What are the main claims of Macedonism ?

The very act of the foundation of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), together with all its subsequent actions as a political entity from 1944 to the present day, show that ‘Macedonianism’ is the basic totalitarian ideological tenet of that state. With this tenet the state and the Slavic component in a population of several different ethnic groups have constructed their existence as a nation and their ‘historical’ mission. Right at the very start, ‘Macedonism’ was proclaimed as a sacred dogma, allowing of no discussion, let alone questioning. It has been practised with all the means available to a State that, up to 1991, had been forced to operate under a totalitarian Communist regime where there ‘was but one’ Truth and where the question that bulked above all others was ‘the security of the State’. Anyone dissenting did so with the foreknowledge that he or she would be ‘eliminated’.

When this totalitarian regime collapsed, as it was bound to do, from external causes, nothing changed. There has been no relaxation in the human geography of power at FYROM, not even in the sacred dogma and the State’s duty to safeguard it. The question is one about which a society trained for generations at the hard camp of Macedonianism remains tight-lipped, phobia-prone, and trigger-happy.

An alternative view of the matter has yet to establish itself, any dialogue being considered out of the question. Instead, every pronouncement to the international community by every Skopje government since 1991 has insisted that even the slightest modification to State ‘Macedonianism’ would be fatal to the very existence of the State and the people. And the outward and visible sign of this insistence is the claim to have a monopoly on the name ‘Macedonia’.

These final apocalyptic assertions from Skopje have effectively been espoused by scores of other states, the USA being one example, precisely because they are well aware how ramshackle is the whole artificial but temporarily expedient structure.

They are certainly not ignorant of history. But for the time being they play down what is a self-evident fact. Following the adoption of ‘Macedonism’ as an ideology, FYROM has been trapped in a dead-end of its own making. Sooner or later it is bound not only to destabilize at large a region which is still in a state of flux, but also to place its own Balkan interests in jeopardy.

Those powerful foreign interests that protect Skopje and make use of her may be counting on exploiting for themselves when the time comes. But the sad conclusion from major events on the international stage – in Iraq, say, in Palestine, in the Islamic world, or in the global context of terrorism – is that in some at least of the places where decisions are taken politics is no longer the art of foresight and anticipation. For the Great Powers of today, it is no longer five minutes to midnight, but five minutes past.

The official totalitarian State ideology cultivated in Skopje and theirs claims are....

1. It claims that Macedonia has long been a distinct political entity; and that during the two Balkan Wars (1912-1913) against the Ottoman Empire, master of the region from the 14th century onwards, the latter partitioned a ‘united’ (when was she ever thus?) Macedonia among ‘its conquerors’, namely Greece, Bulgaria, and Serbia, with a small part of it later coming into the possession of Albania.
2. It claims that Serb Macedonia – what was known until 1941 as Vardarska Banovina – was liberated in 1944, to become from thence onward the metropolitan centre of the ‘splintered and still subservient Macedonian nation’. It is the ‘inalienable national rights’ of this nation which the now independent State of FYROM has been seeing to, in line with an express provision of its present constitution (a clause necessarily revoked in 1995).
3. It claims that Greek Macedonia is still ‘under foreign occupation’, viz by Greece, which is said to have ‘inflicted genocide on the Macedonian People’. (This region is therefore always referred to as ‘Aegean’ - never as ‘Greek’ - Macedonia by Skopje, which officially recognizes the Greek Civil War of 1944-1949 as ‘the Macedonian’ national liberation struggle to free Aegean Macedonia’ and to incorporate the latter in ‘the free motherland’, meaning FYROM). It makes similar claims, though these often fluctuate, against Bulgaria, and less loudly against Albania.
4. It claims that the ancient Macedonians – notable examples being Alexander the Great and his father Philip – ‘were not Greeks’. As ‘conquerors of Aegean Macedonia’ and ‘oppressors of our brothers the Aegean Macedonians’, from 1913 onwards, the Greeks have been ‘usurping’ the history, the civilization, and the name of the ancient Macedonians, ‘the forefathers’ of FYROM’s (Slav) Macedonian nation.

These four central tenets of ‘Macedonianism’, given in chronological sequence with the necessary background, are already enough to show that while feigning ‘legitimate irredentism’, Skopje is openly and unambiguously declaring her expansionist designs towards Greek Macedonia. The arguments themselves are full of holes, yet they have been swallowed, wittingly, by dozens of civilized states, the United States included.

Why?

Because they want to advance their own interests and promote hidden geopolitical agendas in the region. But this is a serious blunder, and it goes against their interests. And in politics a blunder (said Talleyrand) is worse than a crime. Small the FYROM may be, but in the hands of powerful third parties it could be lead to catastrophe.

It should lastly be pointed out that for the State and the Slavs of Skopje ‘Macedonism’ has become an article of faith, a question of existence. This question needs fodder to survive, which means constructing an equally fictitious ‘enemy’: Greece.

But at the same time this State and its Slavic population are well aware, since they see it in their daily lives, of what Greece – ‘the enemy’ – can do for them. Better than any of Skopje’s other neighbours, with more resolve, effectiveness and credibility, Greece is assisting them with their economic development, their orientation towards Europe, the cohesion of their ethnically disparate society, and the existence and the security of their State. This she does better and more credibly than all the other Balkan countries put together; and all that she is after is peace in the region, productive cooperation, and a common sense of dignity. The pity of it is that the two positions are so far apart.

source:

Macedonism FYROM'S Expansionist Designs against Greece, 1944-2006

Related articles:

1. Macedonism, a ultra-Nationalilst ideology that spread from FYROM Worldwide
2. Why Macedonian Slavs Stealing the Greek Macedonian History?

Grecomans

“Grecomans” was used by the Bulgarians as a derogatory term to define the Greek Slavophones, i.e. those who remained firm to the Ecumenical Patriarchate and to Hellenism.
It is interesting to note that in 1883, despite the growth of the Bulgarian national and ecclessiastical movement, the situation in terms of ecclesiastical affiliation in the northern “border” bishoprics of the contested central zone presented the following picture Bishopric of Ohrid and Prespa, patriarchist families 3030, exarchist 6003; Bishopric of lPelagonia (Monastir), patriarchist 6459, exarchist 4988; Bishopric of Moglena (Florina), patriarchist 2433, exarchist 699. The majority of these patriarchists were Vlachophone and Slavophone “Grecomans”.

Please keep in your mind the names of the Bishoprics.

Data from [AYE/”Constantinople Embassy” / 1883, Dokos (Monastir) to Koundouriotis (Con/pole), No. 210, 15/27 Nov. 1883] , [Dillimas and Orientations by Evagellos Kofos]


Grecomaniac or Grecophile

The above words are terms that used from the ultra-nationalist in order to determine the Greek Slavphones during the Greek Struggle in the 19th and in the beginning of the 20th century.These terms came from Bulgarian or Serbian nationlist elements.

Today the FYROMacedonian ultra-natiolists diaspora centers REPLACE these odds and using these terms in order to insult these Greeks.

For the sake of the thread let us accept that the old Bulgarians, those who in current Makedonoski theory “considered” themselves Bulgarians and who, in fact, lived in Macedonia, as a minority community, however, as is apparent from the Ottoman statistics for 1905, have erroneously been taken as constituting a segment of the “Macedonian” nation.

As we have said, however, these people were Bulgarians:
they never (at that time) called themselves “Macedonians”; they fought as comitadjis in the ranks of the Bulgarian Committee and later, in 1924, taking advantage of the Kafantaris-Molov agreement on the “voluntary exchange of populations”, they left for Bulgaria. None of them moved to what was then the district of Skopje –which, moreover, was at that time certainly not called “Macedonia”: it was merely “Vardarska Banovina” (Directorate of the Axios), an administrative district of the then Kingdom of Serbia.

Serbia consequently delivered a protest to the Greek government for having exchanged these people for Greeks living in Bulgaria when, according to Serbia, they were in fact Serbs, (not, of course, “Macedonians”). All the “Bulgarophones”, as they were called at that time, who remained in Greece were old Patriarchists (adherents of the Ecumenical Patriarchate) from the time of the Bulgarian Schism, veterans of the Macedonian Struggle:

“Grecomaniacs” (passionately Greek), in the words of the Bulgarians and their descendants.

The following discussion on the nationality of these Bulgarian speakers, which Michel Paillares reports (op.cit., pp. 50-51) having had with Hilmi Pasha, the Inspector General of the Macedonian vilayets of Monastir and Thessaloniki, is significant:

Paillares:
But these Bulgarophones insist that they are really Greeks?

Hilmi:
They say they are Greeks when no coercion, no constraint, is brought to bear on them.

Paillares:
And what is your opinion, Your Excellency?

Hilmi:
My opinion, and the opinion of my government, is that they are Greeks. We classify our subjects according to which schools and which Church they attend. Being unable to win people by peaceful propaganda, the Comitadjis do not hesitate to make use of the most atrocious methods. They turn to the knife, the revolver, the axe

It is equally significant that much earlier, in 1871, the Russian Goloubinskii (see the relevant note in my dissertation on “The liberation of Thessaloniki”, op.cit., pp. 25-26) had written:

These purported Greeks nourished a more implacable hatred and a more intense scorn for all things Bulgarian or Slavic than did real Greeks.

