The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

A Challenge to the Macedonism of the Slavs

© Marcus A. Templar, 2008.


 

ABSTRACT

Despite the fact that knowledge of the history, culture, language, and religion of most of the Balkan nations is quite extensive, the sociology of the Slav inhabitants of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (The FYROM) is not. This thesis examines the history of the ancient Macedonians, their language, ethnicity and related issues. It further studies the invasion of the Seven Slavic Tribes into geographic Macedonia, and their sequent settlements, their impact to the region in general and geographic Macedonia in particular.

The thesis apprises as well the issues of the Treaty of San Stefano, The Council of Berlin, the Krushevo Republic, Balkan Wars, and the Treaty of Bucharest along with the communist manipulation of the subject with protagonists Joseph Stalin, Josip Broz Tito, and Georgi Dimitrov. The paper also acquaints the reader with the contribution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) in general and the Socialist Republic of Macedonia in particular to the problem. It explains the latter’s ethnic Slavic population to the civil war in Greece, one of the goals of which was the incorporation of Greek Macedonia to the proposed new federation of the SFRY with Bulgaria as it was discussed at Bled, Slovenia. Moreover, it observes the roots and the evolution of the Slavic nationalism also called Macedonism that drives the country to internal, but also regional instability.
 


 

BIOGRAPHICAL STATEMENT

Marcus Alexander Templar joined the United States Army in 1982 as a Cryptologic Linguist. He studied Czech, Serbo-Croatian, Spanish, and Turkish at the Defense Language Institute, French at Dawson College in Montreal, and Russian at Berlitz. In addition, he speaks Bulgarian (Eastern and Western) and Greek. As an intelligence officer, he was appointed to various assignments in Balkan and Middle Eastern affairs. Retired from the U.S. Army, Mr. Templar advises the U.S. government on global intelligence issues. He holds a Bachelor’s degree from Western Illinois University in history and foreign languages, a Master’s degree from Northeastern Illinois University in Human Resource Development specializing in instructional design, and a second Master’s degree in Strategic Intelligence from the National Defense Intelligence College. He is a recognized expert in Balkan and Middle Eastern issues.



 

Acknowledgments

I want to thank my dear mother, Fani Dimitriou Papazoglou for her priceless information she offered me over the years on the customs, language, heritage, and history of her own hometown, Bitola, and her old country, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Moreover, I would like to thank my wife Elizabeth for her support and assistance she gave me over the years and especially during my academic career years.

In addition, I want to thank my Thesis Committee for their valuable assistance and encouragement they gave me when I struggled. Furthermore, I want to offer my sincere thanks to my friends and relatives who live in Serbia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Greece.

I want to make a special reference to the Pan-Macedonian Association of the United States and especially I want to thank its President Professor Nina Gatzoulis of the University of New Hampshire for all the help she gave me during my research. Her cooperation and assistance made my research easier and more interesting.
 

Chapter 1.

What is all about?

Regional Stability and Security

Stability of the South East Balkans is of utmost importance to the Intelligence Community (IC). Historically, the nationalism that is thriving in the Balkans either created preconditions for war or, in some cases, was the reason for wars. While the Balkans can be dismissed as “Yesterday’s War,” the underlying causes of the 1945-2001 upheaval remain as strong and as viable as ever. The 1944-49 civil war in Greece and the 2001 civil war between the Albanian minority and the Macedonian Slav majority in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) demonstrate that the nationalism that has fueled the fires of this region for centuries were not extinguished or resolved by the 2001 events. Another upheaval in FYROM is so likely that the area and the people should be the subject of continuing and in-depth interest to the intelligence community.

When a civil war took place in Greece (1944-1949) between the communists and the democratic forces of Greece, the communists attempted to incorporate the Greek part of Macedonia into a Balkan federation and to change the ethnic makeup of Greek Macedonia from Greek to Slavic by using Slavic nationalism. During the civil war in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) between the Albanian minority and the Macedonian Slav majority, the Macedonian Slavic forces saw an opportunity to justify their goal of incorporating Greek Macedonia into their lands and to subjugate their minorities resulting in tensions that continue to this day.

It is a fundamental discipline of the U.S. Intelligence Community to monitor trends and indicators in areas of interest which could lead to the destabilization of individual nations or, as we have recently seen, an entire region. While a de facto peace now prevails in the Southeast Balkans, the underlying xenophobia and self-serving nationalism, which imbue all parties in the area, was not resolved by the cessation of open hostilities. The Intelligence Community must cast a studious eye to the history and ethno-political dynamic of the FYROM and its neighbors. All factors necessary for regional destabilization remain viable in this area and national-level policy makers will surely turn to us in the future for our input as they seek to adjust or change U.S. foreign policy for the region.

The thesis is separated into two segments: one, to prove that the ancient Macedonians were of Hellenic stock speaking Greek with Greek sociology; and two, to prove that those who want to be called "Macedonians" are actually Slavs. The focus of this thesis is to identify the historical events that have created and molded the national conscience and the "Macedonian" identity of the Slavic population of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the basis and the cause of their nationalism. The study is guided by the following research question: How and what historical events have affected the creation and the molding of the national conscience and the "Macedonian" identity of the Slavic population of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia?

Why Is It Important?

Only after 1944, and upon the establishment of the People’s Republic of Macedonia within communist Yugoslavia, did scholars begin to recognize that the Macedonian Slav nationalism was so distinctive from that of the other national and ethnic groups of the area that it merited study in its own context and definition. The nature of Macedonian Slav nationalism in the early twenty-first century should be a thoroughly analyzed and a well-understood facet of strategic intelligence planning for the region.

The Macedonian Slav majority of the FYROM contend that they are descendants of Bulgarians, Slavs, and indigenous Macedonians who were separate and distinct from the Hellenic ethnic group and spoke a distinct Macedonian language. The Macedonian Slavs’ adoption of the Hellenic and Bulgarian histories is based on assumptions and hypotheses that are not held by the neighbors of the FYROM. While in their own minds the FYROM Macedonian Slavs’ beliefs legitimize territorial nationalism, it is at the expense of their neighbors: the Serbs, Bulgarians, and Macedonian Greeks.

This thesis has proved that the ancient Macedonians were of Greek stock by examining their language and their history as well as their particular religion as compared to different religions such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. This thesis has also discussed the emergence of the Slavs and Bulgarians in Thrace and Macedonia and the various developments and events that led to the appropriation and exclusive use of the name "Macedonia" and "Macedonians" by a Slavic people and its political consequences.

Hypothesis

Macedonian Slav Nationalism decreases stability on the region.

RESEARCH DESIGN, DATA COLLECTION, AND ANALYTICAL STRATEGY

Research Design

We have used as research design the exploratory case study that has included analysis of events such as historical, cultural, political, and linguistic that led to the present day nationalism of the Slavic populace of the FYROM. Furthermore, we have considered the complexity of the issue and its implications to the broader political and perhaps psychological environment, of the FYROM's neighboring countries.

Collection Strategy

Archival Research

We own every single book that we have listed in our bibliography; however, we have obtained needed copies of journals with the assistance of libraries and any other open sources available to us.

Field Research

Time and funding constraints were a very important issue and a problem for good research. Nevertheless, we have obtained information and interviews from other sources, which we have cited properly.

Electronic database

Concerning International Treaties, we have utilized all available appropriate electronic databases of the United Nations, the European Union, etc.

Analytical Strategy

The analytical strategy of our thesis was a Comparison and Contrast. We have compared primary and secondary sources that the Macedonian Slavs and especially the "Macedonian Academy of Arts and Sciences" invoked to justify their ethnicity that drives the nationalism of the country. Moreover, we scrutinized primary sources of ancient periods either in Greek language (various dialects) or in Latin which we are knowledgeable of, in order to extract pertinent information regarding the ethnicity, language, and customs of the ancient Macedonians.

Brief Description of Chapters

The second chapter elucidates the history of the Macedonian people along with their language, and explains the different terms “Geographic Macedonia,” “Macedonian Homeland,” and “Historic Macedonia.” A brief explanation of the language of the ancient Macedonians has showed it to be one of the Greek dialects of the Northwestern group.

The third chapter elucidates the effect of the Slavic invasion in the region of the Balkans. The emergence of Slavs and Bulgarians in Thrace and Macedonia had enormous effect on the life and sociology of the Balkan Peninsula. This chapter examines various events that the emergence of the FYROM Slavs consider as crucial in their history such as the reign of King Samuil and the defeat of his army by the Byzantine Emperor Basil II, the “Bulgar-slayer.”

Chapter four examines the establishment of the Internal Macedonian-Thracian Organization (VMRO) and the Ilinden Uprising, offering a different perspective regarding the Treaty of Bucharest, 10 August 1903 from the one presently held by the political establishment.

The fifth chapter explains the term “Policy of Mutation” coined by Dr. Evangelos Kofos, author of a series of publications on the issue of the Macedonization of the Slav inhabitants of the FYROM.

Chapter six examines the establishment of the legal entity under the name “People’s (later Socialist) Republic of Macedonia” and finally, as an independent state, under the name “Republic of Macedonia,” one of the successors of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). This chapter probes the reasons of the establishment under the name “Macedonia” and the activities of its governments along with the activities of the SFRY with the aim of creating a “Macedonian” nation, a “Macedonian” language, and a “Macedonian” Orthodox Church.

The seventh chapter examines the political consequences of the nationalism turned “Macedonism” in the FYROM and its implications and contributions to the internal and regional instability. It further examines the broader reasons of the role of the Slavic majority of the FYROM in the civil war of Greece and the civil war of the Slavs against the Albanians.

In the conclusion, the eighth chapter answers the thesis question in accordance with the research findings. The evidence will show that the ancient Macedonians were one of the Hellenic groups of tribes speaking a Greek dialect and having the same institutions as the Spartans and especially the Greeks of the western group of the Hellenic nation. The evidence will also demonstrate that the present inhabitants who want to be called ethnic “Macedonians” are, in fact, ethnic Slavs.

Chapter 2.

Ancient Macedonia and its people

A Broad-spectrum View of the Macedonian issue

Ancient Macedonia

Often the subject of what constitutes the geographic and historic Macedonia appears in publications and websites. Depending on the degree of one’s knowledge of the subject, the two may or may not become interchangeable. To elevate the confusion, historians and archeologists when writing about the history of Macedonia often use the term Macedonian Homeland. This part of the thesis deals with the explanation and interpretation of the three terms. Macedonian Homeland, Historic Macedonia, and Geographic Macedonia, must never be confused nor used interchangeably.

Macedonian Homeland

The demarcation of the boundaries of the Macedonian Homeland is very difficult to determine. Ancient sources are imprecise because most of them were Athenians and they did not know or appreciate the Macedonians living in an area that was far from Athens.

Herodotus describes the south borders of Macedonia as being the River Peneios between Olympus and the Ossa Mountains coming to an agreement with the geographer Strabo. 1 He also acknowledged Macedonia as the area around the west foothills of Olympus and the Pieria Mountains, following the River Aliakmon to its southwest springs and then going up northwest on the Pindus Mountain range. 2 Both Herodotus and Thucydides considered the River Strymon in Greece as the eastern borders of ancient Macedonia. The Epirotan tribe of Orestes 3 of Upper Macedonia in the area of modern day Korce, Albania constituted the western borders of ancient Macedonia. Thucydides maintained that the northern borders of Macedonia laid the flow of the River Erigon (present day Crna Reka, the FYROM), also Mount Orbēlos (Bulgarian Pirin).

The borders got more confusing as time passed as the ancient Macedonians occupied and annexed more territories, almost exclusively over present day Bulgaria and even reaching the Danube River. Modern scholars on historical Macedonia accept that its northern borders follow the line Bakarno Gumno (41° 16’21”N 21° 25’08”, present day Krushevo and Prilep areas), following the flow of Crna Reka to Kavadarci south of Demir Kapija Pass to Strumica, and from there to Sandaski, Bulgaria and ensuing the flow of the River Strymon to the Aegean Sea.

Internally, the Macedonian Homeland was divided into Upper Macedonia and Lower Macedonia. Upper Macedonia included all the areas of the present day Grevena, Kozani, Kastoria, Pella, and Florina Prefectures in Greece, the Korce area of Albania, and the territories between Bitola and the Mountain Bakarno Gumno. The Macedonian areas on the north side of the present day borders between Greece and the FYROM on one hand and Crna Reka on the other were considered as Macedonian Paeonia.

Lower Macedonia included the rest of the country with the Axios and Strymon Valleys and the Khalkidiki Peninsula. The coastline was quite different with the sea touching the second Capital city of Pella. That natural bay developed gradually to a lagoon, then a swamp, and today has become arable land. Fanula Papazoglu, a member of the Academy of Sciences and Arts of the FYROM, states,

In this case it is not very important whether it is correct to apply the term "Illyrian" (in the narrower sense) to the cultural area of Bosnia and Dalmatia, since the earliest literary sources give the name of Illyrian to tribes living much further south, in the immediate vicinity of Macedonia (ancient Macedonia, of course; it is often forgotten that ancient Macedonia occupied only a relatively small part of the Yugoslav Macedonia of today!)." 4

Historic Macedonia

The borders of Historic Macedonia are another matter. Using the borders of the Macedonian Homeland as the basis, they expanded or contracted over the years from the conquest of the Hellenic states to the expansion of the area of present day Bulgaria, to the Middle East, present-day Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, partially India and definitely the modern nation-states of Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. The Bactrian Greek kingdom that was captured by Alexander the Great in 327 BC and lasted until 150 BC was the result of that expansion. On the African continent, the Macedonian Empire extended to present-day Libya and Tunisia. Upon the demise of the Empire, Historic Macedonia ceased to exist because from that point on Macedonia as well as the rest of Greece was part of the Roman Empire.

Map of Historic Macedonia between 334 BC – 324 BC. 5

While the FYROM scholarship extends the northern borders of Historic Macedonia to coincide with the present northern borders of their country, the correctness of this assertion is disputable. When one wants to consider territories solely inhabited by ancient Macedonians, one cannot consider as part of the Macedonian Homeland peoples other than Macedonians as is the case of Paeonia. Most of the present territory of the FYROM was Paeonian, with the area of Skopje and Tetovo in Dardanian hands. As mentioned above, the Macedonian Homeland and the Historic Macedonia are not interchangeable.

Having established the difference between Geographic Macedonia, Historic Macedonia, and the Macedonian Homeland, the remaining point to consider is the status of the Paeonians. Although the name Paeonia reminds us of the Attican demos of Paeania, the ethnic nature of the Paeonians is still a mystery among authoritative historians; however, it is certain that they were not a Macedonian tribe. Not one respected historian will dispute this fact. Simply, we do not have any primary sources of the ancient world to offer us convincing evidence pointing to the ethnic nature of ancient Macedonia's northern neighbors, the Paeonians.

It makes no sense to include the area of the FYROM into Macedonian Homeland since the Macedonians lived in the Macedonian Homeland, not in Paeonia. If one wants to include non-Macedonian people within Macedonian territories, one should include the Greek states of the south since Macedonians were of the Greek tribes. To incorporate into Macedonia non-Macedonian peoples, i.e. Paeonians, and exclude the Greek states, one must question why not include the Thracians to the east and northeast of ancient Macedonia? Philip V conquered the pure Paeonian areas, located north of the present day Greek borders in 217 BC. 6 He never conquered the Dardanian Illyrian town of Scupi, present day Skopje.

The accusations that the Macedonians were barbarians began in Athens and were the result of political fabrications based on the Macedonian way of life and not on their ethnicity or language. 7 The Athenian orator, Demosthenes, traveled to Macedonia twice for a total of nine months and knew what language the Macedonians spoke. It is obvious from the text that the name-calling of Demosthenes was clearly an epithet directed to Phillip II on a personal level. Accusations from one politician to another do not apply to the people of a region or the entire state. These attacks were purely personal. 8 Simply Demosthenes hated Philip because of political considerations because he wanted Athens and Thebes to lead the Greeks not Macedonia whose king, Philip II, was a sworn enemy of Athens and democracy. Demosthenes called Philip "barbarian,” a very common and humiliating cuss directed at a Greek. ”Barbarian” was the epithet of a "non-Greek" or someone who spoke an incomprehensible language. The Lexicon Liddell and Scott includes a number of examples in which the word barbarian in antiquity did not necessarily mean, a foreigner or non-Greek speaker. It exactly states, "after the Persian wars the word took contemptuous meaning with the meaning of peasant, uneducated, monstrous” as in Aristophanes, Plato, Thucydides, Xenophon Anabasis, and Aristotle. 9

Nevertheless, regarding Demosthenes addressing Philip, as “barbarian,” even Badian does not find it strange stating, “it may have nothing to do with historical fact, any more than the orators' tirades against their personal enemies usually have.” 10 He is correct because it is well known that the profession of a lobbyist is nothing new. In the ancient Greek world, a lobbyist was also a representative of another state, tribal or not and because of it he was called πρόξενος or proxenos, which was a political and diplomatic post. 11 It is the equivalent of the present day ambassador. During that time, the Boeotian Thrason employed by the Athenians represented Athens' interests in Thebes and the Athenian Demosthenes, the orator, represented the interests of Thebes in Athens. 12 At that point Thebes' power was on the rise and if Athens and Thebes were allied the only power they had to consider was Macedonia. Demosthenes' job as a paid representative of Thebes included his duty to discredit Philip and the only way to do it was by attacking him on a personal level. This is the reason Aeschines called Demosthenes a Theban lobbyist and a traitor to Athenian interests. 13 For someone like Demosthenes who inherited so much money but he was left penniless, money was a prime motivator to call the person who directly threatened his welfare as Philip did, a barbarian. Due to the fact that the speech took place after the Persian Wars, the term Barbarian had the meaning of crude, monstrous, etc.

We encountered similar inimical behavior of Demosthenes' against Philip with Thucydides' behavior against the Acarnanians. Thucydudes states that the Aetolian tribe of Euritanes was barbarian "eating the meat raw" only when the Athenians encountered a political conflict with the Aetolians. 14 The Macedonian way of life differed in many ways from the southern Greek way of life, which was common among the western Greeks such as with the Chaones, Molossians, Thesprotians, Acarnanians, and Aetolians. 15 Macedonian state institutions were similar to those of the Mycenean and Spartan. 16 Moreover, it is stated by Herodotus that a number of Peloponnesian cities inhabited by Lacedaemonians, Corinthians, Sicyonians, Epidaurians, Troezinians, and Hermionians, with the exception of Hermionians, were of Dorian and Macedonian blood. These people lived in cities located in Peloponnesus, which makes the Macedonians as Greek as the Dorians. 17

Geographic Macedonia

The geographic territory of Macedonia is a result of political maneuvering and occupation of the area by powers that did what they saw fit in order to administer the area. The end of Historic Macedonia, upon the demise of the Macedonian Empire, was the beginning of a new term, Geographic Macedonia. Macedonia's geographic territory depends on the period one describes and on contemporary political needs and agendas. In some cases, Geographic Macedonia was not even close to the territories that in general are considered "Macedonia." At present, Geographic Macedonia is the area of Greek Macedonia, Bulgarian Macedonia – Province of Blagoevgrad, the FYROM, and the Albanian territories around lakes Prespa and Ohrid.

