American universities today not everyone knows what extreme Slavmacedonists are doing in their ....

classrooms/conference/lectures or even if they do know, they choose not to ask questions. Ordinarily if someone has a theory that involves a radical departure from what the experts have professed, he or she is expected to defend his or her position by providing evidence in its support. But no one seemed to think it was appropriate to ask for evidence from the professors who claimed that the Slav Macedonians of the FYROM have any kind of connection with the ancient Macedonian civilization.

Normally, if one has a question about a text that another instructor is using, one simply asks why he or she is using that book. But since this conventional line of inquiry was closed to us, I have to raise my questions in a more public context.

A lecture at which serious questions could not be asked, and in fact were greeted with hostility--the occasion seemed more like a political rally than an academic event as this that will take place in Utah. Arthur Schlesinger says in “The Disuniting of America” that the purpose of history is to promote not group self-esteem, but understanding of the world and the past, dispassionate analysis, judgment and perspective, respect for divergent cultures and traditions, and unflinching protection for those unifying ideas of tolerance, democracy, and human rights that make free historical inquiry possible.

Slavmacedonists supporters have suggested many ways to revise the teaching of European history and science.[6] But if diversity does not apply to truth, then there are limits to academic freedom. That does not mean that we should try to keep students from knowing about erroneous theories or hypothetical possibilities, or from reading works like the Macedonians Slavs and the connection with the ancient Greek culture or the Slavic idiom that speak Greeks and Slavmavedonians is the same with the creation of the Slav Macedonian language that had as aim to de-Bulgarize the Slav Macedonians and create a separate national consciousness.[7]

But lectures that are designed to conceal a considerable body of evidence, or that are intended to instill resentment and distrust in place of open discussion, have no place in the academaic curriculum. I believe it is essential for all of us to realize that some action needs to be taken. It is not simply a matter of doing justice to the ancient Greeks and their modern descendants. Universities must encourage free inquiry and debate, and not permit the classrooms/conference/lectures to be used as a means of political indoctrination. Even more important than that is our obligation to teach history, history that can be supported by warranted evidence and not in half evidence.

As Pr. Mary Lefkowich points out the teachers of course need to have freedom to experiment and to test new theories and interpretations. But academic freedom does not give us the right to rewrite history without reference to the known facts—even if by doing so we imagine that we can bring about social improvement. The scientists among us, for example, do not have license to falsify data to achieve desired results. If a scientist in the "hard" sciences does so, he or she is disciplined and even dismissed. It is often more difficult to distinguish between false and true in the writing of history, but it is still usually possible to establish at least the broad outlines, and to give a clear account of the available evidence. Historians do not have the right to invent their own narratives or to misuse evidence.[8]

In November 5-8 the up-coming conference will be a new link in the Slavmacedonism chain. The opposite opinion in this one-side conference will be forbidden. The re-invention of history has been the selected terrain of action. The dispute is not a question of survival and grandeur but an issue of challenging territorial stability. This has led to the extreme position of discarding Slav origin and labeling it as a "derogatory term", an "insult". It is indeed dangerous not to cut ties with the Slav past because this brings the country closer to Bulgaria. At the same time it is convenient to baptize Bulgarian national heroes "Macedonians", to deny the Bulgarian origin of the language spoken, to usurp Greek history and to suppress Bulgarophilia and Grecophilia within the country. A visit to Vergina, Pella and tens of archaeological sites in Greece would be enough to ridicule those who suggest that ancient Macedonians spoke Greek because it was a fashionable thing to do. In effect what some suggest here is that ancient Macedonians did not speak their mother tongue but a "foreign language".

The finally questions that rose in my mind as regards in this revisionist conference are:

(a) The ancient Macedonian culture was invented from the Greeks or the Slavs ?
(b) How you segregate a Greek Macedonian identity with a Slav Macedonian one?
(c) Utah University administrators ought to ask whether we need historical lectures basing on facts or in political motives ?

Thanks for your timing.

NOTES
[1]- A Macedonian according to several sources [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Macedonian], [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/macedonian], [Oxford English Dictionary] is a native or inhabitant of the (Ancient or Modern) Macedonian region. Any usage diffrent from this that give from the dictionaries has political and ambiguous motives.
[2]- http://www.hum.utah.edu/languages/?pageId=4549
[3]-One of them is the Linguistics professor and Balkan Studies scholar Victor Friedman that portrays Greeks as a most undemocratic and oppressive nation, from ancient to present time, and places the role of Greece in the Balkans in a most negative light. The core of his arguments seems to lie in what he considers suppression of multilingualism and minorities in Greece, which he associates with the current dispute between Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) on the name of the latter country. Scholars and academics invited Dr. Friedman to debate his views in the Hellenic Electronic Center/Professors' Forum*, but he declined their invitation. For more details see “Ime romeos e xeuro plus glose Fazio degli” (http://modern-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/2009/03/greek-academic-response-to-victor.html)
[4]- Post-modernism is a form of skepticism combined with self-consciousness. Its adherents believe that no historical narrative can be considered authoritative, because writers always have political motives, whether they are aware of them or not. For the post-modernist, the past is more problematic. Though nations are modern and the product of modern cultural conditions, nationalists who want to disseminate the concept of the nation will make liberal use of elements from the ethnic past, where they appear to answer to present needs and preoccupations. The present creates the past in its own image. So modem nationalist intellectuals will freely select, invent and mix traditions in their quest for the imagined political community. For more detail see the works of the Anthony D.Smith.
[5]- Slav-Macedonism(also call as Macedonism and pseudo-Macedonism) is the political idea prevailing in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) which utilises historical revisionism to establish links between an ethnic group that formed in the 20th century - ethnic 'Macedonians' - and historical events and figures of the 19th century and Middle Ages. For example, Bulgarian Tsar Samuil, despite the overwhelming evidence, is portrayed as a "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. Unfortunately for extremist Macedonists , history bears witness to the fact that in the early 1940s the Bulgarian inhabitants of Vardar Macedonia were transformed into "Macedonians" for political reasons by communist dictators (Tito, Stalin, and Dimitrov) and infamous communist organizations (Comintern and the Balkan Communist Federation ).
[6]- The ROSETTA STONE and the Tendov-Boshevski Controversy by Miltiades, Phoebos and Hephastion Bolaris.[ http://ancient-medieval-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/2009/09/rosetta-stone-and-tendov-boshevski.html ]
[7]- “Yugoslav Communism and the Macedonian Question” by Stephen E. Palmer, Jr. Robert R. King, 1971.
[8]-History Lesson, a race odyssey, Yale University Press, 2008

former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (fYROM) Nikola Gruevski has made irredentist claims against Greece and Bulgaria

2009-10-29T23:22:00.001+02:00

27 Oct 2009
The Prime Minister of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (fYROM), Nikola Gruevski has made irredentist claims against Greece and Bulgaria during a speech to the the Skopjan community in Sydney.

According to a report from fYROM's news agency MINA. Mr Gruevski urged the Skopjan community in Australia to be united.

"Macedonians in Australia enjoy a unique opportunity to live together with their Aegean, Pirin compatriots, which is not the case in their native country, Gruevski said, calling them to not divide on these grounds as there are no Vardar, Aegean, Pirin Macedonians, but only Macedonians," Mr Gruevski is quoted as saying in the MINA report.

Mr Gruevski also asked from the Diaspora to remain united on the issue of the name dispute with Greece.

He noted that the negotiations with Greece are due to resume to find a compromise solution that he promised will not harm "Macedonian national interests, language, nation, culture, integrity, identity, pride and dignity, and will become valid only if embraced by citizens at a referendum."

The response from the Greek deputy Foreign Affairs Minister, Dimitris Droutsas to Mr Gruevski's reference to "Aegean Macedonians" was clear cut.

"We will not enter into any form of dialogue with Mr Gruevski or Skopje about nonexistent issues, " Mr Droutsas said. "Greece sees its relations with Skopje with an open mind and always constructively. Skopje's leadership has to realise that it is up to them to choose between the usual aggressive, nationalistic and irreedentist rhetoric or to invest into a constructive, honest and essential dialogue to resolve the name dispute issue."

He reiterated Greece's position that the only solution is a definitive composite name with geographical qualification of the term Macedonia, for all purposes (erga omnes) and for all uses.

http://www.neoskosmos.com/news/en/gruevski-claims-mina

Stern warning to Skopje from Parvanov over 'minority' claim

2009-10-29T21:02:00.000+02:00

SOFIA (ANA-MPA - B. Borisov) Bulgarian President Georgi Parvanov on Thursday warned the government in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) to retract statements regarding the existence of an ethnic 'Macedonian' minority in Bulgaria's Pirin region or jeopardise the country's prospects of joining the EU.

An announcement released by the Bulgarian presidency's press office on Thursday quotes Parvanov's stern reaction to a statement made by FYROM Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski - who referred to "Macedonians of Vardar, the Aegean and Pirin" - and his warning that Sofia's support for FYROM's EU accession was not "unconditional".

"I am bewildered by the position that has been expressed by the Prime Minister of neighbouring [FYROM]. I see it as unacceptable, as an expression of territorial claims. It is all the more unacceptable as [FYROM] aspires to become a member of the EU,” Parvanov said on Thursday, during an official visit to Australia.

Bulgaria's president stressed that Sofia's support for its neighbour's EU entry was largely dependent on that country's behaviour and he urged Skopje to immediately withdraw similar claims.