Just recently my attention was drawn to a passage in the magazine Tachydromos, an extract from a book by Giovanni Amadori-Virgili, a former Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs, entitled “La questione Rumeliota (Macedonia, Vecchia Serbia, Albania, Epiro) e la politica italiana”, published in 1908 as number 1 in a series by the Biblioteca Italiana on foreign policy.

The passage in question reads:

Through their partiotic sentiments and their devotion to Greek traditions and Greek culture, the Slav-speaking Greeks of Macedonia express their vigorous determination to be Greeks.

Legally, after the population exchange, the subject was closed, for those who remained were those who did not want to leave Greece, who did not choose to be Bulgarians. Nowhere is there any mention of the term “Macedonians”. If today certain of their descendants have discovered that they are “Macedonians”, that does not alter the situation, because it was to them, or at least to some of them, that the Skopje radio station addressed its March 5, 1990 broadcast, saying that “the most dangerous ones are those same hellenized Macedonians, the traitors, the anti-Macedonians” (here I would merely recall the slogan launched in 1895 by the Bulgarian Committee: “Death to the Grecophiles”).

After all this, then, how many “authentic” indigenous “Macedonians” did Greece have, according to the Skopjians?
And after all that, how is it possible to maintain that there was a single “Macedonian” people, which was dismembered and divided among Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria?
Let us take a closer look at what is currently being advaced on the subject of oppressed “Macedonians”. Skopjians tend to contradict themselves, now proclaiming the existence of 300.000 oppressed “Macedonians” in Greek Macedonia (this was the figure given by Simovski: cf. Peter Hill in the draft for the new Australian encyclopaedia and my communication to the Athens Academy, op.cit., p. 97), now 230.000 (Skopjian radio, 25 September 1991). In a also old statement to “Nova Makedonija” (29 July 1992),

Kiro Hatzivasilief declared:
“As to how many of this ethnic group (“Macedonians”) there are living in Greece, unfortunately no one has precise statistic data”.

And let us not overlook Mr Sidiropoulos (an ethnic “Macedonian” and member of the nationalist Uranio Toxo), who affirmed on an Australian national television broadcast in 1994 that the number of “Macedonians” in Greece amounted to no fewer than 1.000.000.

Of course today the Uranio Toxo nationalist claim other numbers (??) after the slaps in the several Greek elections.Also many of them became again Bulgarians by rejected theirs ancient Macedonian descents.


Grecoman Villages at the 40s

Among the Slavmacedonian villages that involved in that decade at the black period of the modern Greek history, were some of them that resisted in the blackmails of the autonomistic and foreighn influence organizations like Ohrana(1943, Bulgaria) and SNOF or NOF(1943-1949, Yugoslavia mainly and Bulgaria only at the beggining).Of course a lot of villages felt as also felt and other Greek villages in other regions of the mainland at the time of the occupation and civil war.

Known Grecoman villages were the Proti(Kabasnica), Ammohori, Mesohori, Veve (Banica), Melite(Vostarane), Kratero and Kele.I will stand to the latter ones.

Kratero village completed destroyed from the DSE forces(Communist) in March of 1947.

Kele, a historical village because in 1913 the known komitadji Tsakalarof killed, with the Proti were the core of the Grekoman resistance against the commitadjis(Bulgarian or Yugoslavian).Also as I mention in my previous post(without to get any answer) the number of the Slavmacedonian that involved in the several autonomistic moovements estimated in 3000-40000 people in total population of 100000-120000 people.

In the last year of the supposing civil war in Macedonia the Slavmacedonians estimated in 14000 when the all DSE were 20000.

This post dedicated to the Greek Makedontsi of the Diaspora

Makedonski (Slavmacedonian) language

Modern Slavic Macedonian (makedonski in Slavic Macedonian) is a South Slavic language (Slavic, Indo-European). It is not to be confused with Ancient Macedonian, an Indo-European language more close to the Greek(and not Slavic) affiliation, whose most famous speaker was Alexander the Great. Makedonski is closest to Bulgarian and Serbian.Makedonski is descended from the dialects of Slavic speakers who settled in the Balkan peninsula during the 6th and 7th centuries C.E.

The oldest attested Slavic language, Old Church Slavonic, was based on dialects spoken around Salonica, in what is today Greek Macedonia(Makedonia). As it came to be defined in the 19th century, geographic Macedonia is the region bounded by Mount Olympus, the Pindus range, Mounts Shar and Osogovo, the western Rhodopes, the lowercourse of the river Mesta (Greek Nestos), and the Aegean Sea. Many languages are spoken in this region, but it is the Slavic dialects to which the glossonym Makedonski is applied.The region was part of the Ottoman Empire from the late 15th century until 1912 and was partitioned among Greece, Serbia, and Bulgaria (with a western strip of villages going to Albania) by the Treaty of Bucharest in 1913.

The modern Republica of Makedonjia, in which Slavomakedonski is the official language, corresponds roughly to the southern part of the territory ceded to Serbia plus the Strumica valley. The population is 2 022 547 (2002 census) and the Makedonski speakers estimated in 65% of the population.

Outside the Republic, Slavomakedonski is spoken by ethnic communities in Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, and Kosovo as well as by emigre´ communities elsewhere. Greece does not recognize the existence of minorities with the name of Macedonian , Bulgaria insists that all Slavmacedonians are really Bulgarians, Albania refused to include questions about language and ethnicity in its last census (2001), and there has not been an uncontested statistical exercise in Kosovo since 1981, so official figures on Makedonski speakers outside the republic are unavailable estimates range to 700 000.

WHAT IS THE MAKEDONSKI LANGUAGE

The language spoken by the majority of the Slavonic people of the Republica of Makedonjia which they have quite arbitrarily known with the English term «Macedonian», is a Slavic dialect so closely resembling Bulgarian and Serbian, that according to linguistic principles it can hardly be considered an independent language at a par with the other two. The only detinite boundaries of this Slavic dialect are set by the Greek language. They broadly coincide with the South Slavic-Greek cultural frontiers except for a small enclave which that dialect forms on Greek territory in the mountainous regions north of Kastoria. In the West, that Slavic dialect borders on the Albanian language, but, in this case, the linguistic frontier does not coincide with the national Albanian- South Slavic border; for the State of Skopje counts among its inhabitants, 164,000 Albanian-speaking people.The linguistic frontier on the Serb and Bulgarian sides are lost in the fluidity of equally divided linguistic groups on either side and are impossible to determine. The so-called Makedonski dialect is, in fact, an intermediate stage between Bulgarian and Serb. As one moves towards Bulgaria, the Serb elements grow rarer while the Bulgarian elements multiply and vicc versa. For that reason, just as the Vardar region was the apple of discord between the politicians of Bulgaria and Serbia, so its language has become an object of dispute. Serbian linguists stress its affinities with the Serb language; Bulgarians emphasize its similarities with Bulgarian. Both are anxious to prove that it is reallv an extension of their respective languages.Makedonski dialects are divided by a major bundle of isoglosses running from northwest to southeast along the River Vardar, swerving southwest at the confluence of the Vardar and the Crna and continuing down the Crna and into Greece southeast of Florina. The number of the dialects according Slavmacedonians sources estimated in 51(Donski).


HISTORY

Two centers of Balkan Slavic literacy arose, one in what is now northeastern Bulgaria, the other in what is now southwestern geographical Macedonia. In the early 19th century, all these intellectuals called their language Bulgarian, but a struggle emerged between those who favored northeast Bulgarian dialects and those who favored western Makedonski dialects as the basis for what would become the standard language. Northeast Bulgarian became the basis of standard Bulgarian, and Macedonci intellectuals began to work for a separate Makedonski literary language. The earliest known published statement of a separate Makedonskata linguistic identity was by Gjorgji Pulevski 1875, but evidence of the beginnings of separatism can be dated to a letter from the teacher Nikola Filipov of Bansko to the Bulgarian philologist Najden Gerov in 1848 expressing dissatisfaction with the use of eastern Bulgarian in literature and textbooks (Friedman, 2000: 183) and attacks in the Bulgarian-language press of the 1850’s on works using Slavomakedonski dialects (Friedman, 2000: 180).

Kristo Misirikov a known Bulgarian Macedonian scholar write as about the closing connection of the Slavomakedonski and Bulgarian languages in 1910…

We the Makedonci voluntarily choose one and the same language with Bulgarians long before the liberation of Bulgaria from Turkey. The prohibition from the Serbs to use our literally language, which is the only one connection between us and Bulgarians is significant violation of our human rights. .. and further.. when they forbid us to call ourselves Bulgarians, to learn Bulgarian history and to be ashamed from everything which connect us with Bulgarians. It is enough to learn our Makedonci culture and history to understand that we are very different from Serbian nationality.

THE CODIFICATION OF THE MAKEDONSKI LANGUAGE

To sever the linguistic bonds between the Makedonci and Serbs and Bulgarians, a new language was fabricated and touted as a separate Macedonian language, the language, it was said, of Alexander the Great (Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou 1988). In contrast to Alexander's language, which had an alphabet (Greek), the present Makedonci language did not have an alphabet until 1945.
To complete the deception, Tito commissioned the linguist Blago Konev (he changed his name later to Blaze Koneski) to devise an alphabet. Koneski modified the Serbian version of the Cyrillic alphabet and called it the "Macedonian alphabet" (Templar 2002). Koneski and his glossologists also modified the old church Slavonic, used by Cyril and Methodius (now named "old Macedonian"), and fabricated the lexicon of the Makedonski language from a mixture of Bulgarian, Serb-Croat, Slovenian and Greek languages.

