... We are being accused of not
feeling
sufficiently Bulgarian, we are being vilified for hiding our national
belongings and even of lacking any Bulgarian national awareness
whatsoever. We
are being slandered, there are intrigues and gossip against us, but
this is not
done in the open and with evidence, but by most devious ways and with
the
basest possible means ...
And so, what are we? Are
we
Bulgarians or
are we not Bulgarians? For the moment we shall answer this question
only with a
few excerpts from publications and documents of members of the former
Internal
Revolutionary Organization which is properly considered as the only
exponent of
the strivings of Macedonia and of the Macedonian population.
1. In the mandate given
to
our representative in Paris our first demand is formulated as follows:
The
Bulgarian population in Macedonia together and unanimously with us,
most ardently
desires, deeply convinced that such would be the wish of all the other
nationalities there, that this country should remain whole and
indivisible as
an autonomous and independent unit in the Balkans, etc.
... Emphasizing these
demands
we, together with the entire Macedonian population, feel and declare
that there
is no other solution of the Balkan problem if there is a genuine wish
completely to pacify the Balkans and to achieve the rapid and secure
fraternization of the contending members of the Balkan family. We say
this as
Bulgarians with a high Bulgarian national awareness and we do not
conceal, nor
have we concealed it during the
revolutionary struggles
before the wars, that the Macedonian problem in its entity is not
a Bulgarian
problem just as it is not a Greek or a Serbian problem, and that is why
we
consider that none of the Balkan governments can or has the right to
express
the interests and strivings of the Macedonian populations as a whole.
Have we concealed from
the
outside world that we are Bulgarians? And that we speak and express our
wishes
as Bulgarians?
4. ...
Is not this language
Bulgarian, spoken by Bulgarians and for Bulgarians?
The truth is that among
the
oppressed
nationalities in Macedonia, it was the Bulgarian and the Greek
nationalities,
each in its own sphere and with its own methods that played the
greatest role
and exerted the most decisive influence. Their rivalry for
predominance and
their separate struggles against Turkish domination by legal, illegal
and mixed
means form the essence of the so-called Macedonian problem and are the
determining elements of the Macedonian problem.
In the beginning these
two
nationalities, as we said, insofar as their strivings were expressed
through
their spiritual and political representatives in Macedonia itself, gave
a
special twist to their political struggle which had to maneuver
skillfully and
carefully in order to avoid the suspicions of the regime in power, on
the one
hand, and to avoid bringing disharmony into the traditions of the
European
diplomacy and traditions, imposed on it by the contradictions and
rivalries in
its own ranks, on the other. Broader freedom and less restricted
self-government, weakening of the central government, foreign
guarantees,
foreign control and so on and so forth, always in the spirit of Article
23 of
the Berlin Treaty, were the obvious slogans of the two nations: one of
them —
the Bulgarian, acted more boldly, more confidently and more selflessly,
while
the other - the Greek, acted with all the possible caution and tact,
imposed by
its specific position with regard to the Turkish regime and also with
regard to
its great rival - the Bulgarian nationality. However, the final goals
of both
nations or, rather, of their political representatives was separation
from
Turkey and the unification with their own countries.
……….
The more conscious and
intelligent Bulgarians in Macedonia, especially in the towns and
villages in
the interior, whose products found the easiest and most profitable
outlets
through the central ports of the Aegean (Sea) and who precisely through
these
gates used to supply themselves most easily and cheaply with
everything they
needed, began to realize, though vaguely, that their homes and their
living in
the future just as in the past will be indissolubly linked with these
natural
outlets and paths of economic relations and economic development, and
that no
matter what elements own and populate the thoroughfares and the ports,
connections
with them could not be severed without taking the risk of undermining
their own
living, their own economic future. This economic instinct, which was
essentially correct, was deeply to influence the ideas about the
future
organization of a free Macedonia, of a considerable part of the
Bulgarian
urban population and of the population in the larger villages with a
higher
economic culture. This logical change in the way of thinking, as far as
it was
an intellectual process, did not have to overcome serious opposition,
because
the propaganda of the official Bulgarian institutions in Macedonia was
far from
the achievements of Greek propaganda and its institutions, which
were both
older and more influential and, mainly, richer, and had at their
disposal as their
instruments a large contingent of intelligent people - teachers,
priests,
traveling salesmen, etc., all of them equally skilled and inspired
to
propagate with all possible means the great Hellenistic idea. And we
see that,
amidst the Bulgarian population in Macedonia, including their
intelligentsia,
a new idea was born, the idea that Macedonia had to be preserved in it
geographical boundaries whatever happened to the supremacy of the
Turkish
regime. This was precisely the idea about Macedonia's autonomy, about
its
self-government as an independent political unit even if certain
connections
with Turkey were formally preserved, as was once the case with Eastern
Roumelia. This idea is Bulgarian. There is no sense in hiding the fact.
Neither
the Greeks or even less so, the Serbs, had ever thought about it and
neither of
them showed any interest in this idea; they were even less prepared to
accept
it as a principle in their struggle against Turkish despotism. There is
no
point in talking about the Serbs. But if the same causes produce the
same
effects, why didn't the Greek population in Macedonia follow this
natural instinct
which gave rise to the idea of autonomy among the Bulgarians? It is
precisely
in explaining this problem that we shall come across the reasons which
discredited this idea even in the eyes of its natural bearers and which
were
the prelude to the terrible, deeply shocking and utterly disastrous
events in
the Balkans and around them, which made a wretched people, with all
forces and
with a still more powerful and ardent hope, cry to itself and to the
whole world: back
to autonomy, back
to the brotherhood among the Macedonian nations, back to Balkan unity
and
Balkan federation.
This idea, however,
remained
only a Bulgarian idea until it finally disappeared even as a
Bulgarian one.
Neither the Greeks nor the Turks, nor any other nationality in
Macedonia
adopted this slogan. What is more: they declared themselves against it,
against
the idea of autonomy. Why? Why was it that the Greek population,
represented by
its institutions and leading factors, received this idea with hostility
and
opposed it? Because the Greek national movement in Macedonia was
basically the
result of an officially organized propaganda with long-range annexation
aims
and not a popular movement brought to life directly as a result of the
specific
nature of the Turkish regime. Because among the Bulgarians the idea of
autonomy
acquired a wider significance parallel with the creation of the
Internal
Macedonian Revolutionary Organization which, being Bulgarian by its
composition, was very determined and possessed an impressive militant
power and
force of resistance. The leadership of the Macedonian Greeks could not
possibly
range themselves under the banner of such an organization which could
in no way
become the instrument of Hellenism as a national ideal. And finally,
because
the free Greek Kingdom, a neighbour of Turkey, which directed the
movement of
the Macedonian Greeks through the powerful prestige of the Oecumenical
Patriarchate, was neither large, nor powerful enough, especially after
its
defeat in Thessaly, to become the conqueror of and heir to the European
part of
Turkey. In Bulgaria the Greek Kingdom and its agents in Macedonia saw a
stronger factor with a greater military prestige, and this required a
negative
attitude towards the internal Bulgarian movement in general. The
less educated
Greek masses, especially the peasants, did not participate in the
official
Greek movement but under its influence they were at least indifferent
towards
the idea of an autonomous Macedonia adopted by the Bulgarians.
Undoubtedly,
since the Macedonian Greeks, the second largest nationality after the
Bulgarian
nationality, took this negative stand towards the idea of autonomy, the
latter
could not rely on any success and especially on any success in the near
future,
because its basic precondition, the united efforts and struggles, was
lacking.
The historical Congress
in
Berlin, which rejected without great effort the Russian plan for a San
Stefano
Bulgaria and created instead a new territorial distribution and
differentiation
of part of the Turkish dominions in Europe, recorded by its vote on the
Eastern
Questions the formula that in the Balkans, this crossroad of world
economic and
political rivalry, only the existence of small states on a certain
national
basis could be conditionally accepted but by no means that of a large
and powerful
Mediterranean state, close to the walls of Constantinople.
The Bulgarians, who
remained
under Turkish domination, felt from afar the pain from this blow,
directed at
the boat of Bulgaria at the dream for its restoration.
Since those first years
after
the memorable Congress, when the memory of the newly born and
immediately
stifled Bulgaria was still fresh, the Macedonian Bulgarians very
naturally
connected their striving for freedom with their dream to be placed
under the
trusteeship of a united Bulgaria. A naivete, understandable for a
nation which
idealized its dreams, but which was later sobered up by the harsh
language of
the subsequent events in Turkey and around it. And it was not in the
least
necessary to come to a second and a third war in order to understand
that what
San Stefano Bulgaria had been to Berlin, Macedonia was to Athens,
Belgrade and
Bucharest and that by its geographical location and peculiarities
Macedonia
represents a totality of fears and dangers equal to ten Roumelias.
Unfortunately, the
builders
of the Bulgarian state policy failed to grasp to the end this sorry
truth, this
insuperable fatality which could be seen and realized well in the light
of the
harsh Macedonian reality. The results are well-known. Two disastrous
defeats
brought by the two political systems of Bulgarian statesmanship, led
both
Bulgaria and the Bulgarian part of Macedonia to the failure of their
national
strivings even as an idea, while it was only after these blows that
Bulgarian
diplomacy was able to realize the truth which sober Macedonian public
opinion
had long ago pointed out to Bulgaria. It was and is still a fact that
ethnographical differentiations are neither possible nor admissible in
Macedonia and that, although Macedonia is predominantly Bulgarian, it
is not
only Bulgarian and it is not Bulgarian precisely where it acquires its
real
value, i.e. its full economic and geographical boundaries, and that for
this
reason Bulgaria or any other Balkan country can conquer Macedonia only
by
stepping over the bodies of the other states and, moreover, only after
receiving a mandate to impose itself through an armed protectorate over
the
entire Balkan Peninsula.
Where is this power to
be
received from? Where is the mandate to come from?
They were refused by
Berlin
when German arms were triumphant in their victory. They were refused
both for
Macedonia and for Dobroudja.
Would military
cooperation
with the Entente or with its Balkan allies have taken us to Syar
(Seres),
Kostour and Skopje, especially when we have in mind the famous treaty
of 1912
for portioning the territory?
Yet Bulgarian state
policy,
or rather the
policy of one or two Ministers of 'New Bulgaria' was not prepared to
bear the
consequences of the disasters. And it prepared its weapons for the
struggle
along the same old lines. The first of them was the brutal suppression
of
independent Macedonian thinking among the emigration and the refugees
in
Bulgaria. We shall, as a matter of duty, revert to this 'weapon' later
and more
often. As for the foreign weapons for the struggle with the outside
world, we
have been hearing them rattled for six months now, without frightening
anybody.
They are: the national principle, the historical documents and the
right of the
peoples to self-determination. If this is not enough - we also have the
treaty
of 1912. If only this is not enough - then we have the theory of the
Minister
of Foreign Affairs about the distance of the Macedonian towns from the
old
Bulgarian boundaries. Here we have an odd mixture of rights,
principles,
treaties and theories which are nothing but a well planned strategy for
retreat
through which Bulgarian state policy, in view of its insignificant
prospects,
will try not to lose everything.
Why should one then ask
the
Macedonian Bulgarians to link their fate with Bulgaria and to hold it
near and
dear? Especially when there is a way out of this tragedy, when there is
a
solution for which they had fought in the past (as well)!
At far more propitious
moments
they have resolutely risen even against the treaty of 1912, which with
or
without the application of the theory of the Prime Minister about the
distance,
subjected Bulgarian territories to foreign domination.
Today this treaty is the
ideal of Bulgarian state policy. In order to make it real, at least in
theory,
this policy is prepared to sacrifice Kostour and Lerin and, by analogy,
also
Strouga and Ohrid, and other centres in Macedonia, in spite of the fact
that
they are undoubtedly Bulgarian, because they are too remote to enter
within the
boundaries of a 'united' Bulgaria ...
Is this the national
principle and the right of the peoples to self-determination? Why
should
bankrupt state policy demand from a whole nation the heaviest sacrifice
- to
commit to national suicide through lack of will-power and silence?
Its
best
sons could not
stand this shame. And in spite of all this they managed to break the
wall and
to lead the nation on its own road.
What are the prospects?
It is dark, it is very
dark
over the Macedonian land, sinking in blood. Sinister clouds hang over
it. And
if the fate of the coming hour envelops it with its latest cruelty and
drives a
dagger through its breast, what demons from the dark abysses of the
universe
could muffle with their shouts and howling the horrifying cries of a
profaned
national conscience, the conscience of the Macedonian Bulgarians, who
in spite
of their past, their history, their struggles and their heroism will
have to
yield to foreign domination due both to a historical fatality and to
the
incredible sins and errors of Bulgarian policy which has done
everything to
prevent them even at the last moment from showing themselves to the
world in
such a light, as to be understood by it?
The declared policy of
the
Labour Party is no less fragrantly violated by the Peace terms
presented to
Bulgaria than it has been by the German and Austrian Treaties. The
principle of
self-determination has been completely abandoned, and the only
apparent
principle underlying the terms is that of encouraging the
Imperialism of our
Allies. These terms, unless revised, hold out no hope of permanent
peace in the
Balkans.
In Central and
From the numerous and
irrefutable data adduced so far it is clear that Macedonia represents a
geographical and ethnographical entity. On the North its boundaries are
delineated by the great mountain chains which stretch almost unbroken
from the
West to the East, beginning with Shar Mountain, passing through Skopska
Chema
Gora, through the mountain which marks the watershed of the Vardar and
Morava
in the Preshovo area and further on through Ossogovo Mountain and Rila
Mountain
to Mount Moussala, where the easternmost boundary of Macedonia begins;
from
here on it follows the western slopes of the Rhodope Mountains to the
south-east down to the river Mesta above the village of Bouk, and then
it
follows the bed of the river down to the Aegean (Sea). The southern
boundary of
Macedonia begins from the mouth of the Mesta and follows the coastline,
embracing the Chalcidice Peninsula way down to the mouth of the
river
Bistritsa from where it goes upstream up to the river's sources, after
which it
turns westwards through the watershed towards the source of the river
Devol and
reaches the Albanian mountains. There the western boundary of Macedonia
turns
northwards, passing through the mountains west of Lake Ohrid and of
Debur, and
reaching the southern slopes of the Shar mountain chain.
The overwhelming
majority
of
the population of Macedonia is of Bulgarian nationality. The Greeks to
the
south, the Albanians to the west and the Turks, scattered like isolated
oases
throughout the country, form an infiltration without changing the
overall
ethnographic nature of the region, as can be clearly seen from the
enclosed
ethnographic map.
If, in spite of our
expectations,
all the above-mentioned arguments prove insufficient to convince beyond
any
doubt the competent factors of the real national character of the
long-suffering country, we beg you to make arrangements according to
the
principle of the self-determination of the nations, for a referendum to
be held
among the Macedonian population under the following indispensable
conditions:
1. To eliminate all
Serbian
and Greek authorities from
2. The Macedonian
émigrés
driven to Bulgaria by the intolerable foreign regimes to be given the
possibility of returning to their native places and take part in the
eventual
plebiscite.
3. To give to the
numerous
Macedonian émigrés in America an opportunity to have
their say regarding the
future fate of their homeland to which they would most probably return
under a
free government.
4. The Greeks and
Serbians,
resettled in
Macedonia after 1913 in order to dilute the Bulgarian element, to be
deprived
of the right to vote as foreigners in that country.
Mr. President,
The Macedonian
population,
which for a
quarter of a century now have been waging a hard revolutionary struggle
for
freedom and justice in their native land, have declared on more than
one
occasion, and they are reiterating it now, that they prefer an
independent
Macedonia to a Macedonia divided among its neighbouring countries - a
partition
at which Serbia and Greece were striving with all their might.
But today, when all
territorial problems
will be solved on the basis of the national principle, so solemnly
proclaimed
by you, and also in the interest of supreme justice and of lasting
peace in the
Balkans, the Executive Committee of the Macedonian Brotherhoods on
behalf of
the 200,000-strong emigration in Bulgaria and of the Macedonian
population
which cannot freely express their will now, we most politely beg you,
Mr. President,
to intercede before the supreme areopagus of the freedom-loving Great
Powers
which will decide the destinies of the nations and will establish the
frontiers
of their states, and to contribute to Macedonia's unification, whole
and
indivisible, with the common motherland - mother Bulgaria. We believe
that
today, when states erased from the maps centuries ago, are being
restored, your
enlightened mind and your sense of justice will not permit a heroic
martyr-nation, which has given proof at the cost of innumerable lives
of its
high national awareness, you will not permit such a vital nation to be
divided
among its greedy neighbours and to continue to bemoan its fate under
foreign
domination.
With the strong hope
that
the
Macedonian problem will finally be solved correctly, according to the
wish of
the Macedonian population expressed on many occasions, and that the
population
will thereby be spared new struggles and sufferings, and we, the exiled
sons of
Macedonia, will be able to go back to our dear homes and join our
relatives and
friends, where the sacred dust of our ancestors lies in peace, we beg
you, Mr.
President, to accept the expression of our deep respect.