Parvanov also underlined that Skopje must fulfill the criteria for EU membership, which included that of cultivating good relations with its members.

Bulgaria's Deputy Foreign Minister Marin Raykov, who accompanied Parvanov on the trip to Australia, noted that FYROM would receive a date for the start of accession negotiations with the EU as soon as as it resolved the problems with its neighbours.

Skopje's government claims the existence of ethnic 'Macedonian' minorities in northern Greece and southwest Bulgaria; claims disputed by the governments in both those countries. It is also in a dispute with Greece over the use of the name 'Macedonia', which Athens construes as an attempt to make territorial claims against a northern Greek province with the same name.

According to the Greek argument, the name Macedonia actually describes a much broader geographic area, which spans parts of Greece, Bulgaria and also FYROM itself.

http://www.ana-mpa.gr/anaweb/user/showplain?maindoc=8092765&service=142

PanMacedonian Letter to the President of the University of Utah

2009-10-27T08:56:00.001+02:00

October 26, 2009

President Michael K. Young
University of Utah
201 Presidents Circle
Salt Lake City, Utah 84112

Dear President Young,

On behalf of our multi-thousand membership of our organization and indeed of all U.S. citizens of Hellenic descent, we want to protest in the strongest possible terms the presentation of distorted facts pertaining to the history of Greece. Some of the presenters of the "7th Macedonian-North American Conference on Macedonian Studies" which will take place at the grounds of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, Utah on November 5-8, 2009 are promoting anti-Hellenic hate speech and disparagement: http://www.hum.utah.edu/languages/?pageId=4549.

Although a number of presenters strictly deal with issues of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), there are politically motivated lectures that attack and disparage the people of Greece as they twist historical facts through their disturbing presentation. We acknowledge the concept of academic freedom, but we are greatly concerned that your University is being used to promote a political agenda based on historical untruths and falsehoods. Anti-Hellenism is equal to anti-Semitism and the United Nations has enacted severe measures for such racism. Nationalists from the FYROM and its Diaspora (both at an official and unofficial level) have expressed hatred directed at Greeks and the Hellenic nation based on their impression of racial superiority and obsession with genetic purity. Official television advertisements in the FYROM have even informed the masses through God’s voice that they are “Macedonoids, progenitors of the white race” whereas others are “Mongoloids”, “Negroids”, and “Mullatoes” (see, especially from 4 minutes, 28 seconds on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ITEdiSBl3Y&feature=related). Official government and academic sources in the FYROM refuse to recognize Greece’s sovereignty over her lands referring to Greece’s northern region as “Aegean Macedonia”, or “the Macedonian region under Greek jurisdiction”. This is evident in Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski’s recent speech to his country’s Diaspora in Australia (http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/8657/45/) and throughout the newly written “Macedonian Encyclopedia” promoted by the “Macedonian Academy of Arts and Sciences (MANU)” in Skopje.

We have heard some of the presenters of the"7th Macedonian-North American Conference on Macedonian Studies" in other forums, regarding the following topics and we would kindly ask the organizing committee of this symposium to provide us with a copy of their presentations:

Alexander the Great and mythic homelands
Tasos Kostopoulos on Macedonia and the Slavs in Greece: When a forbidden language speaks truth to power;
Between nationalism and solidarity: Assessing the KKE’s post-war positioning of the Macedonian national liberation struggle;
Macedonian refugee children from the Greek Civil War;
From Trnaa to Toronto: The life story of a dete begalec;
A Macedonian child in a Greek technical school during the Greek Civil War;
Cleansing the national, polluting the natural: The politics of development and cultural homogeneity in the Florina region;

It is true that we don’t know the content of the presentations. However referring to the title Alexander the Great and mythic homelands, we would like to call your attention to a letter to President Barack Obama, endorsed by 350 (and still growing) archaeologists and academics from worldwide universities and institutions of higher learning. This attests to the falsification and revision of history propagated by the FYROM and its supporters (please visit the web site: http://macedonia-evidence.org/). The letter to President Obama by the archeologists, the historians, and researchers was written to curtail the attempts of historical revision/distortion, and to protect the integrity of historic truth in their academic specialties. The decision of the 350 scholars who cosigned the letter to President Obama was made so that “the scholarly community has a duty to preserve historic truth.”

The title of the presentation: Tasos Kostopoulos on Macedonia and the Slavs in Greece: When a forbidden language speaks truth to power alludes to the attempt of Skopje’s leadership to inflict a “Macedonian” minority in Greece who speak the “Macedonian” language. This so-called “forbidden language” however, is an idiom (which did not have a written form) and was detected around the 18th century forming a part of various slavophone idioms in northern Greece. Its creation was purely utilitarian and practical, and it was used as an unofficial lingua franca so to speak because the area during the Ottoman Era was a colorful tribal mosaic of linguistic and religious groups: Turkish conquerors, Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Albanians, Turkmen nomads (Yuruks), Gypsies, Bosnians, Armenians, and Jews among others. They needed a way to understand each other regarding the needs of their daily coexistence. The idiom therefore appeared gradually and has served well the purpose for which it was created, or rather, for which it emerged.

Moreover, it should be noted that the idioms spoken in Ottoman Macedonia were in no way reflective of the ethnic affiliation of its inhabitants since the majority of the people espoused Hellenism. In addition, the present “Macedonian” language of the FYROM is a manufactured language with a Bulgarian base, inflicted on the inhabitants of what was roughly Vardarska Banovina by Marshal Josip Broz Tito and a group of linguists throughout the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s so that he can expedite his plans of annexing Greek Macedonia. The language spoken by the citizens of the FYROM and the idioms spoken in northern Greece are not the same. The leadership of Greece’s neighboring country is attempting to connect this idiom with the language spoken in Skopje, to further press Greece about an ethnic “Macedonian” minority in Greece.

During this conference, time will be spent discussing the supposed expulsion of "Macedonian" children from Greece during the Greek Civil War. Not only is this a legitimization of Stalinist demagoguery, it is also a slap in the face to reality. As has been attested by numerous United Nations resolutions (UN Resolutions: 382 (V Section C), 1950; 618 (VII), 1952; 517 (VI), 1952), these children were Greek. Some were the children of those who collaborated with fascist Bulgarian and Italian forces and later with communist guerillas, many were unrelated children abducted by these fleeing communist guerillas, and most were never repatriated leaving them to the mercy of Communist propaganda in Iron Curtain countries. President Harry S. Truman and the United States of America were staunch supporters of these UN resolutions calling for the repatriation of these children having realized the re-education dangers they faced away from Greece as is clear in his April 19, 1950 address to the Speaker of the House of Representatives: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=13766.

Looking at this in the view of the then US Secretary of State's Stettinius's 1944 Circular Airgram to US Diplomatic and Consular Offices (868.014/26 Dec. 1944) as "aggressive intentions against Greece", these children and their offspring have been brought up to believe that they were once not Greek and that they were expelled. Although one must sympathize with their plight because they are truly victims of a dead ideology, perpetuating and sponsoring their ideas is a disservice to them and to history.

Furthermore, a screening of the fictional film "The Secret Book" during this conference is oxymoronic for a meeting that is supposed to be scientific. It is akin to showing "The Da Vinci Code" during a meeting of Catholic bishops. The movie implies a unification of "the whole Macedonian fatherland" erroneously believed by Macedonist nationalists to have been split up in 1912. What is the motivation of showing this fictional film in a scientific conference, other than alluding that neighboring territories should be annexed? Would the University of Utah also open its halls to disgruntled supporters of a confederalist America? It's time to look at things with facts in mind.

We are sure that you were not aware of the motivated sinister intentions of some of the participants of the conference in their quest to present their views on historical events of the area using hate speech in order to promote their “pseudo-Macedonism;” but please be aware that the fine institution of the University of Utah is being used as an accomplice to promote hate speech towards, and disparagement of the Hellenic nation.

Sincerely,

Nina Gatzoulis Supreme President
Maria Hatzinakou Supreme Secretary

Dr Christos D. Katsetos answers to Pr Joseph as regards the upcoming conference at the University of Utah

2009-10-25T21:23:00.003+02:00

Dear Professor Joseph,

The appalling and tragicomic tone of the announcement issued by a certain "Hellenic League of America," an obscure group, calling for censoring of the upcoming "7th Macedonian-North American Conference on Macedonian Studies" to be held at University of Utah on November 5-8, 2009, is denounced in no uncertain terms.

Please refer to my previous post in this list:
http://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/public/mgsa-l/2009-October/011348.html

At the same time, I submit that it would be somewhat disingenuous to portray the upcoming conference at the University of Utah as being solely an academic symposium devoid of political underpinnings. Indeed, the list of topics announced blend serious scholarship (i.e., on linguistics of Southern Slavic languages) with controversial topics bearing clear political overtones.
http://www.hum.utah.edu/languages/?pageId=4549

Let us please agree to disagree that the terms "Macedonians" and "Macedonian" cannot be monopolized and as such, they are not synonymous to Slavic Macedonians (Makedonci/Makedontsi) and Slavic Macedonian (Makedonski) respectively. Macedonia is neither a single country nor the cradle of a single nation, but a geographic region parts of which belong nowadays to four sovereign states, each with its distinctive cultural heritage, national identity, and collective memory.