Geographic Macedonia in medieval and modern times did not necessarily coincide with the Macedonian Homeland. In some cases, Geographic Macedonia included areas of present-day Albania, or as Macedonia Secunda the whole territory of the FYROM. In other cases, the Thema of Macedonia was in the area of Adrianople (Edirne) away from the Macedonian Homeland as the following entry states:

Thema of Macedonia, which is attested to for the first time in 802, was established and extended eastwards of the Nestos river into a large section of Thrace, i.e. it was not identified with the geographical boundaries of Macedonia. A little later the Thema of Thessaloniki was established, which extended to Central and West Macedonia, and the thema of Strymon in Eastern Macedonia. 18

Origin of the Ancient Macedonians

Before the Trojan War, one Indo-European tribe, recognized later under their exonym as Makednoi 19 and living on the mountain range of Pindus, split into branches and took routes in different directions. Three branches, Hylleis, Dymanes, and Pamphyloi utilized the area just northwest of the Corinthian Gulf called Dryopis as their staging area but apssing to Pelopenneus they received the exonym “Dorians” and the area they lived, Doris, in honor of Dorus their legendary ancestor and son of Hellēn, the nominal father of the Greeks. From there, some of them reached the area of what presently is Boeotia, and others passed into Peloponnesus from the Isthmus of Corinth (20 years before the Trojan war) and the Rhium /Antirhium strait. One of them went north to Thessaly just south of Olympus and then, using as their guide the current of the River Pēnius toward the Thermaic Gulf, moved northward and established themselves in the area northeast of Olympus Mountain where they pushed out the Thracian tribe of Pieres 20 and built the city of Dion 21 in honor of Zeus. 22 Dion was the sacred city of the Macedonians until the appearance of Christianity.

According to Herodotus, in the early stages of the Hellenic race and after the great flood, a Hellenic tribe lived in Phthiotis, an area in South Thessaly (present day in the very north-eastern point of the Prefecture of Phthiotis) under the leadership of Dorus, Hellēn’s son (pronounce hĔllēn ˜λλην).

Phthiotis was the country in which the Hellenes dwelt, but under Dorus, the son of Hellen, they moved to the tract at the base of Ossa and Olympus, which is called Histiaeotis; forced to retire from that region by the Cadmeians, they settled, under the name of Macedonians, in the chain of Pindus. Hence they once more removed and came to Dryopis; and from Dryopis having entered the Peloponnese in this way, they became known as Dorians. 23

The above statement makes the Dorians one of the Macedonian offspring. One of the arguments that is often heard is that the ancient Macedonians were one of the Illyrian tribes, but the Macedonians were using translators when they were communicating with the Illyrians. This means the Macedonians and the Illyrians did not speak the same language. For instance, Perseus, the Macedonian king, sent Adaeus of Berroia (who spoke only Greek) and Pleuratus, an Illyrian, as translators on a mission to the Illyrian king Genthius (169 BC). Pleuratus was an exile living in Perseus' court. 24 There is evidence that the Illyrians and the Macedonians were vicious enemies.

One of the myriad pieces of evidence that proves the ancient Macedonians (to be omit) were Greeks is their participation in the Olympic Games at Olympia, Elia. 25

Members of the Academy of Sciences and Arts of the FYROM and Hellenism of ancient Macedonia

Respected members of the Academy of Sciences and Arts of the FYROM such as Fanula Papazoglu on page 4 of her dissertation states: "Macedonia, disappearing as a state, stopped having rights in history but the Macedonian people did not disappear. They continued to live in the framework of the new political community – the Roman state, having kept ethnic characteristics, language, religion and customs," and on page 333 of the same, "Macedonia, a Province of Greek language."

Other individuals and periodicals of the FYROM Academy of Sciences and Arts in various studies have accepted the Hellenic origin and culture of the ancient Macedonians. Ivan Mikulčić points out, “The northern periphery of the Greek world, inhabited by ancient Macedonians and other peoples and tribes, wasn't developed for democracy as the most developed social system at that time." 26

The publication Macedonian Heritage adds, "During the early archaic period at the Macedonian territory, the Dorian tribal groups came across over the Pindos Mountain. They established several early principalities partially by chasing away the local Paeonian tribes. Those [Dorian] tribal groups were the ancient Macedonians." 27

Vera Bitrakova-Grozdanova feels, “The lower part of Vardar [Greek Axios] is certainly the area south of Demir-Kapija gorge that entered Hellenic cultural sphere very early and already before 600 BC the material culture is thoroughly Hellenised.” 28 In addition, Vera Bitrakova-Grozdanova writes,

The Art of Antiquity left in the region of Ohrid a great number of traces of its own presence. Illyrian forts imported goods from Greek centers and imitated them in a modest fashion. Political advancement of the Macedonians and their domination enabled cultural influx that manifested itself through products of crafts and alphabet. From the times of Phillip II deeper advances in the area of Lychnidos [Lake Ohrid] are attested. Cultural influences of the Graeco-Macedonian world are present. Rich Hellenistic culture arrived at Illyrian soil. 29

The publication Arheologija remarks,

Certain proto-populations occupying distinct areas of the Balkans could be distinguished on the territories of the cultural groups: in western part of the Balkans the proto-Illyrians, in the east the proto Thracians, in the south the Hellenes, in the northern part of the Balkans the proto Daco-Mysians and in the southwest of the Central Balkans the proto-Bryges. 30

No mention of the Macedonians has been made since they were Hellenes or Greeks. Paeonia was located in the middle of the present day FYROM having Astibus (Štip) as its capital and Vylazora (Veles) as one of the most important cities. Professor Fanica Veljanovska declares, “Paeonians, a people who during the first millennia BC inhabited the border area between the three great paleo-balkanic peoples - Illyrians, Thracians and Greeks.” 31 Veljanovska mentions no Macedonians since she considers the Macedonians Greeks.

Vera Bitrakova - Grozdanova asserts, "Greek epigraphic monuments created before definitive Roman domination of our area are to be found in modest quantity." 32 Moreover, Dr. Bitrakova-Grozdanova states, "Study of the inscriptions speaks about epigraphic characteristics of the neighboring Macedonian - Hellenic world." 33 She also mentions, "Having the central position in this part of the Balkans, Paeonia, apart from receiving influences from the Hellenic south, wasn't an exception with regard to influences from Illyrian and Thracian sphere." 34 Dr. Bitrakova-Grozdanova would not have made such a statement if she did not feel that the Macedonians were Greeks living south of Paeonia.

Viktor Lilčić describes life in Paeonia and the northern part of Upper Macedonia (Pelagonia):

The quantitative ceramic material used to be produced with the usual process including the labor of persons. Partly because of that, partly because of the traditions that had taken roots into our soil, which with centuries before that used to be watered with Hellenic spirit and Hellenistic way of life, the use of the building ceramics had been brought to minimum. 35

Pelagonia on the other hand was the area just north of Lyngistis (Florina-Bitola) and its inhabitants were Molossian speaking Macedonians of Upper Macedonia. Statements about Pelagonia made by Ivan Mikulčić, an excellent archaeologist, are the first to concur that the ancient Macedonians were Greeks. Mikulčić states, “We are not to be amazed that in the archaeological material of Pelagonia we have a rarely great wealth of reflections of all pronounced cultural events in the relations between middle-Danubian and Graeco-Aegean world.” 36 In addition, he determines, “in a such great chronological distance in the life of ancient Pelagonia two stages are visible: development and existence in the frames of Hellenic culture and later the Roman one.” 37 “Even in the last decades of 5th century stabilization in all spheres of social life is established. As first sign of the new time import from Graeco-Macedonian south appeared as well as fortified settlements that later grew into urban centers with character of economic and religious nuclei of the region.” 38

The present-day Hellenic nation is the result of the social, civic, and linguistic amalgamation of more than 230 tribes speaking more than 200 dialects 39 that claimed descent from Hellen, son of Deukalion. “When we take into account the political conditions, religion and morals of the Macedonians, our conviction is strengthened that they were a Greek race and akin to the Dorians. Having stayed behind in the extreme north, they were unable to participate in the progressive civilization of the tribes which went further south... 40 Most historians have assessed the Macedonian state of affairs in a similar fashion. The Macedonians were a Hellenic group of tribes belonging to the Western Greek ethnic group.

The Macedonians incorporated the territory of the native people into Macedonia and forced the Pieres, a Thracian tribe, out of the area Bottiaia to Mt. Pangaeum and the Bottiaiei. They further expelled the Eordi from Eordaia and the Almopes from Almopia and they similarly expelled all tribes (Thracian, Paeonian, Illyrian) they found in areas of Anthemus, Crestonia, Bysaltia and other lands. The Macedonians absorbed the few inhabitants of the above tribes that stayed behind. They established their suzerainty over the land of Macedonia without losing their ethnicity, language, or religion. 41

They also incorporated the lands of the Elimeiotae, Orestae, Lyncestae,

Pelagones, and Deriopes ,all tribes living in Upper Macedonia who were Greek

speakers, but of a different (Molossian) dialect from that spoken by the [ancient] Macedonians. 42

Then, living with savage northern neighbors such as Illyrians, Thracians, Paeonians and later Dardanians, the Macedonians physically deflected their neighbors’ hordes forming an impenetrable fence denying them the opportunity to attack the Greek city-states of the south.( which is why omit) This is the reason they are considered the bastion of Hellenism.

The evidence above shows that the ancient Macedonians were one of the Hellenic groups of tribes speaking a Greek dialect and having the same institutions as the Spartans and especially the Greeks of the Western group of nations. Thus, the fallacies emanated from the FYROM and its diaspora are strongly repudiated.

Borza, agreeing with Hammond states, “First, the matter of the Hellenic origins of the Macedonians: Nicholas Hammond's general conclusion that the origin of the Macedonians lies in the pool of proto-Hellenic speakers who migrated out of the Pindus mountains during the Iron Age is acceptable." 43 This is an excellent basis for the beginning for the challenge on the Macedonism of the Slavic population of the FYROM. Since two of the greatest authorities on Macedonia agree that the origin of the ancient Macedonians "lies in the pool of proto-Hellenic speakers who migrated out of the Pindus mountains during the Iron Age," 44 there is no doubt that they are related to the rest of the Greeks. Thus, the qualification of the term Greek and the degree of affinity or relation between Greek tribes is the key to the question of whether the Macedonians were Greeks or they were simply a related branch as the Illyrians or even Thracians.

Chapter 3.

Slavs: New Invaders in Byzantium

The Coming of the Slavs

Compared to the history of their Hellenic and Albanian neighbors, the history of The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’s (FYROM) Slavs in the Balkans is very recent. It began approximately during the A.D. fifth century. In the middle of the fifth century the southern Slavs crossed the Carpathian Mountains and settled in the former Roman provinces of Panonia (modern day Hungary) and Dacia (modern day Romania). Originally, the southern Slavs were called Venedi, but the Byzantines changed their name to Sklavini when they migrated to the south part of the Balkans where they established alliances, or unions amongst themselves called sklavinije. The sklavinije asserted as their high commanders a regular hierarchy of princes such as Hatson, Akamir and Prvud. The first Slavic and Bulgarian Turkic tribes also began attacking the Balkan areas jointly in the fifth century. In the beginning, they robbed the Byzantine population, devastated the countryside, and returned to their bases. 45

Lasting settlements of Slavs in geographic Macedonia began at the end of the sixth century. Up to the middle of the seventh century, Slavic tribes known as the “Seven Tribes,” namely Draguviti, Brsjaci or Bereziti, Sagudati, Rinhini, Strumljani or Strimonci, Smoljani, Velegeziti, Milinges, Ezerites, Timočani, Abodrini, and Moravijani formed tribal unions and managed to become an important political and ethnic factor in the Balkans. 46

What makes this story so remarkable is the fact that these tribal unions are the ancestors of The FYROM’s current Slavic population. They originally had inhabited settlements in parts of the territory from the River Nestos (Mesta) to Thessaly, and from Thessaloniki to the mountains Rila, to the East and beyond Shar Planina (ancient Greek Skardos) to the areas that today are Shumadia, the River Morava and the Mts. Timok well within modern Serbian Territory. By no means does the above statement mean that the Slavic tribes in question were so numerous that they had overwhelmed and overcome the local Greek populations. There is no evidence to support such a thesis. On the contrary, the Greek population assimilated later Slavic tribes without changing the anthropological or social characteristics. 47

As time passed, the Thracians and Illyrians east and west of the Slavic areas respectively, were severely pressed by the Slavs, and were either pushed to the mountains or assimilated later by the Slavs. The Milinges and Ezerites moved peacefully south and settled in Peloponnesus with a good number of them preferring the area of Mount Taygetos and the city of Aegion. Both Slavic tribes disappeared by the twelfth century. 48

Referring to population assimilation processes in the Balkans, the 1974 edition of the

Military Encyclopedia of Tito’s Yugoslavia, part of which was the present-day FYROM, writes,

…[d]ue to its strong culture and multitudinous population, the Greeks could not be assimilated [by the Slavs], but stayed intact. So areas with strong Greek presence remained Greek. Thus even if Slavic and Bulgarian elements were living in Macedonia and Thrace the main bulk of the populace was Greek. The Illyrian lands that form today’s Albania and its neighboring areas were too distant to Slavic and Bulgarian reach. 49

The FYROM’s historians and politicians never objected to such published truths in their own federal state, impelling us to conclude that the Slavs imposed their language and culture on the hellenized Paeonians, on Greeks who were distributed sparsely in certain areas of the Balkans only, and on other people they encountered in their area. Referring to Macedonia and Thrace, the encyclopedia clearly admits that the “main bulk of the people was Greek,” with the word “Macedonians” not appearing in the text.

The Slav masses concentrated in the Vardar Province (part of which is

FYROM today), but they also existed in culturally separate communities elsewhere along with the much larger and historically entrenched Hellenic communities. Although our knowledge of the ethnicity of the migrant masses is incomplete and shrouded in controversy, it is indisputable that virtually from the time of their appearance in the Balkans the Slavs wittingly or unwittingly behaved like Bulgarians and identified themselves as Bulgarians. To this challenging fact must be added the more intriguing fact that no “Macedonian” ethnicity had officially appeared or was mentioned until 1943-1944, not even in the Manifesto of the Krushevo Republic (1903), which was later exploited by the Yugoslav communists and by Skopjan historians as the manifesto of the first “Macedonian” government in history. The fact remains that the Bulgarians instigated the uprising and wrote the manifesto, not any “Macedonians.” 50

Written in perfect Bulgarian, the manifesto is a historical Declaration of Independence of geographical Macedonia addressed to all inhabitants of Macedonia “regardless of faith, nationality, sex or conviction.” As with names and other symbols, the Vardar Slavs grabbed the Ilinden uprising’s “glorious” torch from the Bulgarians, after Comintern (Communist International) suppressed Bulgaria’s dreams for Macedonia in 1941, and used Ilinden as a ploy to give credence to their separate ethnic identity as “Macedonians.”

Sts. Cyril and Methodius, Equal to the Apostles, Illuminators of the Slavs. 51

Greek Macedonia, or Macedonia Proper was destined to play a very important role in Christianity. The two Great sons of Macedonia, brothers Constantine (in schema Cyril) and Michael (in schema Methodius) provided education to the ignorant and uncivilized Slavs through religion and gave them an alphabet and codified their language, the Old Church Slavonic. The two Greek brothers from Thessaloniki, were the sons of Leon and Maria. Leon was a descendant of the Byzantine Empress, Irene the Athenian (797-802), wife of the Emperor Leon IV and was a drougarios, a senior official equal to a General, of the imperial administration. It is clear from Methodius’ biography that the two brothers were fluent Greek-speakers and educated in a Greek environment, and they grasped the Slavonic language easily. Cyril mastered a number of other languages, including Hebrew and Arabic according to his biographer and disciple, Clement.

There are a series of Papal affirmations regarding the birth and the nationality of the two brothers and their family. They are:

1. The Encyclical promulgated on 20 November 1901 (On the Foundation of a Seminary in Athens, Pope Leo XIII).
2. Apostolic Letter Pacis Nuntius(3) of 24 October 1964, proclaimed Saint Benedict Patron of Europe.
3. Egregiae Virtutis, by Pope John Paul II, December 31, 1980.
4. (Slavorum Apostoli Pope John Paul II, 2 June 1985).
5. Encyclical Epistle Grande Munus (30 September 1880), in Leonis XIII Pont. Max. Acta, II, PP. 125 137; cf. also PIUS XI, Letter Quod S. Cyrillum (13 February 1927) to the Archbishops and Bishops of the Kingdom of the Serbs-Croats-Slovenes and of the Czechoslovakian Republic: AAS 19 (1927), pp. 93-96; JOHN XXIII, Apostolic Letter Magnifici Eventus (11 May 1963) to the Prelates of the Slav Nations: AAS 55 (1963), pp. 434-439. PAUL VI, Apostolic Epistle Antiquae Nobilitatis (2 February 1969) for the eleventh centenary of the death of Saint Cyril: AAS 61 (1969), pp. 137-149).
6. UT UNUM SINT (That They May Be One) Pope John Paul II, 25 May 1995."

The Bulgarian Government considers the two brothers Greeks. 52 Professors Ivan Lazaroff, Plamen Pavloff, Ivan Tyutyundzijeff and Milko Palangurski of the Faculty of History of Sts. Cyril and Methodius University in Veliko Tŭrnovo, Bulgaria 53 , state very explicitly that the two brothers were Greeks from Thessaloniki. Oscar Halecki, 54 Professor of Eastern European History, agrees with the authors of Kratka istoriya na bŭlgarskiya narod. Moveover, Dr. Petar Djordjic states "Cyril and Methodius were Greeks," and speaking of Cyril he further states, "he studied in his native Thessaloniki." 55 Bulgarian Professors Vasil Gyuzelev, Konstantine Kosev, and Georgi Georgiev are of the same opinion. 56

It is very well known and documented that the father of Sts. Cyril and Methodius was Greek. 57 Nevertheless, there is a plethora of statements found in mostly Slavic websites and books written by Slavs offering a variety of statements about Maria’s nationality, from "it is said she was a Slav," to "she was probably a Slav," to "she was a Slav." Such statements are unsubstantiated assertions since none of these publications offers any Byzantine or other source of that period as their reference.

Proper names in the ancient Hellenic times were given based on ethnicity. Greeks received Greek names, Thracians received Thracian names, Illyrians received Illyrian names, etc. It was very important to people that they have names that meant something in their own language. In the Roman times, we see the phenomenon that Romans would receive Greek names and Greeks would receive Roman names. Upon the spread of Christianity, Greek or Hebrew proper names were given to the newly baptized. Thus the name Maria had to be given to her either at birth, which means she was a Greek, given the fact that the Slavs and the Bulgarians were not Christian yet, or she received her name Maria upon her baptism. However, there is no such evidence in any of the known creditable sources. The same is true for Michael and Constantine, later known as Methodius and Cyril respectively.