Executive
Committee of the Macedonian Brotherhoods
(The signatures
follow)
Mr. President,
The horrible
aftereffects
of
the World War will obviously be atoned for by a future order which will
place
certain nations under much better conditions than the ones in which
they were
before the war. The foundation of this order will be mainly based on an
important principle specifically emphasized in the famous speech made
before
the Congress by the present head of the great American democracy on
February
12, 1918, i.e., the Fourth of the principles which have to be
implemented in
the new world order, if this order is to be lasting.
It was precisely the
disparaging attitude to this important basic principle in the new
history of
Europe on the part of the competent political factors that was largely
the
cause for the outbreak of the World War as Mr. Wilson aptly pointed out
in his
above-mentioned speech: 'This war had its roots in the non-observance
of the
rights of the small nations and races which lacked the unity and
strength to
establish their demands, their own state affiliation and their own
pattern of
political life.' (Retranslation from the Bulgarian - Ed. Note). One of
the main
reasons for this war was the fatal solution of the Bulgarian question
by
European diplomacy at the Berlin Congress in 1878. There, in complete
dis
regard of the will of the Bulgarian people, expressed in their joint
efforts
for their liberation, the unity of the nation was disrupted and an
important
part of it once more remained under Turkish domination. This solution
of the
problem created the situation which gave rise to the constant unrest in
Macedonia which, in a string of events, led to Bulgaria's war against
Turkey,
and later, to the fatal strife among the Balkan allies, to the
unfortunate Bucharest
Peace and from there on, in an obvious causal relation - to the World
War.
The joint efforts of the
entire Bulgarian nation during the period of its spiritual Revival
until the
first half of the 19th century resulted in its liberation from the
Greek church
hierarchy and in the establishment of an independent Bulgarian church -
the
Exarchate, while, from the political point of view, the unity of the
Bulgarian
people was recognized within its ethnographic boundaries, first,
by decision
of the Constantinople Conference (1877) and later in the Treaty of San
Stefano,
which gave an even fuller recognition of these frontiers.
Unfortunately, the
Berlin Treaty destroyed this unity because of considerations which
the history
of the
The Bulgarian
Constituent
Assembly in Turnovo at which delegates from Macedonia were also
present,
expressed its protest, and the Macedonian population voiced its
indignation at
the injustice committed in Berlin by organizing a few isolated, though
poorly
prepared uprisings, i.e. in October of the same year in the valley of
Strouma
and in Razlog, and, two years later — in Prilep and Ohrid. English and
Russian
documents from that period testify that these uprisings were
spontaneous
manifestations of the population itself.
Thus the Macedonian
question
appeared on the scene immediately after the Berlin Congress and later
it began
seriously to threaten peace in the Balkans.
The Berlin Congress is
also
to blame for the unfortunate fact that the Serbs were diverted from
their
natural expansion towards the Serbian lands and their strivings were
directed
southwards, towards Bulgarian Macedonia. The first result of this new
orientation of Serbian policy was Serbia's war against' Bulgaria in
connection
with the latter's unification with Eastern Roumelia in 1885. The
Macedonians,
who took part in this war, forming special volunteer detachments
convinced
themselves that
Meanwhile
Turkish rule, especially after
Bulgaria became stronger, had resumed its old methods of oppressing the
Bulgarians in Macedonia. On the other hand, the already-mentioned
striving of
Serbia, coupled with similar aspirations for conquest on the part of
Greece,
made the Macedonian population think seriously about its national
future. This
brought to life the idea of an organized struggle with the aim of
saving
Macedonia from dismemberment and of guaranteeing a better life at least
within
the provisions of Article 23 of the Berlin Treaty, which envisaged a
certain
amount of self-government under the sovereignty of the Sultan. It was
with this
purpose in mind that the original foundations of the revolutionary
organization
were laid, an organization which took its final shape in 1893-94, under
the
leadership of the Central Revolutionary Committee, headed by its
founders
Damyan Grouev and Gotse Delchev. As a reflection of the same reasons
there
almost simultaneously emerged among the numerous emigrants in Bulgaria
a
similar revolutionary organization, headed by a 'Supreme Revolutionary
Committee' pursuing the same aims.
Within a few years the
Organization managed to become a real force, backed by the entire
nation, in a
wonderful cohesion and confidence which can appear only in nations
which have
consciously embraced a lofty national ideal, the more so that
conditions in
Turkey required heavy sacrifices from the peaceful population as well.
We shall
not describe the latter's loyalty to the Organization; it has been
adequately
emphasized by unbiased foreign witnesses. Let us quote here the
honoured H. N.
Brailsord (Macedonia, Its Races and Their Future, London, 1906);
'The more one learned to
know
of the Bulgarians of Macedonia, the more one came to respect their
patriotism
and courage ... And yet these men, when the occasion came to throw
their lives
away for any definite purpose, were capable of an utterly reckless
heroism. The
Committee never found a difficulty in obtaining volunteers for such
work as
mining, bridge-wrecking or bomb-throwing, which involved almost certain
death.'
(pp. 167-68).
'The Organization was
democratic in form
but revolutionary in its means. The Committee heading the Organization
knew how
to inspire the masses and specially the young people for heroic deeds
and
self-sacrifice. Gradually it won over the more prudent peasants,
well-to-do
tradesmen and intelligentsia as well as the young reckless ones.
Discipline and
organization were the main tasks during long years of work when the
plan had to
mature and patience remained its typical positive feature among all
sorts of
tempting hopes and persecution. It was full of enthusiasm like every
revolutionary movement, but still more significant was the
striving towards
the methodical implementation of the plan in detail. Here again the
natural
bent of the Bulgarian people towards labour was expressed.' (pp. 116-8).
Relying on the boundless
confidence of the population, the Organization also succeeded in
influencing to
a great extent the social life of the people by imposing its own secret
courts
for the settlement of cases of a civil and criminal character; it
carried out a
series of measures with the aim of improving the economic condition of
the
working population, etc. With this activity the Organization
personified the
strivings of the people for freedom and self-determination.
After preparing and
educating
the population for a continuous armed struggle against a powerful and
tenacious
military state like Turkey, the Organization proceeded to the Uprisings
of 1902
and 1903, provoked by the well-known brutal measures taken by the
Turkish
government in order to crush the revolutionary movement. The first
uprising
which broke out in the border areas of Macedonia, in Djoumaya district,
led by
the Bulgarian General Tsonchev and Colonels Yankov and Nikolov, was
followed by
such atrocities on the part of the Turkish troops that the peaceful
population
of these areas had to flee for their lives en masse across the
frontiers into
Bulgaria. The measures, taken by the Turkish government to prevent the
spreading of the movement to other regions, made it necessary for the
Organization to speed up the nation-wide uprising which was planned to
begin
later. It was declared in the summer of 1903, on Elijah's Day, August 2nd, practically
throughout Macedonia and in parts of Eastern Thrace, and was led mainly
by
Damyan Grouev and Boris Saratov. The centre of the uprising was in
South-East
Macedonia, around Bitolya and Kroushevo. The insurgents were the
complete
masters of the situation for several weeks. But finally they had to
retreat
before the huge Turkish military forces. Apart from the great losses,
suffered
by the insurgents, the peaceful population severely suffered from the
cruelties
of the Turkish troops which, on top of everything, destroyed and burned
down as
many as 130 Bulgarian villages.
In
the
Blue, Yellow and
Green books about the 1903 uprising there are many documents proving
both the
strength and the Bulgarian character of the movement.
What
was
the guiding idea
of the people who rose in arms?
Naturally, the innermost
national feelings made the people strive for state unification with
Bulgaria,
but bitter experience and the great risks connected with the
realization of
this dream of the people had convinced the population that it should
set itself
an easier task. The leaders of the Organization, representing the
common sense
of the Bulgarian, were looking for a practical solution of this complex
problem
in order to avoid All-Balkan conflicts and especially an eventual
partition of
Macedonia, which was the only aim of the policy of Serbia and Greece.
Due to
these considerations, they, with a wise resignation, were sincerely
trying to achieve
the following aim through the uprising: to provoke the
intervention of the
European Powers so that Turkey would be compelled to grant autonomous
rights to
Macedonia and to the Odrin area.
Here we must point out
that
the Bulgarians living in Turkish Thrace, guided by the same
considerations, had
found the idea of autonomy as the only salutary idea for themselves, as
well,
and that is why they joined the cause of the Organization; as a result
of this,
it was named 'Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization.'
Acting in accordance
with
its
already mentioned political programme, the Organization was also making
diplomatic representations to the Great Powers informing them of its
aims in
written statements or publications and by special delegations sent to
the
governments of the Powers. Both in 1903 and in 1912, on the eve of the
Balkan
Wars, such delegations were sent only to the governments of the liberal
Western
Powers and Russia. In 1903 the delegation, consisting of the Macedonian
professors Miletich and Georgov, had the honour of being favourably
heard and
encouraged by the most honoured President of the Peace Conference, M.
Clemenceau. In the written demands of the delegation stress has
always been
laid on the need to place all Macedonia under a regime of
self-government
supervised by the Great Powers.
A direct political
result
of
this activity of the Organization were the reforms which the Powers
imposed on
For its part, the
Organization tried to enlarge the intervention of the Great Powers by
pointing
out the inadequacy of the reforms and the need to extend them. The
logical end
of this activity would have inevitably been the factual separation of
Macedonia
from the direct rule of the Porte. The Turks realized this and
counteracted
with the tested means of their centuries-old policy.
They skillfully used the
reaction of the
Serbian and Greek propaganda - a fact which is amply illustrated in the
reports
of the consuls and the gendarmerie officers.
The fear of an extension
of
the reforms, especially after the meeting in Reval, brought about the
coup of
the Young Turks in 1908. The Organization had no illusions as to the
aftereffects of the coup, but, in order to give proof of its
conciliatory
spirit, it discontinued its activities, while preserving its cadres.
For its part, the
Macedonian
Bulgarian population, believing in the possibility of the advent of a
peaceful
era with a more liberal political regime under which the most
elementary rights
of the citizens could be guaranteed, made haste to organize
politically, and
founded throughout the country the so-called Constitutional Clubs which
adopted
district self-government as their aim.
The regime of the Young
Turks
did not live up to the expectations of the population but, on the
contrary, the
situation deteriorated because of the policy of Ottomanization pursued
by the
Young Turks, under which the authorities began to deprive the
nationalities of
their former church and school rights and to carry out an artificial
colonization at the expense of the Bulgarian working population, to
disarm this
population, accompanying this campaign by inquisition and atrocities,
to
exterminate the known participants in the revolutionary movement, etc.
This
made the population rally again around the Organization and try to find
with
its methods a way out of the difficult situation, rendered even more
difficult
by the fact that the Great Powers had called back their control
organs from
the country and had given their full support to the Young Turks'
regime. The
subsequent events are much too recent to need a detailed description.
The
massacres in Shtip, Kochani, etc., in 1911 and 1912 have shown to all
how the
Young Turks intended to solve the Macedonian question.
Finally, in 1912, the
Balkan nations,
equally threatened by the Turkish policy of Ottomanization, joined in
an
alliance.
During the Balkan War,
the
Organization put all its forces at the disposal of the allies. We do
not have
in mind only the 20,000 Macedonians who formed the Macedonian volunteer
corps,
or the scores of thousands of Macedonian officers and men in the
Bulgarian
regular army. Very soon, however, when the Serbs and the Greeks settled
in
Macedonia, disillusionment set in. The Macedonian population saw
that Bulgaria's
allies wanted to remain there as conquerors. When the conflict
between the
Balkan allies became acute, the Organization did not fail to warn that
if the
Macedonian question was not solved fairly according to the wishes of
the
population, it reserved the right to resume its activities.
During the Inter-Allied
(2nd
Balkan) War, the Macedonian population watched with an aching heart the
retreat
of Bulgaria's liberating armies, but it did not lose hope in the
triumph of its
cause.
For this long-suffering
militant population the Treaty of Bucharest was a harder blow than that
dealt
in Berlin. But the very enormity of the injustice upheld its hope
for a better
future.
And immediately after
the
signing of this fatal treaty, the population -again through its lawful
representative, the Organization - sent a special delegation to the
governments
of the Entente in order to protest against the partition of Macedonia
and its
subordination to foreign domination in spite of the will of the
population, and
to declare that this treaty bore only the seeds of new conflicts in the
Balkan
Peninsula, which is what has actually happened.
In spite of the
large-scale
massacres, committed by Serbians and Greeks during the Inter-Allied War
and
later established by the Carnegie enquiry, and in spite of the horrible
regime,
introduced by them in Macedonia, which, according to the testimony
of a
Russian correspondent, had established dead silence in Macedonia, and,
according to an expression in the Carnegie enquiry, had turned the
country from
a cemetery into a hell (p. XXIII), the Bulgarian population in
Macedonia
remained adamant in its loyalty to the national ideal and grew to hate
the
uninvited impostors even more. As a French officer of the Eastern Army
testifies, the Serbian officials felt like foreign in Macedonia, as the
Germans
did in Alsace and Lorraine (Jean Saison, D'Lasace a la Cema, Paris,
Plon.,
1918).
The draconian measures
in
Macedonia did not prevent the population even under these circumstances
from
pursuing the revolutionary struggle which it had discontinued. As in
Turkish
times, revolutionary armed detachments appeared, defending the
population from
arbitrary acts and helped to safety the persecuted more enlightened
elements.
Besides, the detachments also engaged in sporadic daring actions. The
majority
of the newly enlisted Macedonians fled to the woods or to
Such was the situation
in
Macedonia when the great European War broke out. The Macedonian
population
still believed that this world conflict, which began in the Balkans,
could not
possibly fail to affect its fate as well. This fate was also the only
concern
of Bulgarian policy, Bulgaria, which had already waged two wars for the
liberation of Macedonia and had suffered heavy casualties which further
strengthened the centuries-old links among the Bulgarian lands, had to
take
advantage of the new situation in order to find a correct solution to
the
Macedonian question.
Unfortunately, the
irreconcilability of the Serbs foiled the good intentions of the forces
which
saw in Macedonia's return to Bulgaria an act of justice and a way out
of the
difficult situation. Finally Bulgaria confronted its neighbours and its
armies
entered Macedonia, welcomed from Shar to Ohrid with exceptional
enthusiasm.
Everywhere the population afforded the greatest possible cooperation to
the
advancing fraternal armies and spared no sacrifices in order to
facilitate
their task.
Mr President,
The Macedonian question
lies
at the roots of the Balkan conflicts. It is one of the causes for the
misfortunes, suffered by all civilized nations in Europe. All
authoritative
voices up till now have been unanimous in their view that there will be
no
peace in the Balkans until the Macedonian question is correctly solved.
And
this correct solution could be achieved if the principles of President
Wilson
were fully applied in the Balkans as well.
The World War also
offered
a
special opportunity to prove the Bulgarian character of the Macedonian
population as well as its political strivings: all belligerent nations
were
able to see this population in its own country, in the most
unfavourable
conditions.
In solving this problem
the
victorious Powers should not confuse their assessment of Bulgaria's
conduct
with the right of the Macedonian population to have its will respected.
Because
no other country, whose destinies are determined by the Peace
Conference/has
such a right to their feeling of justice (titre a leur justice) as
Macedonia.
And in this case nobody knows better this right than the Powers which
victory
has entrusted today with such a great historic mission.
The Macedonian
population
wishes Macedonia to remain indivisible and under no circumstances to be
left
under the domination of Serbia and Greece.
The Internal Macedonian
Revolutionary Organization, expecting from the great areopagus of world
conscience a just solution of the Macedonian question, has folded
its banners,
but relying on its past, full of strenuous struggles for the
self-determination
of Macedonia, in the name of its dead and in the name of the principles
proclaimed
by the victorious Powers, begs the honourable Peace Conference to allow
its
delegation to present the demands and aspirations of the Macedonian
Bulgarian
population.
If other nations, which
have
not fought so much for their liberty and have suffered fewer casualties
than
the Macedonian Bulgarians, have been admitted to the Peace Conference
and have
been able through special delegations to express their national
aspirations, we
think that it is all the more justified to give the Macedonians the
opportunity
to defend their national cause themselves. Now it is not possible for
the
entire Macedonian population freely and directly to express its
national
wishes, since more than two thirds of it are under foreign, and in this
case
hostile and biased rule. On the other hand, the Internal Macedonian
Organization, whose leading bodies have been elected at a General
Congress by
representatives of the great majority of the population, which always
in
similar cases has expressed the wishes of this population and whose old
and
close connections with this population have not been severed, considers
itself
the most authorized body which, by a special delegation to the Peace
Conference, could competently represent the entire Bulgarian population
in
Macedonia.
On the basis of what has
been
stated above, the Macedonian Organization ventures to ask, Mr.
President, for
your valuable assistance so that for the above-mentioned purpose, a
delegation
of the Organization be allowed to appear before the Peace Conference in
Allow us, Mr. President,
to
express our thanks in advance and to assure you of our highest
consideration.
The hour, the terrible
hour
of destiny is
approaching. The Bulgarians on this side of the border are awaiting it
with
excitement and anxiety, the Bulgarians on the other side are awaiting
it with
fear and terror. The ghost of disaster and death hovers above a whole
nation. A
whole nation is facing the unparalleled tragedy of its lot, of its
future.
The victim is Macedonia.