In fairness, the positions on nomenclature embraced and actively promoted by certain scholars since the early 1990s, cannot be considered as unbiased or impartial. They are in keeping with the official narrative of the Former Yugoslav of Macedonia, which is based on an highly controversial ethnocentric doctrine effectively claiming the entire geographic Macedonian region of modern times as part of that nation’s “tatkovina” (fatherland).
http://www.eliamep.gr/en/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/eliamep-thesis-3_2009-kofos.pdf
http://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/public/mgsa-l/2009-October/011356.html

Regarding Professor Danforth's analogy as to whether "similar anti Greek material from a Turkish or a Macedonian list" would have been "allowed to appear on the MGSA list?", I wish to reiterate that the expatriate Makedonski organization "United Macedonian Diaspora" (UMD), which is one of the sponsors of the upcoming conference at the University of Utah, has engaged in extreme and virulent nationalist manifestations against Greece and the Greek heritage in Macedonia. This is an indisputable fact, which doubtless adds a political dimension to the conference.

Last but not least, I would like to draw attention to a fundamental difference between the MGSA conferences and the upcoming conference at the University of Utah. The former are not sponsored by donors which foster nationalist agendas. Unfortunately, this is hardly the case with the Slavic Macedonian conference at the University of Utah, which is sponsored -in part- by bona fide lobbying groups of the likes of the "United Macedonian Diaspora" (UMD).

And to set the record straight, once again, the "United Macedonian Diaspora" (UMD) is the recipient of funding from the Turkish Coalition of America (TCA) http://umdiaspora.org/content/view/359/49/ so is the University of Utah
http://www.mec.utah.edu/turkish/?pageId=3702

Respectfully submitted,

Christos D. Katsetos

===================================================

I want to add something as regards the usage of the "Macedonian" term. A Macedonian according to several sources [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Macedonian], [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/macedonian], [Oxford English Dictionary] is a native or inhabitant of the (Ancient or Modern) Macedonian region. Any usage diffrent from this that give from the dictionaries has political and ambiguous motives.

Treatment of Slav Macedonian history : to de-Bulgarize the Slav Macedonians *

2009-10-23T20:53:00.004+03:00

The treatment of Slav Macedonian history has the same primary goal as the creation of the Slav Macedonian language-to de-Bulgarize the Slav Macedonians and create a separate national consciousness. Since Marx claimed to have discovered the immutable laws of history. Communists have considered the "correct interpretation of history as the foundation of all social science and a Key element of nationality. In the Balkans, history is a primary ingredient in the development of national consciousness which possesses a current relevance that extends beyond mere academic interest. Hence, the Yugoslav Communists were most anxious to mold Macedonian history to fit their conception of Slav Macedonian consciousness.

In setting the tone for the new interpretation of history, Communist experts found past Slav Macedonian history to suffer from two defects. First, "bourgeois historians, although they may have certain merits for the elaboration of the material facts of history, suffer from the weakness of their idealistic theoretic basis."[16] Hence, new historical works must be based on a correct Marxist-Leninist interpretation of history. Second, and perhaps more important, Slav Macedonian history had to sever the umbilical cord to Bulgaria. It was advanced as a principle of Slav Macedonian historiography that key aspects of Slav Macedonian culture had origins separate from Bulgaria, that Slav Macedonian history was distinctively different from Bulgarian history.

Lazar Kolisevski gave the initial clues as to the correct interpretation of Slav Macedonian history in his report to the First Congress of the CPM in 1948. The resolution adopted by the First Congress stressed the importance of ideological conformity and emphasized the use of history to re-educate the Slav Macedonian masses:

Great interest should be created [in history] and there should be a systematic approach, with a materialistic elucidation of the historical past of our people in general, and special elaboration of the socialist movement in our country. The history of the people's liberation struggle should be particularly elaborated. A struggle should be carried out for systematic studies of our past among the broad masses as well as among party members. This is a necessary condition for the ideological uplift of party cadres and for the education of the masses in the spirit of socialism. [17]

Slav Macedonian historians, however, apparently had some difficulty in adjusting to the new guidelines for Slav Macedonian history-particularly in distinguishing Slav Macedonian from Bulgarian history. In an article in Komunist in January 1950, Vidoe Smilevski gave a summary of the correct interpretation of Slav Macedonian history. [18] Another article by Kiro Miljovski appeared about the same time but went farther, specifically criticizing Slav Macedonian historians and setting out in more detail the party guidelines for interpreting history. Miljovski was particularly critical of the failure to eliminate Bulgarian influences:

Some of our people fail to understand correctly Kuzman Sapkarov's cultural activity in the struggle for the Macedonian language, and they are suspicious about the national character of our entire early national movement simply because Sapkarov or others in the movement were not clearly, explicitly and to the very end nationally inclined, because some of them felt "now a Macedonian, now a Bulgarian." In the same way, some people fall into uncertainty about the Macedonian character of the national liberation movement in Deltev's time simply because Goce Deltev wrote in Bulgarian, because he did not say definitely that Macedonia is one nation and that Bulgaria is another. [19]

To avoid future uncertainty, Miljovski listed a number of expressions (most of them frequently used in Bulgarian historical writing) which were to be banned from Slav Macedonian history.

Although Macedonian historical works began to appear, historians found that research on Slav Macedonia was "complex and difficult" because existing literature "is still permeated with Great Bulgarian spirit, with omissions, distortioqs and falsifications of many historical facts." [20] The Scientific Institute for National History of the Slav Macedonian Nation was established "to eliminate the influence" of the Slav Macedonian Scientific Institute in Sofia which during the interwar period "published most of the documentary and propaganda materials about Macedonia." [21] The Institute, which had indeed published a great deal of material on Slav Macedonia (including its periodical Makedonski pregled), was the principal scholarly advocate during the interwar period of the thesis that the Macedonian Slavs are' Bulgarians.

The question of Bulgarian influence on Slav Macedonian history was the thorniest problem of the new historiography. Obviously it was impossible for the Yugoslav Communists to deny completely the role of Bulgaria in the Macedonian revolutionary movement. One of the early attempts to cope with Bulgarian influence utilized the device of "contradictions." According to this explanation Slav Macedonia's national revival developed as " Macedonian its inner content and Bulgarian in its outer forms," although late in the process some Macedonian national forms were used along with the Bulgarian forms. The "contradiction" between content and forms extended throughout the entire historical process of the Slav Macedonian revival; it was because of this conflict that Macedonian forms took shape, and it was through the development of these forms that Slav Macedonia "categorically proved its individual national character."[22]

Reconciling progressive Marxist historiography with Slav Macedonian national history has proved to be especially difficult. The Slav Macedonian revolutionaries were generally not socialists and the Balkan socialists did not recognize the Macedonian nationality. To walk such a tightrope required great historical agility and the party was frequently called upon to restore balance for historians who went too far in one direction. A Nova Makedonija article for example, counselled historians to avoid errors of the epoch of bourgeois idealization, as there is"no reason for interpreting past events with a romantic pathos." The article explained that in approaching the past, all positive traditions should be included as the inheritance of the proletariat, but conservative tendencies should be rejected. The approach toward historical personalities was criticized as being idealized. For example, although Delcev was a forerunner of Marx in Macedonia, it would be mistaken to call him and others like him real Marxists. [23] In dealing with the Balkan socialist movement, writers had to exercise caution:

Our socialists did not have a clear idea of the national belonging of the Macedonian people, nor of the need to establish it as a separate unit, and they adopted the stand that the population in Macedonia was composed of members of the Bulgarian, Serbian, and Greek nations and of the minorities.[24]

Although the socialists were wrong on the Macedonian question, they were socialists - hence, progressive and instrumental in the eventual triumph of socialism in Vardar Macedonia. The socialist movement was an approved topic for history, but its treatment required delicate handling.

In order to conform to the standards of Yugoslav Marxist historiography and at the same time degrade Bulgarian influence and affirm the Slav Macedonian nationality, Slav Macedonian historical writing has stressed certain themes. In order to create a continuous record of Macedonia as a nation, there is constant re-analysis and rediscovery of probable and improbable historical fragments. The medieval empire of Samuelo with its capital at Ohrid has been designated as a "Macedonian" empire (despite the fact that the empire was destroyed by Basil II who earned the title "Bulgar-slayer", for his campaigns against Samuelo). The "Slavic" missionaries Cyril and Methodius are treated with greatest respect and emphasis is placed on their IMacedonian birthplace (Salonika) and on their use of a "Macedonian" dialect ,as the first Slavic literary language. Macedonian revolutionary heroes are carefully treated. In addition to appropriating the historical legacies of the , key founders of the original IMRO-Goce Delcev, Damian Gruev and Pere Tosev-Macedonian historians play up lesser figures who might have given the slightest indication of "socialist" inclination or who were not openly Bulgarophiles. Thus there is glorification of men like Jane Sandansky, Dimo Hadji-Dimov, Petar Peparsev and Nikola Karev, who, because they defected from the IMRO or lost out in internecine organizational fights, have long been forgotten by chroniclers of the IMRO. The more recent IMRO leaders - Aleksandrov, Protogerov and Mihailov - are excluded from the ranks of the progressive for having been tools of Sofia. Besides, they are symbols which are too dangerous and too recent to attempt to manipulate. Pre-World War II Macedonian history orients events of the past towards the final successful climax of the liberation struggle during the war. However, it is emphasized that victory was possible only because of the fraternal assistance of the other Yugoslav nationalities under guidance of the Communist party.