In the photograph at the befinning of this post you can see the commission that established from Yugoslav authorities in November 1944 and created the Makedonski alphabete.
Left to right: Vasil Ilioski, Hristo Zografov, Krum Toshev, Dare Djambas, Venko Markovski, Mirko Pavlovski, Mihail Petrushevski, Hristo Prodanov, Georgi Kiselinov, Georgi Shoptraianov, Iovan Kostov.

The new nation needed a written language, and initially the spoken dialect of northern geographical Macedonia (South FYROM) was chosen as the basis for the Slavomakedonski language. However, this was deemed too close to Serbian and the dialects of Bitola-Veles became the norm. These dialects were closer to the literary language of Bulgaria but because the latter was based on the eastern Bulgarian dialects, it allowed enough differentiation for the Yugoslavs to claim it as a language distinct from Bulgarian-a point which Bulgaria has bitterly contested ever since. In fact the differentiation between the Slavomakedonski and Bulgarian dialects becomes progressively less pronounced on an east-west basis. Slavomakedonski shares nearly all the same distinct characteristics which separate Bulgarian from other Slav languages lack of cases, the post-positive definite article, replacement of the infinitive form, and preservation of the simple verbal forms for the past and imperfect tenses-but whether it is truly a different language from Bulgarian or merely a dialect of it is a moot point(Poulton).

The alphabet was accepted on 3 May 1945 and the orthography on 7 June 1945, and the first primer in the new language appeared by 1946, in which year a Makedonskata Department in the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Skopje was also founded.


Below is document that showed how created the Makedonski alphabete( Spyridon Sfetas )




A grammar of the Slavomakedonski literary language appeared in 1952 with the help of the American linguist Horant Lunt, and the Institute for the Makedonski Language "Krste P' Misirkov" was founded the following year. Since the Second world 'war the new republic has used the full weight of the education system and the bureaucracy to make the new language common parlance, and indeed it is noticeable that old people still tend to speak a mixture of dialects which include obvious Serbianisms and Bulgarianisms, while those young enough to have gone through the education system in its entirety speak a 'purer' Macedonian (Andriotis).


MODERN POLITICAL ASPECTS

In subsequent years, painstaking efforts were also made to camouflage the language's fabricated origin, but nonetheless it remains an offshoot of Bulgarian and is spoken in villages and towns of what is now known as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM).'" The new dialect was carefully cleansed of glossic elements betraying its Bulgarian origin, replaced by "Macedonian" neologisms, and forced on the pupils from above for political reasons (Koneski 1993; Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou 1988).

These comments are not meant to denigrate the language spoken in FYROM today, but simply to insist that this most impressive new language must not be touted as "Macedonian," which it is not, but sinlply as a new Slavonic dialect based on the Bulgarian language.(Papavizas, 2006)

The most recently poltical aspect is that two university professors in electrical engineering ( Aristotel Tentov and Tome Bosevski ) from Skopje, operating under the auspices of the government funded Faculty of Electrical Engineering in Skopje and presented to the official Makedonskata Academy of Sciences and Arts , are claiming that the " Egyptian Demotic" script is, in fact, a text related to the "old Slavonic Makedonski language" and is Ancient Macedonian. This contradicts all mainstream interpretations of the Stone and the mainstream scientific evidence that Ancient Macedonian was not a Slavic language and, not least, that Slavic speaking peoples did not reach the Balkan peninsula until the 6th CenturyCE. This theory is also promoted by the authorities and church in Skopje as a "2,200 Years Old Script and Text in the Makedonski Language".



References and recommended books..

1. Spyridon Sfetas,The Configuration of the Slavmacedonian Identity, Vanias,2003
2. George Papavizas, Claiming Macedonia,2006
3. Maria Nystazopoulou - Pelekidou, The "Macedonian Question",1988
4. P.N. Adriotis, The federative republic of Skopje and its language
5. Hugh Poulton,Who are the Macedonians?, 1995
6. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Keith Brown, 2005
   

Ethnological Composition of Macedonia -1925

In my previous article with the title Racial Migrations In Macedonia During The Years 1912-1924 I quoted that in the book " Slavphone moovements (1913-1930), War Statistics" the writer Iakovos Michailides publish and analyze for a first time two secret statistics as about the Slavphones populations that done from the Greek authorities in Macedonia and Thrace.

This confidential statistical account of the Governorship-General of Macedonia referring to the population of the region as it was in the first quarter of 1925, estimates the Slavmacedonians at 173,954 persons. Of those, 97,836 or 7.1% of the total population were listed as bearing pro-Bulgarian sympathies (former Exarchists) and 76,118 or 5.5% as 'Patriarchists', that is, of pro-Greek sympathies. Of the 97,836 'Schismatic' Slavmacedonians, however, 11,238 were expected to emigrate; thus their number would be reduced to 86,398. The remaining 88% of the total population of Macedonia, consisting of indigenous Greeks, Hellenized Vlachs, a few pro-Romanian Vlachs, a few Muslim Albanians, a considble number of Jews and the Greek refugees settled in the region.

As is clear from this table in 1925 the majority of the Slavmacedonians who opted to remain in Greece lived in the districts of Fiorina and Kastoria in western Macedonia, as well as in Karatzova, Pella, and Giannitsa in central and Serres in eastern Macedonia. The credibility of this source is evidenced by a number of other official documents which estimate that the number of all Slav Macedonians, both Exarchists and Patriarchists, was about 160,000.

In 2006 the Oxford University publish a new book with the title....Population Exchange in Greek Macedonia: The Forced Settlement of Refugees 1922-1930 that include this confidential account. Dr Elisabeth Kontogiorgi has analytical desciptions not only from the specific statistical account but examine all the migration procedure that took place in Macedonia incuding recurring themes as the geographical distribution of the refugees, changing patterns of settlement and toponyms, the organization of health services in the countryside, as well as the execution of irrigation and drainage works in marshlands. Kontogiorgi also throws light upon and analyses the puzzling mixture of achievement and failure which characterizes the history of the region.

Below is the editorial review from Amazon :

Following the defeat of the Greek Army in 1922 by nationalist Turkish forces, the Convention of Lausanne in 1923 specified the first compulsory exchange of populations ratified by an international organization. The arrival in Greece of over 1.2 million refugees and their settlement proved to be a watershed with far-reaching consequences for the country. Dr Kontogiorgi examines the exchange of populations and the agricultural settlement in Greek Macedonia of hundreds of thousands of refugees from Asia Minor and the Pontus, Eastern Thrace, the Caucasus, and Bulgaria during the inter-war period. She examines Greek state policy and the role of the Refugee Settlement Commission which, under the auspices of the League of Nations, carried out the refugee resettlement project. Macedonia, a multilingual and ethnically diverse society, experienced a transformation so dramatic that it literally changed its character. Kontogiorgi charts that change and attempts to provide the means of understanding it. The consequences of the settlement of refugees for the ethnological composition of the population, and its political, social, demographic, and economic implications are treated in the light of new archival material. Reality is separated from myth in examining the factors involved in the process of integration of the newcomers and assimilation of the inhabitants - both refugees and indigenous - of the New Lands into the nation-state. Kontogiorgi examines the impact of the agrarian reforms and land distribution and makes an effort to convert the climate of the rural society of Macedonia during the inter-war period. The antagonisms between Slavophone and Vlach-speaking natives and refugee newcomers regarding the reallocation of former Muslim properties had significant ramifications for the political events in the region in the years to come. Other recurring themes in the book include the geographical distribution of the refugees, changing patterns of settlement and toponyms, the organisation of health services in the countryside, as well as the execution of irrigation and drainage works in marshlands. Kontogiorgi also throws light upon and analyses the puzzling mixture of achievement and failure which characterizes the history of the region during this transitional period. As the first successful refugee resettlement project of its kind, the 'refugee experiment' in Macedonia could provide a template for similar projects involving refugee movements in many parts of the world today.

Formation of the Autocephalous Church of FYROMacedonia

the below article is abstract from the great book of George Papavisas with the title Claiming Macedonia: The Struggle for the Heritage, Territory and the Name of the Historic Hellenic Land, 1862-2004 and has as subject the formation of the Autocephalous Church of fYROMacedonia

Formation of the Autocephalous Church of "Macedonia"Continuing efforts to sever the link between the newly created "Mace­donians" and the other Balkan Slavs and Bulgarians, and to boost the Macedonian consciousness (Palmer and King 1971), the government of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia, with CPY's support, formed the Orthodox Church of "Macedonia" in 1967 with Skopje as the seat, despite protests by the Serbian Patriarchate. None of the other five Yugoslav republics had an autocephalous church. It was the only church formed by a communist regime, whose motto in the past was Lenin's dictum: "Religion is the opium of the masses." The Autocephalous Church of "Macedonia" broke the reli­gious ties of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia's Slavomacedonians with the Serbs and Bulgarians. Little by little everything became "Macedonian" in the Socialist Republic of Macedonia: history, culture, heroes, monu­ments, music, events, locations, language, even the Greek Civil War of 1946-1949 (which they renamed the "Macedonian National Liberation War") and, finally, the church in 1967.