It
has bowed its head to force, to the Fist, but nobody can deprive it of
its
sacred right to raise a voice for itself, a voice for its fate, a voice
for its
destinies. And it is raising it.
This voice, raised
before
the
enemies, raised, before the victors, raised before international
conscience and
before the awakening feeling of human solidarity, this voice we are
raising at
the eleventh hour before the Bulgarian government, too, and before the
representatives of the political movements in Bulgaria, before the
entire
Bulgarian population.
The
question is: is it
possible, is it necessary to save the Bulgarian nation from
foreign political domination?
The Macedonian
Bulgarians
reply in the affirmative to this question and think that the only way
out is to
create an independent Macedonia within its natural geographic
boundaries, with
equality among all populations, irrespective of their numerical
size and with
its neutrality placed under the protection of the League of Nations.
Our demands rise above
victory and defeat, we stand above victors and vanquished and we are
raising a
banner which rallies populations from both camps and which is being
raised by
eminent humanists and philanthropists from the nations which dictate
peace. The
right of the victor, the right of force are already shaken from their
moral
foundations as far as the future of
But in the difficult
struggle
for the triumph of the Macedonian ideal, the Macedonian Bulgarians
there, here
and everywhere, are especially worried by the fact that there is no
unanimity
between the two halves of the Bulgarian nation, that Bulgaria,
represented by
its government and its policy, has taken a different road which clearly
and
definitely leads to the obliteration of the name of Macedonia as a
historical
notion, to the destruction of its political integrity and its future
existence.
We realize very well
that
today Macedonia's fate does not depend on Bulgaria's will no matter how
irrefutable the latter's moral right may be to take part in a
controversy in
which history is on its side. And if tomorrow Macedonia is subjected to
the
domination of a foreign power, it will not be Bulgaria that will be
held
responsible for this. Today a whole array of enemies are brandishing
their
swords above
The governments of
Greece
and Serbia have
only one serious argument which artificially mars the struggle for
Macedonian
independence in order to compromise it and to handicap its drive to
destroy it.
This argument is that they have won victory over Bulgaria in alliance
with the
forces of the Entente and that the allied undertakings and the
casualties they
have suffered in the war give them at least the right to annex the
territories,
which have not been always under Bulgarian domination and which were
left by Bulgaria
after its military defeat.
We have had our say on
this
argument long ago. We, the representatives of the Macedonian
population, here,
as well as representatives of other Macedonian nationalities from other
places,
have made our objections which were necessary and which had the moral
power to
shatter the official positions of the two Balkan countries which want
to own
lands irrespective of their ethnic composition.
But we and everyone like
us,
could, with our modest efforts, only influence the conscience and
morality of
the circles which are in touch with those sitting at the Peace
Conference in
Paris, we can only take a moral stand at the conference itself, and
consequently, we can rely on any success only insofar as at least a
particle of
justice may triumph, apart from force, at this conference of victors.
Are there any other and
stronger ways to save Macedonia, to save the Bulgarian nation, to save
everything that can be saved?
We dare answer this
question
in the affirmative. This way is the attitude of the
Bulgarian government, when it is faced with the solution of
the problems affecting Macedonia.
This appeal is not being
addressed for the first time now. It has been voiced for a long time.
It was
launched through us and through our activity as long as six months ago,
and, if
we were reluctant to raise it directly before the Bulgarian government,
this
was due to two reasons: first, because we live and act on the territory
of
Bulgaria, in whose internal affairs and foreign policy we did not want
and
could not interfere in our capacity of representatives of a nation
outside its
boundaries; second, because we still had hopes in the inevitable and
imminent
renovation of Bulgaria and in the orientation of its policy along new
ways
opposite to those which led it to devastation and disaster, while our
own
homeland was completely ruined and literally destroyed.
But every passing day
puts
us
under the steadily growing pressure of the hundreds and thousands of
refugees
from Macedonia who have found shelter here, who are urging us to take
their
appeal not indirectly but directly to the face of the Bulgarian
government, a
government so close to us. We feel impelled to do what is required of
us, what
Macedonia wants us to do, what half of the Bulgarian nation wants us to
do.
If today official
Bulgaria
invests the concept of Bulgarian nationalism with its real national
content,
which can be above all and mainly the rescuing of the Bulgarian element
from
foreign political domination, why does the Bulgarian government adopt a
negative stand towards the idea of an autonomous Macedonia when it can
and must
accept it wholeheartedly and without any reservations in its pure form
and with
a chance of success?
We, together with all
our
compatriots both there and here, do not understand why we should
have to pose
such a question at all to a government consisting of Bulgarians.
This argument could be
utterly crushed, if the Bulgarian government -without retreating one
step from
its historical documents to which we are lending our staunch
support by
refusing to recognize the Serbian and Greek domination in Macedonia,
thereby
providing the most irrefutable proof of their authenticity - were to
declare
openly and solemnly to the Peace Conference and to the whole world that
Bulgaria's national aspirations would be fully and most adequately
satisfied by
the creation of a separate political unit in the Balkans,
internationally
protected against any territorial aspirations from the outside, while
also
solemnly emphasizing in this declaration that Bulgaria is a Bulgaria of
the new
times, a Bulgaria of peace, of concord, of friendship and brotherhood
with the
Balkan peoples, with whom it has nothing more to share in the future
but the
happiness of a Balkan family which has found reconciliation and
has forever
forgotten all misunderstandings and strife.
Why doesn't the
Bulgarian
government; do that when this is its duty to the Bulgarian nation, a
duty to
the Bulgarian race?
The Macedonian
Bulgarians,
fully realizing
that the idea of an independent Macedonia is not accidental or
new, but is
based on solid foundations, among which the fact of Bulgaria's defeat
is of the
least importance, and that for this reason it also becomes an idea of
circles
and factors outside Bulgaria and outside the Macedonian population
itself, they
cannot understand, they are powerless to understand why the Bulgarian
government should persist in considering the Macedonian question
only in the
light of the 'national unification,' which in actual fact does not lead
to any
unification but only undermines the moral advantages of the idea of an
independent Macedonia - an idea which is about to triumph especially
with the
precious assistance of foreigners over the purely predatory aspirations
of
Serbia and Greece, which are already shaken in their assurance that
they will
be able to impose themselves at all costs.
Should Bulgaria,
represented
by its government, contribute even slightly to
the realization of the plans for the conquerors?
On behalf of all our
compatriots and on behalf of Macedonia we loudly and clearly declare:
No, it
should not!
The Macedonian
Bulgarians,
who love their
name and their land, who also love all their free brothers the way one
loves
freedom and justice when one does not enjoy them, fully realize that
even after
the rout the policy of the Bulgarian government follows the same lines,
which
were mapped out in the past and which, with or without treaties, both
in
victory and defeat, led towards Macedonia's partitioning. And today
this same
policy leads to something else and far more terrifying: not to a
dismemberment
by agreement, not to partition on the basis of certain principles, but
to pure
and simple enslavement by the force of arms, by the force of afait-accompli,
irrespective of the will of the people whose land is being seized.
A Bulgarian
policy could not possibly follow such a path.
Anything may happen
tomorrow.
The Bulgarian government may take any conceivable stand when it goes to
the
Peace Conference. Here, in Bulgaria, all its acts may find an apparent
approval, an outward satisfaction. We cannot prevent this.
But the Macedonian
Bulgarians, the entire Bulgarian population in Macedonia and all the
refugees
here and abroad, before they bow their heads to destiny, before they
start
forging new weapons for struggle, new weapons for freedom and
independence,
before they scatter in foreign lands, before they start looking for
support
elsewhere, will sigh deeply and will utter a final shout from the
bottom of
their hearts:
We cannot expect mercy
from
our enemies, we shall keep dear memories of our foreign friends for
their
readiness to help us without having the duty to do it because of any
national
feelings or bonds of kinship, but, give us the strength to smother that
incomparable feeling of sorrow and distress which rends our hearts at
the
horrible fact that the government of 'nationalism,' of 'unification,'
of
'freedom and independence' of the Bulgarian nation has helped to plunge
us into
slavery and shame only in order to get two inches of Macedonian
land, or not
even a single inch, that it has opposed Macedonia's independent
existence only
in order to exchange it for acquisitions, the value and size of which
nobody
will know until the last moment.
We raise this voice of
the
Macedonian Bulgarians which is, at the same time, an appeal to the
Bulgarian
government to fulfill its duty to the nation and we address it to it,
testifying that this is the voice, this is the appeal of
Will this appeal be
heard
at
this last moment?
Will the voice of common
sense be heard, especially when Bulgaria has nothing to lose but, on
the
contrary, its positions and its chances of getting compensation
elsewhere not
only will not weaken but will become stronger after it solemnly joins
the new
life, the new future, the basis of which will not and cannot be
anything but an
integral, independent Macedonia?
If, in this difficult
and
terrible contest of forces and interests in Paris, there is even a
slight
possibility for Bulgaria to contribute to the solution of the
Macedonian
question in such an ideal way and the government of this country fails
to do
it, it will assume a heavy responsibility to the whole Bulgarian
nation, to its
future and its history.
This is what Macedonia
thinks, this is what the Macedonian Bulgarians think.
They consider it
inadmissible
for Bulgaria, as a fraternal country, to take with its hand a morsel of
Macedonia's lacerated body, even if it were thrown to it despite its
will!
Will
the Bulgarian government permit this? If it does, the Macedonian
brothers will
be horrified by the shame of using them and their homes as a bargaining
counter, in a way that is undeserved and unworthy of their history and
their
past, with the participation of the Bulgarian government in the
auction - a
government which would be allegedly expressing the policy of 'national
unification' of the Bulgarian people, of its 'complete' political
liberation
...
This is the new and
latest
mockery of a nation when nothing has been done for its future fate and
everything has been done to make this fate hopeless and horrible.
We
declare to the Bulgarian government and to the political parties in
Bulgaria
that, for the conscious and honest emigrant circles in Bulgaria, the
question
of the elections does not arise. There is only one question which
absorbs
their whole attention and moves their souls: what will the members of
the
Bulgarian government do, what will the political parties that form this
government
do before the elections for peace and before peace itself.
The
fate of the Macedonian Bulgarians does not depend on the elections in
Bulgaria
but on the stand of the Bulgarian government before the Peace
Conference has
formulated its decision on the Macedonian question. And the Bulgarian
government can take this stand at this very moment, provided it is
imbued with
the national ideal of the two parts of the Bulgarian nation,
The
Bulgarians from Macedonia still hope to
get the Bulgarian government's backing for their efforts, but, if it
has
decided to follow its own path to pursue its former policy, which we
have
neither the force nor the desire to oppose, except along the path of
our
ideological struggle, we take the liberty of declaring, fully aware
that we are
expressing the common wish of our compatriots here which they will
not fail to
express before long in support of our step, that every effort to send
to the
Peace Conference representatives of institutions like 'the
Executive Committee
of the Macedonian Brotherhoods' or other representative bodies, with
the view
of expressing the will of the Macedonian population, will be
followed by a
formal protest on behalf of the United Internal Revolutionary
Organization
which already has its representative in Paris, authorized to act for
the
realization of the old ideal of the Organization - the creation of a
united and
indivisible independent Macedonia - an ideal around which, with few
exceptions,
all Macedonian Bulgarians are already rallied.
Sofia, May
30, 1919
Provisional
Representation
of the former
United Internal Revolutionary Organization: Tasko Spasov Serski, M.
Gerdjikov,
P. Atsev, G. Petrov, D. Hadjidimov and P. Hristov.
I believe that no one in
Serbia would object to my sincere desire for a close rapprochement
between the
two Slav peoples - the Serbian and the Bulgarian. My whole past as a
politician
has been an uninterrupted series of activities, aimed at the
materialization
of this idea. I have fought against this fatal war in the National
Assembly, in
the press and among the people and I have always preached not only
rapprochement but also alliance between our two nations.
Today, standing
at the head of the Bulgarian government, I am deeply convinced that I
would be
betraying my past and my country unless I tried to do my best for the
realization of this ideal. I am deeply convinced that this idea is not
alien,
either to the Serbian people or to its political leaders. It is only
necessary
to work for its materialization. The time for this has come.
I shall not deny
that the mad fratricidal wars, started in 1885 by a criminal king and
ended in
1918 by another criminal tsar have accumulated a lot of hatred and have
created
a deep abyss between our peoples. But are these obstacles
insurmountable? Are
the same follies to be repeated today, after the bitter lessons from
the
terrible past, full of casualties and destruction? Is it possible that
even now
that the two criminal kings Milan and Ferdinand, have disappeared from
the
political scene, kicked out by the Serbian and Bulgarian peoples and
followed
by their maledictions, now that their instigator, Austria, has ceased
to play
its sinister role, is it possible that even today no basis for
agreement could
be found to ensure the lasting peaceful co-existence of our two
countries?
I know that
victories intoxicate, but I deeply believe that they should not blind
the
politicians and destroy in them the ideal of the real victory and
prevent them
from working for the triumph of a lasting and beneficial peace.
Today you are the victors and for this
reason you are annexing lands which have always been Bulgarian, thereby
digging
another abyss between our two fraternal peoples. I do not know the
reasons that
have made you do this, but I am confident that history, morality and
the proper
understanding of the duties of a man of politics will always condemn
you.
My devotion to the idea
of
a
rapprochement between the Bulgarian and the Serbian peoples is
unshakable.
Today, when I am at the head of Bulgaria, I consider it my duty to
launch this
appeal to you and ask you to do your best so that the deep abyss
separating the
two peoples does not grow even deeper. I hope that the Serbian people
nourishes
the same feelings. Today, in your country there also live
Slovenes, liberated
from Austrian domination; around it there live other Slavs who have
also just
been liberated from foreign rule. It is their duty to work for this
rapprochement, because they, too, like the Serbs, will only benefit
from
friendly co-operation with Bulgaria.
Give us your hand. I
shall
do
my best in my country to achieve this ideal and forever to put an end
to the
bloody struggles between our fraternal peoples. Give me your precious
co-operation.
Nothing is impossible!
As
long as there is good will, a basis for a lasting agreement will be
found.
Therein lies the salvation of the Balkan peoples.
We are bringing back a
corpse. That was my answer to those who asked me what were we bringing
back
from
I shall not speak here
of
all
the financial, economic and legal clauses of the Treaty which make it
even more
oppressive for the lacerated, shattered, disillusioned and
dishonoured Bulgaria.
Our comrade, Mr. Stamo Poulev, member of the delegation to Paris, will
tell you
about them. I am pointing out to you only the territorial injustice in
this
treaty. They are cutting off parts from Bulgaria from the districts of
Tsaribrod, Strumitsa, all of Macedonia, all of Southern Thrace and all
of
Dobroudja. We are being put into a worse situation than the one we were
in
forty years ago. And they are doing this after we have wasted all our
wealth
for our national unity, after we have shed the blood of 500,000 members
of the
most vital section of the population and after we have experienced a
moment of
full confidence that the civilized world, having proclaimed through the
mouth
of such a great statesman as the President of the United States such
bright and
humane principles, that this civilized world had really reached the
stage at
which it could understand the supreme wails and strivings of a small
but heroic
people, forgive it its intentional or unintentional errors and satisfy
with
readiness its demands, thereby consolidating forever peace in the
Balkans.
But alas! The civilized
world
still keeps its old tattered garb beneath which crackles the hell-fire
of a
bestial and barbaric spirit, as Carleno would put it.
Whether this sentence
will
be
mitigated I cannot say for certain. We shall make our objections, we
shall
appeal against it. Our protest and our appeal must be taken by our
delegation
on the 9th of this month at the latest, so that it can be there on time
and
deliver them. It is a pity that they will be handed to and examined by
the same
supreme court which has dealt us such an outrageous blow. But we
shall persist
with our protests and appeals, even after the verdict is made final, if
the
most painful parts of it are not removed. We shall not lose courage and
at this
tragic moment we shall bear the cruelty done to us with the patience of
a real
hero.
The cultural societies
in the town of
Kazanluk - the Iskra Society of Learning, the District Teachers'
Society, the
Society of Junior High and High School Teachers, the Free Children's
Canteens
Society and the Society of State and Municipal Office Workers - are
raising a
voice of protest against the draft peace treaty proposed to Bulgaria.
The authors
of the treaty have ignored all right and justice, and have given free
rein to
hatred, violence and cruelty. This treaty brings not the lasting peace
so
passionately desired by the broad people's masses of the civilized
nations, but
explosives for new troubles. The principles of freedom and humanity so
highly
proclaimed by the President of the
Our people has never
wanted
to take what belongs to others - it has only wanted to be the master of
its
own! And the areopagus of
The economic and
financial
clauses of the treaty are so harsh that their fulfillment would ruin
Bulgaria!
The Bulgarian people
which
in
the past has made great sacrifices to the material and spiritual
culture of
mankind, does not deserve such a cruel fate. It cannot and should not
be
punished for the military adventures of Ferdinand and his clique!
Bulgarian
democracy has always voiced its disagreement with the war-like policy
of this
clique, and has always tried to achieve the unification of the
Bulgarian people
peacefully and through agreements. The idea of agreement and
alliance of the
Balkan peoples is the fruit of Bulgarian democracy.