Despite the difficulties of dealing with the national history, in the beginning Slav Macedonian writers enjoyed a relatively larger degree of permissive action with regard to the employment of nationalist symbols than historians of the other Yugoslav republics. In Slav Macedonian history, the main concentration is on genuine national heroes like Delcev and on their nationalistic character, regardless of their attitudes toward the Serbs and socialism. The accepted heroes of other Yugoslav national groups are portrayed almost exclusively from the point of view of their progressive, anti-religious or anti-Hapsburg attitudes. In the case of Croatia and Slovenia, the heroes selected by the Communists are those who favored union with Serbia. However, Belgrade permitted Vardar Macedonia to treat the role of the Serbs rather negatively, usually as Serbian imperiahsm. But, to balance these concessions, Slav Macedonian historians are required to give special emphasis to the role of the CPY in their liberation from Bulgariuans and Serbs. The struggle in the twenties and thirties for the correct party line on the nationality question is often stressed. The Party's efforts to liberate the Slav Macedonians from the Bulgarian occupiers are combined in historical treatises with attacks against old Great Serbism.[25]

Although the party had some difficulty in establishing a historiography to suit its political needs, numerous works on Slav Macedonian history were published by the Scientific Institute for the National History of the Macedonian People (since shorte'ned to the Institute for National History). The early institute publications include a large number of document collections and writings of early Macedonian revolutionaries. Though some monographs were published they were usually limited in scope. [26] In addition to publications of scholarly interest frequent historical articles and programs are carried in the newspapers and mass media of the Macedonian republic. In the campaign of inspiring a Macedonian consciousness among the population, the Communist approved interpretation of history was used as one of the primary tools.

The first serious challenge to the new Slav Macedonian historiography came in 1958. Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, which had re-established close ties after 1955, had a second era of unfriendly relations beginning in Fall 1957 and Spring 1958. As part of the anti-Yugoslav program of the bloc, Bulgaria launched a vigorous campaign to deny the Slav Macedonian language, culture, and nationality and to reassert Slav Bulgarian claims to Macedonia. The Slav Macedonian Communist leadership countered by emphasizing more forcefully the elements of Slav Macedonian culture. Evidencing concern with Macedonian history, Lazar Kolisevski delivered a long speech on Slav Macedonian history at Titov Veles in November 1958. He explained at the beginning that his purpose in dealing with the Slav Macedonian past was "to contribute to the forming of trends towards a correct, scientific understanding of historical events and their underlying social processes," because "we are still faced with many major tasks in the field of clarification of our national history."

The thrust of Kolisevski's treatment of history was two-fold-first, to reduce even further the significance of Bulgaria in Slav Macedonian history, and second, to stress positive treatment of Serb- Slav Macedonian relations. Although earlier Slav Macedonian historians had explain ned Bu1garian influence-by means of a contradiction with Macedonian inner forms and Bulgarian external forms, Kolisevski degraded Bulgarian influence even further. He argued

the (Slav)Macedonian nation did not emerge as a result of political manipulations in the twentieth century, but it emerged from the general struggle, resistance and awareness of the people, which began early in the 19th century.

Kolisevski went on to explain that from the very beginning of the 19th century Macedonian national consciousness grew independently and distinctively from Bulgarian consciousness. But with the development of Slav Macedonian consciousness, the Bulgarians developed imperialist ambitions towards Macedonia. The last part of his speech was particularly critical of the most recent Bulgarian denial of the Slav Macedonian nationality.

The role of the Serbs in Macedonian history, however, he treated much more favorably than Slav Macedonian historians had been doing up to that time. Though admitting that the Serbian bourgeoisie intended to establish its hegemony over Macedonia, Kolisevski quoted extensively from Serbian diplomatic correspondence to show that some Serbs acknowledged a Slav Macedonian nationality and opposed the negation of Slav Macedonian consciousness by Bulgaria. The Serbian bourgeoisie came to deny the Slav Macedonian nationality, Kolisevski claimed, when they entered into a tacit agreement with the Bulgarian and Greek bourgeoisie that only Serbs, Greeks and Bulgarians lived in Macedonia "with their respective number to depend on the manner in which Macedonia was carved up." He asserted that nations can only be created by powerful forces at work among the people and never by the actions of politicians.

Although Kolisevski's speech. placed new emphasis on the anti-Bulgarian aspects and softened the anti-Serbian aspects of Slav Macedonian history it did not represent a real departure for Slav Macedonian historiography. The same ideological line adopted after the Communist consolidation in Slav Macedonia is still the historical guideline. In recent years the quality and volume of Slav Macedonian historical writing has increased, but the themes and their treatment, although more sophisticated are much the same as before. The national - liberation struggle, the socialist movement in Yugoslavia and the Balkans, and the Slav Macedonian revolutionary tradition dominate historical works. There is still some reticence to treat Slav Macedonian relations with Yugoslavia and Serbia between the wars, but there is greater emphasis on Serb- Slav Macedonian relations during earlier periods.[28]

The goals of the national history are unchanged-to reduce the Bulgarian role in Slav Macedonian history and to stress Slav Macedonian national development at the same time emphasizing the importance of close ties with other Yugoslav peoples. However, Slav Macedonian national history has not developed in a vacuum and external problems have affected its course. Since 1956 Bulgaria has not recognized the Slav Macedonian nationality and her historians have been permitted to reassert Bulgarian historical claims to the Macedonian territory and population. Even in periods when Bulgarian-Yugoslav relations have been very good, academic historical controversies have continued, frequently developing political repercussions. The Slav Macedonian historians have thus been forced to defend their dubious historical claims, with the result that their history has become even more polemical and political. The rising nationalism of the Yugoslav peoples has also had its effect in Vardar Macedonia. Although increased nationalism first reappeared as the result of economic problems in the late 1950's, it has since spread throughout Yugoslavia's cultural life. The problem reached the point that Tito denounced "nationalistic manifestations" in the field of history at the Eighth Party Congress.[29] The problem was as much present in Vardar Macedonia as the other republics. Crvenkovski, at the Fourth Congress of the LCM, just before the Eighth all-party congress, criticized "the still present phenomenon of national romanticism [i.e., over-glorification] in uncovering our national past." Although acknowledging the difficulties of dealing with Macedonian history, Crvenkovski called on historians to adopt the approach which would "contribute to the national consciousness of our people freeing itself of nationalist deviations [pro-Bulgarian and anti-Serb sentiments], to building respect for everything that is positive and common in the struggle of our neighbors [i.e., Serbs and other Yugoslav peoples] and which is a component part of our own national history." [30]

*This text is from the book of “Yugoslav Communism and the Macedonian Question” by Stephen E. Palmer, Jr. Robert R. King, 1971. In order to segregate the Greek Macedonian cultural identity from the Slav one, I add for understating purposes the words “Slav and Vardar” in the front of the Greek adjective “Macedonia (n)” at the text. Also in the book you can find the original notes and bibliography that used in the specific article.

**For fair use only

Slav Macedonian language: Contributor of the Slav Macedonian nationalism *

2009-10-21T17:34:00.003+03:00

The Slav Macedonian language is considered by most Slav Macedonians to be one of the most positive contributions to their separate status. The question of what language Slav Macedonians actually spoke prior to 1945 has caused disagreements among even the most disinterested linguists. The Slav Macedonian dialects made a gradual transition from Serbian north of Skopje to Bulgarian in Eastern Macedonia. Even those who claim that a separate Slav Macedonian language existed before 1945 admit that all these dialects have a very close affinity to Bulgarian. [1] The elements of distinction between the central Slav Macedonian group of dialects (i.e., the language spoken roughly within the region Prilep-Bitolj-Kicevo-Titov Veles) and western Bulgarian were noticeable but not significant. [2] Bulgarian linguistic influence was strengthened by intense secular and religious propaganda in the past and by the fact that Bulgarian was the language used by the old Slav Macedonian nationalists.

It was natural that the Yugoslav government regarded a distinct Slav Macedonian language as a bulwark against Bulgarian irredentism. At the same time, it was a very real concession to the Macedonians vis-a-vis the Serbs. The First Assembly of the ASNOM in August 1944 passed a resolution declaring Slav Macedonian the republic's official language. A commission was created to determine which features of the spoken dialects were to be incorporated in the written language, and in May 1945 an alphabet was adopted by law.[3]

As the basis for the new literary language the Central Vardar Macedonian dialect was chosen. The explanation was that this region was the most populous area and that it was important in Slav Macedonian history. In addition Krste Misirkov, an advocate of the creation of a separate Slav Macedonian language in the early twentieth century, and other Macedonian nationalists used the central dialects. [4] However, this dialect is also the Slav Macedonian dialect most unlike both Serbian and Bulgarian. This was probably a far more important consideration in the government's decision. It has been claimed that, in fact, the north-western Slav Macedonian dialects (those most similar to Serbo-Croatian and most unlike Bulgarian) had been originally chosen as the basis for the new language but had to be abandoned because of popular opposition.[5]

From the very beginning, Slav Macedonian linguists concentrated on showing the Slav Macedonian language to be different from other languages. The first grammar, published in 1946, established nine distinctive traits of the new language and stressed its differences from other Slavic languages.[6] At first the language had many words, especially political, literary, philosophical, and technical terms, which were borrowed from Bulgarian, Serbian and Russian. However, from the beginning an effort was made to purge these foreign elements, particularly those from Bulgarian. The commission which codified the language was guided by the principle:

The vocabulary of the literary language should be enriched with terms taken from all Slav Macedonian dialects. New words should be created with living inflections of the folk speech. Borrowed words from other languages should be retained only where necessary, [7]

As a result, Bulgarian, Russian (after 1948) and other foreign words were replaced by words existing in one of the local Slav Macedonian dialects or by terms created by combining native elements.