By playing with the two meanings of the name, the ethnic and the geographic, history revisionists in Skopje constructed an artificial "Macedonian" nationality from Serbs and Bul­garians and created such confusion among unsuspecting foreigners who were unable to distinguish between the two meanings," assuming that everything Macedonian must belong to the Slavs of the Vardar Province or "Macedonia."

The formation of the independent Church of "Macedonia" solved the religious affiliation problem faced by the diaspora Slavic emigrants. From the beginning of the twentieth century to 1967 slavophone immigrants in the United States, Canada, and Australia attended the Macedono-Bulgar-ian Orthodox Church affiliated with the Bulgarian Exarchate. After 1967, however, the members of the Macedonian Patriotic Organization (MPO) split into two groups, the Bulgarophiles, who still attend the Macedono-Bulgarian Orthodox Church, and the Skopje-oriented slavophones, who attend the Autocephalous Church of "Macedonia."

The Autocephalous Church of "Macedonia" was formed in violation of the rules of the Orthodox Church to strengthen Macedonia's autonomy vis-a-vis Serbia —autonomy expressed with the slogan "one state, one church, one nation" . The independent "Macedonian" Orthodox Church also founded an extremely active bishopric in America and propagandized extensively on the Macedonian Question as a CPY tool. The church's intense "Macedonian" activism in the United States and Canada is supported by about thirty thousand Slav-speakers who continue to stir provocatively the Macedonian problem. The slavophones in Amer­ica, mostly of Yugoslav origin, who emigrated after 1950, became the most vociferous people on the Macedonian issue, with their activism continuing unabated today in the press, on television, and on the Internet.

"for fair use only"

Claiming Macedonia: The Struggle for the Heritage, Territory and the Name of the Historic Hellenic Land, 1862-2004

"This Government considers talk of Macedonian 'nation', Macedonian 'Fatherland', or Macedonian 'national consciousness' to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece. The approved policy of this Government is to oppose any revival of the Macedonian issue as related to Greece."

Secretary of Edward R. Stettinius, Jr.
U.S. Secretary of State
December 26, 7944



"'The Macedonian Question" is an international problem that presents many puzzling historical and political problems. Originally, the problem dates back to the era immediately following the Greek War of Independence and The ill-fated attempt of Bulgaria to annex the former Ottoman region.

The modern fabrication of the so-called "Macedonian Question," however, is one of the greatest cases of historical revisionism and fraud that was fabricated by Josip Broz Tito, Communist leader of Yugoslavia in 1944. The Communist government of Yugoslavia, invented the pseudo-state by changing the name of "South Serbia," (or "Vardar Macedonia") to "Macedonia." To go along with the new name, came an attempt to create a new cultural-historical heritage: A new language from the South Slavic dialect of the region was officially "declared," A new, self-proclaimed "Macedonian Orthodox Church:" not recognized by any other Orthodox churches; and a fabricated history that denies the Hellenic character of the land of Alexander the Great.
Seeing the creation of the Skopje pseudo-state, the administrations of Presidents Roosevelt and Truman categorically denounced the apparent land grab and historical fraud at the expense of Greece and Hellenism.

The current political problem has come about with the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1991, when the United Nations, NATO, the European Union and most nations recognized the new state as the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia," or "FYROM." Successive governments of Greece have clearly stated that they have no territorial designs on this area, but do not want to relinquish the Hellenic character, history and heritage of Greek Macedonia. With strong historical evidence of this Hellenic character, references to Macedonia are found in both Herodotus and Thucydides. Further, Mt. Olympus was the home of gods in Greek mythology.
The struggle for Macedonia is one that has perplexed and agonized Hellenes. This is a problem of more than just geo-politics, it is the wholesale distortion of history to promote the creation of a state at the expense of Hellenic heritage. The poet, Odysseus Elytis reminds us that "Our name is our soul," and therefore, who can give up their soul? What becomes necessary, is a clear, candid, historical analysis of the "Macedonian Question," through its unique Hellenic character. This detailed argument from a Greek perspective is given by author George C. Papavisas in his "Capturing Macedonia."

Papavisas has written a thoughtful account of the Macedonian issue, unlike any other publication to date. He examines the nature of Hellenic Macedonia and traces Macedonia's Hellenic past. He focuses on the deliberate creation of a fraudulent history to promote wholesale misconceptions about Macedonia's past and present. The author gives us a clear insight to the evolution of the problem from its beginnings as a Bulgarian land grab, through a Communist historical hoax to the present dispute with the Skopje, FYROM, government. He gives us a very comprehensive study of the issue from an accurate historical, cultural and political perspective. To those wishing to understand the Hellenic viewpoint, the author's comprehensive study covers the conflict from initial stages to the present challenges.

George Papavisas states his intentions clearly in his Preface: "It is not my intent to add another historical book on Macedonia. It is to add a different book, one with uniquely interpreted approach, easily read and understood by the common English-speaking people interested in the Macedonian issue and in the long political, diplomatic and military struggle for the heritage, the territory and the name of the Hellenic land."

To his credit, the author certainly has achieved this lofty goal and his book is a must read to Hellenes and Philhellenes that want both historical accuracy and the preservation of heritage. In the words of former Congressman John Brademas, "The proper teaching of history can be crucial in promoting tolerance and peace." To this noble end, George Papavisas has given new meaning and appreciation to the "Macedonian Question" and Hellenic heritage.

Reviewed by: Dr. James F. Dimitriou. Past Supreme President

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas

Happy and Healthy 2008

Dropped genetics paper lacked scientific merit

In a highly unusual move, a published scientific paper on the genetic relatedness of Jews and Palestinian by the journal Human Immunology was withdrawn following complaints that it contained inappropriate political comment about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Arnaiz-Villena et al conclude:

Jews and Palestinians share a very similar HLA genetic pool that supports a common ancient Canaanite origin.

and

"Much to our surprise, the reason why Greeks did not show a close relatedness with all the other Mediterraneans analyzed was their genetic relationship with sub-Saharan ethnic groups now residing in Ethiopia, Sudan and West Africa (Burkina- Fasso). Although some Greek DRB1 alleles are not completely specific of the Greek/sub-Saharan sharing, the list of alleles is self-explanatory. The conclusion is that part of the Greek genetic pool may be sub-Saharan and that the admixture has occurred at an uncertain but ancient time."

Famous genetic scientists publish in Nature 415, 115 (10 January 2002) a essay that calim that the Population genetics cannot provide evidence about reasons for conflicts between people.

The authors make some extraordinary claims.

They remarked that the Spanish Lab used only a single genetic marker, HLA DRB1, for their analysis to construct a genealogical tree and map of 28 populations from Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Japan. Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics.

The limitations are made evident by the authors' extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans. These results contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups.

These famous scientists are.....

Neil Risch
Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of
Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA

Alberto Piazza
Department of Genetics, Biology and Biochemistry,
University of Torino, Via Santena 19, 10126 Torino, Italy

L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza
Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of
Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA

The second often-cited study from 2001 by Arnaiz-Villena et al. which maps 28 world population based on the HLA DRB1 locus, concluded that "the reason why Greeks did not show a close relatedness with all the other Mediterraneans analyzed was their genetic relationship with sub-Saharan ethnic groups now residing in Ethiopia, Sudan, and West Africa (Burkina Faso)."

Later that year, the same data was used in another study by the same author published in a different journal.

The second paper dealt specifically with the relatedness of Palestinians and Israelis and was subsequently "deleted from the scientific literature" because, according to the editor-in-chief Nicole Suciu-Foca, it ......confounded the elegant analysis of the historic basis of the people of the Mediterranean Basin with a political viewpoint representing only one side of a complex political and historical issue.

The disputed data continues to be cited all over the Internet, mostly by White Supremacists, Afrocentrists and Macedonian Slav nationalists who have political motivations to relate modern or ancient Greeks to black Africans.

However, it's no longer referenced by population geneticists in contemporary research, mainly due to the criticism of Cavalli-Sforza et al.

Racial Migrations In Macedonia During The Years 1912-1924

PART I

During the period of the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913, WW I and Minor Asia Disaster 1914-1918 , have witnessed mass-movements of whole populations on a scale which can hardly be paralleled, unless we go back to the period of great racial migrations which coincided with the break-up of the Roman Empire.

These mass-movements were, partly, the result of direct warlike operations, such as the flight of the Moslem population of Eastern Thrace during the advance of the Bulgarian army up to the lines of Chataldja in October 1912, the flight of the Bulgarian population of Central Macedonia before the advancing Greek army in June 1913, and the flight of the Greek population of Western Asia Minor and Eastern Thrace following on the Turkish victory in Anatolia in August 1922.

It is obvious that all these movements which involved the transfers, in either direction, of between 2,300,000 and 2,500,000 Greeks, Bulgarians, and Turks-leaving out of account the Armenians-have had the effect of profoundly modifying the racial geography of the regions in question.There has been a complete re-shuffling of races in Macedonia, Thrace, and Anatolia. Where before there was great diversity, there is now nearly complete homogeneity. Political problems, which owed their complication to the mixture of mutually antipathetic races, have been simplified.