And for all this our
small
homeland is being offered a draft peace treaty unparalleled for its
injustice
in the history of the world!
Isn't the conscience of
all
honest people in the countries whose representatives prepared this
draft
treaty in Versailles disturbed by its murderous cruelty? Isn't the
sober-minded
intelligentsia in these countries going to raise a voice of protest
against
this unprecedented assault on our small homeland? Is the democratic
public in
these countries going to allow its statesmen to pronounce a death
sentence on
our small and vital people, which wants only one thing - to be free in
its
homeland, in order to devote its efforts to peaceful and fruitful work?
No, we
do not believe this! We are convinced that they are shocked by the
murderous
cruelty of this draft peace treaty, and will not allow this scandal to
mankind
to conclude the bloody pages of the history of the last few years.
After all this I shall
read
the following protest from the Communist group: On behalf of all working classes in Bulgaria
the
Bulgarian Communist Party protests against the Paris imposed peace
treaty which
dismembers the Bulgarian people and is subjecting large portions of it
to
national slavery, and its treasures and lands to constant plunder,
which is
killing its economic and cultural development, infringing its state
independence and creating conditions for its ultimate economic and
political
enslavement; at the same time the Communist Party condemns the
hypocrisy of
the Allied imperialists who, in the name of the political freedom of
the
peoples, drew the whole world into a general carnage, and today in
Paris are
cynically practicing the doctrine of international banditry by
cutting living
peoples into parts and plundering their lands, frustrating their
future, and
subjecting them to the terrible domination of international capital.
Serving a nationalist
aggressive policy, the entire Bulgarian bourgeoisie, represented by all
bourgeois and petty bourgeois parties, twice committed violence against
the
people by hurling it into wars against its will, it exposed it twice to
mass
killing and to untold disasters, defeats and catastrophes, acting as an
accomplice of the triumphant Allied imperialism in this horrible crime
against
the Bulgarian people. The bourgeoisie gave its full backing to the
warlike
policy of the government in the 1912-1913 and 1915-1918 periods, and
unanimously voted all military credits and, therefore, together with
the
governments and the monarchy, it bears the heavy responsibility of
being a
killer of our people; its present whine is hypocritical and its present
protest
against the deeds of the Paris butchers has no meaning.
The Bulgarian Communist
Party, which has always and everywhere fought against the warlike
policy of the
Bulgarian bourgeoisie and monarchism, against militarism and
nationalism, which
has decisively and categorically rejected all war credits and military
undertakings, and which worked energetically during the wars for the
immediate
conclusion of a peace treaty by opposing any conquest and any
annexation and
war indemnity, and by actively protesting against the crimes committed
by the
authorities against the population of the occupied territories,
today
considers itself morally justified and obliged, on behalf of the
working
classes in Bulgaria, to accuse the Bulgarian bourgeoisie and monarchy
and all
their tools and servants of betraying their own people. This betrayal
continues
today when Bulgaria, suffering and bleeding, is being led to execution.
The
Bulgarian bourgeoisie, through its right and 'left' wing parties, is
supporting
the butchers of the Bulgarian people in their aggression, by sword and
famine,
against the great free Russian people by giving the Russian
counter-revolutionaries assistance and sending them arms and
ammunition. We
protest against these new treacherous deeds which aim at extinguishing
the
flames of the liberation and renaissance of all oppressed and suffering
peoples
and classes, and at crushing the Russian revolution. It is not from the
suppression, but from the victory of the Russian revolution, which
first
proclaimed and realized the rights of the people, that the Bulgarian
people can
expect its liberation from the chains of imperialist bondage. The
revolutionary
wave is surging in the countries both of the victors and the
vanquished, and
will soon engulf the whole capitalist world in order to break the
chains of
capitalism and imperialism and to put an end to all forms of slavery
and
oppression. The enslaved peoples can find their salvation only in the
triumph
of the workers' revolution. Its victory in the Balkans is a guarantee
for the
liberation of Macedonia, Thrace and Dobroudja.
Sending fraternal
greetings
to the Russian workers and peasants who have been for two years
selflessly
resisting the attacks of the international counter- revolution in the
name both
of their own supreme rights and freedoms and of those of the enslaved
and
exploited people of the whole world; earnestly appealing to the
proletariat and
the oppressed people in all countries and calling on all revolutionary
forces
to rally and rise against the domination of the bankrupt international
capitalism and imperialism which has been morally disgraced, the
Bulgarian
Communist Party, at the same time, reminds the Bulgarian working
classes in
town and countryside of their revolutionary duty.
Long live the Bulgarian
Soviet Socialist Republic!
Long live the Balkan
Federal
Soviet Socialist Republic with free
Macedonia, Thrace and Dobroudja!
Long live the
international
social revolution!
1920
Proletarians of the Balkan and Danubian
countries!
It was hoped that the
World
War would
liberate and unite the oppressed and disunited nations. In the name of
this
tempting unification the Balkan nations were also dragged into the war.
Today
it is clear to everybody that the war, far from solving this problem,
resulted
in a new dismemberment and enslavement of many nations. The Bulgarian
nation
has been mercilessly dismembered. Compact parts of it in
Macedonia, Thrace and
Dobroudja are under foreign domination. Under the oppression of
Greater
Romania of the big landowners, large national minorities of Bulgarians
and
Turks in Dobroudja, of Russians in Bessarabia, of Hungarians and
Germans in
Transylvania, of Slavs in Banat, etc., live a miserable life. Monarchy
and
capitalism in Yugoslavia have brutally extended their rule over
Macedonia and
parts of Albania, over the Hungarians and Germans in Voivodina and the
groups
of Italians in Dalmatia. The Greek oligarchy, utterly intoxicated by
the ideal
of the Byzantine Empire, grabbed in its clutches huge masses of
Bulgarians,
Turks and Albanians, and, in Asia Minor, it goes on seizing large
foreign
territories. The Italian imperialists are stifling the Albanian
people in
their claws and are making colossal efforts to enslave them once and
for all.
Above all, the Committee
considers it necessary to point out that the Macedonian Bulgarian
population
cannot be the object of a convention to which it is not a party and
that, not
having been consulted and its will having been disregarded, it has the
right
not only to protest most vigorously, but also to regard the convention
as
nonexistent.
A cursory look at the
contents of the convention makes it possible to perceive its tenor,
and, first
of all, to grasp the two political aims pursued by its authors and
sponsors: 1)
Through this convention the Greek government is trying
artificially to change
the ethnic character of Southern Macedonia in a short period of time by
expelling the Bulgarian inhabitants and replacing them with Greeks. 2)
As a
direct consequence and immediate result of the depopulation of this
part of
Macedonia of Bulgarians, the aim is, in fact, to frustrate the
application of
the well-known clause on the protection of minorities. We cannot speak
of the
rights of the Bulgarian population, and of Bulgarian communes in places
where
they do not in fact exist. Consequently, once the Bulgarian element is
exiled,
the clause itself becomes illusory and its application - impossible and
pointless, because of the absence of an object to which it can be
applied.
Analyzed from a purely
juridical point of view, the Convention contains provisions which
contradict
the existing international legal norms. In the first place one should
mention
that, adopting the principle of 'voluntary nature' of emigration, the
authors
of the Convention intended to lend it a certain semblance of legality,
as in
the final analysis the term 'voluntary emigration' is nothing but an
implicit
option. However, being aware of all the immoral and oppressive measures
which
the Greek government will resort to in order to bring about this
emigration,
the real worth of terms like the above-mentioned can be judged.
Moreover, the
right of option as sanctioned by all international treaties of modern
times, is
known to concern only the inhabitants of a territory which was under
the
sovereignty of one state, and has then passed under the rule of another
state
by virtue of a certain international act. In this case, the very
treaty, under
which the territory is ceded, also contains the clause on the right of
option.
Southern Macedonia was known to have been under Greek rule also before
the
World War, and international law does not provide examples of the right
of
option of people inhabiting a territory which has not passed from one
state to
another.
A closer and more
detailed
examination of
the different provisions of the Convention cannot but bring to light
all
flagrant deviations from the principles of international law accepted
by the
whole world. These deviations not only reveal the tenor of this
Convention, but
also give it the character of an oppressive, and, thus,
anti-juridical act.
Article 1 of the Convention refers to the emigration of ethnic minorities according to religion or
language.'
International law recognizes only nationality and citizenship as legal
norms
for the people inhabiting a certain territory. The above-cited new
term, which
cannot be included in any juridical category, clearly manifests
the spirit of
the Convention. Evidently what is meant here is to expel the Bulgarian
population which is unwanted by the Greek state. Article 2,
paragraph 1,
outlines this secret aim even more clearly by obliging Greece to annul
its own
laws and regulations restricting emigration. The anti-Bulgarian
character of
the Convention is manifested still more clearly in Article 3, under
which
Greece renounces one of its sovereign rights: to bring to court and
punish
criminals for crimes committed in its territory and by its subjects, if
the
latter are Bulgarians and want to emigrate from Macedonia. The Greeks
are more
eager to drive the Bulgarians out of Macedonia than to apply their own
laws.
Article 5 contains a
stipulation which is entirely new and so far unknown in international
law. As
is known, emigrants from one country into another can take the latter's
citizenship after a certain period of residence in the territory of
that state.
The period of residence varies in accordance with the laws of the
various
countries, but such a period exists everywhere. Article 5 introduces an
innovation by obliging the contracting parties to grant citizenship to
immigrants
at the moment they set foot in the territory of the state.
And finally, under
Article
10, the Convention deprives the emigrants of their indisputable and
natural
right to dispose of their own property. It compels them to dispose of
their
real estate exclusively to the government of the state which they are
leaving.
In addition to these
violations of international law, the Convention, with its stipulations
and the
result they will entail, also contradicts the most elementary
rules of
humanity and justice: by force and in the most coercive manner it
severs all
ties connecting the population with the land with which they have been
bound
materially and morally for centuries; it tears them away from the land
which
has fed them and which they have watered with their own sweat for
generations
on end; it separates them from the things they hold most sacred — their
hearth
and home, and the dust of their ancestors; it condemns them to wandering, privation and
poverty; its foremost aim is to uproot the more prosperous and more
intelligent
part of the Bulgarian population which embodies the people's
conscience and
sense of national identity. And finally, contrary to all justice,
it forces
the population to exercise its right of emigration within only two
years if it
is not to lose even those few advantages and guarantees which the
Convention
deigns to provide. As is known, the first few years following any war
are a
period of uncertainty and instability: the population is still
affected by the
horrors of the war. The economic situation resulting from the war is
one of
confusion; trade is at a standstill; real estate is devalued, and its
profitability reduced to the minimum. In this case the two-year term
envisaged
by Article 4 of the Convention aims at enabling the Greek government to
benefit
from the psychological element, fear among the population, and from the
unsettled economic situation. So, on the one hand, moral pressure is to
be
exerted to encourage emigration and, on the other - the economic
interests of
the emigrants are to be damaged as their property is to be sold at
minimum
prices to the state.
Articles 8 and 9 refer
to
the
composition of the Mixed Commission invited to apply the Convention,
and also
the mandate of the Commission. Under Article 8, the Commission shall be
composed of 4 members - one from each contracting country
concerned, and two
members of different nationality, to be appointed by the Council
of the League
of Nations. The Mixed Commission enjoys extensive and sometimes even
unrestricted rights as defined by Article 9 of the Convention.
Moreover, when
one considers the fact that the Chairman of the Commission shall be
elected
from among the two members of a nationality other than Greek or
Bulgarian, it becomes
clear what importance the appointment of the two foreign members
acquires. The
Convention does not explicitly state what will be the nationality of
these two
members, it does not even mention whether the two foreigners will
be from
among the subjects of the warring or neutral countries. Article 8 gives
the
only indication about the appointment of these members of the
Commission by
stating that they will be designated by the Council of the League of
Nations.
Paragraph 2 of Article 6
deals with the property of the communes including churches,
monasteries,
schools, hospitals and foundations of all kinds. It states that when
the right
of emigration is exercised by the members of these communes, which
shall thus
have to be dissolved, the mixed Commission shall determine whether and
under
what conditions these members shall have the right to take with them or
move
the movable property belonging to these communes. As can be seen
from the
above-cited paragraph, the reference here is only to the movable
property of
the communes; the question of their real estate is settled by Article
7, by
force of which such property will be liquidated by the Commission. It
should be
stressed that the Convention recognizes the existence of communes of
'ethnic
minorities' with their own churches, monasteries and schools. This
recognition
is of great significance for us. The fact that since 1913 no Bulgarian
church
communes with their churches, monasteries, schools, hospitals and other
real
estate have existed in Southern Macedonia, far from denying their legal
existence, manifests the predatory policy of the Greek government,
which
immediately after the Balkan War destroyed the Bulgarian communes, and
took
possession of their churches, schools and property.
The question of the
preservation
of the Bulgarian communes, the Bulgarian churches, schools and
monasteries is
of immense importance in the light of the stipulations of the treaty on
the
protection of minorities. It is evident that only the presence of these
churches, schools, monasteries and other monuments of the past will
make it
possible for the Bulgarians in Macedonia to live, prosper and develop.
Besides
its purely material value, this property is also a great moral capital,
which
has been patiently collected in the course of centuries by the
devout and
patriotic Bulgarian population.
The importance of the
question of the property of the communes has not escaped the attention
of the
Greeks when the property of Greek communes in Bulgaria is concerned. In
the
Memorandum of the Executive Committee of the so-called enslaved Greeks,
which
has recently been submitted to the Greek government, we read: 'We draw
the
attention of the government to the very important question of the
property of
the Greek communes which the Bulgarian government broke up after the
anti-Greek
movements of 1906, seizing schools, churches, monasteries and all
movable and
immovable property, worth tens of millions of drachmas. As we learn,
the
Ecumenical Patriarchate has already demanded the restoration of these
communes
and the return of their plundered property. Though it can be argued
that the
restoration of these communes would to a certain extent check the
emigration,
yet taking into account that whatever properties this emigration might
take,
some Greek population is certain to remain in Bulgaria, especially
in the
coastal towns, it will not be just to deprive this Greek population of
Greek
schools and churches with the help of which it can preserve its
nationality, if
only for a few years. That is why we venture to recommend to the
government to
demand that these communes be granted the right freely to use or
dispose of
their property so as to be able, when their continued existence becomes
impossible, to transfer its value. These sums would enable them to
maintain
their communes in their new settlements in Greece.'
Article 13 contains one
of
the most important provisions of the Convention which has a direct
bearing on
the interests of the greater part of the Macedonian emigrants.
Under this article the
Macedonian Bulgarians, who left Macedonia before the Convention was
enforced,
and who have already settled in the territory of the Kingdom of
Bulgaria will
have the right to receive the price of the property they left behind in
Macedonia, which will be received from the liquidation to be carried
out by the
Mixed Commission.
The first question to be
solved by the Mixed Commission is to determine the meaning of the term
'settled.' Which of the Macedonian emigrants can be considered settled
in
Bulgaria and which not. Are those Macedonian Bulgarians who have been
forced by
various circumstances beyond their control, and at different periods,
to leave
the land of their birth and have come here, and have started a craft or
business or taken a state job to earn their living, to be regarded
as finally
settled in the Kingdom?
In order to answer these
questions, first of all, it is necessary to define the legal meaning of
the
term 'settled.' The criterion of determining whether an individual
can be
considered entirely settled is his personal wish, expressed by
external, clear
manifestations, to sever all contacts with the land which he has left.
In other
words, it is necessary to establish for each individual: 1) whether he
has come
here with the thought of going back or not; 2) whether this thought of
going
back has continued to exist since the moment he came, or not. In our
opinion,
this is the basis which must determine whether an individual can be
considered
settled or not.
The presumption of
temporary
settlement in the Kingdom, and the thought of returning to the native
land, is
most clearly manifested by some people, while for others it is
conditioned by
the actions they undertake as regards their property in Macedonia. From
this
point of view, the Macedonian emigrants in Bulgaria can be grouped in
five
categories:
1) Persons who left the
country en masse after the Balkan War and the First World War, and who
constitute the group of 'refugees.'
2) Persons who have been
coming to the Kingdom periodically for a number of years to make their living temporarily:
milkmen, boza vendors, khalva sellers, market gardeners, masons, etc.
3) All revolutionaries
of
the
past who have been forced to leave the country;
4) All peaceful,
law-abiding
townfolk and villagers driven into exile from Macedonia by the
intolerable
regimes of the Turks before the Balkan War and of the Greeks and Serbs
after
it;
5) Finally, all persons
who
immigrated here years ago, but who have preserved their property in
their land,
look after it, and have not lost contacts with their birthplace.
Evidently, it cannot be
said
about the first three categories that they are staying in the Kingdom
without
any thought of going back, i.e., that they are settled here. The act
that many
of them have started a craft, have opened a shop, or have become
teachers or
office workers to earn their living, cannot be considered a sign of
their wish
to settle forever in the territory of the Kingdom.