In addition to making the modern Slav Macedonian, literary language different from Bulgarian" Yugoslav' linguists also have gone to great effort in attempting to show that the old Slav Macedonian dialects were essentially a separate language. The Slav Macedonian (anti-Bulgarian) interpretation of their linguistic development is not considerd by party leaders to be an ivory tower matter; the campaign is carried on through the mass media. Numerous articles on the alleged historical differences, some dating back to the middle ages, are carried by newspapers. In an early pamphlet (1950) on this subject, the party expressed concern over the popular failure to acknowledge the separate existence of a distinct Slav Macedonian language in the past:

We are meeting with blind acceptance of Great Bulgarian theories with regard to the struggle of our people for its national language. Study of the struggle for a national language is important, because language is one of the four basic elements without which there cannot be talk of a nation. The broad reading public, and even some teachers of national history, know little about the one hundred year struggle of our people for its own national language, or they underestimate it or misunderstand it, and thus they unconsciously become bearers of an anti-historical, unscientific stand with regard to our language. Some lecturers and publicists of our history are bringing to the masses the conception that the Slav Macedonians started in their schools and in their other cultural institutions with the use of the Bulgarian language as their literary language and that this language was used during the whole 19th and 20th centuries until the thirties, when progressive Slav Macedonian publicists took as their literary language one of the Slav Macedonian dialects. Thus it is made to seem that the Slav Macedonian literary language appeared as a shot out of the dark, because with such a conception the struggle for a national language, which started in the middle of the 19th century, is ignored.[8]

This pamphlet then cites several of the historical examples of the use of a Macedonian language, including that "little masterpiece of political agitation," a manifesto made in the name of the ill-fated Krusevo Republic of 1903. The Slav Macedonian Communists do not deny that the language of Goce Delcev and most other national heroes was Bulgarian, or that Bulgarian was the written Slav Macedonian language generally until the Second World War. But Slav Macedonian linguists explain that the Macedonian and Bulgarian peoples were facing essentially the same conditions in their struggle for national liberation against Turkey therefore; they coordinated their efforts. Since the Bulgarian bourgeoisie was more advanced than the Slav Macedonian bourgeoisie, the Bulgarian literary language was further developed; hence, it was used by the Macedonians. The bulk of Slav Macedonian linguistic history is aimed at magnifying the few historical instances of the written use of Slav Macedonian dialects.[9]

Much was done from the beginning to secure wide usage of the new language. The first grammar was published in 1946, an orthography in 1951. An 80,000 word dictionary was published in three volumes between 1961 and 1966. Two journals were started to encourage the use of the Slav Macedonian language-Makedonski jazik (1950) and Literaturen zbov (1954). The new literary language was employed from the very beginning by the mass media of the republic. However, in the early years there were many difficulties in securing wide usage of the still-changing Slav Macedonian language. Writings of the old Slav Macedonian revolutionaries and often even speeches and articles by party leaders had to be translated or adjusted before being used. The lack of adequate language standards and of experience in using the norms that had evolved resulted in linguistic hodgepodges in composition and speech. The vast majority of the population spoke the Slav Macedonian dialects of their regions and the new Slav Macedonian literary language only gradually penetrated the natural speech habits of a population just beginning to pull itself out of the depths of illiteracy and isolation.

A decade after the war, special institutes had to be held for Slav Macedonian language instructors. Commenting on the use of the new Slav Macedonian in literature in 1952, Lunt wrote:

Many Slav Macedonians have not yet learned to use their native Macedonian on all stylistic levels.... It is only the small group of intellectuals daily concerned with the written word who now write easily, without frequent Serbisms of Bulgarisms.... The writers were burdened by their education in Serbian or Bulgarian; they had learned in the long hard years of school Slav Macedonian was only for intimate friends and the most familiar ideas and feelings, but in broader spheres Serbian (or Bulgarian) must be used. This means that even today many Slav Macedonians unconsciously slip into Serbian when discussing political, philosophical or artistic matters. [10]

The standardization of the new literary language has been a continuing process. But with its constant use in schools, the press, radio, books and theater, Slav Macedonians have gradually come to understand and use the new language. The major non- Slav Macedonian cultural pull, because of party pressure, has been to Serbo-Croatian rather than Bulgarian. Serbo-Croatian is the second language in Slav Macedonian schools. As the output of original Slav Macedonian literary works and even translations of standard Communist works into Macedonian was modest in the beginning, Serbo-Croatian was widely read. In time the supply of Slav Macedonian textbooks, manuals and propaganda pamphlets has improved. Bulgarian books were discouraged before 1948 and prohibited for a time after the Cominform break.[11] Although at times when Bulgarian-Yugoslav relations have been good, Bulgarian works have been available throughout Yugoslavia, their accessibility in Macedonia has always been more limited.

It is not surprising that the output of Slav Macedonian literature has been limited both in quantity and quality. This is natural in view of the relative newness of the Macedonian language, the availability of Serbo-Croatian literature, and the fact that secondary linguistic problems are only now being solved. The early postwar literary efforts were limited primarily to poetry and a few short stories. As the language has become more firmly established and as writers have become accustomed to using it, literary works have increased both in volume and quality. Of those literary figures who have appeared, none can be said to be towering.[12]

It is doubtful if the impact of Slav Macedonian literature as such on the development of nationalism will prove as powerful as the use of the new language in the mass media and increasingly in everyday speech. In addition to the difficulty of developing a separate literature for a group of one million people in the shadow of the well-established Serbian and Croatian literatures, the literary themes called for are not always such as will encourage a "nationalist" literature. Immediately after the war the main themes were the partisan struggle with emphasis on the brotherly struggle of all Yugoslav peoples as a precondition for Slav Macedonian liberation. Although since 1948 there has been a shift away from the sterile black-and-white Soviet style of "socialist realism," Nova Makedonija and the Macedonian party leadership have continued to exhort writers to deal with "progressive" subjects. A campaign in the early 1950's opposed literary concentration on folklore and encouraged treatment of universal Marxist motives. Works based on Macedonian national characteristics are frowned upon, but still produced.

Reports on Slav Macedonian acceptance of the language have varied greatly. Some emigres claimed that the efforts to de-Bulgarize the language led to the inclusion of so many foreign elements that almost all Slav Macedonians instinctively reject it. One Serbian specialist in Yugoslav Macedonia in the early 1950's reported that the new Macedonian was used mostly by government employees loyal to Belgrade. However, one British expert on Macedonia held the language to be "immensely popular,"[13] and another expressed uncritical enthusiasm about the "happy" acceptance of it and the other new Slav Macedonian cultural forms.[14] A more realistic assessment comes from a Skopje schoolteacher who emigrated from Yugoslavia:

Among the wide masses of the urban population and the intelligentsia, the Slav Macedonian language is accepted as the most important, and often the only good, aspect of the present day Yugoslavia. The children are learning it in the schools and their parents are very satisfied that this is the case. There are places in the country-side where people were reluctant to send their children to school in the days of old Yugoslavia, but now they do so willingly, for they want their children to learn the Slav Macedonian language....The new literature and poetry in the national language has aroused great interest, for through it is created and formed the new national spirit and language. This new literature, as well as the printing of prewar literature and poetry by Slav Macedonians in the national language, has resulted in much reading.

Having been taught in schools and used extensively throughout the SRM for over twenty-five years, the Slav Macedonian language is accepted by most Slav Macedonians.

The concern of the Slav Macedonian and Yugoslav Communist leaders whenever the existence of the Slav Macedonian language is questioned reflects their feeling that the language is one of the principal elements of a separate Slav Macedonian national consciousness. In 1958 several Bulgarian statements declared that the Slavic inhabitants of Macedonia spoke Bulgarian, not the "semi-Serbian literary language which is fabricated in Skopje." Lazar Kolisevski, defensively answering the Bulgarian claims, denied the "alleged 'Serbianization'" of the Slav Macedonian language but justified the frequent use of Serbian expressions:

The Slav Macedonian language cannot be isolated from the mutual influence of the languages spoken by the Yugoslav peoples. Our common socio-economic development and socialist practice have created and are creating a number of new general expressions and terms accepted by all Yugoslav peoples.... The development of the languages of nations which have appeared late on the stage of history provides numerous examples showing that they are subjected to the influence of more developed languages and richer national cultures of related and neighboring peoples. [15]

Denial of the existence of the Slav Macedonian language is considered so serious a challenge to the Slav Macedonian nationality that Belgrade has not hesitated to condemn the Bulgarians regardless of the state of relations with Sofia. Vigorous and vehement denunciations of Bulgarian academicians have been published by leading Yugoslav newspapers even during periods of good relations with Bulgaria. The Yugoslav leaders thus acknowledge that the wide, if imperfect, usage of the Slav Macedonian language is one of the most vital contributions to Slav Macedonian nationalism.

*This text is from the book of “Yugoslav Communism and the Macedonian Question” by Stephen E. Palmer, Jr. Robert R. King, 1971. In order to segregate the Greek Macedonian cultural identity from the Slav one, I add for understating purposes the words “Slav and Vardar” in the front of the Greek adjective “Macedonia (n)” at the text. Also in the book you can find the original notes and bibliography that used in the specific article.