Thus the Macedonian Question, where the inextricable nlixture of Greeks, Bulgars, Turks, and others had been the cause, up to 1913, of chronic racial warfare to such an extent that the word 'l Macedoine " has found a permanent place in our culinary vocabulary as an appropriate name for " fruit-salad," has practically been solved by the disappearance of its causes. As a result of the re-sifting of populations which has taken place during the mentioned priod (1912-1925), Macedonia north of the Belatista has become purely Slav(Bulgarian-Slavmacedonians), Southern and Western Macedonia (with the exception of some small and dwindling enclaves), predominantly Greek.

From the outbreak of the Balkan War in October 1912 up to the end of 1924, Macedonia has witnessed no less than seventeen migratory movements in either direction. There has been one constant flow of populations between the various territories of the Southern Balkans, and from one side of the Bgean to another.

In the term "migratory movements" are to be included all mass movements due to any cause whatsoever, whether the result of forcible eviction (war-like operations, deportations, etc.), voluntary emigration, or treaties and exchange of populations.

These migrations and only in Greek Macedonia (not in Bulgarian or Yugoslav Macedonia) are set forth below in their chronological order.

1912

The advance of the armies of the Balkan Allies-the Greeks on Thessaloniki, the Serbs on Uskub and Monastir, the Bulgars on Kavalla and Thessaloniki, resulted in a partial stampede of the Moslem population of the invaded area towards Thessalonica. Of the Moslem population of Greek Macedonia, some 10000 went over to Turkey as the result of this panic.

1913

• On the outbreak of the second Balkan War between Bulgaria and her former Allies, a very considerable portion of the Bulgarian population in the districts to the north of Salonika followed the retreating Bulgarian Army into Bulgaria. The districts affected were, principally, that of Kilkis and, to a lesser degree, Goumentza, Demirhisar and Seres. The total number of Bulgarians who migrated at this moment was about 15000


• Towards the end of that year the whole Greek population of the Macedonian districts ceded to Bulgaria by the Treaty of Bucharest (qazas of Jum'a-i-Bala, Razlog, Melnik, Nevrokop, Strumitsa) emigrated to Hellenic Macedonia. They numbered about 5000


• A similar movement took place from the Macedonian districts ceded to Serbia (qazas of Monastir, Gevgeli and Doiran). The Greeks from these districts, to the number of about 5000 settled for the most part at Thessaloniki, Florina, and Kilkis.


• At the same time the Greek population of the Caucasus, excited by the news of the Greek victories in Macedonia and by reports of free distribution of land, started to emigrate. Although the movement was discouraged by the Greek Government, which already had its hands full with other refugees, some 5000 * Caucasian Greeks succeeded inbeing admitted into Macedonia.

1913-1914

AS the result of the action of the Bulgarian Government in Western Thrace, which territory had been ceded to Bulgaria by the Treaty of Bucharest, and the settlement there of Bulgarian emigrants from Macedonia, practically the whole of the Greek population were forced to emigrate. Of these some 40,000 settled in Macedonia, others going to Old Greece.

1914.

• After the conclusion of peace between Turkey and the Balkan States, the Young Turkish Government started a vigorous propaganda among the Moslem inhabitants of the ceded districts, to induce them to emigrate to Turkey. Although Western Macedonia was hardly affected, a considerable portion of the Moslems of Central and Eastern Macedonia, estimated at 100000-115000 left for Turkey and were settled in Eastern Thrace and on the western coast of Anatolia.


• With the object of bringing pressure to bear upon the Greek Government to surrender the Egean Islands which had been occupied by Greece during the first ~ a l k a n War, the Young Turkish Government proceeded to expel, during the summer of this year, a portion of the Greek population of Eastern Thrace and the Asiatic littoral. About 100000 of these refugees (80,000 from Thrace and 20,000 from Anatolia) took refuge in Macedonia, where they were settled by the Greek Government.


• During the European War the Bulgarian Army occupied Eastern Macedonia, and all the Greek inhabitants-to the number of 36,000 were deported to Bulgaria.

1918

Immediately after the Armistice the survivors of theabove deportation-to the number of 17000only-were brought back and reinstated in their homes.

1918-1919

The successive occupations of Western Thrace, Eastern Thrace, and Smyrna by the Greek Army were followed by the re-emigration of the Greeks who had been expelled from these countries in 1913-1914. The total number repatriated from Macedonia was about140,000.

1919-1920

In the course of 1919 the Greek Government decided to remove to Greece the Greeks of South Russia and the Caucasus, many of whom had been reduced to the condition of refugees by the Bolshevik Revolution. Of these, 55,000" were settled in Macedonia.1919. After the defeat of General Wrangel by the Bolsheviks at Odessa and in the Crimea, a portiori of the Russian White Army, including large numbers of Russian civiliall refugees, was transported to Greece. Of these about 1000 were settled at Thessaloniki.

1919-1924

In 1919 a Convention was signed between Greece and Bulgaria to facilitate the reciprocal emigration of the Greek and Bulgarian minorities in the two countries. Under this arrangement 27,000 Bulgarians had quitted Greek Macedonia for Bulgaria up to the end of 1924.1922-1924. After the Greek disaster in Asia Minor practically the whole of the Greek population of Western Asia Minor and the Black Sea littoral (Pontus) took refuge in Greece. Also, immediately after the signature of the Mudania Convention by which the Allied Powers agreed to surrender Eastern Thrace and Constantinople to the Kemalists, the greater part of the Greek and Armenian population of Eastern Thrace and a portion of the Greek inhabitants of Constantinople, fearing reprisals by the Turks, removed to Greece. Of these refugees, up to November 1924, about 200000 had been installed in Macedonia and 120000 in Western Thrace.1923-1924. In January 1923 was signed the Greco-Turkish Convention for the exchange of populations, which differs from the Greco-Bulgarian Convention in that it makes the emigration of the Greek and Moslem minorities in the two countries compulsory, only the Greeks of Constantinople and the Turks of Western Thrace being exempted from its provisions.This Convention came into operation in October 1923. By November 1924 the whole of the Moslem population of Macedonia, amounting to 348000persons, with the exception of a few individuals of Albanian origin whom the Greek Government had agreed to exempt from the exchange, had been transferred to Turkey.1924. In May of this year the remnant of the Greek population of Eastern Thrace and Asia Minor began to be transferred to Greece, under the provisions of the same Convention.By December 1924, at which date the exchange was practically completed, 150,000 Greeks (94,000 from Anatolia, 18,000 from Eastern Thrace, and 38,000 from Constantinople) had been transferred to Greece.Besides the above-mentioned wholesale migrations, a factor which must also not be overlooked is the settlement in Macedonia, immediately after the Balkan Wars, of considerable numbers of Greeks from Old Greece. Taking into account the Government officials, gendarmes, etc., 10000 would not be too high a figure. This does not include the army.

SOME CONSIDERATIONS

In 1913 the population of Greek Macedonia, according to the census taken in that province by the Hellenic Government immediately after the annexation, was 1,194,902. At the census of 1920 it had fallen to 1,120,079, a decrease of 7%.

In order to be able to explain the cause of this decrease and to ascertain how the relative strength of the various racial elements coin posing the population of Macedonia has been affected, one must take into account all the migrations which, during the intervening period between the two censuses, resulted in either an increase or a diminution in the strength of each separate racial unit.It is also necessary to know what the relative strength of these units was at the beginning of the period, that is, just before the Balkan Wars.

This information is available from various auxiliary sources.We take, as our starting-point, a statistical table of the population of Macedonia, by races, published by the Greek Government in 1904 and derived from Greek and Turkish official sources.

"Greeks . . . . . . . . . . . . ...523,472

Bulgars . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 119,005

Moslems . . . . . . . . . . . . 404,238

Various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68,902

Total…………………………1115617

The figures in question were published in the Bulletino d'Orient of 1904 and also in the Trnlps of 27 December 1904, and are reproduced in Virgilj, 'La Questione Rumeliota,' pp. 233-4.The figures include, under the heading of Greeks, the Slavophone Macedonians acknowledging the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch, and, under the heading of Bulgars, the Slavophone Macedonians acknowledging the authority of the Bulgarian Exarch, as, under the Turkish regime, ecclesiastical allegiance was the test of national sympathy. Koutzo-Vlachs, for the same reason, are classed as Greeks, unless they had officially registered as " Koumans." This classification, based on the principle of national sentiment, does not, of course, pretend to take account of the much.disputed question of the racial origin of the various elements of the population. In the Lausanne Convention for the exchange of populations (1g23), ecclesiastical allegiance was accepted as the determining test of national sympathy.

PART II

In his book " Slavphone moovements (1913-1930), War Statistics" Iakovos Michailides

analyze all the known Greek and Bulgarian sources regarding the census of the Slavphones in Macedonia.

In this book the writer publish for a first time two secret statistics as about the Slavphones populations that done from the Greek authorities in Macedonia and Thrace.

1st Document(Central and West Macedonia)A.Y.E./1925/B/40,2Synoptiki Statistiki tou Pluthismou ths Genikhs Dioikiseos MakedoniasSlavphones
X-Patriarchists....................76.098
X-Exarchists(schsmatics)......97.636
Under Immigration................11.228
Total................................184.962

2nd document(Drama-Kavala)A.Y.E./1925/B/40,2Statistiki Pluthismou Ypodioikiseos ZyrnovouandStatistiki Pluthismou Ypodioikiseos Dramas, Komotene 19-11-1925
Ellinophrones.............5.606
Bulgarophrones..........2.114
Under Immigration......1.326
Total.......................9.046

In the analysis we can see that the slavphones(Greeks and Slavs) comprised the 11% of the Total Macedonian population.The exarchists comprised the 5%.