In the 1800s, Falmerayer wrote his treatise on the Slavic origin of Modern Greeks. However, there are also allegations that he was secretly commissioned by the Russian Imperial Court. The secret diplomatic documents of the Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs unclassified after WWI revealed Falmerayer’s professional connection to the Russian General Osterman Tolstoy, who escorted Falmerayer to Greece by order of the Russian Czarist government. 58 The German historian Hopf 59 refuted Falmerayer's theory that Greece was overrun by Slavs during the AD 6th century to the point that they became Slavs themselves, and he proved the uninterrupted presence of the Hellenic nation in its ancestral soil and attested to the origin of the Greeks from their ancient ancestors. 60 Bartholomaeus Kopitar, a Slavonic historian and a philologist himself, agreed with Hopf. 61

According to Menandros, a contemporary chronographer, the Slavs invaded Thrace in AD 578. Falmerayer’s contention that Slavic tribes at that time reached Larissa is belied by Prokopios. Falmerayer used the Chronicle of Monembasia, which described the activities of the Slavs in Greece 200 years later. Falmerayer used events that took place in a different area in another time in order to form his theory.

Because of the above, any assertion about Maria’s ethnicity becomes suspect in light of the allegations regarding Falmerayer and his interest in converting the Greeks into Slavs. Regardless of Falmerayer’s assertions, it was very evident that during the Ottoman rule and despite the Turkish suppression of any education in Greek, the Greeks spoke Greek. After Greece’s independence, the Greek nation emerged Greek speaking, but it needed a betterment of the Greek language, which its first Governor, Ioannes Capodistrias, sought, and he achieved the elevation of the language spoken by an uneducated Greek population to the highest standard possible. In 1830, at the time of its independence, Greece had a population of 700,000 and its area was only about 65,000 square km.

Accepting the assumption that Maria was a Slav, we have to presuppose that she was an Orthodox Christian before she married her husband Leon, since the Christian Church and especially the Greek Orthodox Church even today, does not permit marriages between Christians and non-Christians. The tradition of civil marriage was not acceptable in the Byzantine society and neither was it known. Thus, if Maria became a Christian before her marriage to Leon, she probably was speaking excellent Greek as well, because she had to undergo a certain catechism in Greek before the marriage. During her time, there were no books in the Old Church Slavonic. Her sons invented the Slavonic Alphabet and translated the Bible and canonical books in the Old Church Slavonic much later. Nonetheless, there is no evidence pointing to the above assumption.

Had Maria been the first Slav to accept Christianity with a future husband being a member of a prestigious family and a blood relative of the Byzantine Empress, Irene the Athenian, the chronographers of that time would have given a lot of publicity to such an event. Yet, we hardly have anything about her life, not only as a single woman, but also as the mother of two great sons. The family was well known to the Palace and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, and such an event as the conversion of a Slav girl to Christianity and her imminent marriage to Leon would have been the news of the year in the area, if not in the Empire. Certainly, the Church would have noticed such an event. Nevertheless, the Church recognizes Czar Boris I of Bulgaria as the first Slavonic speaking person to become Christian. Boris I of Bulgaria and his closest associates were baptized in the palace in Pliska in a late autumn night of 864, and so Bulgaria became a Christian state.

Methodius was the elder brother and his baptismal name was probably Michael. He was born between 815 and 820. His younger brother Constantine, who came to be better known by his religious name Cyril, was born in 827 or 828. Although Methodius was older, Cyril became more eminent, mainly because of his knowledge of the Slavic language, which he had acquired earlier. 62

Like all children of the higher imperial officials, the two brothers received their advanced education at the Imperial School of Constantinople. The family's social position made it possible for the two brothers to have parallel careers. Methodius became the governor authority (Gr. Archon or Prefect) of the Strymon District of Macedonia, but more possibly in Bithynia, 63 where large numbers of Slavs had been resettled. Cyril undertook a mission to the Arabs, and then became a professor of philosophy at the imperial school in Constantinople and librarian at the cathedral of Santa Sophia. There he received the name "the Philosopher.” Cyril appears in the Slavic texts to be conscious of belonging to Byzantine society and of his Greek descent. In his dialogue with the Arab Muslims he points out that "all sciences originated from us," meaning the Byzantine and Greek culture. 64

The Comitopuli: The rise of a Count, Samuil and Basil II, the Bulgar-Slayer

The Bulgars had become a considerable power, but between 833 and 972 AD their power declined because of internal strife and external interference (Russians, Byzantines, Bogomils, etc.). Their empire included more or less the territories of present-day Bulgaria,


     Petar Delev, Valeri Katsunov, and others, "12. The decline of the First Bulgarian Empire," in History and civilization for 11th grade (Sirma, Trud 2006).

present-day Serbia, the area of The FYROM and some parts of the western, central and eastern Greek Macedonia. The port of Thessaloniki was in Byzantine hands. At this time, Bulgaria was divided into two provinces, Eastern and Western.

In 972 John I Tzimisces, Emperor of Byzantium, took the opportunity to seize Eastern Bulgaria when a preemptive attack of the Russians dethroned the Bulgarian Emperor Boris II. The Western Province survived under the leadership of a Bulgarian, Count Nikola, and his four sons: Samuil, David, Moses, and Aaron. One of these sons, Samuil, assumed the title of Czar and at first made Prespa his capital and later Ohrid, and from there he launched a fierce attack against Byzantium seizing all Macedonia (except Thessaloniki) and Thessaly. He also recovered Serbia and Northern Bulgaria and transferred his capital back to Sofia. General Nicephorus Ouranos of the Byzantine Army checked them in the area of the River Sperchios and routed the retreating Bulgarians to Macedonia.

On July 29, 1014, at Belasica (Greek: Kleidion) close to Strumica (present day The FYROM), the Emperor of Byzantium Basil II of the Macedonian dynasty, ended Samuil's empire by capturing 15,000 soldiers. A sad detail of this battle is that Basil II ordered that the 15,000 soldiers be chained in files of 100, blinding one eye of the first soldier in each file, and blinding completely the following 99. In this condition, Basil II sent Samuil's soldiers back home. When Samuil saw them, he was so shocked that he died from a heart attack a few months later, two days after he saw the sad consequence of the battle. For this act of his, history gave Basil II the infamous title of “the Bulgar-slayer.”

It must be noted that Basil II, a short man with brilliant light blue eyes, was a descendant of those autochthonous Macedonians who some centuries back emigrated from Macedonia to the area between the present day Edirne and Keşan in Turkish Thrace. At that time, that area was called the Province of Macedonia, and that is why Basil II is a descendant of the Macedonian Dynasty of Byzantium. It is said he was born in Charioupolis, present day Hayrabolu, Turkish Thrace. 65

Skopje argues that the ancient Macedonians a) were not of Greek stock, and b) they had already amalgamated with the Slav invaders and that is why they want to be called “Macedonians.” Skopje also argues that Samuil and his troops were “Macedonians,” meaning Slavs. But, history has recorded that Basil was a Macedonian and very Greek and that is why he fought the Bulgarians. John Skylitzes, the primary source for the event is very specific about it:

The emperor [Basil II] did not relent, but every year he marched into Bulgaria and laid waste and ravaged all before him. Samuel was not able to resist openly, nor to face the emperor in open warfare, so, weakened from all sides, he came down from his lofty lair to fortify the entrance to Bulgaria with ditches and fences. Knowing that the emperor always made his incursions through [the plain] known as Campu Lungu and [the pass known as] Kleidion ('the key'), he undertook to fortify the difficult terrain to deny the emperor access. A wall was built across the whole width [of the pass] and worthy defenders were committed to it to stand against the emperor. When he arrived and made an attempt to enter [Bulgaria], the guards defended the wall manfully and bombarded and wounded the attackers from above. When the emperor had thus despaired of gaining passage, Nikephoros Xiphias, the strategos of Philippopolis, met with the emperor and urged him to stay put and continue to assault the wall, while, as he explained, he turned back with his men and, heading round to the south of Kleidion through rough and trackless country, crossed the very high mountain known as Belasica. … On 29 July, in the twelfth indiction [1014], [Xiphias and his men] descended suddenly on the Bulgarians, from behind and screaming battle cries. Panic stricken by the sudden assault [the Bulgarians] turned to flee, while the emperor broke through the abandoned wall. Many [Bulgarians] fell and many more were captured; Samuel barely escaped from danger with the aid of his son, who fought nobly against his attackers, placed him on a horse, and made for the fortress known as Prilep. The emperor blinded the Bulgarian captives -- around 15 000 they say -- and he ordered every group of one hundred to be led back to Samuel by a one-eyed man. And when [Samuel] saw the equal and ordered detachments returning he could not bear it manfully nor with courage, but was himself struck blind and fell in a faint to the ground. His companions revived him for a short time with water and smelling salts, and somewhat recovered he asked for a sip of cold water. Taking a gulp he had a heart attack and died two days later on 6 October. 66

After Samuil, Bulgaria, including the area of present day The FYROM, lost its glory, and it became a Thema or province of Byzantium under the name Province of Bulgaria, and within a couple of centuries fell into Turkish hands.

During Turkish rule, geographic Macedonia was not an administrative entity, but was divided in three vilayets: the Vilayet of Kosova, which included Skopje; the Vilayet of Manastir (Bitola); and the Vilayet of Selanik (Thessaloniki). The Ottoman government made no reference to Macedonia.

Byzantine Themata in the Balkans circa AD 1045. 67

The Yugoslav Military Encyclopedia under the title ‘The Creation of the Macedonian State under Samuil, states that the Western Province of Bulgaria survived under the leadership of a Brsjac (or Berezit), prince Nikole, and his four sons: Samuil, David, Mojsej, and Aron. Thus the logic of the FYROM Slavs is that since the leader was a member of a Slavic tribe living in the geographic Macedonia, then the whole country had to be Macedonian and not Bulgarian.

This logic raises a few questions. Besides the fact that the above statement has no basis on truth since by all accounts Samuil was a Bulgarian (see Bitola Inscription below), the groups Samuil was reigning over were mixed Bulgarian and Slavic. Assuming that Samuil was a Berezit (aka Brsjac) and not a Bulgarian, as all respected historians contend, the ethnicity of a king would not immediately become the ethnicity of all his subjects. The Slavs advocate exactly the opposite regarding the ethnicity of Philip II and Alexander the Great claiming that the kings of ancient Macedonia were Greeks, but their subjects were Macedonian, which was either an indigenous or an Illyrian or a Thracian tribe, but not Greek. Kiro Gligorov in his self-biographical book Makedonija e sé što imame (= Macedonia is All that We Have) states that he could not agree to any change of his country's name because he could not see his compatriots changing their name overnight. However, his country's official history reveals exactly that; moreover, the communists by changing the name of the republic to "Macedonia" and its people "Macedonians" also did the same. Returning to Samuil we have to question the logic of changing people’s ethnicity to the one of the governing king. If the logic of the Slavs on Samuil had applied to the reality of the Roman Empire, then the people of the Roman Empire would have changed ethnicity overnight repeatedly for it is a fact that not all Emperors of Rome were Romans, but they were Germans, Illyrians, etc.

Assuming that all of his subjects were actually Slavs, the question arises as to who and what gives the Slavs the authority to appropriate the name Macedonians? Since the ancient Macedonians, who in the Skopjan scholarship were not Greeks (they never say what was the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians), have disappeared and there is nobody to defend their name, their culture, and their language, the opportunity to transform the Slavs into "Macedonians" and then claim their lands is unique. This is the bottom line of their policy of mutation as Kofos has called it.

The Slavs of The FYROM insist that Samuil, a very glorious man in their history, was a Slav of the Berezit (Brsjac) tribe, but the column commemorating Czar Samuil’s parents, as appears below, attests to the fact that he was a Bulgarian, meaning a Slav and not a

Czar Samuil’s column commemorating his parents (AD 993). 68 The stele was discovered in the Monastery of St, Achilius on an island at Lake Prespa, Greece in 1888.

“Macedonian.” The column is written in AD 993 in the infantile Bulgarian language, which in some degree is different from the Old Church Slavonic in writing style and language.

The Bitola Inscription is an inscription made by order of Bulgarian Tsar Ivan Vladislav in 1015 or 1016 in connection with the fortification of the Bitola fortress. The inscription was found in 1956 in the village German near Bitola, The FYROM, and is stored at the Bitola Historical Museum.

Museum of National History, Sofia, Bulgaria

Text of the inscription, a translation from Old Bulgarian, states,

In the year 6253 [1015] since the creation of the world, this fortress, built and made by Ivan, Tsar of Bulgaria, was renewed with the help and the prayers of Our Most Holy Lady and through the intercession of her twelve supreme apostles. The fortress was built as a haven and for the salvation of the lives of the Bulgarians. The work on the fortress of Bitola commenced on the twentieth day of October and ended on the… This Tsar was Bulgarian by birth, grandson of the pious Nikola and Ripsimia, son of Aaron, who was brother of Samuil, Tsar of Bulgaria, the two who routed the Greek army of Emperor Basil at Stipone where gold was taken….and this….Tsar was defeated by Emperor Basil in 6522 [1015] since the creation of the world in Klyutch (the Battle of Kleidion) and died at the end of the summer... 69

From this inscription it becomes very clear that Samuil’s family considered themselves to be Bulgarian.

Skopje further argues that the “Macedonian” people existed in the Medieval times and specifically after Samuil’s death. A further examination of the history concludes that the above claim is also untrue. On 16 April 1345, in the first Serbian Capital, Skopje, the new Patriarch of the Serbs, Joanikie II, and the Bulgarian patriarch of Trnovo, crowned Stefan Dushan, “czar and autocrat Greeks, Bulgarians, and Albanians." 70 One has to wonder that if the “Macedonian” people existed, and since their territory was in the middle of Dushan’s kingdom, what was the reason that Dushan did not add the term “Macedonians” in his title?

Chapter 4.

Ilinden Uprising: A “Macedonian” or a Bulgarian Act?

The Ilinden Uprising

Six Bulgarian intellectuals, Hristo Tatarchev, Damian Gruev, Ivan Hadzhinikolov, Petar Poparsov, Andon Dimitrov, and Hristo Batandzhiev, striving to obtain civil rights for the Bulgarian population in Macedonia and Thrace (regions cut off from Bulgaria and left under the domination of the Ottoman sultans), founded the Internal Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization (IMRO, VMRO in Bulgarian) on October 23, 1893 in the city of Thessaloniki (presently the capital of the Greek Macedonia). 71 They were disappointed by the Council of Berlin’s decision to cut Bulgaria’s gains from the Treaty of San Stefano, but were encouraged by the results of the bloodless coup that gave Eastern Rumelia to Bulgaria in 1885, motivated by the Turkish weakness and Western eagerness to oblige. These Bulgarians were inspired by the dream of Georgi Stoykov Popovich, better known as Georgi Sava Rakovski of Kotel, Bulgaria, who dedicated his life for the liberation of geographic Macedonia. It must be noted that Rumelia in Turkish means ‘the land of the Rum (=Greeks).’

On August 2, 1903, the IMRO instigated a revolt in Krushevo (present day FYROM) for Macedonian and Thracian independence (Ilinden Uprising), which the Turkish authorities cruelly crushed. The freethinking people in America followed the uprising with the interest. Many outstanding personalities, such as the journalists Albert Sonixen and John Smith and the Protestant missionaries John Henry House, Dr. James F. Clark, and Helen ‘Miss’ Stone, supported the Organization in its fight to get elementary rights for the oppressed. Interestingly, Krushevo hardly had any Bulgarian population at that time. The vast majority was Greek speaking Vlach with a Turkish minority.

Presently, history books of the FYROM attribute the Ilinden Uprising to "Macedonian" fighters using the term "Macedonian" as an ethnic term. A close look of that historical event reveals that the fighters were indeed Macedonians, but geographically and not ethnically.

The following are excerpts of how modern scholars and newspapers of the era viewed the Ilinden Uprising as a Bulgarian uprising. Prof. Duncan Perry states,

… But even to this group national labels appear to have been of little concern, since the literature of the time and even the correspondence of no less a figure than the legendary Macedonian revolutionary leader, Gotse Delchev, refer to the Slavs of Macedonia as "Bulgarians" in an offhanded manner without seeming to indicate that such a designation was a point of contention. 72

In the words of Gotse Delchev, it becomes more obvious:

We have to work courageously, organizing and arming ourselves well enough to take the burden of the struggle upon our shoulders, without counting on outside help. External intervention is not desirable from the point of view of our cause. Our aim, our ideal is autonomy for Macedonia and the Adrianople region, and we must also bring into the struggle the other people who live in these two provinces as well...[..].. We the Bulgarians of Macedonia and Adrianople, must not lose sight of the fact that there are other nationalities and states who are vitally interested in the solution of this question. Any intervention by Bulgaria would provoke intervention by neighbouring states as well, and could result in Macedonia being torn apart.

Inserted below is a photocopy of Goce Delchev's letter. The statement "We are Bulgarians" is encircled.

Gotse Delchev’s letter 73

The words of Kosta Shahov, editor of the newspaper Makedonia, echo Goce Delcev:

And today it is desirable at any rate for our free Bulgarian brothers to encourage the slave in an independent struggle, since it is plain that otherwise it will be difficult and somewhat dangerous to work for this unhappy region. We have already stated on a previous occasion that it is not timely for us Macedonians, and also for the whole Bulgarian people: our neighbours would take advantage of the situation, Macedonia would be torn apart and our Bulgarian ideal thwarted.

A report by the Austro-Hungarian Vice-consul in Bitolya, O. Prochaska, to the Foreign Ministry on the situation in Macedonia after the Ilinden Uprising, dated November 26th, 1904, states, “The Bulgarian rebel leader, Damyan Grouev, was detained by the Serbian rebel detachment of Mitsko for several weeks in the region of Porech, but he was later released, and returned to Bulgaria through Skopje.” 74 Damyan Gruev was one of the leaders of the Ilinden Uprising.

Anthropologist Loring Danforth, a FYROM's staunch apologist and propagandist, states that "[t]he political and military leaders of the Slavs of Macedonia at the turn of the century seem not to have heard Misirkov's call for a separate Macedonian national identity; they continued to identify themselves in a national sense as Bulgarians rather than Macedonians." 75 However, Misirkov never mentioned the ancient Macedonian ancestry or direct lineage of the present FYROM Slavs. He does not mention any mixing of Slavic blood with Macedonian; whether the pre-Slavonic invasion Macedonians were Greek or not at this point is inconsequential. He absolutely and definitely mentions in all his papers that the "Macedonians" he was talking about are of Slavonic descent. "Macedonia is a land of old Slavonic culture and no one will succeed in rooting out this old Slavonic culture." 76 Moscow found in Krste Misirkov the inspirational thoughts for revolution and the VMRO (or IMRO) as its militant arm coordinated with Bulgarian communists the movement that in "the Fifth Commitern Congress in 1924 called on Balkan communist parties to cooperate for the establishment of a united and independent Macedonian State within the framework of a Balkan communist federation." 77

John Foster Fraser, a traveler through the area, described the Krushevo uprising:

The dreadful autumn of 1903, when the Bulgarian insurrection broke out in Macedonia, has left deep traces. Then the insurgent forces were computed at 32,000 men, armed and drilled. Bridges were blown up and bombs thrown. Krushevo was occupied by insurgents, against whom the Turks and Bashi-Bazouks came in force. After defeating them the troops entered the town, massacred seventy-seven people, burnt and pillaged 570 shops and houses; hundreds of people were ill-treated and beaten and women were violated 78

Gaston Routier includes the following statement from the IMRO on August 2, 1903:

In the name of freedom and humanity, without distinction of races or even religion, we are taking up guns to fight tyranny and inhumanity. We consider as our brothers, all those who are suffering in the dark Empire of the sultan, Bulgarians, Greeks, Serbs, Rumanians, and even Muslims and Turkish peasants. 79

The above statement is the brief beginning of the Manifesto of Kushevo. Douglas Dakin affirms, "[t]he emergence of this state of affairs was preceded by a number of violent incidents, such as the Ilinden rising, during which Bulgarians were alleged to have revolted against the Turks on 2 August 1903 in the town of Kruschevo, near Monastir, where the population was overwhelmingly Greek." 80 H. N. Brailsford who wrote about Macedonia and its people, dedicated Chapter V of his book to the Ilinden Uprising of 1903 stating that was strictly a Bulgarian movement. 81

The Treaty of Bucharest of 1913

In July of 1908, a coup d’état was made in the Ottoman Empire. The new ‘Young Turk’ 82 rulers declared their wish to grant rights to the enslaved nations as well as provide them with opportunities to take part in the political life of the Empire. To counter the new reality, the IMRO suspended the armed fight and adopted more appropriate peaceful methods.