**For fair use only

The Trouble with Knowledge

2009-10-18T00:31:00.001+03:00

By Michael Celik

Like an earthquake, the new Macedonian encyclopedia published in Skopje has shaken and undermined imperialist political architecture on the Balkan Peninsula. The imperialist conquest and gains in the Balkans were founded on “new thinking” or better still, no thinking at all. The new thinking was supposed to lead to new prosperity and the peoples and nationalities in the region were led to believe that embracing European and American imperialism must be accompanied by wholesale denial of people’s historical experiences. In other words, the smaller peoples in the Balkans were asked to adopt “new identity”, “foreign mentality” and to institute a regime of self denial in exchange for promised prosperity. Insecure in their post socialist neighbourhood, peoples like the Macedonians sought safety under the skirt of imperialism. However, there are two inherent problems with that strategy. First, all their ancient enemies are already under the same skirt and nobody was ever allowed to shout: “Imperialism stinks, I want out”.

The formula is simple; everyone abandons his own self interest for the sake of U.S. imperialism, which then defines everyone else’s interests. And since imperialist needs and strategies shift with time, some nations become less or more valuable than others. This has happened to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Macedonia was very important for the breakup of Yugoslavia and now it is practically worthless. It is a captive nation with a gun to its head. At the end of the process, Macedonia is an economic basket case, internally divided and unable to do much about it. The promised prosperity, for which Macedonians did all the silly things, is nowhere on the horizon and Macedonians dream of prosperity and stability they once had in Yugoslavia.

Skopje, the capital of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has become the largest C.I.A. operational base for American espionage and manipulation in the Balkans. The Americans feel there more secure than anywhere else in the region. And now, when the Macedonians are expected to parrot imperialist falsehoods, there comes the new Macedonian Encyclopedia leaking forbidden knowledge. Just when the imperialists thought that they have supplanted truth with their self serving rhetoric, the encyclopedia speaks what the Macedonian Government does not dare to say. This is not an insignificant thing, as the encyclopedia was issued under the auspices of the Macedonian Academy of Science and Arts (MANU).

What did the Macedonian Encyclopedia say that is so heretical? For one thing, the encyclopedia declares that the Macedonians are Slavs, which undermines the imperialist scheme of inventing new nations on the territory of former Yugoslavia. The encyclopedia further reveals that the Albanian inhabitants of Macedonia are not indigenous to that land and that they forcibly settled there in the sixteenth century, displacing the Macedonians. There is another more contemporary aspect in which once top secret information is revealed. The 2001 Albanian terrorist separatist plotters against Macedonia were trained by British SAS and American Special Forces in Albania and in the occupied Serbian province of Kosovo. On the one hand, the Americans have trained and supported the Albanian terrorist organization ONA for mischief and mayhem in Macedonia and on the other, they have designated the same organization as “terrorist”.

This duplicitous American game is only possible because all the client states of the region have one and the same supreme master who promises the same land to two inimical peoples. While it is absurd that Americans should promise Macedonia to the Macedonians, it is even more despicable to promise parts of Macedonia to the Albanians and set them on the path of murder and terrorism as they did in Kosovo. However, this is imperialism’s modus operandi. Those who provide greater and more valuable services to the master reap greater rewards, (maybe and sometimes), for imperialism is selfish and immoral. In this case, the Albanians are more useful than the numerically insignificant and land locked Macedonians.

The outcry against the Macedonian Encyclopedia and its authors and editors is nothing other than the cacophony of American, British and Albanian voices with veiled threats and demands that the Macedonians realize and correct their own mistakes. The embassies of all three countries have been active in threatening the Macedonians, demanding firing of people responsible for this publication, especially Blaža Ristovski. They claim the encyclopedia is “scandalous” and needs to be withdrawn from circulation.

To understand how much pressure Macedonia is under, one only needs to look at Serbia where the EU already censors that country’s school textbooks, removing what it does not like and forcing the Serbs to publish what they do not like. Even the new Constitution of Serbia was co-authored by the former NATO Secretary General, Javier Solana, who had presided over that notorious organization during its savage bombing of Yugoslavia.

In its relatively short period of independent existence, Macedonia has managed to intimidate its neighbours, Greece and Bulgaria and ally itself with its own historical enemy, Turkey. Turkey at the same time backs Albanian expansionism against all the Balkan states, including Macedonia. The imperialist powers have their own misgivings about the Macedonians who sympathize with and admire the Serbs and had staged massive protests against NATO during its bombing of Yugoslavia. Some British soldiers were even beaten up in Macedonia during that time. When it comes to the question of Kosovo, the Macedonian people are unequivocally on the side of Serbia’s right to her own province. As victims of Albanian terrorism themselves, the Macedonians feel that American interpretation of things there is cooked up for the consumption of more distant and naïve peoples. But Macedonian – Serb relations have also had their strains when Serb Orthodox Bishop Jovan was jailed 18 months for his religious conviction and for distributing Serbian Orthodox church calendars and pamphlets in his parish. Both Serbs and Macedonians share the same Orthodox religion but have separate religious hierarchies.

Today, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has a government which aims to bring the country into NATO strictures and the European Union, as panacea for the plague of poverty (22%) and unemployment (37.2%). Ethnic instability and corruption do not readily attract foreign investment to Macedonia where Macedonians boast 64% of the population. While the subservient Macedonian Government dares not say what its academics reveal, the story would be even more shocking if the ordinary Macedonians’ lament were put to paper.

Source: Pravda.Ru

Future of Macedonia name dispute

2009-10-14T23:46:00.002+03:00

By Aristotle Tziampiris (1)
ekathimerini.com

Will the recent election landslide victory and comfortable parliamentary majority achieved by the Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK) facilitate the resolution of the ongoing Macedonia name dispute? George Papandreou’s election was publicly welcomed by politicians in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), who indicated willingness to negotiate, and there is also a palpable feeling of renewed (if cautious) optimism by international decision-makers. At the same time, the almost two-decade-long diplomatic dispute is widely considered to have the potential to further destabilize the region of the Western Balkans.

An apparent convergence is under way among most actors involved in the negotiations toward an agreement that is also viewed by the international community as the “best” possible – but not necessarily historically just – outcome. It would most likely consist of a final and comprehensive accord between Greece and FYROM involving a compromise international compound name with a geographical connotation (e.g. “Northern Macedonia”).

If an agreement along these lines is achieved, FYROM would automatically join NATO under the new name, its accession path toward the EU would accelerate and the concerns of the country’s Albanian population (about a quarter of the population) assuaged in a manner conducive to regional stability. (Revealingly, 65 percent of FYROM’s ethnic Albanians support a compromise on the name issue to facilitate NATO and EU membership, though 95 percent of Slav-Macedonians are opposed.)

Any such agreement would also have to address a series of legitimate Greek concerns, including the recent manifestations of Slav-Macedonian nationalism that have included the renaming of airports and highways, commission of giant statues, as well as other actions often indicating a fixation with Alexander the Great. It should furthermore be stressed that directly dealing with the controversial and “thorny” issues of FYROM’s identity and language has the potential of derailing negotiations.

Solving the name dispute outright would undoubtedly represent a major diplomatic accomplishment. However, an equally likely scenario involves the issue’s nonresolution despite continuous diplomatic meetings and negotiations. As a top Slav-Macedonian politician, striking a note of realistic pessimism, recently told this author, “Almost every conceivable settlement has already been proposed at some time or another but rejected by one of the two sides.”

If this scenario prevails, FYROM’s ruling party will probably continue the campaign to link Slav-Macedonian identity and history to antiquity. Furthermore, NATO and EU accession prospects will remain stalled. The country’s ethnic Albanians would be particularly disappointed by such an outcome and it is not alarmist to imagine that the Ohrid framework agreements (which ended the republic’s 2001 ethnic strife) could be challenged. As US State Department officials warn, this could produce perilous regional implications. (FYROM borders on Kosovo and, during periods of crisis, the influx of refugees, armed ethnic Albanian guerrilla fighting and illicit activities have linked the two places.)

If a comprehensive agreement remains elusive and in order to avoid the dispute’s complete nonresolution, certain experts have began examining a third “interim” scenario. This is based on the realization that the only substantial agreement that has been reached between FYROM and Greece was the 1995 New York Interim Accord that normalized bilateral relations but (significantly) did not resolve the name dispute. (However, Athens did recognize the young republic and Skopje changed the country’s flag, which had featured the ancient Macedonian “Star of Vergina” symbol.)

According to this interim scenario, FYROM would enter NATO under its provisional UN name, after having addressed all the recent actions deemed provocative by Greece (renaming airports and highways once again, dropping the case against Greece in the International Court of Justice at The Hague etc) thus proving in practice good-neighborly relations. The signing of a Treaty of Friendship could further codify the types of actions that would be unacceptable in the future.

Nevertheless, since there can be no firm guarantee that Skopje would not revert to nationalist or other provocations (whereas NATO membership, once achieved, is effectively irreversible), Athens could publicly link any new nationalistic turn to a democratic referendum on the neighboring republic’s EU accession, with rather predictable results. (It should be noted that for FYROM, EU membership is ultimately even more significant than NATO membership.) Negotiations on the resolution of the name dispute would, of course, continue to be conducted, possibly within an improved bilateral climate.

If this scenario is realized, regional stability might be enhanced. However, the resolution of the name dispute will be pushed even further into the future, while Athens will have lost an important source of diplomatic leverage.