I think and in my opinion these statistics is the most accurate regarding the composition of the Slavphone community.

The writer also comment ironically and the FYROMacedonian statistics (actually they use the Bulgarian sources) and the transformer of the Slavphones into "Macedonians"!!!

PART III

Slavamcedonian writer Todor Simovski in his book "Summary of the Inhabited Places in Aegean Macedonia" mention as about the status in Greek Macedonia..

".... From totally 2.000.000 inhabitants in Macedonia on the whole before its partition, more from the half of it, in other words, 1.163.477 inhabitants lived in Aegean Macedonia. The national structure of its population, which, as a result of the five century slavery, met with serious ethnic changes on the eve of the Balkan Wars, was the following: Macedonian Christians about 326.000, Macedonian Moslems 41.000,Turks 295.000, Greek Christians 240.000, Greek Moslems 14.000, Christian Vlachs 46.000, Moslem Vlachs 3.500, Albanian Moslems and Christians 9.000, Jews 60.000, Gypsies 30.000, and the rest from other minorities. "

as you see the FYROMacedonian claims just follow the Bulgarian statistics as Iakovos Michailides clearly state in his book. The only that they can do it in every statistic is to change the Bulgarians in "Macedonians".

Sources:

1-A. Pallis,'Racial Migrations in the Balkans during the years 1912-1924'

2-Statistics of (a) the Mixed Commission for the exchange of populations between Greeceand Turkey ; and(b) Mixed Commission for Greco-Bulgarian emigra

3-Slavphone moovements (1913-1930), War Statistics, KEMO,Iakovos Michailides,2003

4-Summary of "the Inhabited Places in Aegean Macedonia,Todor Simovski

Plundered Loyalties by John S. Koliopoulos

Hardcover: 315 pages
Publisher: C. Hurst & Co (Publishers) Ltd (Jul 27 1999)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 185065381X
ISBN-13: 978-1850653813

One from the most accurate books that ever written as about the Macedonian history is from Professor John Koliopoulos with the title

“Plundered Loyalities”

This academaic book is a rare example of a reasonably unbiased account of the occupation and subsequent civil war in Greek West Macedonia. It describes the politics of communal violence amongst an incredibly disparate number of ethnic groups. In addition to the native Greeks the area was home to Vlachs and Slavs as well as refugees displaced from Turkey in the 1920's.

For the story the book is a soft translation of the Greek edition (Leilasia Fronimaton) that publish in 1995 . This two volume Greek edition was awarded from the Greek Academy of Athens.

Below is a review from John O.Iatrides as publish in the Journal of Military History, Vol. 64, No. 3. (Jul., 2000), pp. 894-895.

[ With rare exceptions, histories of the Greek civil war (1943-49) fall into two broad categories. According to the first, the victors were saviors who rescued the nation from an international conspiracy in which domestic communists joined Stalin's agents in the Balkans in a vain attempt to impose a Soviet-style dictatorship on Greece. According to the second, the defeated leftists were freedom-loving populist reformers who were crushed by reactionary elements aided by aggressive Anglo-American imperialism. John S. Koliopoulos's Plundered Loyalties is one of the rare exceptions. It recounts the inequities of the Greek state, which drove some of its citizens (including many of the Slav Macedonian minority) into the ranks of the Communist Party (KKE) and, ultimately, to armed insurrection. But it also chronicles the devious and brutal ways in which the KKE took advantage of the harsh Axis occupation (1941-44) to establish control over most of the countryside and prepare to take over the government at the moment of liberation, only to be thwarted by British military intervention in December 1944. This is not to suggest that the author's analysis of the causes of the civil war apportions blame equally between the left and the right. Carefully calibrated judgments throughout the book leave little doubt as to his own verdict.

One example:

"Communism and nationalism were invoked with the same relentless ferocity; and notwithstanding the patriotic rhetoric, both sides-the communists first and the nationalists afterwards-were vitiated by men who were frantically self-seeking and oblivious to all the laws of civilized human society, who debased their creeds to suit debased natures" (p. 169).

The book's primary purpose is to examine the "changes and mutations" that the ethnically divided population of (Greek West Macedonia underwent during World War II, when Greece was under German, Italian, and Bulgarian occupation, and during the ensuing bloody civil war.

This is a record of the politics of communal violence on a grand scale, involving native Greeks, Slavs, Vlachs, and refugees from Asia Minor who had settled in Greek Macedonia in the early 1920s: Greeks, Pontians, and Caucasians. Thrown together against their will, these marginal ethnic fragments struggled to survive in remote, crowded, and poverty-stricken rural areas ostensibly undcr the authority of the government in far-away Athens and of the nearest for eign occupation satrap. In addition to the foreign occupiers, the main antagonists are Greeks trying to preserve the territorial integrity of their homeland while fighting among themselves to determine its political future, and secessionist Slav Macedonians who align themselves first with Bulgaria and then communist Yugoslavia.

One of the book's most valuable contributions is its detailed treatment of the shifting political aspirations of the Slav Macedonians and the threat they represented to the ability of Greece to retain control of its share of Macedonia. It helps explain the sensitivity of Greeks over the old Macedonian "question" and its recent reincarnation in the form of an independent Slav Macedonian state. In the civil war, Slav Macedonians represented a major portion of the KKE7s fighting force, lending credence to the anti-Communists' charge that the ultimate purpose of the insurrection\ was to incorporate Greek Macedonia into Tito's communist Republic of Macedonia. This charge cost the KKE much domestic support and contributed to its defeat.

Plundered Loyalties is history from the bottom up. The author's spotlight is on ordinary people that circumstances have turned into combatants. If national identities are artificially constructed, the process is very often a violent affair, its agents as well as its victims are almost entirely common folk, and what is now called "ethnic cleansing" is a major part of it. This is one of the most important books on Greece during the turbulent decade of the 1940s. Its author, a prominent historian at the University of Thessaloniki with first-hand knowledge of the region and the issues he discusses, has captured well the human dimension and the grass-roots dynamics of the events he chronicles. His monumental research, meticulous documentation, and judicious analysis, which is often based on little-known facts, will benefit greatly all those interested in modern Greece, Macedonia, and the Balkans. His humane disposition toward the individuals and factions he has studied will satisfy all but the most partisan among his readers. ]

Macedonia is Greece, FYROM: A Closer Look

by Panagiotis Kakkavas

AHC article on Political Action

Posted by user:

On November 3, 2004, in its first act a day after being reelected, the Bush Administration recognized the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (“FYROM”) as “Republic of Macedonia”. This act marked a sudden and unexpected departure from the long-standing US, UN, and EU policies and came despite the statement issued by the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign stating, among other things, support for issues of importance to Greek Americans and philhellenes. It is an act which will have unforeseen consequences in the Balkans and it came at a time when Athens and Skopje had agreed to intensify their bilateral talks under the auspices of the U.N. to find a mutually acceptable solution regarding that country’s name.

The issue at hand is one of great importance to Greeks everywhere because claims over the Greek province of Macedonia and its most valuable port of Thessaloniki have been attempted many times throughout our tumultuous history. After the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1991 and the formation of FYROM, that country’s constitution made claims to the northern Greek province of Macedonia and its flag was the Sun of Vergina, the symbol of Phillip of Macedon, Alexander the Great’s father. Although references in its constitution have since been dropped, the flag has been changed (although it still resembles the symbol of the ancient Macedonians), and bilateral relations have been dramatically improved, the issue of the name still remains. Furthermore, it is well documented that extremist elements in FYROM have circulated maps which include large sections of Northern Greece and made claims that they are the direct descendants of the ancient Macedonians!

And there are further reasons to be alarmed.
It has recently been revealed that a US Department of Defense strictly classified handbook on FYROM included a map that showed parts of northern Greece and western Bulgaria as “occupied Macedonian territories”. Included were the city of Thessaloniki, Halkidiki and Mount Athos (see map)!

The US Department of Defense has issued assurances that the map was incorrect and has been corrected.

However, the mere existence of this map as well as the recent recognition of FYROM by its constitutional name have made Greece, Greeks and philhellenes everywhere justifiably suspicious as to the future intentions of the US Administration as other issues of consequence may merit a similar fate.

There are reports that the US State Department may proceed to recognize the Turkish occupied territory of Northern Cyprus as an independent republic. Just recently, an agreement allowing American Airlines to have direct flights to the illegally occupied territory (which would have meant de facto recognition) was reversed at the last minute after pressure by Greece and Greek American groups.

As of this date, bilateral talks between Greece and FYROM regarding the name are set to begin in New York under the auspices of the UN. Meanwhile, intense negotiations are under way between EU and Turkey to determine the date and the circumstances under which talks for Turkey’s entry into the EU can begin. The American Hellenic Council will continue to follow developments very closely, and inform members of the US Congress and the US Administration regarding policies that promote US interests in the region. The US policy objective should be directed at supporting and promoting the strong, stable and peaceful bilateral and multilateral relations, and the development of true democracy throughout the Balkan region and Turkey. At this critical juncture when the interests of Greece and Hellenism are under stress, it is vitally important we remain vigilant and united.

source : American -Hellenic Council of California

Greece: Bakoyannis Warns FYROM to Change Stance Enabling Solution to Name Issue by April

Direct Negotiations under the auspices of Matthew Nimetz to resume after New Year

Brussels (ANA-MPA/M. Spinthourakis) -

Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis, who represented Greece at the NATO foreign ministers conference, warned the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) here on Friday to change its stance to enable the finding of a mutually acceptable solution to the issue of the neighbouring country's name by this coming April.Speaking during her address on NATO's future enlargement, she said that all the member-states of the Alliance desire a successful course for Croatia, Albania and FYROM, but stressed that nothing must be taken for granted.