As far as the persons
from
the fourth category are concerned, it is clear that given the
elimination of
the reasons which have caused their emigration, given the advent or
order,
given the introduction of a legal system which would guarantee their
inviolability and freedom and would not do violence to their national
feelings,
they would return to their birthplaces. This is also supported by the
fact that
though the majority of them are persons of meager means, they have not
started
to liquidate their property, in spite of the hardship and
privation which they
have had to endure. And finally, it should be noted about the persons
of the
last category who left their land many years ago and practice an
occupation or
craft in the Kingdom that the care they devote to the property which
they left
behind in Macedonia, speaks of their wish to return to their homeland
one day.
In fact, only the formally expressed wish of an individual to sever all
contacts with the land of his origin, and to be considered permanently
settled
in the Kingdom, can serve as a reason to assign him to the category of
persons
described in Article 12, and to apply to him the stipulation of the
same
article concerning the liquidation of his property. It should also be
observed
that the liquidation of the property of these persons should take place
under
Paragraph 1 of Article 10, i.e., after the interested parties have been
given a
bearing or been summoned for a hearing. This presupposes the ensurance
of their
unobstructed return to the places in which they have left their
property, and
the possibility of staying there until it is completely liquidated, or
if they
so wish, to appoint representatives to defend their interests before
the Commission.
The paper presented
outlines
the character and tenor of the Convention, points out the stand that
should be
taken on it, and charts the instructions which should be given to the
emigrants. Naturally, the stand cannot be other than negative, i.e., no
opportunity should be missed of raising a voice of protest against it.
However,
this negative attitude towards the Convention should exclude those
clauses
which could to a certain extent, paralyze the harmful consequences
for the
Bulgarian population. The supreme interests of the Bulgarians in
From the information we
have received about
the situation in Serbian Macedonia, confirmed by comrades of ours who
have been
expelled from that territory, we are in a position to give the
following
picture of the situation there:
1. The Bulgarian
population
is being subjected to the continuous efforts of the authorities to
denationalize it. Radicals, democrats, republicans and all the other
parties of
the Serbian bourgeoisie are in full agreement in this respect. They
differ only
as to the methods. As far as Macedonia is concerned none of the rulers
is
worried by the existence of a clause concerning the minorities. But all
of them
are equally worried at the fact that the Bulgarian element there, as
well as
all other nationalities, find a full and unreserved protection of their
national rights and liberties on the part of the Serbian Communist
Party. It is
the only political party in Serbia and Yugoslavia which openly defends
and
fights for Macedonia's right to self-government, without any foreign
political
domination. Due to this, the Macedonian population finds in the
Communist party
its only champion and a powerful guarantee for its forthcoming happy
future.
With the exception of those Bulgarian circles in the towns and
villages, which
by their social status form part of the bourgeoisie, and join the
parties which
represent it, everybody else is rallying around the Communist party,
shaking
off the delusions of the nationalist movements and getting ready to
fight in
the name of Communism.
The old komitadji
methods
of struggle
against the authorities and against national oppression have been fully
and
finally abandoned. In the vocabulary of the Macedonian Bulgarians these
obsolete methods of fruitless struggle no longer exist and woe be to
those who,
from the inside or the outside, would dare to try to 'liberate' them
with the
aid of voivodas.
2. The friction between
Serbs, Croats and Slovenes on the problem of a Serbian hegemony of a
Yugoslav
federation in the new Serbo-Croatian-Slovenian state do not affect
Macedonia
because this is not a question of a real federation of free and equal
nations,
but of the unwillingness of the Croatian and Slovenian bourgeoisie to
tolerate
the privileges of the Serbian bourgeoisie and the Serbian monarchy,
trying to
usurp the central political power. Nobody but the Communists in Croatia
and
Slovenia take into consideration the rights of Macedonia in the
federation.
The jingoists in Bulgaria and the ruling
nationalistic bourgeoisie are deliberately deceiving the public and
especially
the Macedonian emigrants with the fable that the struggles for a
federal
government and even for a republic in Yugoslavia also predetermine the
status
of Macedonia as a separate member of this federation. The truth is that
both in
Serbia and in Croatia and Slovenia the political struggles are being
fought
under the banner of Communism, which is growing in strength every day,
crosses
the boundaries of racial combinations, and, instead of Yugoslav, or
North
Slavic federations, which can bring nothing good to the nations, it is
striving
for the triumph of a Balkan Federative Soviet Republic.
Macedonia - Greek and
Serbian
- will find its salvation only in Communism, and that is why it
has taken this
path together with the Communist parties of Yugoslavia and Greece.
At its meeting of June
11,
1920, the
Central Committee of the IMRO, taking into consideration the newly
created
conditions in Macedonia which has remained under the domination of
Yugoslavia
and Greece, and the difficult political, economic and internal
situation of
Bulgaria, drew up the following directive for its work in Macedonia:
I. The AIM of the
Organization remains, as hitherto, the achievement of the freedom - in
the form
of autonomy or independence - of
A. In MACEDONIA UNDER
SERBIAN DOMINATION
the Organization sets itself the following immediate task: Because of
internal
political and tactical considerations, the Internal Macedonian
Organization
will, for the present moment, render assistance to all those who fight
in a
legal way according to the laws of the country, and in cooperation with
other
enslaved nationalities in Macedonia and other regions in
Yugoslavia, for a
federal government in Yugoslavia with Macedonia as an equal member of
the
federation.
So as to fulfil the
above-mentioned task or successfully to wage the legal struggle, the
Internal
Macedonian Organization will contribute as far as conditions
allow, to the
formation of a legal organization under the name of 'Macedonian Federal
Union'
on the analogy of the Union of
Constitutional Clubs (Bulgarian) in Turkey (1908-1910) to wage a legal
struggle
by establishing contacts and arrangements for joint action with
the
organizations and parties in the other regions of Yugoslavia, which
also pursue
the above-mentioned aim.
The basic principles on
which
the Macedonian Federal Union
may be founded are the following:
1. Each region should
have
full self-government, with its own national assembly, a form of
internal
government in accordance with the will of the population, and
official
languages - those of the majority of the population;
2. A common national
assembly, in which all regions should be proportionately
represented, common
ministers of: the Interior, the Finances, and of
War, and common official languages;
3. Name of the state:
Federation of Serbians, Croatians, Slovenians, Bulgarians, etc.
B. In MACEDONIA UNDER
GREEK
DOMINATION, where the conditions are very different and more
difficult than
those in Yugoslavia, the Organization shall have the following main and
immediate task: to preserve the national consciousness and name of the
Bulgarian population there, and to devise ways of stopping its
emigration - not
to apply the treaty for 'voluntary' emigration which has been concluded
between
the Greek and Bulgarian governments, as the Bulgarian element there has
been
considerably diluted since 1913.
As far as conditions
allow,
the Organization should cooperate with the other nationalities - Turks,
Jews
and even Macedonian Greeks who disapprove of the conduct and rule of
the Greeks
of the Kingdom, for winning certain rights of local self-government,
freedom of
language, education, religion, etc.
Contacts with Greek
Macedonia
shall be maintained through the local representatives in Petrich and
Nevrokop,
and through Bitolya and Ohrid for the more distant regions, like those
of Voden
and Kostour, if favourable conditions are created.
The
following decisions were also taken at the same meeting:
II. An 'Information
Office
at
the Representation of the Organization' in Sofia is to be set up in
accordance
with Articles 131 and 132 of the Regulations in order to receive
information on
events in Yugoslavia, Greece, etc., and to acquaint public opinion in
Bulgaria
and abroad with the difficult situation of our compatriots who have
remained in
bondage. It is necessary for this purpose to allot sums for buying
books,
newspapers and magazines from Yugoslavia, Greece and other countries
which
treat the Macedonian question.
If it is possible, to
set
up
a similar information office in the guise of a library club in some
Macedonian
town under Serbian domination, where the conditions are more favourable.
III. In the absence of
Todor
Alexandrov from Bulgaria, the other member of the Central Committee -
Peter
Chaoulev, should fill his place on the Representation of the
Organization. Mr.
Georgi Bazhdarev, who has taken an active part in the revolutionary
movement of
the Syar revolutionary region and during the Ilinden Uprising was a
member of a
detachment, and Mr. Kiril Purlichev, who has been the chief of the
Voden
revolutionary district for many years, should also be invited as
advisers of
the Representation Abroad of the Organization, in addition to its
present
advisers Prof. Dr. I. Georgiev, Prof. Dr. L. Miletich and Prof. Dr. N.
Milev.
IV. To use this summer
in
order to strengthen the organization from the inside, to close its
ranks, to
establish contacts with the whole of Macedonia, to set up channels,
postal
communications, etc., and take care to do this very cautiously so as
not to
harm the Bulgarian population in the country, or to expose Bulgaria.
V.
To buy 100 copies of P. Durvingov's book History of the Macedonian-Odrin Volunteer Corps.
MEMBERS OF THE CENTRAL
COMMITTEE
The Central Committee of
the Internal
Macedonian Revolutionary Organization, in order to raise the necessary
funds
for continuing the struggle of
the organized enslaved Macedonian Bulgarians for preserving the
national name
and culture and achieving freedom, has decided to request financial
assistance
from its well-to-do compatriots both in Macedonia and abroad.
Having faith in your
patriotism and believing that you will readily respond to its
invitation to
assign an insignificant part of your wealth to help the liberation
cause of
your enslaved brothers, the Central Committee of the Organization
asks you to
be kind enough to make a contribution to its treasury of at least one
hundred
thousand leva (100,000). (You will be given an official receipt for the
sum.)
Your patriotism and
generosity are well-known to the Bulgarian public. You have on many
occasions
granted large sums for patriotic causes benefiting the people. We are
confident
that you, who have made the impressive donation of one million leva for
building a secondary school in your native town of Rouse, one hundred
thousand
leva to the Executive Committee of the Macedonian Brotherhoods, and
many other
sums to various
charities, will not hesitate to support such a highly humane cause as
the
liberation movement of the Macedonian Bulgarians. In this case you
would
fulfill your duty towards your enslaved compatriots.
Both Serbs and Greeks
have
one and the same evil intention towards Macedonia: to deprive it of its
individuality, to make it completely incapable of independent life, to
obliterate its whole history of gigantic struggles for freedom. In
order to
accomplish this monstrous design they go to any lengths: all means are
permissible for them and they do not have any scruples that such rule
is in
complete contradiction with the idea of civilization whose champions
they constantly
and shamelessly claim to be. Serbian and Greek chauvinism is well-known
to the
whole world for its morbidity and there is none like it anywhere in the
world.
It can be compared only to the ancient Jewish fanaticism, which,
likewise,
could not tolerate any other nationality within its state. The Serbs
and the
Greeks do not recognize any other nationality in their states but their
own.
They particularly show this lack of national tolerance in the enslaved
foreign
lands like Macedonia. Ethnically this region does not belong either to
Greece
or to Serbia. Everybody knows that there is not a single local Serbian
there
and that pure Greek population can be found only along the Aegean
coast.
Macedonia, which is not connected ethnically, culturally, historically,
or
economically with Serbia and Greece, naturally stubbornly tries to
break free
from the hands of the greedy and cruel oppressors and to become an
independent
state so that its gifted population - Bulgarian, Turkish, Wallachian,
Albanian
and Jewish - may freely create cultural values for itself and for the
neighbouring countries. The Serbs and Greeks realize perfectly well
this
natural striving of our heroic homeland towards independence, as well
as the
injustice of their domination over it. But instead of being disgusted
with the
criminal character of their rule, the oppressors forget in their hatred
morality and Justice, the laws of God and man, and are possessed by a
mad
passion to change the nature of things - to denationalize the enslaved
Bulgarians, Turks, Wallachians, Albanians, etc., i.e. to achieve in a
few years
what centuries of foreign rule could not do to these nationalities in
Macedonia. Above all, they have subjected the whole population of
Macedonia to
a special regime, unheard of in history since the days of the Assyrian
despots.
Terror reigns throughout the country. The prisons are full of
enlightened local
people. Terrorist gangs rampage through the villages and strike fear
and horror
into the peasants who have to welcome them, wine and dine them like the
former
kurdjali tyrants. No schools, no books or newspapers in the language of
the
local population are allowed. Whatever literature in this language is
found in
the public institutions is burnt. Children are forced to speak the
language of
the conquerors and old people are forbidden to speak their own language
in
public. But the people of Bulgarian nationality and the Bulgarian
language
throughout Macedonia are especially fiercely persecuted, because the
Bulgarian
population forms an impressive majority and, as the initiator of
the
Macedonian liberation movement, it is the most advanced and the most
freedom-loving national element, most capable of establishing a real
and
original Macedonian administration. Deprived of its schools,
churches and
priests, the Bulgarian population is compelled to put up with foreign
priests
who do not have the aim of teaching or leading it spiritually, but of
denationalizing it under the veil of faith. In such wide-awake
Bulgarian towns
like Ohrid, Bitolya, Shtip and Skopje the Serbian government has
already
imposed Serbian bishops. At the same time the bishops, legally elected
by this
population, such as the Bishop of Skopje, Neophyte, the Bishop of Ohrid
—
Boris, and the Bishop of Veles — Meleti, are doomed to exile, though
their
congregations are inconsolable because they were the symbol of the
populations's spiritual liberty, while the bishops for their part, are
pining
for their intelligent, patriotic and God-fearing members of their
flocks.
Is not the whole policy
of
denationalization, carried out by the Serbs and the Greeks in
Macedonia, a
sarcastic jibe at the oppressed nations which expected the relief
promised by
the Powers of the Entente, through the so-called clause on the
minorities? Was
not this treaty a cruel irony on the part of Europe with the fate of
the small
wronged nations? The victors constantly emit threatening cries for the
exact
implementation of the treaties on the part of the vanquished countries,
the
neighbouring countries are threatening
We had the opportunity
of
expressing our
view on this problem in one of the recent copies of the newspaper. And
if today
we are reverting to this subject, it is because the Serbian and
the Greek
press have been raising of late an unnecessary noise about the cheta
movement,
while the responsible factors in Serbia and Greece were not ashamed to
deliberately distort before the world the truth about the formation and
inspiration of the cheta movement in Macedonia and they threw the whole
responsibility for this exclusively on the Bulgarian government and on
the
Macedonian emigration in Bulgaria. That is why the problem of the cheta
movement, which until recently was of strictly local importance,
began to
acquire an international significance. Therefore, as exponents of the
wishes
and aspirations of the conscious part of the Macedonian emigration
in
Bulgaria, which genuinely fights for the creation of an
independent Macedonia,
we consider it our moral duty to stress once again our unreserved stand
on this
topical problem. We want to do this not so much out of desire to refute
the
inconsistent accusations of our enemies that we were collaborating or
sympathizing with the cheta movement, as to show to unbiased
public opinion in
this country and abroad the real and only culprits for the cultivation
of the
cheta movement in enslaved Macedonia.
The proposal of the
Bulgarian
government for an international inquiry into the incidents along the
frontier
and for a joint action to prevent all illegal traffic there, is an
irrefutable
proof of its loyal conduct towards the responsible factors in the
neighbouring
countries and of its desire to refute all suspicions that it was
helping the
cheta movement. Until now only the Serbian Prime Minister Mr. Pashich
has
declared, quite ostensibly at that, that he would respond favourably to
this
proposal, while the Greek government continues to attribute the failure
of its
adventurous policy in Anatolia to the cheta movement in Greek
Macedonia,
without having the moral courage at least formally to accept the
inquiry,
suggested by the Bulgarian government. Because actually we are deeply
convinced
that this inquiry will never take place, since neither Greece nor
Serbia would
want to commit political suicide - which cannot but be the natural
aftereffect
of such an inquiry. Because an inquiry will have every opportunity
to
establish most competently and unbiasedly, the following two facts on
the
problem of the cheta movement:
1. That the members of
the
chetas are being recruited among all the discontented elements in
enslaved
Macedonia. Such elements are not only the Macedonian Bulgarians but
also the
other minorities - the Turks, the Albanians, and the Wallachians, who
have
recently been joined by the Jews as well. It is true that the Bulgarian
element, being more conscious and more militant, predominates in
the
composition of the local chetas. But it is also irrefutable that
recently local
chetas have appeared, recruited exclusively from Albanians and Turks.
At any
rate, it is rare to find a cheta today in which all these elements,
equally
dissatisfied with the unbearable tyranny of the Serbian and Greek
regimes, are
not happily mixed. Therefore, the very composition of the chetas
clearly shows
that they are not recruited within the Kingdom.
2. That the cheta
movement
is
cultivated only in enslaved Macedonia. Because it can thrive only where
there
reigns a complete lack of rights and insecurity for the
individual. In
Bulgarian Macedonia, where all citizens enjoy equal political and civil
rights,
where national and religious tolerance are proverbial, where the free
expression of the intellectual abilities of every individual is
guaranteed,
naturally there can be no question of any cheta movement. Because
the elements
dissatisfied with any arbitrary acts of the authorities have every
possibility
to plead for their violated civil and political rights before the
lawfully
established institutions, without having the least reason to worry
about the
feelings of the rulers which might be provoked by the exercise of these
rights.