The Organization transformed itself into two legal parties seated in Thessaloniki [the Union of Bulgarian Constitutional Clubs and the People’s Federate Party (Bulgarian section)], that took part in the elections and sent deputies to the Ottoman Parliament. Nevertheless, the Young Turks abandoned their promises and resumed the previous policy of discrimination. The two Bulgarian parties in Geographic Macedonia and Thrace were banned. On October 5, 1908, taking advantage of the above upheaval, Bulgaria declared its independence keeping its territories including Eastern Rumelia. One day later Austria annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina and Crete declared union with Greece.

Borders of the Balkan Countries as of 10 August 1913

It is routinely publicized that the Peace Treaty of Bucharest split "Macedonia" into three segments. According to this information, Greece received 51.56%, Serbia 38.32%, and Bulgaria 10.12%. The above information is incorrect, because it is based on false assumptions. The first assumption is that "Macedonia" was the homeland of the "Macedonian" people given to three neighboring countries without consideration of the "Macedonians." The second assumption is that the territories of Macedonia at the end of the Second Balkan War included the present territory of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Bulgarian Oblast of Blagoevgrad and the Greek Province of Macedonia. The third false assumption is that the Peace Treaty signed in Bucharest, Romania, on the 10th of August 1913 83 split the territory as it appears as the second assumption into three parts. The fourth assumption is that the Treaty of Bucharest includes an expiry clause.

First Assumption: the Existence of the "Macedonian" People in 1913

One of the main cries of the FYROM Slavs is that Greece denies the existence of the "Macedonian" people. The FYROM historians claim that the "Macedonians" are the ones who created the Ilinden Uprising, but as we saw above, the insurgents were Bulgarians living in geographic Macedonia. Not one of them was ethnic "Macedonian." The FYROM Slavs further state that the Carnegie report uses the term "Macedonian" in ethnic sense. However, the Carnegie report refers only the Bulgarians and Greeks living in Macedonia. When the report suggests the adjective "Macedonian," it clearly means and without any exception all inhabitants of Macedonia in the spirit of the Manifesto of Krushevo. 84 As pointed out above, the Slavic people of Macedonia kept declaring themselves ethnically Bulgarian. Brailsford, in his famous book regarding Macedonia, used the term Macedonian as a geographic term that encompassed Turks, Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Albanians, Gypsies, Jews, Dönme, Vlachs and others. 85

Second Assumption: Macedonian Territories in 1913

The area of Macedonia would have been "51.56% to Greece, 38.32% to Serbia, 10.12% to Bulgaria" if Macedonia included the FYROM areas north of Gradsko and Bakarno Gumno - Krushevo. Nevertheless, that is not the case. Macedonia in the beginning of the 20th century did not include areas north of Gradsko. R. G. D. Laffan explains:

By ‘Old Serbia’ I mean the central belt round Skoplye [Skopje], Kumanovo, and the Kossovo plain, including the old Sandjak of Novi Pazar, which ran up to the Bosnian frontier. Here are the towns and sacred places of mediaeval Serbia; Skoplye, where Stephen Dushan was crowned emperor; Pech (Ipek), the ancient

See of the Serbian patriarchs; Dechani, the famous monastery and home of Serbian traditions; Kossovo, where the Serbian power went down before the Turks. By "Serbian Macedonia" I mean the middle Vardar valley below Veles and the hilly country which lies between that and the lake of Ohrida. 86

The above has been collaborated by other natives to that area such as Fanula Dimitriou – Papazoglu stating that Macedonia's territory reached as north as the area of Bakarno Gumno in the towns of Krushevo and Prilep, 87 which means that the areas north of Gradsko were not included in Macedonia even in modern times. If the whole area of the FYROM was within Macedonia in 1913 when the Treaty of Bucharest was signed, is it not interesting that the borders were moved in 1917 and later by 100 kilometers to the south? Taking into consideration the above, one could argue that the division was more or less 70% to Greece, 11 % to Bulgaria, and 16% to Serbia and a strip of 3% to Albania." The Academy of Athens elevates the territories of the Macedonian Homeland belonging presently to Greece to 90%. 88

In the same interview, Fanи Dimitriou-Papazoglou told the author that before WWII Skopje was an Old Serbian town and the Capital of the pre-War Vardarska Banovina. She also stated that the only reason for it being the capital of the newly emerged People's Republic of Macedonia was that it was the largest city in the area. 89 Bitola was too small and very close to Greece and its influence.

Immediately after the division of the Ottoman vilayets of Selanik and Manastir, the Greek government established the "General Administration of Macedonia" for its part of Macedonia, officially recognizing and utilizing the term Macedonia first after the fall of the Byzantine Empire. 90 “The Treaty of Neuilly of 1919 ‘corrected’ the few errors of the Treaty of Bucharest of 1913 and re-christened Serbia's and Greece's part of Macedonia South Serbia and Northern Greece respectively.” 91

Third Assumption: The Treaty of Bucharest set the present borders of the Balkans

The present borders of the Balkan states are the result of a number of treaties, protocols, and conventions that followed armed insurrections, political upheavals, and interventions of various great powers protecting their own interests.

Starting in the beginning of the 19th century, the Treaty of London dated 6 July 1827 (England, France, and Russia) recognized the autonomy of Greece without defining Greece’s territorial boundaries.

With the Treaty of Adrianople dated 14 September 1829 (Russia, England, France, and Ottoman State), the Ottoman acknowledged the previous Protocol dated 22 March 1829. It referred to the mapping of the new Greek State borders that were defined and confirmed only to the district of Sterea Hellas by another Protocol of London dated 3 February 1830 (England, France and Russia).

The Protocol of London dated 26 September 1831 (England, France, Russia, and Ottoman State) determined that the 1830 border line between Greece and the Ottoman Empire had to be expanded for geographical reasons. It took the Great Power a period of six months to agree to a definite border.

At the International Convention of Constantinople dated 11 December 1876 (Great Powers and Ottoman Empire) concerning the definition of the Bulgarian borderline, the Russian minister of Foreign Affairs (Ignatief), argued that the borders should only ensure the safety of the Christians in the area and not national issues.

The most controversial of all treaties is the Treaty of Saint Stefano (Yeşilköy) of Constantinople dated 3 March 1878 signed between Russia and the Ottoman Empire. Under that treaty, Bulgaria gained autonomy from the Danube to the Aegean Sea, including in its autonomy the areas of Eastern Rumelia, Western Thrace, and Macedonia apart from the districts of Thessaloniki and Halkidiki.

The London Agreement (30 May 1878) between Russia and England issued an amendment regarding the Bulgarian borderline. Russia was forced to abandon the idea of the “Great Bulgaria” and the creation of a new hegemony confined between the River Danube and the mountain range of Haemus (Stara Planina or Balkan). The western borders were adjusted according to ethnic criteria.

Because of the above Agreement, the great powers convened in Berlin and on 13 July 1878 decided that the London Agreement signed on 30 May 1878 was valid. A few years later (24 March 1881), Greece and the Ottoman Empire signed the Pact of Constantinople. It concerned the adjustment of the Greek-Ottoman borders and, as a result, the Ottoman Empire ceded Thessaly and Arta to Greece. The Treaty of Constantinople dated 4 December 1897 (Greece and the Ottoman Empire) slightly altered the Greek-Ottoman borders in Thessaly at the expense of Greece.

Immediately following the First Balkan War, the Bucharest Convention of July 1912 between Greece, Romania, Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria on one the hand and the Ottoman Empire on the other, negotiated the Serbian-Bulgarian and Greek-Bulgarian borders resulting in the area of Kavala ceding to Greece.

The Athens Protocol of 5 May 1913, also known as Koromila – Bosković, determined the borders between Greece and Serbia. Under the protocol, the common border was delineated from Lake Ohrid to the south of Lake Prespa and south of Gevgeli (Gevgelija).

The Treaty of London of 30 May 1913 was agreed upon between the winning allies (Greece, Bulgaria, Montenegro and Serbia) against the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire ceded all European territories except for Albania (which became an independent hegemony) and a small area of Western Thrace near Constantinople. The Ambassadors’ Convention in London that followed issued the decision for Albania’s southern borders on 11 August 1913.

The celebrated Peace Treaty of Bucharest of 10 August 1913 was signed between Greece, Serbia, Romania, and Montenegro on one side and Bulgaria on the other. The treaty defined the Serbian-Bulgarian borders, although through an inserted protocol previously signed between the Serbian and Bulgarian governments (article IV) regarding any "questions relative to the old Serbo-Bulgarian frontier" to "be regulated according to the understanding agreed upon by the two High Contracting Parties stated in the Protocol annexed to the present article." 92 Nevertheless, the borders of Greece and Bulgaria were defined between Mount Beles and the Nestos outfall and the Aegean.

The treaty itself does not mention Macedonia, since Macedonia did not exist as a legal entity; furthermore, it considered only natural boundaries of the states. The treaty is a very short document, but it includes three protocols already agreed upon by bilateral agreements between parties well in advance of the Treaty conference.

The Protocol of Athens agreed upon and signed, as mentioned earlier, by Koromila and Bosković on 5 May 1913. Consequently, under the documents signed above Greece's borders were summarily as follows: Greece acquired Crete and Kavala. The northern border of Greece extended from the north of Korytsa (Korce), between Manastir (Bitola) and Florina, to Doiran, then south of Strumitsa (see the Athens Protocol), Petrich and Nevrokopi (Goce Delcev) (see Treaty of Bucharest) to the mouth of the Nestos (Mesta) River.

The Protocol of Florence among the great powers (England, France, Austria, Russia, Germany, and Italy) dated 17 December 1913 was concerned with the borders of the newly formed State of Albania. The Greek-Albanian borders were demarcated and Greece was called to clear its Northern Epirus territory, which had been occupied by the Greek army.

The Peace Treaty of Neuilly dated 27 November 1919 was endorsed among the Allies (England, France, USA, and Italy) and Bulgaria after its defeat in WWI. Bulgaria ceded further territories to Greece and Serbia, restricting the Bulgarian access to the Aegean. At the same time, Bulgaria and Greece signed a protocol also known as the Politis – Kalvoff Protocol concerning a voluntary mutual migration of minorities and population exchange. The reason for the protocol was that populations of Greeks from Bulgaria and Bulgarians from Greece had moved on their own after the Second Balkan war, and the two countries felt that an official exchange would encourage further movements so that the two countries could eliminate as much as possible most of their respective minorities. Nevertheless, not all people abode by the Protocol. Foteff, an instructor of Bulgarian in the Defense Language Institute, Foreign language Center (DLI-FLC) located in Monterey, CA confided to the author in July 1987 that he was Greek but born in Varna. According to the instructor, his father did not want to move to Greece under the Protocol, because "he lived all his life there, why moving?" However, he further mentioned that his relatives lived in Kavala.

Map of Vilayets of Selanik (Thessaloniki), Manastir (Bitola), and Kosova (Kosovo) in 1913. Indicated subdivisions are Sanjak and Kaza. 93

The Treaty of Sevres dated 10 August 1920 signed between the allied nations and Turkey gave Greece the largest part of Thrace reaching the town of Catalca in Turkey. Greece also received the area of Ionia, Italy and the area of Antalya, while the British and the French occupied Constantinople. In addition, the states of Armenia and Kurdistan were established, concentrating the Ottoman Empire mostly in the area of Ankara.

After the victory of the Turkish forces in 30 August 1922, England, France, Greece, Italy, Turkey, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Belgium, Portugal, Japan, and the United States signed the Peace Treaty of Lausanne on 24 July 1923. The treaty included the Protocol of the mandatory exchange of populations of the Greeks of the newly established Turkish Republic and the Muslims (Turks, Slavs, Greeks, Dönme, Albanians, Gypsies, Pomaks, etc.) of the Kingdom of Greece. The treaty exempted the Muslim populations of Western (Greek) Thrace and the Greek populations of the city of Istanbul. This is the treaty that defined the present Greek-Turkish land borders.

The Cordial Consultation Pact in Ankara of 14 September 1933, between Greece and Turkey stabilized their common borders. In addition, Greece, Yugoslavia, Romania, and Turkey signed the Balkan Pact in Athens on 9 February 1934 under which they all accepted the existent regime in the Balkans as a permanent one.

Twenty-one states of the Allies and the Axis states during WW II (Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, and Finland) signed the Treaty of Paris of 10 February 1947. This treaty reinstated Albania as an independent state, and Bulgaria withdrew its annexation of Eastern Greek Macedonia and Greek Thrace.

Fourth Assumption: The Treaty of Bucharest has an expiry

The FYROM Slavs created this assumption for internal consumption starting with the misinterpretation of President Gligorov's statement requesting the revision of the Treaty of Bucharest, but externally it indicates ignorance because treaties setting borders are permanent. The only treaties that include in their text an expiry are treaties of leasing with a usual clause of 99 years.

In order for the treaty of Bucharest to be officially re-visited, it would require all signatory countries to exclusively agree to it, something that would be nearly impossible since many countries' national interests and their stability would be directly or indirectly affected. Since this Treaty is one of the fundamental treaties that set some of the borders in the Balkans, a revision or re-negotiation of the treaty would set a chain reaction that would invalidate or alter successive treaties. In the end, the opening and renegotiation of the treaty would not guarantee that the FYROM would gain territories, nor would it guarantee the FYROM's own existence.

Chapter 5.

The Transmutation of a Slav people to Macedonians

Policy of Mutation 94

The spirit of the revolt that ended with the creation of the Republic of Krushevo in 1903 was the primary purpose of the VMRO, which wanted to establish an independent geographic Macedonia under the influence of Bulgaria in a form of the cantonized Switzerland. 95 The Krushevo Manifesto called for all Macedonians, "regardless of faith, nationality, sex or conviction," to take arms and liberate Macedonia from the Ottoman yoke and to secure "Macedonia for the Macedonians," the implication being that the Macedonians were a nationality. 96 The reality, however, was that the membership to the VMRO was exclusive to Bulgarians. 97 It was the only way to persuade the Western powers the need to liberate them.

On 7 June 1946, Stalin is quoted saying to the Bulgarian Delegation consisting of G. Dimitrov, V. Kolarov, and T. Kostov,

Cultural autonomy must be granted to Pirin Macedonia within the framework of Bulgaria. Tito has shown himself more flexible than you - possibly because he lives in a multiethnic state and has had to give equal rights to the various peoples. Autonomy will be the first step towards the unification of Macedonia, but in view of the present situation there should be no hurry on this matter. Otherwise, in the eyes of the Macedonian people the whole mission of achieving Macedonian autonomy will remain with Tito and you will get criticism. You seem to be afraid of Kimon Georgiev, you have involved yourselves too much with him and do not want to give autonomy to Pirin Macedonia. That a Macedonian consciousness has not yet developed among the population is of no account. No such consciousness existed in Belarus either when we proclaimed it a Soviet Republic. However, later it was shown that Belarusian people did in fact exist. 98

In the beginning of the WW II, the ethnic set up of geographic Macedonia had changed due to expulsions, exchanges, migration, etc. The Bulgarian part of Macedonia was inhabited mostly by Slavs and Bulgarians, but in the Greek part the territory was inhabited mostly by Greeks. However, in Serbian Macedonia the population was Slavic, and since Bulgaria had pursued a nationalistic policy over the Slavs of Serbian Macedonia, the Yugoslavian communist government decided to put an end to the possibility of future Bulgarian claims. At the same time, Yugoslavia, needing a port in the Aegean, found it easier to "Macedonize" the Slavs and then claim the land of Macedonia proper with the port of Thessaloniki as its prize. 99

The communist party of Yugoslavia thought it needed five steps in order to achieve its goal. One was to give land to the new nationality within the framework of Federal Yugoslavia.

The second was to codify the language of the new nationality.

The third was the establishment of the Autocephalous "Macedonian" Orthodox Church which "was rather embarrassing" considering that the newly form communist regime was atheistic. 100 By doing it, all ecclesiastical canons of establishing a separate Church were broken. A government cannot establish a Church by a decree and expect it to be canonical. 101

The fourth was the revision, by re-interpretation and mistranslation, of all historical documents so that they connect the ancient Macedonians and their land to the newly established republic and its people. One cannot find any original map before WWII with the term Macedonia in the area of present day FYROM.

By a proper manipulation of historical facts and personages, it was expected, that the material foundations of the new nation would be cemented, giving credence to the argument, that the new nation did not emerge arbitrarily in 1944, but that it had a past of its own, well over 13 centuries, back to the time of the descend of the Slavic tribes on Macedonia 102

The next step was the unification of the Macedonian lands. The first launching of the “Macedonian” myth against Greece began with an article in Борба – Borba (meaning Battle), the official newspaper of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, under the title of “Aegean Macedonia,” published on 21 June 1945. This occurred while the communists were preparing the attack against Greece in Buljkes, present day Bački Maglić, a town about 20 kms WNW of Novi Sad, Vojvodina, Serbia.

Borba's article clearly stated that there were three parts of Macedonia – Vardar, Aegean, and Pirin and that the “Macedonians” living in the Aegean Macedonia wait to be liberated by their brothers from the north. 103 The above article did not take into consideration the fact that at least in Greek Macedonia, 1.5 million Greeks and a few numbers of Slavophones of Greek national conscience lived at that time. This fact apparently is still inconsequential to the FYROM national planners, since according to their "information," at least one million of the Greeks living in the Aegean Macedonia are ethnic "Macedonians" that is Slavs. 104

On the Bulgarian side, the Macedonian Slavs have been considered Bulgarians and this is the point of collision between the Bulgarians and all the Slavic peoples of the former Yugoslavia. 105 The planners of communist Yugoslavia in the past and of the FYROM at the present have worked and are working very hard to maintain their cultural distance of the FYROM Slavs from both Serbian and Bulgarian in order to maintain the "Macedonian" identity of the Slavs. 106

The Slavs of the Yugoslav Macedonia and the Civil War of Greece

The civil war in Greece was the continuation of the fighting between the government forces and communist forces that started immediately after the occupation of Greece by Axis powers. On 12 October 1944, Greece was liberated from the Nazis and the National Unity government returned from Cairo, Egypt with George Papandreou as prime minister.