Referring specifically to the prospect of FYROM joining NATO, the foreign minister said that the Skopje government must make "laborious" efforts to meet the terms and preconditions set by the Alliance to accept new member-states.

"The timely, mutually acceptable solution to the issue of the name constitutes a substantive and essential precondition for the accession of FYROM to NATO," Bakoyannis said and pointed out that the stance of the Skopje government to date, as has been manifested with a series of counter-productive actions and decisions of intransigence and irredentist logic deals a blow at relations of good neighbourliness and prevents the prospects of building allied relations.
The foreign minister further said that the neighbouring country's government must take political decisions "of a similar boldness with those that we have taken in Greece to enable a change in direction."

She added that "now is the time for a solution to issues whose perpetuation has a negative impact on regional cooperation and security."

Asked to comment on recent statements by Skopje Foreign Minister Antonio Milososki (who said that the speedup in negotiations between Greece and FYROM on the name issue is a positive development without, however, this meaning that the problem will also be solved soon), Bakoyannis said that she focuses primarily on the point in the statement that mentions that the speedup in negotiations is positive.

Elaborating further on the issue, the foreign minister said that negotiations for a solution to the name issue have a specific topic and it must not be considered that they have the nature of confidence-building measures between the two sides.

Summing up her views on the issue, Bakoyannis said that as the situation stands now, with regard to NATO's enlargement, Croatia is the candidate country finding itself in the best position, followed by Albania, while FYROM must make considerable efforts.

"The decisions on the invitations for accession to NATO must not be considered and they are not foregone conclusions," she said.

The foreign minister mentioned that she also briefed U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Greece's positions, who extended an invitation to her and whom she met in Brussels on Friday.

Bakoyannis said that she briefed the U.S. Secretary of State on the reasons that Greece believes that there should be a specific timetable for the finding of a mutually acceptable solution between Greece and FYROM on the issue of the latter's definite name.

The foreign minister also mentioned that, apart from the issue of FYROM's name, the other issue she discussed with the U.S. Secretary was developments in Kosovo.

Bakoyannis stressed during her address on Kosovo at NATO's conference that the international community, and the Atlantic Alliance with it, must make every effort to achieve security and stability in the wider region.

The foreign minister further underlined the importance of the continuation of the mission and presence of the NATO force in Kosovo, based on the UN Security Council's resolution 1244. She also pointed to the significance of the fact that the government of Serbia requested from NATO itself to keep KFOR in Kosovo.

Lastly, referring to the situation in Afghanistan, which was one of the main issues that preoccupied NATO's conference on Friday, Bakoyannis said that peace and stability in Afghanistan is a basic aim for the Alliance, just like support and training for the national Afghan security forces is, and which are assisting the efforts of the Afghan government.


TALKS TO RESUME

Greek leadership and visiting UN special mediator on the FYROM "name issue" Matthew Nimetz agreed on Wednesday to intensify and accelerate UN-brokered negotiations on the sole remaining difference between Athens and Skopje, following a one-hour meeting at the foreign ministry in the Greek capital between the UN envoy and Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis.

Nimetz, who arrived in Athens after his talks in Skopje, was also received by Greek Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis at the Maximos Mansion. The former was accompanied by Bakoyannis.

Later in the day, foreign ministry spokesman George Koumoutsakos confirmed that Greek and FYROM negotiators, Amb. Adamantios Vassilakis and Nikola Dimitrov, will meet in Skopje after the Christmas holidays, following a decision to accelerate UN-brokered negotiations.

The meeting will be held in Nimetz's presence and hosted by FYROM Foreign Minister Antonio Milososki, with the prospect of a follow-up meeting hosted by the Greek FM in Athens. Such a second meeting would also be held at the negotiators' level and in the presence of the UN special mediator, Koumoutsakos said.

After the meeting with Bakoyannis, Nimetz underlined the strong international interest for a solution to the issue, something that became apparent during contacts he had with the American government and European governments, as he said.

He stressed that the matter is not simply a bilateral issue between two countries, pointing out that it is a UN matter concerning a number of countries in different ways, whereas a resolution will be a relief.

Koumoutsakos said the continuation and intensification of the talks meant that FYROM has not rejected Nimetz's package of ideas as a basis for the negotiation, while he clarified that during Wednesday's meeting between the UN envoy and Bakoyannis, which he said was held in a "very good climate", the two officials reviewed developments in the “name issue” since the Nov. 1 commencement of a new round of talks.

The Greek side stressed that the negotiations had a timeline up to the day when FYROM will possibly receive an invitation to join NATO, Koumoutsakos said, whereas Nimetz said that his mission does not have a specific timetable, but that all the developments in the region, such as those concerning the future status of Kosovo and NATO enlargement, were leading to an acceleration of the procedures for settlement of the outstanding issue with FYROM as well.

Regarding the Athens-Skopje interim agreement of 1995, Nimetz said that although he had heard "different interpretations", nevertheless, "I did not hear anyone disputing it".

http://www.greeknewsonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7781

Where Have We Gone Wrong?

By Marcus A. Templar

Greek-Americans cannot explain what happened to the effective lobby we used to have. Some believe we have lost political influence and others that we have lost effectiveness. One could consider both assumptions as being not viable; nevertheless, it is a fact. The well-known powerful lobby of the old times is not powerful after all.

I however, believe we have lost effectiveness, not political influence. We have political influence in the polls, but we are not effective as a group, as power brokers, simply because we are not organized. Simultaneously, Albanians, Slavs of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (The FYROM), Turks, and others have gained effectiveness and they keep demonstrating that they can play better hardball than we can. These ethnic groups have learned on how to play the game. They have received support from the U.S. government under a dual formula; they have persuaded the American public and through it U.S. politicians that their old country is strategically important to the United States and its interests; if this does not work, they play the victim card. Some of them can do both and thusly they have made it for the duration.

The change of the Greek Orthodox Church a few years ago upgrading the local Metropolitans to Archbishops is a de facto downgrade of our effectiveness, since we have lost our real power, the only unifying factor, the Church. Perhaps, the power that Archbishop Iakovos had accumulated was bad for the Patriarchate of Constantinople, objecting that one single person had become too powerful. It proved however, that the decision was misguided because under the current world political climate a unified Hellenism could be a deterrent to Turkey's unchecked appetite and constant bullish attitude and to the Slavic, or even Albanian farsighted strategic designs against Greece.

The above ethnic groups have their old homeland's governments' full albeit silent support regardless of who governs. On the contrary, Greek politicians taking advantage of the vacuum in our unified leadership have preyed on the phylarchy of unconsciously incompetent self-proclaimed "leaders" of our Diaspora in order to advance their party politics at the expense of Greece's strategic security and political stability. They simply divide the Hellenic Diaspora instead of amalgamating it. A good example is the creation of SAE. Other countries had established such organizations in the '80s and their activities differ from political to cultural. The formation of SAE started very well until partisan politics deemed more important than Hellenic national issues. It has become a tool of successive Greek governments, and because of it, it is ineffective.

The aforementioned self-proclaimed phylarchs are concurrently irresponsible. They are the ones who signed a document relieving former President Clinton from his pledge not to recognize the FYROM, but they think they are not at fault, since they abode with the Greek government's request. It is "the devil made me do it" defense. If they are not responsible for their actions, what kind of leadership do they provide? Leadership is a constant decision making process that aims to direct correct or wrong decisions. A real leader may not take credit for correct decisions, but dodge blunders. President Truman was very correct when he said "the buck stops here." Whether one likes him or dislikes him as President, and I do not, one has to admit that he demonstrated what leadership is all about.

I blame the loss of effectiveness to the lack of a solid national policy of Greece. Politicians of Greece do not even agree as to what constitutes a national Hellenic issue. As the Mayor of Athens, Dora Bakoyanni admitted to the delegation of the Pan-Macedonian Association that she could not see the matter of Macedonia as a national issue. But if the potential loss of the country's most important province and the loss of historical, cultural, and linguistic heritage do not constitute a national issue, then what does?

The Hellenic Diaspora in the USA being the oldest of all, with fourth and fifth generation Americans being caught in a time warp maintains, in my opinion, the idiosyncrasy of a 19th century Greek. Most of them being purely Americans, lacking minimal Hellenic conscience and education owe 100% allegiance to the United States and its interests; whether these interests are real or not.

The effective influence of the above-mentioned ethnic groups direct the US government as to what it is, or it is not beneficial to her in the S.E. Balkans. Thus far, we have not done anything, because we lack direction and purpose. The problem is that we have to persuade the US Department of State and the White House, while fighting the Greek government at the same time.