However, the oppressed nations in Serbian and Greek Macedonia lack that
freedom
of action. Because these nationalities are outlawed in their
country; because
they are denied there the most elementary human rights; because in
those
wretched regions the Serbian and Greek 'cultures' are being imposed on
the
minorities with the most refined means of the inquisition; because any
expression of dissatisfaction with the arbitrary acts of the local
tyrants is
considered high treason by the powers that be; because, finally, in these two parts of our homeland no
specific conditions for the free development of the individual member
of the
oppressed nationalities exist. Under these circumstances, it was
natural and
understandable that a cheta movement should appear in Serbian and Greek
Macedonia, and the responsibility for it falls above all, on the
governments of
these two countries. Because, if the latter are moved by a sincere
desire to
pacify these two regions they are duty-bound by their solemnly accepted
international
undertaking to apply the treaty stipulations about the minorities.
Because,
however insignificant the rights of the oppressed nationalities
accruing from
this treaty may be, nevertheless we must admit that in that case it
would be
possible to create a religious and national tolerance in Serbian and
Greek
Macedonia, which would contribute considerably to the quick and
effective
dissipation of any thought in the minds of the dissatisfied element of
fighting
for their civil and political rights through the cheta movement.
And since the treaty on
the
minorities is an international act, promulgated by the present-day
leaders of
world destinies in order to relieve their conscience, an act which
allowed
them, in spite of Wilson's 14 points, to sanction the
dismemberment of our
homeland, so ruthlessly carried out by virtue of the Bucharest Treaty
of 1913,
they now have the duty to require from their protégés the
implementation of
this international act. Therefore, we Macedonians, have every reason to
consider
the leaders of world destinies as the chief culprits for the chaotic
situation
in enslaved Macedonia, a natural and logical result of which is the
cheta
movement. Because we are deeply convinced that the application of
the treaty
stipulations on the minorities and, respectively, the disappearance of
the
cheta movement in enslaved Macedonia, largely depend on their good will.
The League of Nations
cannot
be exempt either from this moral responsibility. Because in spite
of its
international duty closely to control the application of the
treaty on the
minorities, it has not paid any attention to this problem so far. Even
the
repeated interventions of the Provisional Commission of the Macedonian
emigration in Bulgaria for the application of this treaty as the only
efficient
means at this moment for pacifying Macedonia were not able to move the
members
of the League of Nations and draw their attention to the inhuman
sufferings and
moans of our compatriots in enslaved Macedonia or to the pains and
tears of the
exiled sons of Macedonia!
And it is in vain that
the
governments of Serbia and Greece are now trying by means of a
transparent
diversion to reject their own responsibility for the cheta movement in
their
parts of our homeland and to blame us, the Macedonian emigrants
for it.
Because they know very well that the Macedonian emigration in Bulgaria
expresses its political demands for the establishment of an independent
Macedonia, equally advantageous to all Balkan countries, only through
its
legal struggle. And its charitable brotherhoods have not been and
cannot be a
subversive organization of the kind which any law-governed country
could not
tolerate.
On the other hand, we,
Macedonian emigrants, cannot nourish the hope that the cheta movement
as a
means of struggle is capable of winning Macedonia's freedom by itself.
What is
more: now that major world problems which fully absorb the attention of
world
public opinion and of the leading factors still remain unsolved,
the
Macedonian question is an insignificant atom of the world cataclysm and
nobody
will be moved in the least by the only result which the cheta movement
can
produce in enslaved Macedonia: the burning of some villages and towns,
the ruin
and extermination of the most intelligent and conscious compatriots of
ours,
the defiling of our mothers, wives and sisters and the endless lines of
new
martyrs - the wretched refugees. Therefore, to speak about the cheta
movement
under these circumstances and especially to inspire it from the
outside, as the
Serbian and Greek Governments claim, would be tantamount to digging the
grave
of Macedonia deliberately. No sensible Macedonian can ever commit such
an
incredible treason towards our homeland!
In Skopje the Day of the
Soloun brothers St
Cyril and St Methodius was celebrated with particular ceremony. On the
eve of
the Day the celebrations were announced by cannon shots. The buildings
of the
government offices were decorated with flags. In the morning new
salutes were
given in honour of the holiday. Archbishop Varnava conducted a solemn
service
and stressed, in a speech, the merits of the Soloun brothers to all
Slavs.
There was a military parade of the Skopje garrison.
We are not at all
surprised
at this report in the Serbian newspapers in spite of the fact that
during the
first occupation the Serbs ruthlessly suppressed this national holiday
of the Macedonian
Bulgarians. They have realized that they will not be able to make
Macedonia
Serbian by means of terror; they have realized that they are not facing
an
amorphous and unconscious Slav mass, as the Serbian professor Cvijic
lies, but
a nation which differs from the Serbs bv its own culture and is not
susceptible
to assimilation. That is why they are ostensibly adapting
themselves to the
enslaved Bulgarians with the secret aim of persuading them that there
is no
ethnic difference between Serbs and Macedonians. But in vain: The
bright memory
of the greatest Macedonian Bulgarians, St Cyril and St Methodius, and
their
disciples. Clement and Nahum, will always be a fortress of the
Bulgarian
nationality in
After the greetings and
messages of
greetings the Secretary of the Commission read the annual report,
warning the
delegates that not everything in this report was as brilliant as the
ceremonial
part of the conference; that the language of the figures and of the
harsh facts
was not so smooth, but that, in spite of everything, though our
satisfaction
with reality at this initial moment could not be sufficiently great and
warm,
our hope in the future, in the near future, should always be great,
because
this hope, coupled with the joint and conscious efforts of all emigrant
Communists, was going rapidly to bring us to the success which we had
every
right and every reason to expect and enjoy.
The delegates and the
large
audience listened with great attention to the report which described in
a
concise form all the aspects of the emigrant Communist movement
and was at the
same time an attempt correctly to map out the policies of the new union
of
emigrants, the organization of its future work, as well as its tasks
within the
overall Communist movement in Bulgaria and in the Balkans.
Here we give only short
excerpts from this report, mainly the data about the composition of the
organization.
The emigrant Communist
movement started in May 1920. Only
two or three groups have existed for a full year. During the year a
total of 23
groups with a membership of 1800 were fourded. Three of them
temporarily ceased
their activities due to the large unemployment and emigration, while
the
remaining twenty groups have been active and form part of the emigrant
union.
Sixteen groups are
represented at the conference by 21 delegates: Bourgas, Haskovo,
Yambol, Stara
Zagora, Pazardjik, Nova Zagora, Plovdiv, Razgrad, Pleven, Gorna
Djoumaya,
Rouse, Doupnitsa, Sliven, Kyustendil, Vama and Sofia. The groups in
Harmanii,
Lom, Borisovgrad and the village of Dulboki are not represented. The
latter is
a branch of the Stara Zagora group. The reports of the emigrant groups
show the
following picture:
(1) From May last year
until
the beginning of the current year 14 groups were founded with a total
membership of 1066, 150 of whom are party members, 308 are trade union
members
and 608 do not belong to the party or to trade unions. (2) By the end
of April
this year, the number of the groups had risen to 20 with a membership
of 1757,
250 of whom were party members, 666 were trade union members and 841
belonged
only to the groups. (3) By their place of birth these members were
Macedonians
- 1093, Thracians - 416, inhabitants of Dobroudja - 230,
inhabitants of the
Western regions under foreign domination - 18. (4) By their nationality
the
members were: Bulgarians - 1737 and from other nationalities - 20. (5)
Only 16
groups have given precise information on the education, age,
membership and
sex of the members: illiterate -151, with primary education - 1107,
with
secondary and university education - 342; under 20 years of age - 139,
between
20 and 50 - 1404, over 50 - 57; married - 532, single - 1068; male -
1566,
female - 34. (6) By their social status in Bulgaria these members were
(only
data about 14 groups are available): propertied - 3, poor - 155;
labourers -
1154. (7) By their social status in their native places the members
were (only
data about 15 groups were available): landless - 270, propertied and
poor -
1174. (8) More than half (nearly two thirds) have parents or
relatives in
their places of birth. (9). Only 94 members have emigrated before the
wars. All
the others have fled after them. (10) During the first year only 19
members
were expelled for failing to pay their membership fees, due to lack of
discipline or treason. (11) 426 members are on the electoral rolls
(data for 15
groups). (12) In the localities of the groups there are 20 nationalist
organizations (14 Macedonian, 3 Thracian and 3 from Dobroudja) with
some 900
members. Half of them are in Sofia. (13) During the Red Company Week,
according
to information given by 17 groups, the membership rose by 262, and
there were
297 new subscribers. (14) The Red Company Month has resulted for 9
groups in
258 new members and 230 new subscribers. (15) The Central Commission
has
distributed 8 leaflets in 40,000 copies. (16) According to information
from 7
groups 2086 men and 50 worn emigrants participated in the May Day
demonstration
in separate columns witr1 their own banners and placards.
(17) The
groups have held altogether 286 meetings of their boards, 254
organizational
and 56 public meetings. There have been 58 conferences with heads of
sections
and other lectures. (18) The newspaper Osvobozhdenie is being
sent to 30
towns and 18 villages and its circulation towards the end of the
year was over
3200. In the settlements in which the groups have their seats there are
1466
subscribers and 885 copies are sold by hand. The May Day issue was
distributed
in 6650 copies. (19). Rabotnicheski Vestnik is received by 325
members
and Novo Vreme - by 120. (20) By May Day the income of 18
groups was
22,650 leva. 16,000 leva of this amount were membership fees and the
remainder
came from other sources. The average monthly membership fee is 2.10
leva.
During the year under
review
22 members went back to their places of birth and 97 changed their
residence
due to the lack of steady work.
Almost one third of the
party
and trade union members, who belong to the union, have joined the trade
unions
and the party at the recommendation of the emigrant groups' boards.
This is a broad subject,
and it is
impossible to cover it thoroughly on the pages of this newspaper. That
is why
we shall only outline its most important points in brief without
claiming to
exhaust it.
First of all, we should
state
most emphatically that the Macedonian question continues to exist
today, after
several wars and all the decisions of the European conferences - after
the
artificial solution which was given to it by the interested Powers it
still
remains unsolved, and it is a dark, sinister spot on the Balkan horizon.
Is there any proof? Yes,
there is plenty,
and everybody free from the political hypnosis which dominates the
minds of the
majority of world politicians, can see it.
Despite the fact that
Macedonia was dismembered and given to those who had long coveted her,
its present
rulers cannot rest content. We had many occasions to read in the
Serbian
newspapers the 'impressions' of various Serbian 'scholarly' travellers
who
toured 'liberated
Yes, it is true that the
vast
majority of the Christian population in Serbian and Greek Macedonia do
speak a
language most unpleasant to their rulers, but they speak it because
this is the
language their mothers taught them to speak, the language of their
grandfathers
and great-grandfathers - this is the terrible Bulgarian language which
has
given culture and education to almost all Slav peoples...
But what does this
event,
taken in
isolation, demonstrate?
Above all, it shows the
ethnic, national peculiarity of the Macedonian population with regard
to the
states into whose possession it was delivered as mere cattle, it shows,
therefore, the injustice done to it through this arbitrary and
monstrous act
of the diplomacy of civilized and noble Europe, and finally - it shows
just how
real and serious are the guarantees of the freedoms of the 'minorities'
provided by the international treaties about which so much noise was
made at
one time so that they would not remain only 'on paper.'
Considering the state
into
which the Bulgarian people have lately fallen, we, their members who
come from
the enslaved homeland, had no alternative but to embrace the idea of
autonomy
for Macedonia, as the only possible way out, the only possible form of
rule,
which offers real guarantees for the national, language, religious,
traditional
and other freedoms of all nationalities inhabiting this unhappy land,
irrespective of their number.
Today this is the slogan
of
all enlightened Macedonian sons, whether they live in Macedonia or in
exile. By
the way, it is not an entirely new slogan. Years ago, when we were
under
Turkish domination, there existed a revolutionary organization, the
ultimate
goal of whose struggle was autonomous rule. However, there was another
organization which had set itself a more extreme, and therefore, more
complicated and more difficult task - the freedom and political
unification of
the Bulgarians. Was that imperialism? In our opinion it was not. That
was the
natural development of the historical process for national liberation
which
began with the National Revival struggle for freedom of the Church and
education, a process which continued with the revolutionary struggles
for
political freedom and the liberation war in 1877 and which was arrested
at the
moment when it was to receive a satisfactory and just solution -
arrested by an
unjust international act, the Berlin Treaty, dictated by envy and
malice of the
small states, and political competition, mutual distrust and
caution among the
Great Powers.
Nobody has so far
thought
of
bringing charges of imperialism against Botev, Levski, Karavelov and
other
outstanding figures of our epic national struggle, because at that time
the
Bulgarian state did not exist, it was precisely for its creation that
they
fought and they did not fix its boundaries but worked wherever they
were
received with sympathy as brothers, and wherever the Bulgarian language
was
spoken.
Years later, when their
unfinished cause was taken up by a new generation, and a free,
though strongly
truncated Bulgarian state already existed, that pure and sacred longing
for a
general people's liberty was labeled 'Bulgarian state imperialism' by
the
interested neighbours, and what is sadder still, there are good
Bulgarians even
among us who have adopted this foreign view, and consider any
aspiration for
freedom and national unification a heresy.
The considerations of
the
former champions of the idea of autonomy were not correct, and did not
sustain
serious criticism. One of these, and may be the most important one, was
that
the Bulgarians in Macedonia do not constitute an absolute majority
as compared
with the other nationalities living there. When speaking of Macedonia
others
call for its autonomy and restoration in its 'historic and ethnic
boundaries'
as if the Macedonians constituted some separate nationality. Yet a
third group,
considering the contradictory interests of the different Balkan
states, and of
the nationalities inhabiting
We shall try to refute
all
these considerations.
First of all, without
denying
the fact that the Bulgarians in Macedonia do not constitute an absolute
majority as compared with the other nationalities, we maintain that the
Bulgarian nationality there constitutes an overwhelming majority
compared with
each other nationality taken separately, and this is the opinion of all
impartial observers who have travelled in Macedonia and have studied it
closely. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that under Turkish
domination the
ethnic groups were deliberately divided to live in different
administrative
territorial districts, and that in the Macedonian districts Albanian
regions
inhabited by Albanians were included, also parts of old Serbia
inhabited by
Serbians, etc. That was done with the aim of breaking up the Christian
population
as far as possible so that Macedonia might acquire a stronger Moslem
character,
and national antagonism arise among the Christian nationalities.
Strictly
speaking, the Bulgarian character is more strongly pronounced in
Macedonia than
in some other regions included in the territory of the Bulgarian state
itself,
for example, the Deliorman region.
As far as
the
'historical and ethnic boundaries' are concerned, this is an absurd,
untenable
argument, despite its seemingly scholarly character, because historical
geography does not know of any strictly defined boundaries of Macedonia
and
neither does it know of any special 'Macedonian' nationality. When
speaking of
the geographic boundaries of the Macedonian region, the ancient
Greek and
Roman historians mention the river Strimon (Strouma) as its eastern
border.
However, the capital of the so-called
For the
present
moment the last consideration of the old champions of autonomy,
however,
contains a large measure of truth and validity. There was a time when
by making
certain compromises, territorial and other concessions to the
interested
neighbours, we could expect some success in achieving the desired
national
unification. However, that was a long time ago, many things have
changed, and
without here mentioning those who are to blame for it, we have to state
the sad
truth that this is now a vanished dream. At present, considering
this
situation, we all regard the autonomy of Macedonia as the only possible
solution of this question which is a matter of deep concern to us, and
this is
not because it is the most just solution, but because under the present
conditions, it is the only one that appears feasible and attainable,
and is a
real guarantee for protecting the rights of the minorities, to be
preferred to
the vain unfeasible sanctions of the international treaties at which
the
present rulers of Macedonia are insolently mocking.
This is our frank
appraisal,
and we should voice it openly for all the world to hear in order to be
more
convincing to all those who suspect us. It is erroneous to think that,
in order
to uproot the suspicions of Greeks and Serbs, we should pillory our
national
ideals as a dangerous heresy and should deny their dead and living
bearers just
as Saint Peter denied Christ. Both the Greeks and Serbs know the truth,
and
they are not likely to believe in our naivety. They would be very
suspicious of
any attempt of ours to show that we recognize our former demands as
false, and
agree with what our enemies proclaim, because they cannot believe that
we are
not aware of what they know, and hide behind this foolish artificial
noise.
Considering all insistent, even servile attempts on the part of
Bulgaria to
smooth over and forget what has happened up till now, the prominent
Serbian
statesman Pashich declared that at least 20 years have to pass before
any
agreement can be concluded with Bulgaria, and that during this period,
the
latter should constantly give proof of its good faith. This means that
the
Serbs need 20 years to stifle everything Bulgarian in Macedonia, and
only after
that, when Bulgaria is ruined and humiliated, unable to react, a
Serbian-Bulgarian agreement can be considered.
That is why we should
proclaim loud and
clear both to the Serbs, and the Greeks, and the Powers which have
contributed
to our wretched lot, that we embrace the principle of the autonomy of
Macedonia
without any ulterior motive, and at the same time, without foresaking
our
sacred ideals, only obeying an imperative necessity. We do not know
whether our
voice will be heard, but we do know that by this act we are trying to
save not
only Macedonia, but also Bulgaria and even the rulers of our homeland
from new and
inevitable misfortunes. Maybe this suffering country will at last be
assigned
the enviable role of becoming a link for the unification of the
disunited and
warring fraternal peoples.