At this point, it is not clear which outcome will prevail. What is certain is that considerable statesmanship and diplomatic skills will have to be exhibited in order to resolve an urgent and important diplomatic problem that influences the domestic politics in both Greece and FYROM and has very real consequences for the Western Balkans.

(1) Dr Aristotle Tziampiris is assistant professor of international relations at the University of Piraeus. The views expressed in this article are his own.

The Macedonian language and the name dispute between Greece and FYROM

2009-10-12T17:15:00.004+03:00

bu Tymphaios
October 11, 2009

In 1945, a committee set up by Yugoslav communist leader Josip Broz Tito invented for the first time an alphabet for the new "Macedonian" language. The official documents introducing the new alphabet and language were written in Bulgarian.

Introduction of the "Macedonian" language in communist Yugoslavia in 1945. The document is written in the Bulgarian alphabet. It reads: "The Macedonian Orthography proposed by the Orthography and Language Commission at the Ministry of People's Education is accepted as an official orthography. The same will be printed in books as an edition of the Ministry of People's Education".

Introduction of the "Macedonian" alphabet in communist Yugoslavia in 1945. The main document is written in the Bulgarian alphabet.

Is this language Macedonian? In the absence of knowledge of Slavic, one unfamiliar with the Macedonist argument may rightly want to know how much this FYROMacedonian language resembles the language of the ancient Macedonians and how much it resembles Slavic. One simple way to test this without knowledge of Slavic is to take a FYROMacedonian document and use Google Translator to see how much of it can be understood if it is translated using the Bulgarian or Serbian Google translator, treating it in other words as either Bulgarian or Serbian text.

I have randomly chosen an article I found on the internet called something like "When I was in the Coast I met Stalin".

http://www.a1.com.mk/vesti/default.asp?VestID=53225

The original text is appended at the end of this article. The Google translations using FYROMacedonian Translator, Bulgarian Translator and Serbian Translator are also shown at the end. Many parts remain untranslated by the Bulgarian and Serbian Google Translators but those that become translated agree well with the FYROMacedonian Translator. The Serbian Translator and Bulgarian Translator underperformed but between the two of them one can get a very good idea of what the article says. In fact some words that fail to become translated by the Bulgarian translator are translated by the Serbian one, so the problem must be partly the choice of Slavonic characters used and the choice between a Bulgarian or Serbian word.

The Greek translation by Google failed completely. Google returned the FYROMacedonian text only. One may therefore ask, what is the link of the FYROMacedonians to the ancients? All we have attested from Macedonia in ancient times was in Greek. Until our own time historic Macedonia is being inhabited by Greeks. Why should the FYROMacedonian language be called Macedonian? Tito is dead.

There are nations that at times have fostered extreme ideologies of superiority of race. There are individuals who may believe in flying saucers, proverbial red herrings and pink elephants. There is now and then someone who thinks he is Jesus. However, until this instance there have been no nations that attempted to reinvent themselves as an ancient and completely unrelated people. This is perhaps a first in human history. It is so strange, it had left for 18 years classical scholars speechless. In fact it is so strange, diplomats have almost no means to say "that´s crazy" in a diplomatic way. It is so incomprehensible that one ponders if a logical or diplomatic response to this claim may be appreciated at all.

The way this goes, it will not be long before calling something Macedonian becomes a proverbial allusion to reaching way beyond one´s depth. Macedonism is already becoming a byword for the reinvention of "facts". Speaking of a "Macedonian theory" may soon become an alternative to using the expression "living in a parallel universe".

Though most people are stunned and some may assume they have been simply ignorant of Macedonian history, a few are rightly upset and they are not just the Greeks. One´s history and language can be tossed about to some extent but cannot be just ridiculed and misappropriated to further someone else´s lack of self esteem, outdated communist dogma and nefarious territorial ambitions. There was for example the following frustrated comment posted in an internet forum from a Syrian national:

Habib, UK: "Syrians say, get a life south Slavians. Yugoslavs never ever ruled over Syria, a thousand curses on those who tell lies … you have no history with Syria ok. Macedonians are Greek Hellenic (Yunan) people, they left us good history for Syria."

Unfortunately for the poor Syrian, little does he know that the Falsedonian community supporting the cult-like macedonist ideology in FYROM and abroad has become desensitized to the disbelief of others. The so-called Antique Macedonians still march on regardless, no matter how strong are the words of dismay they hear. Presumably for decades they had been told to turn a deaf ear to evil capitalists from the west, to the "false prophets" of western imperialism, who harboured fascist beliefs and false ideologies. One must ask, how can an educational system based on propagandist ideology be destroyed without a rebellion against it? FYROM became an independent country by historical accident.

Before closing, let us remember who the Macedonians were.

The words of Alexander have been cut into stone in his dedication to Athena at a temple in Priene. The dedication is mentioned by Arrian. It was discovered by archaeologists and is kept today at the British Museum. It says, in Alexander´s Macedonian language:

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΣ ΑΝΕΘΗΚΕ ΤΟΝ ΝΑΟΝ ΑΘΗΝΑΙ ΠΟΛΙΑΔΙ

"King Alexander dedicated this temple to Athena Polias".

http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_image.aspx?image=k63220.jpg&retpage=18026

The language is Greek.

Macedon is a word found in Hesiod and in Homer (6-8th C BC).

"And she conceived and bare to Zeus who delights in the thunderbolt two sons, Magnes and Macedon, rejoicing in horses, who dwell round about Pieria and Olympus".
Hesiod (8th C BC), fragment; Constantinos Porphyrogenitos, 2 de Them. 2 p. 48B

Macedon was a Greek hero, the mythical progenitor of a Greek tribe who only left written records in Greek. At the time of Homer and Hesiod, the Slavs probably lived in the steppes of Russia. The Slavs did not appear in the Balkans until about the 6th C AD, 1300 years after Hesiod wrote about Macedon.

It is obvious that the citizens of FYROM have many words in their Slavic language. Their country was once called South Serbia and their dialect Western Bulgarian. If neither of these are suitable today, it should really not be so difficult to find a way to describe their ethnic identity in words that are not Greek. Slavonic is historically, ethnically and geographically suitable. Why this insistence in reinventing history?

APPENDIX

PACO RABBANY: WHEN I WAS IN THE COAST I MET STALIN.
http://www.a1.com.mk/vesti/default.asp?VestID=53225

Original so called "Macedonian" text:

Имав 16 години кога ме претставија на Јосиф Сталин, изјави еден од водечките светски модни креатори Пако Рабан во Москва, каде на руската публика прв пат и ја претстави изложбата на своите цртежи,

Сеќавајќи се на таа средба, 70-годишниот Рабан, кој тогаш со мајка му престојувал во Москва, посочи дека Сталин му оставил силен впечаток и оти имал некаква магнетска привлечност.

Мојата мајка беше еден од основачите на Комунистичката партија на Шпанија. Таа беше многу прагматична жена, голем реалист и силна личност", истакна Рабан за весникот „Известија".

Рабан е роден во Баскија, Шпанија, но пораснал со Франција.

Креаторот, чии модели од пластика, метал и хартија се изложени во музеи на современа уметност, смета дека модата денеска е во криза поради отсуство на идеи, но оти „има надеж за тоа што доаѓа од истокот".

1. FYROMacedonian Google Translator result:

Paco Rabbany: When I was in the Coast I met Stalin

I had 16 years ago when I was introduced to Joseph Stalin, said one of the leading fashion designers Paco Rabbany in Moscow where the Russian public for the first time and presented an exhibition of his drawings.

Recalling that meeting, 70-year-old Rabbany, who then resided with his mother in Moscow, Stalin said that he left a strong impression and that he had a magnetic attraction.

"My mother was one of the founders of the Communist Party of Spain. It was a very pragmatic woman, a realist and a strong personality, "said Rabbany newspaper Izvestija.

Rabbany was born in the Basque Country, Spain, but grew up in France.

Creator, whose models of plastic, metal and paper are exposed in museums of modern art, believes that fashion today is in crisis due to lack of ideas, but that "there is hope for what comes from the east".

2. Bulgarian Google Translator result.

Paco Rabanne: When Bev st Koskva introduced him to Stalin

Imav 16 years when I претставија of Јосиф Stalin изјави Eden sh vodechkite secular fashion kreatori Paco Rabanne st Moscow, the Russian audience Kade FTE ја pretstavi stalemate and the exhibition of their tsrtezhi,

Сеќавајќи to taa sredba, 70-godishniot Rabanne, кој gown pm мајка his престојувал st Moscow, Stalin said his deck remains strong and BTI had vpechatok nekakva magnetska privlechnost.

"Eden was Мојата мајка sh osnovachite of Komunistichkata партија of Шпанија. Таа беше многу прагматична жена, голем реалист и силна личност", истакна Рабан за весникот „Известија". Taa was многу pragmatic woman, realistic and strong personality, istakna Rabanne for vesnikot "Известија.

Raban was born st Баскија, Шпанија but grown Франција pm.

Kreatorot, whose models sh plastic, metal and exposed to хартија st museums sovremena umetnost, trash fashion deck is deneska st crisis due otsustvo ideas, "but BTI has hope for SG & A sh што доаѓа istokot".

3. Serbian Google Translator result.

Paco Raban: Where I was in Koskva go met Stalin

I had 16 years to when I presented the Joseph Stalin, said one of the world vodečkite fashion designers Paco Raban in Moscow, where the audience ruskata first time I presented izložbata on their drawings,

Seḱavajḱi at that meeting, 70-godišniot Raban, which then, with his mother stayed in Moscow, Stalin posoči that he ostavil strong vpečatok went and had a some kind of magnetic privlečnost.