The British, who had military control of Greece as of 14 October 1944, demanded the end of the communist guerilla, but the communists refused to disarm. The first phase of the Civil War began on 3 December 1944 when a banned demonstration took place in Athens. The street fighting between the communists and the British occupation forces during December produced the Varzika Agreement of 9 February 1945, between the British and the political wing of the Communist Party of Greece aka KKE.

However, the Macedonian Slavs, supported by the newly formed communist Yugoslavia, continued their efforts. Just a few days after the Varkiza agreement, Macedonian Slav émigrés from Greece formed in Skopje Slavo-macedonian People's Liberation Front (Slavomakedonski narodni osvoboditelni Front) 107 or SNOF and sent armed guerrilla bands back to the border areas of Greek Macedonia. 108 At that time the United States, being cognizant of the attempt of the Government of Yugoslavia's intentions to Macedonize the Slavs, issued through the Secretary of State Stetinius an air gram stating:

The Department has noted with considerable apprehension increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia, emanating principally from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav Partisan and other sources, with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected state. This Government considers talk of Macedonian "nation." Macedonian "Fatherland", or Macedonia "national consciousness" to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece. 109

In May 1946, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Albania started funneling support to Communist guerrillas aiming to destabilize Greece and overthrow its government. This was the beginning of the Greek Civil War. The three provinces that form Northern Greece, Macedonia, Thrace, and Epirus, became the epicenter of the fight due to their rugged terrain and their common boundaries with Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. The areas of western and central Macedonia were destroyed, which forced the inhabitants to leave their homes and become internal refugees. The former SNOF fighters returned to Greece siding with Greek Communists.

In August of 1947, Josip Broz a.k.a. Tito (People’s Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) and Georgi Dimitrov (People’s Republic of Bulgaria) agreed to form the Confederation of Macedonia in the Castle of Lake Bled, Slovenia. The Confederation never materialized because Tito and Stalin came to odds with each other and Dimitrov had a change of heart.

The help from Albania and Yugoslavia continued, although the communists could not materialize their goal of taking over Greece. In the meantime, the constant fighting, even with the help of 40,000 British troops and the financial support from the UK, could not help the Greek government much, since communist forces, aided by the neighboring Yugoslavia and Albania, continued to openly support the insurgents.

The United States' Greece- Turkey Act of April 1947 helped the Greek government in fighting the war. When the communists realized the upcoming loss of their goal, they formed the "Free Greek Government." Utilizing a force of about 20,000 to 30,000 irregulars, the communists brought the war near to Athens. 110 In March of 1948, the KKE adopted the tactics of Paedomazoma or the violent kidnapping of children between 5 and 17 years of age, but in a number of cases the children were much younger. It was the replay of the janissary tactics of the Turks. 111

By some accounts, the heinous crime of kidnapping was conceived by Yugoslavia's No. 2 man, the Slovenian Edvard Kardelj, although the "Provisional Government" and "Democratic Army of Greece" officially decided on the collection of children in the areas under their control so that they could be moved to safer areas such as Albania and Yugoslavia. The truth is that these children were sent to more communist than to those two countries for political indoctrination and "Macedonization," which included teaching the newly discovered "Macedonian" language and the new version of the history of Macedonia. Alexander the Great had become a Slav! The movie Eleni depicted that reality in a very graphic manner.

The civil war left more than 90,000 graves, 700,000 persons displaced inside the country, and an economy severely disrupted, all of which left deep scars in the Greek society. A rift developed between the ethnic Greeks and the ethnic Slavs who tried to take advantage of the unfortunate event by appropriating territories from Greek Macedonia and turn them to the Slavic motherland. 112 Ioannis Bougas, a Greek émigré who lives in Montreal, describes the ordeals of Irene Damopoulou who was kidnapped from her village of St. Demetrius of Greek Western Macedonia. After wandering through the various locales of the communist paradise for eight years, she returned home. She told how she was forced to study the "Macedonian" language because her village was classified as "Macedonian" not Greek, although it was in Greece and her family had declared themselves as being Greek to communist authorities. 113

The civil war cost Greece an estimated 28,000 children (documented about 24,000) who were kidnapped in order to be taught the newly discovered “Macedonism.” 114 In other words, they were Slavonized and were indoctrinated into the communist dogma. In an interview with, Baba Donka, my mother’s maternal aunt from Monastiri (present-day Bitola, The FYROM), she told me the story about the conditions of the transfer of these kidnapped children (see Appendices F and G).

Chapter 6.

The Establishment of The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (The FYROM)

The independence of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or FYROM in 1991 was based on the decision by Tito to create a republic within a Balkan federation that would include Yugoslavia and Bulgaria under the name Macedonia, incorporating the Greek, Bulgarian, and Yugoslav parts of Macedonia. Tito, encouraged by Stalin, was determined to succeed regardless of the means, which in this case meant a civil war of the "progressive" forces of the communist world against the "monarchofascists" of Greece. The People's Republic of Macedonia within the communist or AVNOJ Yugoslavia 115 declared its independence almost 50 years later, continuing the same expansionistic policies towards its neighbors as the AVNOJ Yugoslavia. The newly independent "Republic of Macedonia," included only the south part of the territories of Vardarska Banovina, a pre-WWII Yugoslav area.

Although the creation of the VMRO was outdated and a clear ultra-nationalistic Bulgarian initiative, the communists created the new republic with the sole purpose of creating a new ethnic group, the "Macedonian" which, after its creation, had to have a direct lineage from the ancient Macedonians and naturally had to have its own land, or rather "ancestral" land. In order to achieve this goal, the creators of the "ethnic" Macedonian nation had to re-write history by first de-Hellenizing the ancient Macedonians. Once they did, they could find or invent a means to connect the Slavic people of the "Republic of Macedonia" to the now "non-Hellenic" ancient Macedonians. This is what Ambassador Kofos called, the politics of mutation. 116

Penal Code Articles 178-179: Protecting "Macedonism"

Freedom of speech not only in the country, but also in academic institutions regarding the history of the country and the origin of its people is absent (see Appendix K). According the West Balkan Research, the government of the FYROM regulates research in the following manner.

Pursuant to Article 6 of the Law on the Scientific Research Activity (“Official Gazette

of the Republic of Macedonia” Nos.13/96 and 29/02), the fundamental principles of

the scientific research activities are inviolability and protection of human dignity.

They, in turn, are based on the following criteria: freedom of scientific and scholarly

creative work, autonomy and implementation of the findings, diversity of scientific

views and methods, as well as international cooperation. 117

But when the government of the FYROM states “the fundamental principles of the scientific research activities are inviolability and protection of human dignity” it means that nobody can research the matter of their own Macedonism or the status of ancient Macedonians, which has been officially established through political means. Those two topics are not subject to research in the country. Research on how the Slavs became Macedonians seeking primary sources is considered an insult to the human dignity of the “Macedonians” i.e. Slavs. Anyone researching anything on the history of the Slavic tribes that constitute the Slavic population of the FYROM attempting to prove that the population is Slavic and has nothing to do nothing to do with the ancient Macedonians is subject to prosecution based on the above law and articles 178 and 179 of the Penal Code below.

One of the most controversial laws of the FYROM is Article 179 of the penal code, which allows the State to indict anyone for offending the "Macedonian" State and anti-"Macedonism" similar to the Penal Code 301 of the Turkish Republic which prohibits acts, expressions, etc. that offend Turkishness. Based on this law, the government of the FYROM has prosecuted many citizens of the FYROM, especially of Bulgarian descent. Fearing prosecution under this law, publishing companies routinely refuse to publish documents that might remotely offend the state.

The “Criminal Code of the Republic of Macedonia” was enacted on 23 July 1996 and came into effect on 1 November 1996. Two of its articles, 178 and 179, safeguard the reputation of the republic. The articles state,

Offending the reputation of the Republic of Macedonia

Article 178

A person, who with the intention to ridicule shall publicly make a mockery of the Republic of Macedonia, its flag, arm or anthem, shall be punished with imprisonment of three months to three years.

Ridiculing the Macedonian people and the nationalities

Article 179

A person, who with the intention to ridicule shall publicly make a mockery of the Macedonian people and the nationalities, shall be punished with imprisonment of three months to three years. 118

At first glance, one sees nothing wrong in protecting the symbols of the country or with deterring a citizen from mocking the ethnicity of another citizen. Nevertheless, the law that protects the symbols of the country and the ethnicity of fellow citizens is the same law that throws citizens into prison for offending “Macedonism.” One of the most celebrated cases forced Xavier Solana, the head of the EU diplomacy to intervene on behalf of Bishop Jovan of Ohrid. In addition, in a letter to the chair of the Commission of the European Union Bishops’ Conference, Roman Catholic Bishop Josef Homeier, Solana stated,

The case of Bishop Jovan of Ochrid and Exarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, who has been imprisoned for allegedly inciting religious and national intolerance can be seriously disputed, and thus endanger the ascension of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the European Union. 119

Prof. Nina Gatzoulis, President of the Pan-Macedonian Association of the United States, shared the following e-mail with me after I agreed not to publish it with the sender's name and e-mail address. I am publishing the text as it was received with the exception of the email address of the sender.

From: xxxxx_xxxxxxxx@xxxxx.com

To: nina@panmacedonian.info

Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 9:42 AM

Subject: my drama

I'm from FYROM and I'm an young drama writer. I have a text which has very large artistic value and that is opinion from very relevant critics (if you wish, I can give you the names and addresses of the critics). In my text there are a lot of sentences they say that Alexander the Great is a Greek, the king Philip is a Greek and the history of ancient Macedonia is one of the glorious parts of the Greek history. Because of this words, the publishers refuse to publish my drama. So, I ask for a help in publication in FYROM and translation and publication in Greece and Serbia. I hope, you will find the way to make you sure that my intentions are true and honest.

Officials of NATO and EU countries consider the name dispute that Greece has brought up as ridiculous, and that could be the case had successive Slavic governments in the FYROM confined themselves to the name. However, the problem is wider than the simple name Macedonia; most importantly, the problem is what foreign governments do not see.

Upon the end of WWI and the abdication of the Kaiser, the Provisional National Assembly of Austria representing the new state called Republik Deutschösterreich or “German-Austrian Republic” formed the Provisional Government of German Austria. The allies fearing future ramifications of the inclusion of the word "German" in the name of Austria, insisted that Austria changes its name removing the term "German" from it. Thus according to the provisions of the Peace Treaty of St. Germain-en-Layé, signed on September 10, 1919, Austria had to change its name to Republik Österreich or Austrian Republic. The website of the Austrian parliament explains in detail the reasons and the fears of the allied powers regardless of the fact that Austria did not consider those fears valid. The fact is that the same countries that find the position of Greece on the name issue ridiculous were the same countries that did not find their own position ridiculous threatened by the name "German" insisting on the name change of Austria. 120 On October 17, 1919, four days after the Constituent National Assembly adopted the treaty the name of the state was changed to “Republic of Austria.” As ridiculous as Greece’s objections might appear to other countries, the fact is that “failure to understand that others perceive their national interests differently from the way we perceive those interests is a constant source of problems.” 121

Besides the propaganda issue of “Macedonians in bondage,” the FYROM government published the history book of the “Macedonian Military” that included the history of ancient Macedonia and an Army associated with their perceived territories of Macedonia. 122 To be exact the Military Academy of the FYROM funded the book, which after Greece filed a demarche, the government of the FYROM withdrew, but it is now on sale by the author. Simultaneously, the Slavic pupils and youth have been constantly bombarded with anti-Hellenic propaganda through their schoolbooks.

Historically speaking, similar publications appeared in Argentina before the Falkland war because they placed the mentality of the Argentinean people and encouraged the regime to attack a British territory. CDR Chennette states, "A generation of school children had been taught that the Malvinas were Argentine. Postage stamps proclaimed that the Islands were a part of the Argentine Republic. Argentine maps labeled the Islands as "occupied territory." 123

Ljubco Georgievski, the founder and former chairman of VMRO-DPMNE, 124 a former Prime Minister of the FYROM and a current Member of Parliament in the FYROM disagrees with the prevailing scholarship of the FYROM populace. In his commentary regarding the name of his country, Georgievski clarifies that the Slavic population of the FYROM has nothing to do with the ancient Macedonians. It should be noted that Mr. Georgievski holds a Bulgarian passport as do more than 100,000 citizens of the FYROM. 125

[I]nstead of calming down the tension, over the last few months, we witnessed a culmination of our new proofs regarding Ancient Macedonia. The media were competing to present more and more proofs for the imaginary origin of Ancient Macedonia. We saw a series of statements of many, unfortunately, popular intellectuals, who, running from the clear situation, contributed to the complication of the problem. I will give an example with the newly formed stupidity expressed in the term “classical Macedonian language” (language in Ancient Macedonia as a basis of modern Macedonian language?!). The whole story about Ancient Macedonia sounds undoubtedly very nice. However, there is a great problem, a huge hole of about 2,000 years during which we have neither oral nor written tradition, nor a single scientific argument! But this is another story. 126

The problem is that in the FYROM Slavs do not want to believe that they are not genetically Macedonians, since the myth of Macedonism is being taught since 1945 in every occasion possible and at all social levels and lifestyles. Lately the new "proof" of their Macedonism comes from the Rosetta Stone as Skopje wants it to be. It is a fact known by a multitude of scholars that the Rosetta Stone includes a decree written in hieroglyphic, Egyptian demotic, and Greek (the language of the administration). However, the FYROM Slavs disagree! In their opinion, which no one else shares, the middle writing on the stone belongs to the ancient "Macedonian" language! There is not a single scientific argument to support such an opinion. Skopje's Academy of Sciences and Arts remains silent on this issue.

The fact is that the middle writing is Egyptian demotic which was the native script used for daily purposes. It appeared circa 650 BC long before the troops of Alexander the Great conquered and occupied Egypt in 332 BC. 127 It would be illogical for the Macedonians living so close with the rest of the Greeks to have a script for their "language" deferring so much from the Greek, while it is proven that Thracians and even Etruscans used various versions of Greek alphabets. Furthermore, it would be unfounded for such script to be found in Egypt, but nowhere in the Balkans and especially in the Macedonian Homeland, or in any other places in the world that Macedonians passed through or lived.

Professor P. Ksohellis of Aristotle University in Thessaloniki and scientists of the Center of Research of School Books and Cross-cultural Education conducted a ten-year research program regarding books of History and Maternal Language of the FYROM and four additional Balkan States. The results of their study demonstrate the FYROM’s constant violation of the Interim Agreement of 1995 with Greece.

I have interviewed Prof. Nina Gatzoulis on the subject. She said,

The Ambassador of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Mr. Dimitrov during a recent briefing in Washington D.C. tried to convince a few congressional staffers not to support HR 521 and 306. 128 Regarding the history books of the FYROM public education, where the propaganda against Greece emanates, he stated: “Even though the mentioned textbooks do not include any of the alleged nationalist propaganda, it has to be known that they are no longer in use, since a new history curriculum was developed for all grades in 2003”… In answer to Ambassador Dimitrov’s arguments a recent article, can be brought up, published by the well-known Greek newspaper Eleftherotypia on October 10, 2005. There are other studies regarding the history and other texts of the FYROM pupils that have been done, such as Dr. Evangelos Kofos’ study, The Vision of a “Greater Macedonia”, as well as various air produced documentaries, such as Papahelas’ Envelopes, aired in the winter of 2004. However since Eleftherotypia’s article is a most recent one, it is used as an argument to Mr. Dimitrov’s statement: “The new curriculum was drafted in accordance with guidelines of the Council of Europe's EUROCLIO, an association of European instructors of history, which emphasize the use of historically accurate maps to illustrate political, ethnic and other developments during the specific historical period”.

Nevertheless, according to Prof. Gatzoulis nothing has changed in the FYROM. Xhelal Neziri, a journalist from the FYROM explains that the schoolbooks of the country present the map of "Greater Macedonia." 129 The following clipping verifies the above statement.

The clipping is taken from a recent FYROM schoolbook depicting the meeting of the Bulgarian King Petar Deljan, and the Serbian Prince Tihomir before the execution of the latter by the former. On the text of the book, the words "Macedonian population" is in the FYROM Slavic language, but on the picture and above the heads of the people to the right, circled in black, the word "Bulgarians" in Greek is equally clear.

Simple changes such as above are not out of the ordinary in the FYROM. The Mi-An claims to be one of the oldest “Macedonian” publishing companies. Its website states that in the beginning of the 20th century three vilayets existed in Macedonia, the one of Bitola, Thessaloniki and Skopje." 130 The fact is that there was no vilayet of Skopje. The three vilayets were of Manastir (Bitola), Selanik (Thessaloniki), and Kosova (Kosovo). Skopje was part of the Vilayet of Kosovo. 131

Another example comes from the history books of the FYROM where they state that the ancient Macedonians spoke a language related to the Greek, but it was not Greek. The two peoples could understand one another. 132 Nevertheless, the same argument applies to the ancient Athenians, Spartans, Locrians, etc. since there was no common Greek language until 265 BC, the year that Aristeas completed the codification of the Greek language.

Chapter 7.

Nationalism and Stability

“Macedonism”

Nationalism has been omnipresent in every society since time immemorial, and it has been the subject of numerous studies especially after the 19th century. Whether one classifies it as ideology or movement, nationalism is responsible for many events in the human history.

Detailed definitions of what constitutes a nation varies from person to person, but in general, a nation is a group of people with consanguinity, common language, common customs, common past history and common aspirations for the future. Per Joseph Stalin, "a nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make up manifested in a common culture." 133

Ernest Renan describes the nation as "a soul, a spiritual principle…To have common glories in the past, a common will in the present; to have accomplished great things together, to wish to do so again, that is the essential condition for being a nation." 134 In addition, Max Weber feels that a nation is undefined in terms of a certain criterion seeing the nation as a gathering of ethnic communities or populations unified by a myth of common descent. 135 The above three definitions are considered the classic definitions of a nation.

Nationalism turns devotion to the nation into principles or programs. It thus contains a different dimension from mere patriotism, which can be a devotion to one's country or nation devoid of any project for political action. One cannot confuse nationalism with patriotism or even xenophobia. Patriotism is defined as love of one's country or zeal in the defense of the interests of one's country, and xenophobia is an unreasonable fear, distrust, or hatred of strangers, foreigners, or anything perceived as foreign or different.

"In nationalist doctrine, language, race, culture, and sometimes even religion, constitute different aspects of the same primordial entity, the nation." 136 Nationalism takes on different names and concepts such as religious, conservative, liberal, fascist, communist, cultural, political, protectionist, integrationist, separatist, irredentist, etc.

James G. Kellas argues that "nationalism is both an ideology and a behaviour." 137 Using this definition, we can see the creation and evolution of nationalism of the former Yugoslav republics, and particularly the FYROM, in view of the issues raised after the establishment of the People's (later Socialist) Republic of Macedonia and definitely after its independence. Although some types of nationalism use simple methods to justify their existence, the conception of nationalistic methods in the former Yugoslavia are more complex employing convoluted methods and myths.