This is our opinion, and
we
shall be very
happy if we have here been able to express a correct and common view,
which can
be shared by our brothers in exile.
I was strongly of
opinion
during the month of July that we ought not to stake the whole Balkan
policy solely
on the result of a battle in Gallipoli2, but that, while
doing
everything in our power to secure a victory there, we should also
strive to win
Bulgaria. This could be done only by territorial concessions, forced
upon
Greece and Serbia, combined with the granting of loans and the
expectation of
success in the Dardanelles. The imminent peril in which Serbia stood,
and the
restricted conditions under which the Allies could afford her
protection, made
it indispensable that she should cede, and if necessary be made to
surrender,
the uncontested zone in Macedonia3 to the Bulgarians, to
whom it
belonged by race, by history, by treaty, and - until it was taken from
them in
the second Balkan War - by conquest. Serbia, even when at the last gasp
during
the first Austrian attack upon her in 1914, had found it necessary to
keep
large numbers of troops in the Bulgarian districts of Macedonia to hold
down
the native population. Right and reason, the claims of justice, and the
most
imperious calls of necessity, alike counseled the Serbians to surrender
at
least the uncontested zone. To the ordinary exhortations of diplomacy
were
added special appeals by the Sovereigns and the Rulers of the allied
countries.
The Prince Regent4 of Serbia was besought by the Tsar,5
by the President of the
The same sort of thing
happened about Kavalla. M. Venizelos,6 with his almost
unerring
judgment of great issues, was prepared to imperil his whole
personal
popularity in
It seems certain that,
even
if this full result had not been obtained, the tangible cession of this
territory to Bulgaria at the instance of the Allies would have made it
impossible for King Ferdinand to carry his country into the hostile
camp.
Monsieur Radoslavov7 gave in brutally frank language a
perfectly
truthful account of the Bulgarian position in these months. No
effective
measures were, however, taken, and all was left to the hazard of the
battle on
the Gallipoli Peninsula.
The date of my birth is
not
exactly known because my birth certificate shows the year 1859, but it
was
issued later in order to show that I was younger than I looked. This
was
requested by the Russian school authorities in order to admit me to the
4th
form of the Russian high school. But I remember that when I went to
Constantinople as a 14-15 years old boy, there was a lot of talk about
the
Franco-Prussian War. From this it is to be concluded that the date of
my birth
should be 1855 or 1856.
I was born in the
well-known
Macedonian village of Zagorichane, Kostour district. It is a large,
clean
Bulgarian village, situated at the foothills of the southern spurs of
the large
mountain massif of Vich and on the brink of a large valley, stretchnig
to the
south of the village.
In a neighbouring
village
he
was beaten almost to death and he was brought back to our village
wrapped in
raw hides. But he persisted. Typical of the energy of this Bulgarian
nationalist revolutionary was his act in 1870. After the Firman on the
independence
of the Bulgarian church was issued that same year, he went somewhere -
whether
to Constantinople or somewhere else, I don't know, but whatever he did,
one day
he appeared in the village with a copy of the Firman which he later
read in the
neighbouring villages. I wrote more about this teacher, a Bulgarian
revolutionary in the newspaper Makedonski glas in 1885 in a special
article
headed 'Dinkata, the Teacher'.
I personally owe a great
deal
to him. He taught me to read and write very quickly. After one year of
studies
my friends and I used to take turns reading the Slav psalter in church.
And,
immitating his handwriting to this day, I write in a small handwirting,
because
at that time my ideal was to learn to write like my teacher. But he
also gave
me something more: he awakened an interest in knowledge in me...
The Internal Macedonian
Revolutionary Organization, which represents the Macedonians fighting
for
national self-determination, political freedom, self-government and the
greatest possible social justice, aims at:
The unification of
Macedonia,
divided between Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece in 1913 under the Bucharest
Treaty,
and in 1919 under the Neuilly Treaty, into one political entity which
will
subsequently become an equal member of a Balkan Federation or, at
least, as a
first stage, a South Slav Federation.
In order to achieve this
goal, the IMRO relies:
a) on its own fighters;
b) on any state,
irrespective
of its system, whose interests coincide with the ideals of the IMRO, and
c) on
all public
organizations which champion national self-determination, human rights
and
freedoms, and a lasting peace in the world.
Proceeding from these
principles, the IMRO, taking note of the official statements of the
Russian
Soviet Republic that it will contribute to the liberation of the
oppressed
peoples, makes the following agreement with the Russian Soviet Republic:
1. The IMRO undertakes
to
cooperate with the other revolutionary organizations in the Balkans for
the
federation of the Balkan states within their ethnic boundaries, the
political
and economic interests of which coincide with those of the Russian
Soviet
Republic.
2. The Russian Soviet
Republic recognizes the IMRO as the only organization representing the
sovereign will of Macedonia.
3. The IMRO and the
Russian
Soviet Republic maintain contacts through their regular authorized
commissioners who shall have the status of diplomatic and military
representatives.
4.
Preserving their independence in their
foreign and domestic policy, the two parties may undertake concrete
joint
actions by mutual agreement, depending on the political
circumstances.
5.
The IMRO would gratefully accept the
material, diplomatic and moral support of the Russian Soviet Republic.
Member of the
Central Committee of the IMRO:
T. Alexandrov
The undersigned
delegates
of the IMRO,
authorized by its Central Committee to negotiate with the
representatives of
the USSR on joint work aimed at the liberation of Macedonia, in the
spirit of
the mandate given to us, deem it necessary to make the following
declaration:
1. As a genuine
revolutionary
organization, the IMRO is fighting for the liberation and unification
of the
dismembered parts of Macedonia into a completely independent
political entity
within its natural ethnic and geographical boundaries. It holds the
view that
the political existence of independent Macedonia can be guaranteed only
by the
self-determination and unification of the Balkan peoples in the form of
a
Balkan Federation which alone will be in a position to frustrate
attempts at
annexation by the existing Balkan states, to ensure the correct
settlement of
all national disputes, and to guarantee the cultural development of all
ethnic
minorities.
2. In its struggle for
the
liberation of Macedonia and the formation of a Balkan Federation, the
IMRO
relies, first of all, on the united revolutionary forces of the whole
Macedonian population, in cooperation with the revolutionary movements
of the
other Balkan peoples. And insofar as the implementation of this
task depends
on the international situation, it relies, above all, on the moral
support of
the revolutionary and progressive European movements, and mainly on the
all-round moral, material and political support of the USSR, which is
today the
only state fighting for the liberation of all oppressed peoples,
for their
genuine self-determination and federation, and which does not pursue
any
imperialist goals in its Balkan policy.
3. In order to prove the
sincerity of the above-mentioned principled statements, the IMRO
declares that
it will most decisively intensify its struggle against the Serbian and
Greek
governments and against the Bulgarian government, which are the
tools of their
own or foreign imperialist designs on Macedonia. In this sense the
organization
will provide all possible proofs so as to eliminate even the slightest
suspicion that it is cooperating with the present Sofia government, and
to
eliminate all doubts about its complete break with the government's
policy and
about its decisive struggle against it.
4. Valuing the enormous
importance of a united revolutionary front in the Balkans to fight
Balkan and
European imperialism, the IMRO declares that it will give its
wholehearted
support to the formation of a united Balkan revolutionary front in the
immediate future, it will establish close contacts and coordinate its
struggle
with the struggle of all genuine revolutionary movements in the other
Balkan
countries which accept as their goal and are fighting for genuine
self-determination of their peoples, for the liberation and
unification of
Macedonia into an independent political entity, and for their
unification into
a Balkan Federation on the basis of equality.
5. The IMRO holds the
view
that the grouping of all revolutionary elements of the Macedonian
movement into
a united Macedonian revolutionary front is of essential significance
for the
formation of a united Balkan revolutionary front, and in order to
achieve it,
the Central Committee declares that it is ready to discontinue its
persecution
of the groups fighting against the organization on the condition of
reciprocity, and to establish contacts with them to reach a final
agreement.
6. In order to furnish
proof
of the sincerity of the above declaration, the Central Committee
undertakes
immediately to carry out the following preliminary actions and measures:
(1) To send a circular
letter
to all its subordinated committees and bodies in which it will outline
the
political and organizational directives arising from the present
programme.
(2) To make a public
statement on behalf of the Organization in the spirit of Articles 1-4
of this
declaration.
(3) To form the Macedonian
deputies in the Parliaments of the Balkan states into independent
parliamentary
groups, which will voice their solidarity with the present programme,
and which
will act in parliament and politically, in contact and agreement with
the other
parliamentary groups and political parties which accept this
declaration in
its entirety.
(4) To reorganize the
administration of all printed organs defending the cause of the
organization,
and to exert influence so as to assign this task to per sons who
will promote
the implementation of the present programme.
(5) To
organize
the publication and editing of a special printed organ abroad, which
within the
framework of legal political propaganda, will fight against European
and Balkan
imperialism, defend the idea of self-determination for the Balkan
peoples and
the Balkan Federation, and will prepare the preliminary conditions for
the
formation of a united Balkan revolutionary front If possible, the
publication
and editing of this organ will be organized by mutual agreement among
all
parties concerned.
(6) To appoint its special
delegate and to receive one from the other side to maintain contacts
between
the Central Committee of the Organization and the Government of the
USSR.
D. Vlahov
Delegate of the
Central Committee of the IMRO
P. Chaoulev
Delegate and
Member of the Central Committee of the
IMRO
Ever since the madness
for
conquests has
been raging in the Balkan lands, it has become a common phenomenon for
all
statesmen in the Balkans, for the whole choir of politicians,
journalists,
scholars and public figures, to place ethnography at the service of
their
policy and geography - at the service of their economic tendencies. In
this way
the Balkan policy of conquest has created a peculiar specialty, that of
the
conqueror, by virtue of which, in the name of specific interests, the
nationalities can undergo a metamorphosis in a wink, while the figures
pertaining to the nationalities acquire the quality of miracles - from
millions
they turn into zero and from zero into millions. So much so that the
European
spectators, watching the Balkan tragicomedic stage can see, under the
magic
hands of the conjurers, Bulgarians in Novi Pazar and Drach, or Greeks
from the
Danube to the Aegean Sea, or Serbs from Belo-Serbia (pardon -
Bessarabia) to
Thessaly, and accordingly - the Vardar valley as a continuation of the
Morava
valley, Thrace as a continuation of spineless Greece, while the Strouma
and
Maritsa valleys become Bulgarian spears, meant to lacerate the
invertebrate
creature lying at the gates of Bulgaria.
And simultaneously with
these
phenomena, out of the top-hats of the Balkan conjurers there prop up
now
Bulgaro-Tartars, now Bulgaro-Slavs, now Proto-Serbians, now
Bulgarian-speaking
Slavs or Hellenized Slavs, now Serbianized Bulgarians or Bulgarianized
Serbians, and a whole series of other specialities and we wouldn't be
surprised
if one day we see in the Balkans Chinamen as well, provided China could
consider the Vardar valley as a continuation of the Yang-Tse-Kiang.
Yes, indeed, when there
is
no
morality in politics, when the present states consider the
nationalities as an
exchange commodity, it is not at all surprising that the government
offices and
their mouthpieces - the press and science - are conjurers in
top-hats. Oh,
dear! The Balkans are a fun-fair. Turkey and Bulgaria had their show, now it is the turn of Serbia
and Greece...
And don't you hear their
desperate catch-penny shouts? Can't you see the pitiful state of science in Serbia, in the role of a clown?
But can't
you see the public, applauding
without believing?
Indeed, the burden of
robbery
is heavy. Both Serbia and Greece, which have grabbed more Balkan loot than they can
chew, are
now compelled to patent their inventions of scientific lies in
order to
conceal the robbery. This is the explanation of all the labour - pains,
from
which the Serbian press and its
mouthpieces in the west now suffer in their attempts to justify the
robbery.
But when present-day
Serbia
went to Neuilly to grab its share of the loot, didn't it really buy a
pig in a
poke, which, much to its regret, does not want to stay quiet, but shows
its head
at every road and crossroad? Didn't the Serbian state realize that no
right
could be created in the name of certain interests, that a nationality
cannot
emerge from greed, that the fact that there is a Bulgarian nationality
in
Of course, Serbia
realizes
all this. And the more it realizes the fact that no ethnic rights can
ensue for
it from the assimilation of the Bulgarian element, the greater the
efforts its
men of letters, journalists and statesmen make to convince the world
that there
are no Bulgarians in Macedonia. Even serious newspapers like Trgovinski
glasnik which pleads the common cause of Yugoslav unity, has joined
the
chorus of those who claim that Macedonia had a Serbian culture and a Serbian historical
character.
All these arguments,
however,
are as transparent as those of the people who may claim that the Macedonians are Kumans
because
there is a town named Koumanovo, or because one could find there traces
and
signs of the Roumanians.
But for real science,
for
real historical truth, the facts do not appear the way the Serbians present them,
Here
they are:
1. With the very
appearance
of the Slav alphabet and Slav letters, at the time of St Clement of Ohrid, the Macedonian
Slavs had
the character of Bulgarians. I don't know
whether at that time a Bulgarian Exarchate, or a committee cheta
did not make
St Clement a Bulgarian, but all the Lives of St Clement and all
that was
written about him by the archbishops of Ohrid, consider him a
Bulgarian,
shepherd of the Bulgarian population.
2. The Bulgarian Tsar
Samuil,
born a bursyak from Macedonia, did not call himself a Serbian king but
a
Bulgarian tsar, while Serbian King Dusan was indeed crowned in Skopje,
but
after going there only to conquer it. King Ferdinand might just as
well have
been crowned in Constantinople, if the golden chariot he ordered in
1912 had
indeed reached the Golden Horn.
3. The Greeks themselves
did
not call King Basil 'Serboctonus' but 'Bulgaroctonus', because the 15
thousand
blinded soldiers were Macedonian Slavs from Prilep and Prespa and
precisely
they are referred to in the name 'Bulgaroctonus.'
4. The archbishopric of
Ohrid coexisted for
a long time with the Serbian Patriarchate of Pec. Why did not the
former become
a component part of the latter if the population of Macedonia were the
same as
the one in Serbia?
5. Macedonia took a more
active part in the Bulgarian National Revival than the Serbian Kossovo
region
took in the Serbian Revival. Even before the Exarchate existed, the
Macedonian
Slavs linked all their spiritual struggles with those of the Bulgarians
from
Moesia and
6. Macedonia gave to the
common Bulgarian culture eminent poets like the brothers Miladinov,
Raiko
Zhinzifov and Grigor Purlichev even before the Bulgarian Exarchate existed.
7. The West-Macedonian
Slavs
produced the first militants for Bulgarian spiritual independence, such
as
Kiril Peychinovich and Partenii Zografski, the former from Tetovo
district and
Abbot of the monastery of Leshok, where he lies in peace until now, the
latter
from Galichnik and a Bulgarian bishop in Pirot, where he lies in peace
until
now. Strange, isn't it? A Bulgarian archbishop from Macedonia and in
Pirot at
that! Why did the Bulgarian spirit invade Serbian preserves, while we
don't see
any Serbian spirit in Macedonia?
8. Let the Serbians
visit,
if
they like, the old church 'Sveti Spas' in Skopje: there under the iconostasis with artistic
carvings
from Debur they will read the following inscription, made by the
engraver:
'First master Filipov of Gari and Makarii of Galichnik, Bulgarians of
Malareka,
1824.' Let the Serbians remember - 1824, i.e., 100 years ago!
9. The Serbian Vuk
Karadjic
collected several songs in Macedonia and calls them 'Bulgarian folk
songs'. The
Serbian Stefan Verkovic of Bosnia published in 1860 in Belgrade a
collection of
Songs of the Macedonian Bulgarians.
11. In 1868 the Serbian
Ceda
Mijatovic published in Belgrade an ethnographic map of the Balkan
Peninsula on
which the population of Macedonia is shown as Bulgarian. The map is an
annex to
the book Travels in the Slavonic Provinces of Turkey in Europe
by Miss
Muir MacKenzie and Irby. This map also shows the Turkish, Greek and
Albanian
nationalities, but there is no trace of any Serbians. How was it that
at a time
when there was no Bulgarian science Serbian science did not find any
Serbians
in Macedonia, and afterwards they have appeared all of a sudden, by a
sleight-of-hand?
12. The following
international treaties
and political acts recognize the Slavonic population in Macedonia as
being
Bulgarian:
a) The Treaty of San
Stefano
of 1878.
b) The Serbo-Bulgarian
Treaty
of 1912.
c) The Sultan's firman
of
1870 by which the Bulgarian Exarchate was established - at a time
when no
Bulgarian state existed, while there was a Serbian Kingdom next door to
Macedonia. Anyway, do the treaties create the nationalities, or the
nationalities make the treaties?