"My mother was one of the founder of Komunističkata parties in Spain. It was very pragmatic woman, great realists and strong personality, "Raban pointed to newspaper" Izvestia ".

Raban was born in the Basque Country, Spain, no porasnal with France.

Kreatorot, CII models of plastic, metal and paper are exposed in museums of modern art, considers that fashion today is in crisis due to the absence of ideas, no go "for it has nadež which doaǵa of istokot".

Greek comments as regards the FYROM issues at ECRI’s report(pages 61-62)

2009-10-07T14:18:00.003+03:00

With respect to the references to ‘’Macedonian’’ community and language (paras. 111-120), we would like to stress that a small number of people in Greek Macedonia, mainly in the prefecture of Florina, apart from Greek, speak a Slavic dialect, which is confined to family or colloquial use. This dialect has similarities with the language spoken by the Slav-Macedonians in the neighbouring Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Cross-border contacts, such as tourism and trade, keep this dialect alive,as is the case with the Greek language spoken in the southern part of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. All people in Greece speaking this dialect are bilingual (Slavic/Greek).

Subjective claims or perceptions of some of the above-mentioned individuals, which are not based on objective facts and criteria, that they are ethnically “Macedonians” do not establish by themselves a corresponding obligation of Greece to officially recognize this group as a «minority» and to guarantee to its members specific minority rights, additional to those guaranteed by human rights treaties. Moreover, the use on their behalf of the term “Macedonian” in order to define a distinct ethnicity creates confusion with the 2,5 million Greeks who identify themselves as Macedonians in the regional/cultural sense.

In any case, in Greece, even if a group is not recognised as a minority enjoying specific minority rights, individuals are free to declare that they belong to a distinct ethnic or cultural group, without any negative consequences resulting from such a statement. In addition, these persons enjoy fully all their civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights, which are recognized by the provisions of national and international law. Both the judiciary and the administration are obliged to implement these provisions. Persons who consider that their rights are
being violated can bring their case before the Greek courts and also have the possibility to appeal to the competent international bodies, as provided for by the relevant treaties binding Greece.

A couple of examples prove the above mentioned affirmations:

- There is a political party in Greece, which claims to represent the “Macedonian minority”. This party operates freely and participates without any impediments in the elections. One of the leading figures of the party is a civil servant, working for the Greek State, regardless of his political activities and views.

- There are regular cultural events and festivities organised by the Slav-speaking persons in the region of Florina, where everyone is free to participate, including nationals of the neighbouring Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

In conclusion, all persons residing in Greece, regardless of their nationality, ethic origin, language, religious or political affiliation enjoy full protection of their human rights and liberties. Everyone is free to declare his/her origin, speak his/her language, exercise his/her religion and observe his/her particular customs and traditions.

Finally, with regard to the implementation of measures of reconciliation, the Greek State, in order to definitely heal the wounds of the Civil War, proceeded to the reinstatement of the citizenship and the return of confiscated property of persons of Greek origin who had fled the country after this traumatic historical experience. However, all individuals, irrespective of their ethic origin, have the possibility to bring before Greek courts any claims regarding property or other issues, under the general provisions of law.

The "Albanian myth" from William Maxwell.

2009-10-04T15:38:00.001+03:00

With a great surprise I have read a amazing historical quote that concern many periods from the European history that came from William Maxwell and contained in an article with the head name “Journey to Albania” (http://gaiaschool.info/Journey_to_Albania.html). This quote says:

The Albanians are universally acknowledged as the descendants of the Illyrians who gave the world Alexander the Great, Emperor Constantine, several other Roman and Byzantine Emperors, one of the popes of the Roman Catholic Church, several Grand Vizirs of the Ottoman Empire, Muhammad Ali Pasha, father of modern Egypt, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, founder of modern Turkey, as well as Mother Teresa destined for sainthood because of her services to the poor of India. Albania was also the only country in Europe that protected all the Jews, i.e. the only European country where the Jewish population was increased during WWII.

I will try to analyze step by step the accuracies of the above quote. Not all of them because I am not expert of all these that William Maxwell wrote such as the Ottoman history.

Albanians are universally acknowledged as the descendants of the Illyrians…..

This myth systemically cultivated from known Albanian centres that promote the historical revisionism and extreme nationalism in the Balkans. Albanians are not universally acknowledged as the descendants of the Illyrians. This confirms from several studies and works such as “Illyrians” by John Wilkes, several works from the expert of the Albanian history Mrs Miranda Vickers, Albanian identities: myth and history by Stephanie Schwandner-Sievers and Bernd Jürgen Fischer, global wide collectively works such as the ancient, modern and medieval history of the Cambridge and Oxford Universities e.t.c.

…Albanians are universally acknowledged…who gave the world Alexander the Great…

This is one from the most historical revisionist argument; similar with this that Alexander was a Slavonic origin as circulate from the Slavmacedonians in the neighbour FYROM State. Thousands historical works and tens of writers(Hammond, Worthington, Borza, Stoneman, Ulrich Wilcken e.t.c.) have agree that Great Alexander was born in July 356 (Arr. 7.28.1, Plut. Alex. 3.5), was the son of Macedonian Philip’s fourth wife Olympias, a princess from Epirus, situated to Macedon’s west. None of them mention that Alexander was Illyrian and the most inaccurate…Albanian as William Maxwell quoted. Macedonians according the same sources were a mix of Greek and older ancient tribes or were just Greek or unknown origin (Borza). Epirotans according the same sources were Greeks and the most known tribe was the Mollosian. None of them mention that was Illyrian or Albanian.

…Albanians are universally acknowledged…who gave…Emperor Constantine, several other Roman and Byzantine Emperors (were Albanians)…

Emperor Constantine and several other Roman and Byzantine Emperors were not Albanians as William Maxwell claim. Byzantine Dynasties were Greek, Armenian, Roman, Anatolian origin. This confirmed from tens of writers and experts of the Byzantine history like George Ostrogorski, Paul Stephenson, Cyril Mango, Joan Hussey, John Norwich as also from global wide collectively works like European medieval history of the Cambridge, Oxford and Michigan Universities e.t.c..

…Albanians are universally acknowledged…who gave…pope in the Roman Catholic Church…

Catholic Encyclopaedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/), the most known source it doesn’t mention that one from the Pope was…Albanian. Where William Maxwell find this thing is …unknown.

… Albania was also the only country in Europe that protected all the Jews, i.e. the only European country where the Jewish population was increased during WWII…

At the 30s and 40s and according the Albanian sources only 200 Jews lived! Jewish population actually grew during the Axis occupation; it is estimated that there were 1800 jews in Albania at the end of war but the small Jewish community (200 souls) of Vlore was expelled from the country at the Nazis concentration’s camp. The recorded numbers of 1800 were Jews from the neighbored occupy Greece that has returned with the end of the war.

Albania at the WWII also as is known was allied of the fascist Italy and thousands Albanians were enlisted in the known SS regiments (SS Division Skanderbeg and Handschar Division.

CONCLUSION
There is an Illyrian myth, with which Albanian culture has been flirting for at least 150 years, and as a myth it can't be questioned for it has all the answers. There is also a very tentative Illyrian science, based mainly on archaeology, and on some data transmitted by Ancient Greek and Roman Historians. Those who are ready to accept that Illyrians and Albanians were one people, should have a look at the Messapic inscriptions, in Puglia. These inscriptions, being totally alien to Albanian, show that the Illyrian question is extremely complicated, and that it isn't likely to be resolved, unless fundamental epigraphic discoveries are made.

From me and in the real world there are no examples of ancient Illyrian literature surviving (aside from the Messapian writings if they can be considered Illyrian), it is difficult to clarify its place within the Indo-European language family. Albanians first appear in the historical record in Byzantine sources of the late 11th century. At this point, they are already fully Christianized. Very little evidence of pre-Christian Albanian culture survives, and Albanian mythology and folklore as it presents itself is notoriously syncretized from various sources, showing in particular Greek influence. Albanians are and have been referred to by other terms as well. Some of them are:

--Arbër, Arbën, Arbëreshë; the old native term denoting ancient and medieval Albanians and sharing the same root with the latter. At the time the country was called Arbër (Gheg: Arbën) and Arbëria (Gheg: Arbënia). This term is still used for the Albanians that migrated to Italy during the Middle Ages.

--Arnauts; old term used mainly from Turks and by extension by European authors during the Ottoman Empire. A derivate of Arbër, Albanian.

-- Skipetars; the historical rendering of the ethnonym Shqiptar (or Shqyptar by French, Austrian and German authors) in use from the 18th century (but probably earlier) to the present, the literal translation of which is subject of the eagle. The term Šiptari is a derivation used by Yugoslavs which the Albanians consider derogatory.

There is not any historical record as regards the connection of the Illyrians (that were last mentioned in 7th century AD, during the Slavic migration to the Balkans) and Albanians. Also there is not any linguistic connection of the unkonwn Illyrian language with the Albanian language that initial recorded in 208-page parchment mansuscript written by Theodor of Shkodra, dating 600 years after.

William Maxwell must be more cautious when write these things as regards the history. Historical revisionism and historical ignorance has a close border line that either goes to the legitimate scholastic correction of existing knowledge about an historical event, or goes to the illegitimate distortion of the historical record such that certain events appear in a more or less favourable ligh.