Ivan Banac states, "the Slovenes acquired a national consciousness only in the nineteenth century and ... the Montenegrins, Macedonians, and Bosnia-Hercegovinian Muslims...are the products of twentieth century mutations in South Slavic national affinities and are, indeed, still in the process of formation." 138 Banac perceived that the whole national problem in Yugoslavia can be seen as the product of competing and incompatible nationalist ideologies, some medieval and some modern. 139 In the case of the FYROM, the nationalism is expressed in the specific form surrounding the myth of a Macedonian descent and that is why the FYROM Slav nationalism is Macedonism.

Besides Greece, both Bulgaria and the FYROM Albanians find the sense of Macedonism a product of imagination based on faulty assumptions in order to satisfy the agenda of the FYROM Slavs. The President of Bulgaria during an official visit to Sweden on June 20, 1993, declared to the newspaper Svenska Dugbladed, "The created after WWII and Comitern “Macedonian nation” is a crime and both Titoism and Stalinism are responsible for it.” Arben Xhaferi, the leader of an Albanian Party, accused Gligorov that he usurped the history of his neighbors and that “Macedonism” is fake and it is held by a myth. Paddy Ashdown the Fourth High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, stated in 2000 “The FYROM is a time-bomb in the Balkans” externalizes a fact that very few people will be able to deny it. 140

Arben Xhaferi, the Albanian leader of a political party in the FYROM sees the matter from a different point of view:

First, a centaurian image of the nation is being asserted to show that the Macedonians are both an ancient and a Slavic nation. However, you can only be one of the two as it is impossible to be both ancient and Slavic. Still, they are in shortage of historical facts to corroborate either of the two. They may create a new nation. However, they should not do it by stealing the historical legacy of the other Balkan peoples… We know who Cyril and Methodius were and what they did. It is also known who Samuil was. His gravestone says that he was a Bulgarian king. In general, reality proves the concept of Macedonism wrong. Historical facts are written and unchangeable, the rest is an illusion. It is the problem with national identity, with the dire economic straits, and with interethnic relations. Dangerously, instead of a serious approach to them, what is being asserted is a set of illusions, the greatest being the myth of a fast accession to NATO and the EU. I think that membership of the Euro-Atlantic structures will be impossible without a solution to the great identity problem because Greece is bound to veto it.” 141

Macedonism is rooted deeply into the soul of the Slavs reaching points that no other group has reached before and without any evidence or proof that they have direct lineage from the ancient Macedonians. Evangelos Kofos brings a very good example depicting the extent of irrational and scientifically baseless assumptions, wishful hypotheses, and misrepresentations of facts by the FYROM Slavs, and although the official version does not adopt these ruminations, it does accept them by keeping silent.

A few years ago a Kratka lstorija na Makedonija [Short History of Macedonia] appeared in Australia summarizing the perceptions of the followers of this movement. Denying that 'Macedonians' are, or have ever been, either Slavs or Greeks, it revealed that the Macedonians-a separate people- appeared 124 years after the cataclysm and spread from Macedonia to Bulgaria and Asia Minor. Not only was Alexander's empire 'Macedonian', but also the Byzantine Empire. Thus, Constantinople, not Thessaloniki should be the capital of a resurrected Macedonian empire. The ancient Macedonians and the present 'Macedonians' spoke and continue to speak a Macedonian language which is neither Greek nor Slavonic. In their pantheon of heroes and saints are Alexander, Aristotle and Democritus, Cyril and Methodius, Tsar Samuel, Goce Delcev, and the leaders of the Slav-Macedonian organizations which participated in the Greek Resistance and the Greek Civil War. A similar treatise was published in Makedonija (Melbourne), 30 July-21 August 1986, reprinted from Glas na Makedoncite. The following excerpts are particularly revealing: "For almost three hundred years we have been taught under cruel circumstances that we are Sloveni-Macedonians are dead and we are different people - 'Macedonian Slavians' ... Slavianism for us Macedonians is a deadly destructive political, moral and national force which aims to eradicate Macedonianism completely .... Politically, once we become Slavs we automatically lose any significance as descendants of the ancient Macedonians.... By calling ourselves Slavs we legalize this robbery by the Greeks [of the ancient Macedonians].... For us, Macedonian revolutionaries, Macedonianism gives wholeness to our being, past, present and future. It is inner liberation from foreign imposed ideas, and confidence in our ability to be what we have been and will again be.... If we remain silent, we will remain Slavs, and as Slavs we have no legal right to anything Macedonian…" 142

The above goes hand to hand with the publishing of an article in Nova Makedonija, the oldest government supported newspaper of Skopje. On 04 October 1997 under the title "Neo-Methods," a commentary by Dimitar Čulev, stated:

However, according to the paleographic and paleolinguistic research conducted by architect Vasil Iljov from Skopje, it seems that the inhabitants of Macedonia, Serbia, and Bulgaria are descendants of the “same people that spoke and wrote in an ancient Macedonian language and alphabet 7,000 years before Christ.” The alphabet was Cyrillic, whereas the language, according to the amateur linguist, was actually an “Aegean language,” also called ancient Macedonian language. If the above method of historical appropriation is applied to this amazing discovery, we could very easily reach the even more astounding discovery that the allegedly so widespread Bulgarian language in the past, as the neo-Russian history of the Southern and Eastern Slays claims, is a dialect of the “Aegean language,” that is, the ancient Macedonian language. 143

The above excerpt is enough to indicate the extremes to which the people of the FYROM go in order to "prove" that they are descendants of the ancient Macedonians. It is important to point out that the ancient Macedonians spoke a Western Aeolian Dialect according to Litus Livius (aka Livy). 144 Moreover, we know that the Romans considered the Macedonians as Hellenic speaking peoples, because Livy wrote, "[General Paulus] took his official seat surrounded by the whole crowd of Macedonians his announcement was translated into Greek and repeated by Gnaeus Octavius the praetor.” 145 If the crowd of Macedonians were not Greek speaking, the translation from Latin into Greek and not into their own language would have been fruitless. In addition, the Cyrillic alphabet was created the AD 9th century by two brothers, Greek monks from Thessaloniki, Greece, Cyril and Methodius. In addition, the Serbs and the Bulgarians are of two different racial stocks, Slavic and Turkic respectively.

The government of the FYROM oftentimes brings the issue of the name as the foundation of stability in that country. The United States Department of State in November 2004, two days after the re-election of President Bush, adopted this rationale, justifying the recognition of the FYROM as "Republic of Macedonia." 146

The case was made that the ultra-nationalists, and especially those of the Slavic diaspora, had called for a referendum in order to void the Ohrid Accord that the Slavic government of the FYROM signed with the Albanian insurgents in August 2001, which terminated the civil war in the FYROM. The rationale was that if the United States had recognized the country under its constitutional name, the ultra nationalists would be defeated and the Accord would prevail. However, after the recognition of their constitutional name by the United States, the uneasy alliance of the Slav majority and the Albanian minority continued.

In relation to the Albanians, the problem is not the constitutional name of the country, but the struggle of the ethnic groups and their will for their individual nationalism to prevail over the other. The Albanian minority, in the fight against the majority, takes advantage of the neighboring Albania and Kosovo fighting against the Slavic majority in a struggle of balancing out the numbers and the influence in the international arena. In relation to the struggle among Slavic groups on who is more "Macedonian" and which direction the country should take not just internally, but also in relation to its neighbors, the matter would be avoided if the Slavs had faced reality. The FYROM government often accuses Greece for destabilizing their country. The fact is that Greece went to great extents to provide economic and financial stability to the FYROM through investments of US $1 Billion and creation of 30,000 jobs. 147 Additionally, Greece invested in the Balkans US $20 billion creating 200,000 jobs, and contributed over US $750,000,000 in development aid to the region. 148 Such effort and money can hardly be called a destabilizing factor.

There are three main players in the FYROM. One is the Serbo-communists who are responsible for the Slavs adopting the name "Macedonia" and its derivatives. The other group is the pro-Bulgarians of VMRO who want to see "Macedonia" eventually unite with mother Bulgaria. An estimated 100,000 Slavs hold Bulgarian passports including the former Prime Minister Lubco Georgevski. 149 The third group, acting as a catalyst, are those who are pro-Greek wanting good relations with Greece based on mutual respect and an understanding of Greece's positive influence on their country. 150 The problem they face is Article 179 of the FYROM Penal Code under which any reference to the fact that the so-called ethnic Macedonians are actually Slavs. Instead, the government of the FYROM does not want to address the issue. It prefers to maintain the status quo in a state that “fiction has turned into fact, myth transformed into reality,” and “propaganda … elevated to the rank of scholarship.” 151

The following example is characteristic of the prevailing mentality. The day after United Nations accepted the FYROM as member, President Gligorov gave a reception in which a group of young people from Australia of FYROM Slavic descent was present. President Gligorov approached them and asked them where they came from. One young man, obviously distraught, said to Gligorov,

“You spoke but you didn't mention the most important thing. You did not say that we are the descendants of Alexander the Great. This could be interpreted that we denied our origin, our ancestors.” I found it difficult to answer immediately, but I finally said to them.

You know I respect your thoughts and beliefs. It is your right. Nevertheless, according to the history of the Macedonian people the prevailing view is that we are Slavs. We came from the Balkans in the sixth, the seventh century and settled on the land called Macedonia. I do not know to what extent a drop of blood of ancient Macedonians runs in our veins. Even so, this is not what gives the identity of our people. It is within your rights, but this should not alter your view about the fact that the Republic of Macedonia is an independent State. 152

Mr. Gligorov continued that the youths "stayed for another half an hour in the hall, I think, and left dissatisfied. " 153

The West has miserably failed to understand the reasons that Greece objects to the name "Macedonia" for the FYROM assuming that a small and weak country does not and will not threaten Greece. The same is very true with Cuba during the missile crisis of 1963. Cuba itself could not threaten the United States; but given a chance, Cuba could in the future become a serious contender of power, regulator of stability and a definite threat to the United States. Skopje can develop to a potential threat to Greece's territorial integrity by finding the right patron. The manner, which Bulgaria acquired the territories of Eastern Rumelia from

Map of Greater Macedonia published by the FYROM Official

newspaper "Nova Makedonija" in 1992 154

the Ottoman Empire in 1885 and how Kosovo gained independence 2008, fully justify Greece's nervousness.

We have to add that the official government of the FYROM is a contributor to Greece's nervousness and insistence on Skopje's change of their Constitutional name and the ethnicity/language/heritage appellations. A small and inimical country could create the right conditions to threaten a bigger country. In international affairs, one cannot compare balance of power solely on present balance of power, one has to consider the potential power that a country could gain that would achieve its goal by any means.

Commemorative banknote published on 15 January 1991 illustrating the city of Thessaloniki, Capital of Greek Macedonia as part of the "Republic of Macedonia"

Under the tile "Anti-Illegal Immigration Group Calls for 'Absolut' Vodka Boycott," Fox News published on Tuesday, April 8, 2008 a report that covered an advertisement of Absolut Vodka, which "showed an 1830s map of Mexico and the United States where most of the modern western United States was still part of Mexico. The ad headline was 'In an Absolut World.'" People got angered and the company issued an apology.

Could anyone imagine how do the Greeks feel when the map is not an advertisement, but appears in FYROM government sponsored publications, including schoolbooks? How would an American feel if the Mexican government was responsible for the map shown above? 155 Can anyone imagine if the government of Mexico published the above map what would the reaction of the official United States be? This is exactly what Greece and to a lesser extent, Bulgaria are facing every single day with the government of the FYROM.

Dora Bakoyanni, Greek Foreign Minister stated the following:

For years we have attempted to send positive messages that we see our neighbors as friends, not enemies. We must work together as much as possible, but in this region the problems cannot be swept under the rug since they repeatedly reappear. There is a photo of Prime Minister Gruevski laying flowers before a monument that shows Greater Macedonia. 156

On 04 February 2008, Prime Minister of FYROM Nichola Gruevski shown placing a wreath on the monument on the Bulgarian FYROM's hero Goce Delchev. One can clearly see the map showing FYROM as Macedonia (see photo below) to include also the northern Macedonia province of Greece and part of Bulgaria, thus indicating their intentions to continue their struggle of taking this part away from Greece and Bulgaria and uniting it with their country.

The matter of nationalism creates internal instability of the FYROM because of the constant attention to the ethnocentric "Macedonism" conflicting with the Albanian nationalism. It furthermore, affects negatively the regional stability. For as long as the FYROM Slavs continue on that path the question of "who is a Macedonian" will linger over the Balkans.

Who is a Macedonian?

Promulgated by Skopje, the misconception is the offspring of a groundless theory, the so-called “Amalgamation Theory,” that by coming to Macedonia from the north and mixing with the Macedonians, the Slavs themselves became Macedonians. The underpinning for accepting the amalgamation of Slavs and other peoples (e.g., Macedonians, Paeonians, etc.), with the Slavs predominating with the passage of time, is provided by FYROM’s Slav historians and population geneticists advocating that the occupier of a new land takes the identity of the occupied people.

If we accept the lopsided hypothesis, then the Turks, for instance, who occupied Greece for four hundred years, have become Greeks, or even Byzantines and their language is Greek or Hellenic, which we know is not true. What seems certain is that, ethnologically, the Turks are a mixture of Turks and other peoples living in Anatolia (Greeks, Slavs, Kurds, Persians, Armenians, Arabs, Georgians, Circassians, etc.). 157 The Ottoman population has lost its Turanian characteristics turning into a uniform type that evolved from a mixture of nationalities. In addition, the contemporary Turks remain Turks in a political sense. The Turkish occupiers did not assume the occupied peoples’ identity. The founder of the Republic of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, in a speech to the Turkish Grand National Assembly declared that he was a Turk “ben Türküm” (I am a Turk), in spite of his light hair and blue eyes, a far cry from the effaced Turanian type, traces of which rarely have been seen.

Several other objections can be brought forth underlining the fallacies of this theory. If the occupier assumes the name and identity of the occupied touted by Skopje as their answer to the Greek and international historiography’s supporting the ancient Macedonians’ Hellenism, the FYROM Slavs are Hellenized Paeonians. After all, the largest part of today’s territory of the FYROM was the land of the Paeonians and as Enver Imamovic, a member of the Bosnian and Hercegovinian Academy of Sciences and Arts admits "cities mentioned in Herodotus were Doberos and Bymazos, in a younger epoch are Stuberra, Astraion, Argos, Bryanion, Bylazora, Stobi, Idomene." However, he is very clear in another point,

Paeonians being direct neighbor of the Greeks maintained close trade relations and as a result, they fell early under their [Greek] cultural influence. Because of it, they were among the first Illyrian communities to have stepped towards civilization. Close relations with Greece is confirmed by data that states that certain Paeonian rulers were granted honored citizenship rights or proxenia by some Greek states. That was given in order to thank them for certain services (assistance in wheat, monetarily, military aid and similar). 158

Who exactly were Paeonian's "immediate neighbors?" Paeonian's direct neighbors were Thracians, other Illyrian tribes, and the Macedonians. So what Greek "immediate" neighbors Imamovic is talking about? He is definitely, talking about the Macedonians. Even if one considers the Athenian colonies of Chalkidike as neighbors, they were not the "immediate" neighbors. The Macedonians were the only immediate Greek-speaking neighbors.

What little has been known about the Paeonians is shrouded in mystery and misinformation, but one thing is certain, they were Hellenized by the Macedonians by the time of King Philip V’s reign (220-179 B.C.). Thus, when the Macedonians Hellenized the Paeonians, making them culturally and linguistically Greeks like themselves, virtually anything Paeonian disappeared. Therefore, if we regress in time as the FYROM Slavs want to do, in view of the fact that the Paeonians were already Hellenized and spoke the Greek language and having adopted the Greek Macedonian culture and religion, the Slavs became Hellenized Paeonians, according to their own theory. Nevertheless, it did not happen. When the Slavs subjugated the Hellenized Paeonians, anything Paeonian disappeared and Paeonia’s inhabitants became Slavs.

A perusal of books on human amalgamation theories reveals an overwhelming number of cases in which the occupiers did not assume the occupied people’s identity, though they may have indeed absorbed or exploited some non-ethnicity determining characteristics. There is ample evidence that the invader imposes his language, religion, and culture; and that is exactly what the invading Slavs did in the Vardar Province. They imposed their language (Bulgarian) and culture on the conquered Paeonians and other tribes. That is also what Alexander the Great did in Asia. He did not impose a mysterious “Macedonian” dialect, traces of which have never surfaced, but his own Hellenic Macedonian dialect and culture on the occupied people. According to Plutarch, while in Asia, Alexander the Great selected 30,000 young Persians to join his army and “ . . . he ordered to teach them the Greek letters and Macedonian weapons,” the word “letters” meaning “education.” 159 He did not impose a “Macedonian” education because it was the same with the rest of the Greek world; but he considered the Macedonian weapons, training, and tactics, superior to those of the southern Greeks. When he came across a foreign inscription, “. . . he read the inscription and then ordered to write under it a translation in Greek. 160

Virtually unknown to the world is the return to Greece of many of the descendants of the ancient Macedonians who followed Alexander the Great almost 2300 years ago to Egypt and all the way to India. The astonishing fact is that all of them, without any exception, spoke Greek when they arrive and claimed Greek, not Macedonian ancestry. Thus far, nobody has returned from countries conquered by Alexander’s armies speaking a hypothetical non-Greek “Macedonian” language. If the ancient Macedonians spoke a non-Greek dialect and considered themselves non-Greek, it would be logical to expect that at least some people of the surviving tribes would speak a non-Greek Macedonian dialect.

The Kalash and the Khowar, for instance, two tribes descending from Alexander the Great living in the Northern Himalayan region of the Hindu Kush mountains, have maintained their Hellenic Macedonian culture and traditions since 325 B.C. 161 They still recognize Shalakash (Seleucus, Alexander’s general and later King Seleucus I Nicator of the Seleucid Empire) as their ancient leader.

Even though their language has been influenced by languages of Muslim nations surrounding the Kalash and Khowar, it contains many elements of the ancient Greek language. They greet their visitors with ‘ispanta” from the Greek verb “ασπάζομαι” (greet) and warn them about “heman” or yomun (“χειμών,” winter). The Kalash sing songs reminding people of the age-old music from northern Greece (Hellenic Macedonia) and dance (horós) in circles in the Greek way. These indigenous people still believe in the twelve Olympian gods and their architecture resembles the Macedonian architecture (see Quest for Alexander’s Lost Tribe, Readers Digest, July 20, 2000).

The contemporary FYROM Slavs continue to argue that they must be recognized

as Macedonians because, they insist, by occupying parts of the Macedonian land and mixing with the Macedonians they assumed the characteristics of the occupied Macedonia’s inhabitants and became Macedonians. To support this argument, they must convincingly answer all the questions raised above and convince the world that the ancient Macedonians were not Greek. If they fail to dissociate the Macedonians from the Greek world and continue to advance their occupier-occupied theory, then, according to this theory, they are not Slavs, but they have become slavophone Paeonians.