13. Macedonia has given
to
the Bulgarian nation and to the Bulgarian state scholars, professors,
writers,
journalists, statesmen, public figures, clergymen and all of them in
countless
numbers. It is true that Macedonia has received no political benefits
because
of them, only the common Bulgarian culture has profited, but how many
men has
Macedonia given to Serbian culture? How many local officials, how many
local
teachers, how many local archbishops does the Serbian state have in
14. For 40 years now the
Macedonian population has been emigrating: the Greek population - to
Greece,
the Romanian population - to Romania, the Turkish population - to
Turkey, the
Albanian population - to Albania, the Bulgarian population - to
Bulgaria. Today
in Greece there are about 100,000 Greek emigrants from Bulgarian and
Serbian
Macedonia, in Turkey - 200,000 Turkish emigrants and they will reach
half a
million, in Albania - about 60,000 Macedonian Albanians, in Bulgaria -
300,000
Macedonian Bulgarians, in Romania - 50,000 Romanians. Well, since the
times of
the Turkish domination how many Macedonian emigrants have gone to
Serbia, how
many Macedonians settle even today in Belgrade, Nish, Kragujevac,
Valjevo,
Sabac, while every town in Bulgaria, every village in Bulgaria each
month
welcomes ever new Macedonian emigrants.
15. During the Balkan
War
the
Macedonian emigrants formed a volunteer corps, during the World War — a
Macedonian division consisting exclusively of Macedonian privates,
Macedonian
NCOs, officers and general. And not only the Macedonians in Bulgaria,
but also
those, living in the USA, came to Bulgaria and enlisted in these units.
Macedonian chetas guided the Bulgarian army along the river Strouma,
the
Serbian army along the river Vardar and the Greek army in the direction
of the
river Bistritsa. But when the war ended the members of these chetas
found
themselves in Serbian and Greek prisons, i.e. they were treated like
aliens.
16. Macedonian Slavs
have
emigrated to
17. The French officers
at
the Macedonian front, even general Sarai, have publicly declared in the
press
that the population there was Bulgarian. And a Professor from the
Sorbonne, Mr.
Mason, recently published a whole volume of Macedonian fairy tales and
legends
- Bulgarian folklore from Macedonia, whose population the author
himself defines
as Bulgarian.
18. And finally - since
lies
have short legs - in their desire to give Macedonia to the Serbians and
Greeks,
the victors in Paris and Neuilly could not avoid the short-leggedness
of lie
and admitted the existence of a Bulgarian element in Macedonia.
Discussing the
Treaty of Neuilly the “sly” Cretion Venizelos forgot that while
pleading the
Greek interests out of loyalty he should not have harmed Serbian
interests, yet
he not only harmed them, but, at Neuilly, he denied in treaty form
that there
were any Serbians in Macedonia. Thus he imposed on Bulgaria a
convention for
the exchange of population: Bulgaria was to admit the Bulgarians from
Macedonia, while Greece was to admit the Greeks from Bulgaria. What
does this
mean? It means that the Slavs south of the 'Serbian' town of Gevgeli,
etc., are
Bulgarians. This means that beyond Bitolya, beyond 'Serbian' Bitolya
the
population in the districts of Lerin and Kostour is Bulgarian, while
nearer to
Bulgaria - in the districts of Prilep, Veles and Shtip - it is Serbian.
Is this
a professor's theory, political blackmail or a fatal contradiction
between two
robbers who have not come to terms among themselves as to the lie they
were
going to tell? And now the Bulgarians from Sekoulevo, Nevolyani and
Vurbiani in
the Lerin district will be sent to Bulgaria, while the pure 'Serbians'
from
Kurstofor and Bouhovo, who live at a distance of only 20 kilometres
from the
former, as well as those from Tsarevo selo, Maleshevo and Kochani will
remain
where they are as Serbians, because such was the political theory of
Neuilly.
In South Macedonia property is looted in the name of Bulgarophobia,
while in
Serbian Macedonia Serbian monuments are eagerly sought, and if someone
finds a
Serb together with two Kouman, three Roman, four Illyrian and ten
Bulgarian
monuments, the Serbian scholars would again proclaim Macedonia to be
Serbian.
In the Serbian
Skupshtina
there are shouts of: 'There are no Bulgarians, there are no
Macedonians', while
in the Athens Parliament the former Prime Minister, Mr. Kaphandaris,
replying
to Bulgaria, shouted: 'The Bulgarian element in Macedonia lives
under good
conditions and that is why so far there have been no complaints to the
mixed
commission on the problem of emigration.'
However,
the above arguments and thousands of
more similar arguments we can adduce, do not seem to exist for the
Serbians.
They consider that they have a right over Macedonia finally because
they have
shed their blood for it, because they had sent two divisions at Odrin.
As if
the Macedonians have not been shedding their blood and tears for 40
years now
for their independence, as if we were market commodities, so that
people can
trade with our hides...
Good
Lord, will there ever be an end to this
slave market which is gladly served by states and politicians,
merchants and
academicians, interests and science? Won't a new Christ come with a
whip in his
hand and drive away all this scum which desecrates the temple of
mankind and
the altar of truth?
1. As a genuine
revolutionary
force, the IMRO is fighting for the liberation and unification of
the
dismembered parts of Macedonia into a completely independent political
entity
within its natural ethnic and geographical boundaries. It holds the
view that
the political existence of independent Macedonia can be guaranteed only
by the
union of the self-determined Balkan peoples in the form of a Balkan
Federation,
which alone will be in a position to frustrate the attempts at
annexation by
the existing Balkan states, to ensure correct settlement of all
national
disputes, and to guarantee the cultural development of all ethnic
minorities.
2. In its struggle for
the
liberation of Macedonia and the formation of a Balkan Federation, the
IMRO
relies, above all, on the united revolutionary forces of the whole
Macedonian
population in cooperation with the revolutionary movements of the other
Balkan
peoples. And in so far as the final solution of this task depends on
the
international situation, it relies, above all, on the moral support of
the
revolutionary and progressive European movements, and mainly on the
all-round
moral, material and political support of the USSR, which is today the
only
state fighting for the liberation of all oppressed peoples, for
their real
self-determination and federation, and which does not pursue any
imperialist
goals in its Balkan policy.
3. The IMRO will most
decisively intensify its struggle against both the Serbian and Greek
governments
and against the Bulgarian government, which are or may become
instruments of
their own or foreign imperialist designs on Macedonia. In this sense
the
organization breaks all contacts with the governments in Sofia and will
wage a
struggle against their policy.
4. Valuing the enormous
importance of a united revolutionary front in the Balkans to struggle
against
European and Balkan imperialism, the IMRO will make its wholehearted
contribution to the formation of a united Balkan revolutionary front in
the immediate
future, it will establish close contacts and coordinate its struggle
with the
struggle of all genuinely revolutionary movements in the other Balkan
states
which accept as their goal and are fighting for genuine
self-determination of
their peoples, for the liberation and unification of Macedonia into an
independent political entity, and for their unification into a
Balkan
Federation on the basis of equal rights; the organization will
establish
contacts with the Communist parties in the Balkan states.
5. The IMRO considers
that
the grouping of all revolutionary elements of the Macedonian movement
into a
united Macedonian revolutionary front is of essential significance for
the
formation of a united Balkan revolutionary front. In order to achieve
the formation
of a united Macedonian revolutionary front, the Central Committee will
stop the
persecution of the groups fighting against the organization, and will
make
efforts to unite the whole Macedonian movement.
6. In order to apply the
above directives, the
Central Committee intends to
take the following measures and preliminary action:
a) To send a circular
letter
to all subordinated committees and bodies in which it will outline the
political and organizational directive arising from the Present
programme.
b) To make a public
statement
in the spirit of this declaration.
c) To form the
Macedonian
deputies in the parliaments of the Balkan states into independent
parliamentary
groups which will voice their solidarity with the other parliamentary
groups
and political parties which accept the present programme in its
entirety.
d) To organize the
administration of all printed organs defending the cause of the
organization on
which the latter may exert influence in such a way as to entrust it to
persons
who will promote the implementation of the present programme.
e) To organize the
publishing
and editing of a special printed organ
abroad, which in the
form
of
legal political propaganda, will fight against European and Balkan
imperialism, defend the idea of self-determination for the Balkan
peoples and
the Balkan Federation, and will prepare the preliminary conditions for
a united
Balkan revolutionary front. If possible, the publishing and editing of
this
organ will be organized by mutual agreement of all parties concerned.
f) To appoint its
special
delegate and receive one from the other side to maintain contacts
between the
Central Committee of the Organization and the government of the USSR.
Mr. Arseni Yovkov's
article
'Bulgarians in
These two interesting
articles by Mr. Yovkov give us an opportunity to dwell on the question
of the
nationality of the Macedonians and on the role this question has played
and
will play in the history of Macedonia.
At the beginning of the
19th
century, there were Greek priests in Macedonia and a Bulgarian national
awareness among the more enlightened Macedonians who, hand in hand with
the
Bulgarians in Bulgaria and Thrace, started a struggle for national
education
and a national Church. This spiritual and national unity of Moesians,
Macedonians and Thracians preceded and followed the creation of the
Bulgarian
Exarchate and the liberation of Bulgaria.
The Serbs became envious
of
the Bulgarians and because of certain theoretical and practical
considerations,
they began to refute the European, Macedonian and Bulgarian contentions
that
the Macedonians were Bulgarians and in this way they were the first to
set
before the men of science the question of the nationality of the
Macedonians.
It would not be wise to
deny
that the task which the Serbs set to themselves is not unimportant and
that the
successes they have achieved thanks to their exceptional stubbornness
and
strict system are colossal. The Serbs did not underestimate any of the
means
which contemporary science offered to them: general linguistics,
comparative
grammar of the Slav languages, history and archaeology, the spoken and
written popular
language, geography and diplomacy were not neglected by the Serbs in
their
efforts to refute the conviction about the Bulgarian character of
Macedonia.
As a result they seized the greater part of Macedonia which they were
given as
a land, populated by Serbs; they were given this land by the same
people who up
to the last moment unanimously recognized the Bulgarian national
character of
Macedonia.
But this did not exhaust
the
question of the nationality of the Macedonians. The Serbs achieved only
half of
their task: they managed to mislead the West Europeans and to take
possession
of Macedonia. But the Macedonians themselves, occupied by them, are not
spiritually vanquished and they consider themselves a nation, different
from
the Serbs, and they want to preserve their national identity.
This is the weak spot of
the
Serbs, therein lies the strength of the Macedonians, therein lies the
historical role which the question of the nationality of the
Macedonians will
have yet to play.
The role of the
Bulgarians
and Serbs in the solution of this question is now completely different
from
what it was before the Balkan War and the World War: today
theoretically this
question is non-existent for the Serbs just as Macedonia does not exist
within
the boundaries of Yugoslavia; as far as Bulgaria is concerned, there is
a
Macedonia just as there is the question of the nationality of the
Macedonians,
a question which Bulgarian science could take up with greater success
than the
Serbs, popularize it and give it its proper meaning.
But the Bulgarian does
not
like philology and history, he does not like being accused of
chauvinism and
he is ready to live in peace with his neighbours at all cost, even when
the
latter want to appropriate half of his house, or his courtyard.
As far as Macedonia
goes,
many 'enlightened' people couldn't care less. Anyway, they do not know
it. To
them it is a land of stones and wild apples... That is why the
Bulgarian
opposition is not a danger to Serbian domination in Macedonia. The
Serbians had
secured themselves from this direction by international treaties,
including
treaties with Bulgaria.
But now cries from the
Macedonians themselves can be heard: we are Bulgarians, we are more
Bulgarians
than the Bulgarians themselves... You may have vanquished Bulgaria, you
may
impose on it all sorts of treaties, but this cannot change our
conviction, our
consciousness that we are not Serbs, that until now we have called
ourselves
Bulgarians, and this is what we call ourselves today, this is what we
want to
call ourselves in the future.
Do you want any
concessions
from us? Do you want us to be less Bulgarians than the Bulgarians
themselves? -
Shall we yield? We refuse to be as indifferent to our national
interests as
some others are. We cannot and should not imitate the Moesians in
everything,
because their logic, their methods of acting lead to Serbo-Bulgarian
treaties
and agreements concerning Macedonia, they lead to treaties like
the
Serbo-Bulgarian Treaty of 1912, like the Neuilly Treaty. We shall be
more
Macedonians than Bulgarians, but Macedonians with our own national
consciousness, different from your Serbian consciousness, a national
self-consciousness, with its own history, with its literary language,
common
with the Bulgarian, with its Macedonian-Bulgarian national school, with
its own
national Church, in which the national and religious feelings of the
Macedonian
will not be offended by the image and spirit of Serbian saints like 'St
Sava'.
The Serbs now as before
know
very well the significance of the question of the nationality and the
national
feeling of the Macedonians and that is why they want to get rid of it
as soon
as possible through the assimilation of the Macedonians.
But all is in vain.
No matter whether we
call
ourselves Bulgarians or Macedonians, we shall always feel as a separate
and
united nationality with a Bulgarian national awareness, completely
different
from the Serbs, which will know how to impose its will in the struggle
for the
human rights of the Macedonian.
On July 26 of this year at
about 8 p.m. in
the village of Turlis, Drama district, Greek Macedonia, a Greek
commander of
border guards staged in the centre of the village a provocative sham
bomb
assault with bombs brought from the frontier post in the village of
Karakyoi.
There are no victims or damage from this explosion, nor have any
suspects been
sought or caught.
The same evening arrests
were
started of Bulgarians from the villages of Turlis, Lovcha and Karakyoi,
who
were conducted to Karakyoi. There were about 70-80 people, including
the
12-year-old child of Angel Stankov from Turlis. On the instruction of
the same
commander, on the 27th around noon a border officer, accompanied by 15
militiamen, immigrants from Asia Minor, selected 25 of the arrested
men, and
took them, tied two by two, to the village of Gorno Brodi allegedly for
interrogation. On the way they were subjected to brutal torture and
beating.
When they had walked 5 kilometres, the officer ordered them to sit down
to rest
at a place called 'Cherna Gora', and immediately fired several
shots at the
unfortunate tied Macedonian Bulgarians. The majority of them died
instantaneously, and only 6 or 7 who had been wounded or by a miracle
escaped
unhurt, managed to flee through the woods and cross the border into
Bulgaria.
Those who managed to save their lives say that the same evening more
shots were
heard, and they suppose that the remaining arrested people had
been killed.
Every day
we witness
heart-rending scenes of refugees, our brothers and relatives, coming
from
Greece humiliated, beaten, robbed, with their ears cut off and brutally
maltreated by the official Greek authorities and the immigrants from
Asia
Minor, to force them naked and bare-foot out of their own homes.
The Greek
authorities and
the wretched immigrants from Asia Minor in Macedonia are being
encouraged and
they explain their outrageous acts by the inhuman Paris treaties in
driving
Bulgarians, Greeks, Turks and others out of their homes, making them
wander as
outcasts in foreign countries, and condemning them to certain
death because of
the new and alien unbearable climatic, economic and cultural conditions
of
life.
In
connection with the
above facts we, the citizens of the town of Petrich and the refugees
from Greek
Macedonia inhabiting the Petrich district, appeal to the
representatives of the
press in Europe and America to inform in detail public opinion in their
countries
and to demand or enforce the holding of an inquiry into the
outrages
perpetrated upon Bulgarians and Turks in Greek Macedonia, into the
application
of the emigration regulations, and into the moral value of this treaty
so
monstrous in the history of mankind. We appeal for protection to be
extended to
the families of those killed, who have remained helpless, and are being
subjected to mistreatment.
The desperate cry of the
Macedonian population stifled by every possible means by the conquerors
of our
country, cannot penetrate through the frontiers of
The Greek and Serbian
imperialists, unsatisfied with the political and spiritual oppression
of the
Macedonian population - through the closing of their national schools,
the banning
of their mother tongue, the ban on the formation of their
political party,
through arrests, destruction, ill-treatment, systematical
assassinations, etc.
- are already starting the mass extermination of the population in
order to do
away forever with the nationalities which are alien to them in every
respect.
On March 2, 1923 the
prefect
of Shtip, D. Matkovic, machine-gunned twenty-seven innocent Bulgarians
of the
village of Garvan, chained together. On July 27th, 1924 the Greek
authorities,
trying not to lag behind in their lead in this respect, shot with the
help of
Lieutenant Doksakis seventeen Macedonian Bulgarians of the village of
Turlis.
To add to this shame, the Greek government, faithful to the system long
practiced in Athens and Belgrade, made another attempt through the
telegraphic
agency to lay the blame for this crime upon their own victims! The
international commission which inquired into the case admitted in spite
of this
that 'the shooting of the arrested, done by an officer and his convoy,
is an
unjustified and unprovoked assassination.'
It is high time public
opinion directed its attention to the unbearable situation in
Macedonia;
because the Macedonian peoples, terrorized in their own country, driven
away
from their homes en masse by virtue of the convention on the so-called
'voluntary' emigration, killed by assassins from Belgrade and Athens,
may find
themselves compelled, as in 1903, when the Ilinden Uprising broke out —
to
prefer an end with horrors than horrors without end.
The Macedonian academic
youth
in Vienna, Berlin, Graz and Leipzig, in the name of their country,
drowned in
blood, appeal to the League of Nations and public opinion to insist on
the
holding of a plebiscite in Macedonia under international control, which
will officially
establish the repeatedly expressed will of the Macedonian for a free,
autonomous and independent life.
A free and independent
Macedonia will relieve a long-suffering population from terror, and
humanity -
from the shame of slavery.