On the other hand, Greek politicians and even voters have not discovered the seriousness of their position. Immediately after the elections of 16 September 2007, Mr. Papoutsis, a representative of PASOK, blamed on radio the voters for his party's defeat, although everything indicated the fact that his party was unable to make its case to the voters. Then the elections for the new leader of the same party took place with results that did not make sense to me. About a month before the elections, polls showed that PASOK voters did not consider Papandreou capable to win elections against Karamanlis. Instead, they thought that Venizelos was the person that could bring PASOK to the government. Yet the internal PASOK elections brought Papandreou to leadership. Why did these people vote for a person that cannot, by their own admission, win the first political place in the Hellenic Parliament? Weird, isn't it!

Athens news Agency reported that Prime Minister Karamanlis said that

… any perception that the responsible parliamentary procedure, the procedure set out in the country's Constitution, was a process of "reduced democracy" was "erroneous and dangerous," stressing that Parliament was fully able to ratify a prospective agreement with FYROM on the name issue if such an agreement was achieved.

The Constitution, he explained, "does not rule out the choice of other procedures, such as a referendum', adding that "it does not, however, gradate democratic sensitivity and responsibility."

"If and when a final agreement arises, parliament can responsibly fulfill its own duty," the prime minister stressed.

Is the Prime Minister of Greece saying that a referendum downgrades "democratic sensitivity and responsibility?" If that is the case, why then is it included in the Constitution of Greece? Is he saying that in a referendum the voters would make an irresponsible decision, because they are incompetent to choose wisely what is good for the national issues of Greece? If the Prime Minister feels this way, perhaps he could explain to all of us in what way the same voters have been competent to place him into the office of the Prime Minister. Alternatively, is it perhaps, when these same voters go to the parliamentary election wearing their competent brain, but when they proceed to vote in a referendum in a way that the political leadership of the country dislikes, they lose their brains? Perhaps one of you smarter than I am, could explain it to me.

One of the most interesting facts is that the Greek Diaspora and the Greek governments lack communication. Greek politicians rely heavily on the Hellenic Diaspora for its lobbying in Washington. At the time that the FYROM, the Albanians, and Turks spend millions of dollars they do not have, the Greek government has placed the idea of professional lobbying in the back burner and only when difficult times appear, they want things to be happening NOW.

They do not understand that firstly lobbying is not a switch one turns on or off, at will. Secondly, it requires a lot of money, insistence, and persistence, utilizing people who have studied public relations and communications and furthermore they do it as a profession. Love for our old country and knowledge of history are not enough. Understanding how the U.S. government works, knowing how to get access, and employing people who have unlimited access, as former U.S. Congressmen, to various U.S. government offices, are the fundamental pillars of lobbying.

Our Greek –American friends have to understand that the need for real leadership is of utmost importance. We need superior persons, not ostentatious braggarts who consider a visit to the office of an U.S. official more of a photo opportunity than a duty to their Hellenic roots. We need people who surround themselves with experts in regional security, regional politics, and have an insight in the psyche of Greece's neighbors.

Greek-Americans have lost their lobbying power they once had. They are equally responsible for this loss as the successive governments and politicians of the Hellenic Parliament are. They resemble chickens with their heads cut off maundering to their death. I hope someone in the Parliament of Greece realizes that mingling in the affairs of the Hellenic Diaspora is detrimental, not beneficial to Greece. Instructions coming from Greece to our Community on how to do things do not work in the United States. We understand the American people. I cannot say the same regarding the degree of the Greeks understanding their neighbors. Greek-Americans have to take back their rightful place in the U.S. politics, and they have to do it, NOW!

source:Hellenic News of America

Macedonianism (Macedonism)

Macedonianism

FYROM'S Expansionist Designs against Greece, 1944-2006.

Ephesus - Society for Macedonian Studies, 2007 (ISBN: 978-960-8326-30-9)

[Whole the book in PDF]

http://www.ems.name/Makedonismos_english.htm

Below the book broken in chapters (pdf files)

CONTENTS

Foreword by Nikolaos Mertzos, President of the Society for Macedonian Studies

The Society for Macedonian Studies and its Work, by John S. Koliopoulos

Irredentism and Policy: FYROM Official State Papers, 1944-2006, by Iakovos D.Michailidis

FYROM Primary School History Textbooks (version 2005), by Stavroula Mayrogeni

Irredentism on the internet, by Vlasis Vlasidis

Official Documents "Irredenta Aegean Macedonia"

The "Oppressed Macedonian Minority"

The symbols, and the appropriation of the historical past

Gotse (Elias Demakis )

The Communist Party of Greece (KKE) exercised a vacillating and often seditious "Macedonian" policy for Macedonia, aligning itself with Comintern's anti-Greek position, undermining its own unity and its leaders credibility. The KKE was compelled to cooperate with Bulgarian autonomists, such as Gotse or Elias Demakis.

Except Gotse Paschal Mitrofsky, Naum Pejov, and others were among the first to transform themselves from Ochrana-Nazis to SNOF communists. Some of Ochrana's methods, besides terrorization, were similar to those of SNOF:

• demand that the Slavomacedonians openly declare their ethnic identity
• proselytize the KKE leaders sympathizing with the Bulgarian dreams and
• plans cooperate, when feasible, with pro-Bulgarian ELAS leaders
  

John Koliopoulos (Plunderes Loyalities, 1999, page 153) mention as about his life:

Last but not least in this galaxy of Slav Macedonian leaders and communist cadres involved in the process of turning 'Bulgars' into 'Macedonians' was Elias Dimakis or Gotse (named after Gotse Deltcev, a hero of the struggle for Macedonia killed in 1903 and claimed first by the Bulgars as Bulgar and afterwards by the founders of the People's Republic of Macedonia as Macedonian). Dimakis was a native of Melas, the Korestia village named after another hero of the same struggle, Pavlos Melas, killed there in October 1904. When he was still a child his family moved to Florina, where he attended the town's Greek elementary school. His father emigrated to the United States but returned after some seven years to Florina and set up as a baker with his son as assistant.

Elias soon became known locally as a thief and served terms of imprisonment, his last being shortly before the war. He is said to have become a communist during the Metaxas dictatorship, when he was imprisoned for his political views but released shortly afterwards after publicly renouncing communism. He was tall, strongly-built and brave. He flirted with local Komitadjis before being co-opted into ELAS and joining SNOF.

After a decision of the Macedonian Bureau of the Communist Party of Greece, and the necessary order from the commander of ELAS 28 Regiment, the 'Vitsi Detachment' was divided in September 1944 into 25 battalions, of which the 2nd became the 'Slav Macedonian Battalion'. As commander of the new unit Kosmas Spanos or Amyntas of Lechovon, a seasoned ELAS commander, was appointed with Gotse as the political commissar. The division was decided on after a sudden increase in the number of men of the initial unit, the result of 'the enlistment lately of a considerable number of men', according to the relevant regimental order.

In November 1944 Gotse made Monastiri his headquarters and worked hard at reorganizing his band, recruiting widely from refugees in Greece. Before very long he had a body of about a thousand men, which he named the "First Aegean Strike Brigade". Gotse himself became the Brigade commander. As his second-in-command he chose Naum Pejov, a veteran of the SNOF and Ochrana ,a native of the village of Gavros, near Kastoria.Pejov had fled to the PRM in June 1944. Dimakis Political Commissar was Mihail Keramiziev, from the same village as Pejov, with Vangel Ajanovski-Oche from the Edessa region as Keramiciev deputy.

The influx of men which made the creation of a new unit necessary was due to the accelerated pace of recruiting 'disarmed' Komitadjis and Okhranite which increased even faster now that the Slav Macedonians of Greece had their own unit to accommodate all the 'misguided' brethren.

Many Bulgarian komitadjides, afraid they might be punished after the war, suddenly became "Macedonians" and joined the Yugoslav partisans, their motivation surely being the desire to dissociate themselves from the crimes they had committed and the treasonous acts perpetrated against their country. Many escaped to Yugoslavia and joined the armed bands of the Bulgarian fascist Vancho Mihailov of IMRO. Some joined the Yugoslav partisans, whose leadership did not care whether they were komitadjides or Ochranists. ELAS make huge mistake as George Papavisas (Claiming Macedonia,2004, page 142) remarks :

It allowed formation of the "Slavomacedonian Battalion," with Gotse as its political commissar, to absorb the komitadjides defecting from the Germans. In less than a month, the battalion doubled its strength, incorporating many German or Bulgarian collaborators. The battalion became the salvation for many desperate individuals attempting to avoid reprisals at war's end: komitadjides, Ochranists, Siavomacedonian adventurers, Bulgarian and Yugoslav agents, and autonomists guided by communists freed from Akronafplia by the Germans, struggling to bury their Bulgarian past.

The journey from Bulgaria to SNOF, to western Macedonia, and then to Yugoslavia was completed. Gotse had assumed four nationalities: Greek, Bulgarian, Slavomacedonian, and finally communist Yugoslavian; were he alive today, he would certainly have been "Macedonian" in FYROM, a direct blood connection to Alexander the Great!

This is the story of a "Bulgarian" that transformed in "Macedonian"

Sources (and recommended for reading):

1. John Koliopoulos, Plundered Loyalties, 1999
2. George Papavizas, Claiming Macedonia,2004
3. Macedonism, FYROM'S Expansionist Designs against Greece after the Interim Accord (1995), 2007
4. Spyridon Sfetas, Autonomist Movements of the Slavophones in 1944, 2002