Even citing Borza’s publications (especially his book In the Shadow of Olympus, 1990) and Badian’s Greeks and Macedonians (1982) to justify their usurped Macedonianism, it is bound to backfire. Both Borza and Badian accept that the Macedonians were hellenized during the middle of the fifth century B.C. Nevertheless, Papavizas goes even a step further arguing,

In view of the fact that the Indo-European tribes carried with them the essential elements of the proto-Hellenic dialect, and Perdiccas’ Macedonians were of Indo-European stock . . . hellenization may never have occurred in a true sense of the word; after all, these people belonged to Hellenic tribes to begin with, and, therefore, only evolution of the Archaic (Aeolic) Macedonian dialect occurred, not hellenization in a true sense. 162

What emerges from the story of the Macedonian hellenization is this: Whether the ancient Macedonians were hellenized in the fifth century B.C. (Borza 1990) or were of a Hellenic stock to begin with, by the time the Slavs arrived in the Balkans more than one thousand years after Alexander the Great, the surviving Paeonians were of Hellenic stock. Therefore, if Skopje’s theory is accepted, the invading Slavs assumed the identity of the hellenized Paeonians.

A few historians and archaeologists claim that conclusions not based on scientific

research are only assumptions, but they admit archaeology has provided useful information by exposing artifacts of an age long past. However, based on the above claim, the FYROM Slavs cannot pass the test of Macedonism since the only conclusion they employ is based, not on a scientific research, but solely on assumptions and hypotheses. There is not one primary source of the time of the alleged amalgamation of the Slavs, Bulgars, and the autochthonous Macedonians answering the questions of the “five w’s”--who, what, when, where, and how—not one.

Greek and the majority of world scholars believe that archaeological and historical evidence clearly demonstrates the ancient Macedonians’ Hellenism. Casson (1926) and Hammond (1989, 1997), for instance, believe that the ancient Macedonians were of Hellenic stock since the comparison of Macedonian artifacts from Pateli (Aghios Panteleimon, Florina Prefecture, Greece) and Kalindoia, (Thessaloniki Prefecture, Greece) are identical to those found in Sparta, Olympia, Delphi, Aegina, Argos, and numerous other Greek sites.

Although archaeology is the bedrock on which to build our knowledge on the

Macedonians’ ethnicity, it is by no means the only source of knowledge. Language is one of the most important characteristics determining a group’s ethnicity. To understand the ancient Macedonians’ ethnicity it must be determined what language one of the most important city-states of the ancient Greek world spoke.

The task of determining the Macedonian language is very difficult, especially for the period before the fifth century B.C. The difficulty stems from: (a) the lack of writings by Macedonians and insufficient word samples; (b) the inability of archaeologists so far to unearth large numbers of samples and provide undisputed assistance; and (c) the way a person comprehends the issue or feels about it. But even some of the doubters admit that the Macedonians perhaps spoke a Greek dialect. Borza for instance, states,

Macedonian seems closer to Illyrian and Thracian than to the Greek dialect. This is not, however, to insist that Macedonian is Illyrian or Thracian. . . . It must be emphasized that this is not to say that it was not Greek; it is only to suggest that, for the linguists’ point of view, it is impossible to know. 163

The problem with this statement is that Borza does not consider the evidence provided by the katadesmos or curse sufficient to bring the language under the umbrella of the Northwestern Greek dialects, perhaps because it goes against his own theory. Nevertheless, katadesmos bears "the phenomena that distinguish the Northwest Greek dialects" as pointed out by Carl D. Buck. 164 The newly authenticated inscription of katadesmos brings the Macedonian dialect in the realm of Northwestern Greek dialects along with Acarnanian and Aetolian, which verifies Titus Livius' statement that "Aetolians, Acarnanians, and Macedonians are people of the same speech." The difference between the Doric and Northwest Greek dialects is that by Doric we mean the South Doric of Peloponnesus and by Northwest Greek we mean an unspecified variety of Doric dialects that developed independently due to the rugged terrain that separated the communities of their speakers.

The termination –KA as in the word OΠOKA or OPOKA found in katadesmos meaning "whenever" remains one of the most persisted characteristics of the North-west dialects according to Buck. 165 Its equivalent ending in Thessalian Aeolic dialects is –KE and Ionic/Attic is –TE. Thus, in Thessalian the same word would have been OΠΟΚΕ or OPOKE and in Ionic/Attic would have been ΟΠΟΤΕ or OPOTE. Modern Greek renders OPOTE. (see Apendix B) All scholars believe that if we carefully examine what we know so far of the ancient Macedonian dialect, we will conclude that it belonged to the Indo-European family of languages, specifically to the linguistic group known as centum (pronounced kentum). In contrast, the ancient non-Greek Thracians spoke a language that belonged to the group called satem and we have proof that Macedonians and Illyrians communicated through interpreters. 166 In addition, by 1984 the museums of Greek Macedonia displayed 62,696 archeological findings and approximately 5,000 inscriptions and 11,000 names of Macedonians, all in Greek. 167

The centum group included words with roots reminding us of the Doric-based and Aeolic-based speech. It is also true that the Hellenic Macedonian dialect spoken during King Philip’s and Alexander’s the Great time included words of Phrygian, Thracian, and Illyrian roots, resulting from the proximity among all these groups in a relatively small geographical area undergoing turbulent reshuffling of people. Alexander’s expansion into Central and South Asia, and Egypt also brought words from Tocharian, Persian, Gedrosian, Median, and other dialects to the dialect spoken by soldiers from Macedonia and from the other Greek city-states.

To understand the language question further, we must first divide the Macedonian era into two distinct periods: First, the period before the fifth century B.C. (during the reign of Perdiccas I, Argaeus, Philip I, Amyntas I, and Alexander I, ca. 650 - ca. 498); and second, the period after ca. 498 B.C. to the end of the Macedonian dynasty (168 B.C.). No artifacts have been discovered to help us understand what language the Macedonians spoke before 498 B.C. Because the Macedonians of that period were of Indo-European stock known to have carried with them the elements of a proto-Hellenic dialect, and all the Macedonian leaders had Greek names, we assume that at least as far back as Perdiccas we (ca. 650 B.C.) the Macedonians spoke a Hellenic dialect.

We can even venture a more daring leap backwards in time to the ninth century B.C. mentioning what the ancient historian Theopompus reported: "The first Macedonian king was not Perdiccas we, but Caranus (c. 850 BC), brother of the king of Argos in Peloponnesus, Pheidon, who abandoned Argos in Peloponesus and went to Macedonia." Caranus or Karanos became king in the ninth century and founded the first Macedonian capital, Aegae, following a troop of goats to the location near the town of Verghina. 168 Although some linguists want the toponymy of the first Macedonian Capital Aegae, a Greek word for “goats,” another etymology that we find more plausible deriving from the Greek root aeg- (αιγ-) gives us toponymies and words as Aegina, Aeginion, Aegion, Aegeon (=Aegean), aegialòs, aegiálios, etc. Pausanias informs us that “by the Achaean Crathis once stood Aegae, a city of the Achaeans, 169 etc. Such words are identified with the Greek word for beach. One must always consider that in the ancient times both Macedonian capitals, Aegai and Pella, were located on a beach.

Though not perfect, our knowledge of the language spoken by the Macedonians

after the middle of the fifth century B.C. is satisfactory because we have a good litmus test to decide what their language was. By examining a plethora of gravestones of common people, funerary stelae, statues, frescoes, and coins lying under foot in Macedonia, all inscribed in Greek, some dated as far back as 500 B.C. gives evidence of the language of that time. Also, adding to our knowledge is a decanter (500 B.C.) found in Verghina, bearing the name Peperias in unmistaken Greek characters; an octadrachm of Alexander we, 478 B.C.; the ring of Sindos, 480 B.C.; coins of King Archaelaos, 413 B.C.; 5,000 Greek inscriptions and names of common people from Macedonia exhibited at the National Research Center of Athens; and the papyrus of Mygdonia found in Derveni near the Greek city of Langada. Found in Egypt is the inscription “From [General] Peukestas: No one is to pass this point. The residence belongs to a priest,” written in pure Greek; the plaque found at the town of Oleveni near Bitola, written in Greek; the Katadesmos or “curse” found in Pella, second Capital of Macedonia, and hundreds of other artifacts exhibited at the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, in Verghina, and the Archaeological Museum of Skopje all add credence to the assumption that the Macedonians of that time spoke Greek. Manolis Andronikos, the archaeologist who headed the excavations in Verghina, Greek Macedonia, suggested that archaeology legitimized the Greek position on the Hellenism of ancient Macedonians.

In Opis, during the mutiny of the Macedonian Army, Alexander the Great spoke to the whole Macedonian Army addressing them in Greek. 170 The Macedonian soldiers listened to him and they were dumbfounded by what they heard from their Commander-in-Chief. They were upset. Immediately after Alexander left for the Palace, they demanded that Alexander allow them to enter the palace so that they could talk to him.

When this was reported to Alexander, he quickly came out and saw their restrained disposition; he heard the majority of his soldiers crying and lamenting, and was moved to tears. He came forward to speak, but they remained there imploring him. One of them, named Callines, whose age and command of the Companion cavalry made him preeminent, spoke as follows: “Sire, what grieves the Macedonians is that you have already made some Persians your ‘kinsmen’, and the Persians are called ‘kinsmen’ of Alexander and are allowed to kiss you, while not one of the Macedonians has been granted this honor” 171 . The previous story clearly reveals that the Macedonians were speaking Greek since they could understand their leader. There were thousands of them, not just some selected few who happened to speak Greek. It would be unrealistic for Alexander the Great to speak to them in a language they supposedly did not understand.

Furthermore, the Macedonians wore a distinctive hat, the “kausia” 172 (καυσία) from the Greek word for heat that separated them from the rest of the Greeks. That is why the Persians called them “yauna takabara,” which meant “Greeks wearing the shield-hat.” 173 The Macedonian hat was very distinctive from the hats of the other Greeks, but the Persians did not distinguish the Macedonians, because the Macedonian speech was also Greek 174 .

There are three inscriptions written by the order of Darius I (Ancient Farsi Dârayavauš). One is the Behistun inscription dated c. 492 BC, which calls the Greeks as Yauna and the second, Naqsh-i Rustam dated c. 490, which calls the Macedonians Yauna takabara. The third one, however, is most interesting dated c.479-478 BC. It calls the Macedonians straight Yauna, which means "Greeks." At that time, the Macedonians not only were obscure people, but also not under the south Hellenic influence. The Persians knew very well what language the Macedonians spoke since there is historical evidence that the two peoples, Persians and Macedonians, had conversations at parties. 175

In the third inscription, also known as the Daiva inscription, King Xerxes says:

By the grace of Ahuramazda these are the countries of which I was king apart from Persia. I had lordship over them. They bore me tribute. What was said to them by me, that they did. My law, that held them: Media, Elam, Arachosia, Armenia, Drangiana, Parthia, Aria, Bactria, Sogdia, Chorasmia, Babylonia, Assyria, Sattagydia, Lydia, Egypt, Yaunâ, those who dwell on this side of the sea and those who dwell across the sea,…

The inscription does not separate the name Macedonia, which was the only Greek speaking territory within the kingdom of Persia located on the other side of the Aegean Sea. To the Persians, unless they knew the dialectal differences of the Hellenic dialects, all Greeks sounded the same. Persians, Medes, and Parthians called all Greek speaking peoples Yauna, but they distinguished the Macedonians using as their indicative the sun hats the Macedonians wore.

A careful examination of the language on these findings will reveal that the similarities and differences of the Macedonian dialect to other Greek dialects are of the same magnitude as the similarities and differences that existed between Ionic and Aeolic, Attic and Doric (i.e., Western Hellenic), Arcadian and Cypriot, Doric group of languages to the Aeolian group, etc. Some linguists use the Doric family of languages as a basis to compare the Hellenic language with Latin.

We also know that the Macedonian dialect preserved characters that had disappeared from other Greek dialects. The Romans and Byzantine lexicographers and grammarians, for instance, used samples from the Macedonian dialect to interpret difficult paragraphs of the Homeric poems. Interestingly, all Hellenic tribes were influenced by and accepted words from the Pelasgians (or Pelargians), Leleges, Phoenicians, and other non-Hellenic tribes. If we compare the Ionic dialect to its closest relative, the Attic dialect, we will be amazed how different these two dialects were - and yet both were Hellenic and closely related.

As scholars contemplate history’s and archaeology’s deficiencies in their

efforts to prove or disprove the ancient Macedonians’ Hellenism, they lose sight of a factor of paramount importance that had a profound effect on the Balkan Macedonian policies, especially during and after World War II: communism. What inexorably emerges in the field of communism after its demise in Europe and the Balkans is its uncomplimentary portrayal as a paramount force of evil that brought the Macedonian Question to the fore for chauvinist and irredentist reasons and sharpened the strain, and even animosity, among Balkan nations. Communism’s brutality was also manifested by the fact that the significant Greek minority thriving in the Vardar Province virtually disappeared during the macedonization process to which it was forced to submit by the Yugoslav communist regime.

There existed no “Macedonian nation” and no “Macedonian ethnicity” before communism’s brutal force emanating from Moscow that directed Tito and Dimitrov to “solve” the Macedonian problem in favor of Tito’s Yugoslavia. There existed no serious dispute on the ancient Macedonians’ language before the establishment of communism in the Balkans. There were no school rooms in the Vardar province (South Serbia), as they exist now, with two maps on the wall, one showing the entire geographical Macedonia, the Slavic dream to be realized in the future at Greece’s and Bulgaria’s expense. There were no students in the province — before communism — being taught a history rife with falsifications and inaccuracies to de-Hellenize king Philip’s and Alexander the Great’s Macedonians. There were no efforts in southern Serbia before communism to inculcate the false ideas that Greece usurped the “Macedonian identity” to the students and teach them to be vindictive against the Greeks grasped the communism’s impact on the Macedonian problem and described it better than anybody else with a single sentence: “only communism could provide the theoretical base and the necessary force to push for a separate ‘Macedonian nation.’” 176

The former President of The FYROM, Kiro Gligorov said: “We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century ... we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians." 177 In addition, Mr Gligorov clarified, "We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians. That's who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century." 178

Former ambassador of the FYROM to USA, Ljubica Achevska, in answering questions at the end of her speech said: "We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great Greece is Macedonia’s second largest trading partner, and its number one investor. Instead of opting for war, we have chosen the mediation of the United Nations, with talks on the ambassadorial level under Mr. Vance and Mr. Nimetz." 179 In reply to another question about the ethnic origin of the people of FYROM, Ambassador Achevska stated that "we are Slavs and we speak a Slav language.” FYROM's Ambassador to Canada, Gyordan Veselinov, admitted, "We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are a Slav people and our language is closely related to Bulgarian." He also commented, “There is some confusion about the identity of the people of my country." 180 Moreover, the Foreign Minister of the FYROM, Slobodan Časule said that he mentioned to the Foreign Minister of Bulgaria, Solomon Pasí that they "belong to the same Slav people.” 181

Other important people of the former Yugoslavia echo the above. Milovan Djilas, a Montenegrin dissident during the year of communist Yugoslavia and author of anti-communist books, in an interview that he gave to Dimitris Gousidis, author of the book Burning Balkans, in regards to the alleged direct Macedonian lineage of the Slavs or their assertion of amalgamation with the descendants of the ancient Macedonians and their symbols stated,

… the [appropriation of the] symbols of Philip of Macedonia is foolishness, it demonstrates megalomania and raises inexcusable claims. I think they will stop doing it. In addition, the propaganda of certain "Macedonian" parties against Greece will stop. I support the existence of the country… I do not support any claims against Greece. They are not claims based on facts…, 182

Most importantly the former President Kiro Glogorov, said, "To identify ourselves with the ancient Macedonians is historically inaccurate." 183

CONCLUSION

This thesis has argued that the Slavic speaking inhabitants of the FYROM who want to be called "Macedonians" are actually consanguinely, culturally, and linguistically Slavs. Despite extensive and laborious attempts to find authoritative sources or scientific arguments that would offer evidence that the Slavic inhabitants of the FYROM are actually the product of an amalgamation of the ancient Macedonians' descendants with the Slavs, I could find no publication that could withstand scientific scrutiny. Any trustworthy publication examined, including those of the FYROM, substantiated the same view taken in this thesis.

An abundance of information regarding the ancient Greek past comes from the Greek mythology. Unfortunately, mythology cannot be a dependable source since it cannot furnish reliable information, which would help reconstruct the Hellenic past. However, it does not mean it is useless either. It elucidates through symbolism truths leading to the right path while one searches for historical facts through written or unwritten monuments. Such monuments are the only ones accepted by historians in their attempt to unlock hidden elements that hold the key to the reconstruction of the past of all the Hellenic group of nations.

Countries are products of historical events causing them to come and go; nations are different. Nations and ethnic groups are a product of sociopolitical events that develop into culture, heritage, language, etc., taking an arduous path and a long time to evolve. The same is true for their appellation. Nations cannot be given birth and receive names by political legislation, as it is the case of the FYROM.

In 371 BC, a power struggle had been raised between the Boeotians, Athenians, and Spartans regarding the hegemony of the Greek world. 184 The Spartans, as the guarantor state of all Greeks (except those on the Asian Minor coast since they were under Persian rule) called a conference in order to solve the differences among the states of Athens, Sparta, and Boeotia. As a result, the Spartan invited the Macedonians who were under the hegemony of Amyntas III, the father of Philip II, to represent his state. Amyntas did not go, but he sent a plenipotentiary delegate to vote for him.

Let us read what exactly Aeschines said on the issue,

For at the congress of the Lacedaemonian allies and the other Greeks, in which Amyntas, the father of Philip, being entitled to a seat, was represented by a delegate whose vote was absolutely under his control, he joined the other Greeks in voting to help Athens to recover possession of Amphipolis. As proof of this I presented from the public records the resolution of the Greek congress and the names of those who voted. 185

In the above argument Aeschines excludes the Spartans and their allies and then he includes Amyntas among the other Greeks as "entitled a seat" in that Congress. That Congress was open only to Greeks and Amyntas was "entitled a seat" of course as a Greek, representing a Greek state. Aeschines makes the statement clearer when he says that Amyntas "joined the other Greeks." There is no record that anyone including Demosthenes objected to Aeschines’ statement, which means even Demosthenes accepted the fact that Aeschines was speaking the truth regarding the Greekness of Amyntas and his Macedonians. Not one of the most powerful states at that time Sparta, Thebes, and Athens considered Macedonia as a formidable force like they did when Amyntas' son Philip was in power. At that time under Amyntas Macedonia was a backward state inhabited by people that Alexander III described as follows,

vagabonds and destitute of means, most of you clad in hides, feeding a few sheep up the mountain sides, for the protection of which you had to fight with small success against Illyrians, Triballians, and the border Thracians. Instead of the hides he gave you cloaks to wear, and from the mountains he led you down into the plains, and made you capable of fighting the neighboring barbarians, so that you were no longer compelled to preserve yourselves by trusting rather to the inaccessible strongholds than to your own valor. 186

Alexander the Great especially mentioned the matter of the Illyrians because he was aware that during his grandfather's, Amyntas, reign, the Illyrians had overrun Macedonia and Amyntas was seeking alliances with anyone that could conceivably help Macedonia. There was no prestige involved, but a weak state with a desperate king. Yet Amyntas was invited to take his seat in the Pan-Hellenic Conference because the conferees all Greeks and only Greeks, considered him and his kingdom of Macedonia, Greek! But there is another point presented in this speech. Although Alexander mentions Illyrians, Triballians, and Thracians as their enemy states, he never mentioned any of the neighboring Greek states as being inimical even though Macedonians had fought against Thessalians and Athenians alike.

In modern times, the behavior of the Slavic population of the FYROM has been a product of sociopolitical events starting with the demise of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans and the annexation of the area by Serbia in 1913. The controversy on Macedonia started in 1878, but continued into the early 20th century. The Treaty of Neuilly attempted to alleviate the instability that might occur between Serbia and Greece, requiring that both countries change the name of their Macedonian territories to South Serbia and Northern Greece respectively. FYROM historians claim that the "Macedonian" people existed in 1913 when the Treaty of Bucharest divided "Macedonia." They do not, however, explain why there was no "Macedonian" army at that time and no "Macedonians" participated in any of the Balkan wars.

Although Serbia kept the name South Serbia political, Greece gave a geographic slant to the name Northern Greece by incorporating the newly gained territories of Western Thrace into Northern Greece, a practice that unofficially continues, especially in journalism. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia changed the political administration of the country implementing the Banovina or Province system. Article 83 of that Constitution sets up the names and the borders of the Banovinas creating the Vardarska Banovina with the Old Serbian city of Skopje as its Capital. 187

The Civil War in Greece that lasted approximately five years started as a war of dominance between the democratic forces and the communist forces of Greece supported by the communist block, but ended up also being a war for annexation of Greek Macedonia to the newly envisioned Yugoslav confederation under Slavic rule. While Greece continued on the path of reconstruction and prosperity, the communist party of Yugoslavia took the path of constant anti-Hellenic propaganda and the distortion of Greek history. In addition, Belgrade's improper involvement in religious affairs with the help from Skopje strived to achieve indirectly what they could not accomplish through the Civil War of Greece, the incorporation of the Greek part of Macedonia to Yugoslavia.

The FYROM is the product of that policy, which was founded on a disputable basis with political aims that created a myth of a past that never was and intransigence of impudence. The concept that the two countries argue about events that took place 23 millennia ago seen as an absurd incident is absurd in itself. Greece’s arguments that the adoption of the term Macedonia by the FYROM and Macedonian as the national identity of its people and its language would bring instability in the region are very valid. On one hand, Skopje uses the appropriation of ancient history to advance its future negotiating position in regard to anything Macedonian, and on the other hand, Athens defends its right to the name insisting that the name of the FYROM has to be geographic since it is the manner in which Bulgaria and Greece use it.

If the FYROM is recognized as Macedonia, it is almost certain that it would consider the term Macedonia and its derivatives as the inherent right to its people to appropriate anything Macedonian including the territories of Greek and Bulgarian Macedonia. The FYROM Diaspora has already done it. 188 The government of the FYROM includes maps branding Greek and Bulgarian parts of Macedonia as part of their own country, simply the map of Greater Macedonia. 189 After April 2008, the NATO Summit that took place in Bucharest, Romania, the Romanian President made a statement. Under the title "Basescu: Greece is right to Veto" which appeared in the dispatch, the official Romanian Press Agency RomPress conveyed the words of Traian Basescu, the President of Romania, who stated, "Greece has been fully right to veto Macedonia's joining NATO and the 25 NATO member states had to take note and support their ally." The article further noticed, "Greece reproaches Skopje authorities with using the name of Macedonia and assuming as its state policy the cultural values of the Greek province bearing the same name." 190 Bulgaria's President Purnarov was on the same line with Greece warning the FYROM not to adopt Bulgaria's past stating that "the Macedonian nation is a Commitern creation, formed at the time of Tito's Yugoslavia." 191 The Bulgarian Foreign Ministry's Spokesman, Dimitur Tsonchev, announced, "Macedonia's membership to NATO is not unconditional," noting, "historical, cultural, and other realities related to the geographic area of Macedonia should be taken into account." 192

The leadership and the people of the FYROM first have to come to terms with themselves by discovering who they really are, instead of adopting an identity that leads the country to destructive behaviors and the region to dangerous instability. This thesis concludes that the Macedonian Slav Nationalism or Macedonism decreases stability on the region.

APPENDIX A

LIST OF ANCIENT MACEDONIAN OLYMPIANS

YEAR

NAME OF

CITYor AREA of

OLYMPIAD

BC

VICTOR

ORIGIN

CONTEST

SOURCES

75th

480

Theagenes

Thasos

Boxing

Pausanias IV, 6; 11,15

76th

476

Theagenes

Thasos

Pankration

Plutarch 811D

80th

460

King Alexander I

Aigai

Stadion

Herodotus IX, 45

93rd

408

King Archelaos

Aigai

Tethrippon

Solon IX, 16

106th

356

King Philip II

Pella

Keles

Plutarch 3, 8

107th

352

King Philip II

Pella

Synoris

Plutarch 4, 9

108th

348

King Philip II

Pella

Tethrippon

Justin XII, 6,6

113th

328

Kliton

Stadion

Oxyrhynchus papyrus 12

115th

320

Damasias

Amphipolis

Stadion

Oxyrhynchus papyrus 12

119th

304

Lampos

Philippi

Tethrippon

Pausanias VI, 4, 10

122nd

292

King Antigonos

Stadion

Julius Africanus

123rd

288

King Antigonos

Stadion

Julius Africanus

128th

268

King Seleukos

Stadion

Pausanias V, 8, 11

128th

268

Belistihe f

Tethrippon

Julius Africanus

129th

264

Belistihe f

Synoris

Oxyrhynchus papyrus 2082

133rd

248

Simylos

Neapolis

Stadion

Julius Africanus

???

3rd Cent.

King Ptolemy I

Eordaia

Tethrippon

Poseidippos 78

???

3rd Cent.

King Ptolemy II

Eordaia

Tethrippon

Poseidippos 78

???

3rd Cent.

Queen Arsinoe

Eordaia

Chariot race x3

Poseidippos 78

???

3rd Cent.

Queen Berenike I

Eordaia

Tethrippon

Poseidippos 78

???

3rd Cent.

Queen Berenike II

Eordaia

Tethrippon

Poseidippos 79

???

3rd Cent.

Etearkhos

Horse race x3

Poseidippos 76

???

3rd Cent.

Molykos

Horse

Poseidippos 72

???

3rd Cent.

Trygaios

Horse

Poseidippos 73

???

3rd Cent.

Plaggon

Synoris

Poseidippos 127

200th

3rd Cent.

Polemon

Petra, Macedonia

Stadion

Julius Africanus

???

3rd Cent.

Ulpios Heliodoros

Thessaloniki

unknown x3

Inscription IG IV591

APPENDIX B

KATADESMOS

In 1986 a scroll was found in the area of Pella and published in the Hellenic Dialectology Journal in 1993. It is known as the Pella katadesmos or the curse of Pella. It was written in the mid 4th century BC. According to the Journal “It is a magic spell or love charm written by a woman, named Dagina, whose lover Dionysophōn is apparently about to marry Thetima.” She invokes “Makron and the demons” to cause Dionysophon to marry her rather than Thetima. Professors Olivier Masson in the Oxford Classical Dictionary and James L. O’Neil from the University of Sidney, both concur that “The language is a harsh but distinctly recognizable form of North-West or Doric Greek, and the low social status of its writer, as evidenced by her vocabulary and belief in magic, strongly hint that a unique form of Doric Greek was spoken by lay people in Pella at the time the tab was written. 193

Katadesmos – Curse

Pella Tablet – 3rd century BC Macedonia

1. [ΘΕΤΙ]ΜΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΔΙΟΝΥΣΟΦΩΝΤΟΣ ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΝ ΓΑΜΟΝ ΚΑΤΑΓΡΑΦΩ ΚΑΙ ΤΑΝ ΑΛΛΑΝ ΠΑΣΑΝ ΓΥ

2. [ΝΑΙΚ]ΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΧΗΡΑΝ ΚΑΙ ΠΑΡΘΕΝΩΝ ΜΑΛΙΣΤΑ ΔΕ ΘΕΤΙΜΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΑΡΚΑΤΤΙΘΕΜΑΙ ΜΑΚΡΩΝΙ ΚΑΙ

3. [ΤΟΙΣ] ΔΑΙΜΟΣΙ ΚΑΙ ΟΠΟΚΑ ΕΓΟ ΤΑΥΤΑ ΔΙΕΛΕΞΑΙΜΙ ΚΑΙ ΑΝΑΓΝΟΙΗΝ ΠΑΛLΙΝ ΑΝΟΡΟΞΑΣΑ

4. [ΤΟΚΑ] ΓΑΜΑΙ ΔΙΟΝΥΣΟΦΩΝΤΑ ΠΡΟΤΕΡΟΝ ΔΕ ΜΗ ΜΗ ΓΑΡ ΛΑΒΟΙ ΑΛΛΑΝ ΓΥΝΑΙΚΑ ΑΛΛ Η ΕΜΕ

5. [ΕΜΕ Δ]Ε ΣΥΝΚΑΤΑΓΗΡΑΣΑΙ ΔΙΟΝΥΣΟΦΩΝΤΙ ΚΑΙ ΜΗΔΕΜΙΑΝ ΑΛΛΑΝ ΙΚΕΤΙΣ ΥΜΩΝ ΓΙΝΟ

6. [ΜΑΙ ΦΙΛ]ΑΝ ΟΙΚΤΙΡΕΤΕ ΔΑΙΜΟΝΕΣ ΦΙΛ[Ο]Ι ΔΑΓΙΝΑΓΑΡΙΜΕ ΦΙΛΩΝ ΠΑΝΤΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΕΡΗΜΑ ΑΛΛΑ

7. [....]Α ΦΥΛΑΣΣΕΤΕ ΕΜΙΝ Ο[Π]ΩΣ ΜΗ ΓΙΝΕΤΑΙ ΤΑ[Υ]ΤΑ ΚΑΙ ΚΑΚΑ ΚΑΚΩΣ ΘΕΤΙΜΑ ΑΠΟΛΗΤΑΙ

8. [....]ΑΛ[-].ΥΝΜ .. ΕΣΠΛΗΝ ΕΜΟΣ ΕΜΕ ΔΕ [Ε]Υ[Δ]ΑΙΜΟΝΑ ΚΑΙ ΜΑΚΑΡΙΑΝ ΓΕΝΕΣΤΑΙ

9. [-]ΤΟ[.].[-].[..]..Ε.Ε.Ω[?]Α.[.]Ε..ΜΕΓΕ [-]

The Translated Text 194

Of Thetima and Dionysophon the ritual wedding and the marriage I bind by a written spell, as well as (the marriage) of all other women (to him), both widows and maidens, but above all of Thetima; and I entrust (this spell) to Macron and to the demons. And were I ever to unfold and read these words again after digging (the tablet) up, only then should Dionysophon marry, not before; may he indeed not take another beside myself, but let me alone grow old by the side of Dionysophon and no one else. I implore you: have pity for [Phila (?)], dear demons, [for I am indeed bereft (?)] of all my dear ones and abandoned. But please keep this (piece of writing) for my sake so that these events do not happen and wretched Thetima perishes miserably [---] but let me become happy and blessed.

APPENDIX C

Ottoman Vilayets as of 1913.

Selanik Vilayeti (Thessaloniki Vilayet) was divided in three sancaks, Thessaloniki, Serres, and Drama.


 

Kosova Vilayeti (Kosovo Vilayet) was divided in five sandjaks, Skopje, Pristina, Senice, Pech, Taslica, and Prizren.


 

Vilayet of Edirne (Edirne [Adrianople] Vilayet) was divided in five sandjaks, Edirne, Kirklaleri, Tekirdag, Callipoli, Alexandroupolis, and Komotini.

Manastir Vilayeti (Monastiri [Bitola] Vilayet) was divided in five sandjaks, Manastir, Servia, Debar, Elbasan, and Korce.

APPENDIX D

THE MANIFESTO OF THE KRUSHEVO REPUBLIC

AUGUST 2-3, 1903 195

Fellow countrymen and dear neighbours !

We, your perennial neighbours, friends and acquaintances from the beautiful Krushevo and its pretty villages, regardless of faith, nationality, sex or conviction, not being able to endure any more the tyranny of bloodthirsty murtats 196 who hunger for human flesh, who would like to lead both you and us to slaughter, to reduce both you and us to poverty, and to turn our dear and wealthy land of Macedonia into a wasteland, we have today raised our heads and decided to defend ourselves with rifles in our hands from our and your enemies, and obtain freedom. You know very well that we are not evil and you understand that it is trouble that made us risk our lives, so that we might begin living like human beings or die like heroes! And because since the times of our grandfathers and great-grandfathers we have lived together like brothers of this land, we consider you as our own, and would like it to remain the same forever. We have not raised our rifles against you - it would be shameful for us to do so; we have not raised against the peaceful diligent and honest Turkish people who, like ourselves, earn their living through sweat full of blood - they are our brothers with whom we have always lived and would like to live again; we have not risen to slaughter and plunder, to set fire and steal - we have had enough of countless derebeyis pillaging and plundering our poor and blood-stained Macedonia; we have not risen to convert to Christianity and disgrace your mothers and sisters, wives and daughters; you should know that your property, your lives, your faith and your honour are as dear to us as our own. Alas, we have taken up arms only to protect our property, our lives, our faith and our honour. We are not murtats of our own land that has given birth to us, we are not robbers and plunderers, but revolutionaries sworn to die for justice and freedom; we rebel against tyranny and against slavery; we are fighting and will fight against murtats, against robbers, against oppressors and plunderers, against besmirchers of our honour and our faith and against those who benefit from our sweat and exploit our labour. Do not be afraid of us and of our villages - we shall not harm anyone. Not only do we consider you as our brothers, but we also feel sorry for you as our brothers, since we understand that you are slaves like ourselves, slaves of the Sultan and of his beys, effendis and pashas, slaves of the rich and powerful, slaves of tyrants and oppressors, who have set fire to the empire from all four sides and have made us rise up for justice, for freedom and for human life. We invite you, too, to join us in our struggle for justice, freedom and human life! Come, Moslem brothers, let us together go against your and our enemies! Come under the banner of "Autonomous Macedonia"! Macedonia is the mother of us all and she calls on us for help. Let us break the chains of slavery, free ourselves from suffering and pain, and dry the rivers of blood and tears! Join us, brothers, let us fuse our souls and hearts and save ourselves, so that we and our children and our children's children might live in peace, work calmly and make progress!... Dear neighbours! We understand that you as Turks, Arnauts and Moslems might think that the empire is yours and that you are not slaves since there is no cross on the imperial flag but a star and a crescent. You will soon see and understand that this is not so and that you are wrong. Nevertheless, if you honour does not allow you to join us and declare yourselves against the Sultan's tyranny, we, your brothers in suffering and of the same homeland, shall do you no harm and shall not hate you. We will fight alone both for you and us, and if necessary, we will fight to the last man under the banner for our and your freedom, for our and your justice. "Freedom or Death" is written on our foreheads and on our blood-stained banner. We have already raised that banner and there is no way back. If you consider us as your brothers, too, if you wish us well, if you intend to live with us again as you have lived up to now, and if you are faithful and worthy sons of our mother Macedonia, you could help us in one way at least - and it would be a great help indeed - do not make partners of the enemy, do not raise guns against us and do not oppress the Christian villages!

May God bless our holy struggle for justice and freedom!

Long live the fighters for freedom and all honest and good Macedonian sons!

Hurrah! For "Autonomous Macedonia!"

APPENDIX E

EXCERPTS FROM VARIOUS PUBLICATIONS OF 1913

REGARDING THE ILINDEN UPRISING

The 1903 Toronto Globe and Mail in a series of dispatches from the area declared,

Salonica, 6 August. - A special messenger from Monastir reports that the Bulgarian insurgents have dynamited the Governor's palace in the town of Krushevo, 23 miles north of Monastir.

Vienna, 7 August. - Salonica dispatch to the Neue Freie Presse says that 1,000 young Bulgarians have taken the filed in the neighborhood of Monastir. The Bulgarian families there have been ordered to prepare provisions for the insurgents.

Athens, 7 August - Official reports state that Bulgarian bands have occupied Krushevo, and are besieging other villages in the vilayet of Monastir.

Salonica, 7 August - Four battalions of Turkish troops supported by artillery yesterday met and routed a body of 1,700 Bulgarians, near Sorovitch [Amyntaion].

Salonica, 13 August - It is reported that the Bulgarian insurgents have massacred the inhabitants of the large Turkish village of Kenati, near Monastir, only twenty escaping.

Again the Toronto Globe and Mail, August 17, 1903 states,

... in the town of Salonica itself, the Bulgarian professors of the university, the students and shopkeepers, in fact all intelligent Bulgarians in the city, have been cast into prison... In the vilayet of Uskub, the entire Bulgarian population has been systematically persecuted since last May. The director of the normal school at Uskub was imprisoned because his library contained the "revolutionary" works of "Othello" and "Les Miserables…In the districts of Palanka, Koschiani, Koumanovo and Gostigar, the prisons (sic) are filled with Bulgarian priests, schoolmasters and merchants. It is difficult to obtain the exact number of Bulgarians who were imprisoned, mostly on the flimsiest pretexts, as when they were released others were immediately arrested. The estimates obtainable give for the vilayet of Salonica 900 prisoners; for Uskub [Skopje] 500; for Monastir, 500, and for Adrianople, 550; a grand total of 2,800."

The newspaper "The Times of London" covering the uprising, stated,

7 August. Four battalions, supported by artillery, routed 1,700 Bulgarians near Sorovitch [Amyntaion] yesterday…Official reports just received here state that besides Kruschevo Bulgarian bands have occupied also Piddoderi and are besieging other villages near Monastir… The general rising in Macedonia planned for the end of August seems to have begun in earnest. They have called out the unmarried male population in the neighbour hood of Monsastir and according to a dispatch from Salonika to the Neue Freie Presse, 1,000 young Bulgarians have already answered the call. The Bulgarian families at Monastir have been ordered to prepare provisions for the insurgents, and many female teachers and girls have joined the bands in order to tend the wounded. A number of Bulgarian officers are reported to be organizing the insurgent forces.

APPENDIX F

NUMBER OF VICTIMS OF KIDNAPPING

OF THE GREEK CIVIL WAR 1944 - 45

Dr. Milan Ristović states, "in January of 1950 there were 2000 children in Bulgaria, 3,500 in Czechoslovakia, 3,000 in Hungary, 500 in Poland, 6,500 in Romania, and 11,000 in Yugoslavia, a total of 26,500 children." 197 Eudes 198 in the chapter “The Greek Children” mentions that according to the Red Cross reports, there were 23,693 of them: 10,000 in Yugoslavia, 3,801 in Rumania, 3,800 in Hungary, 2,660 in Bulgaria, 2,235 in Czechoslovakia and 2000 in Albania. But the actual number of these children lived to see the end of the tragedy known to the Greeks as the Paedomazoma or “gathering of children” is unknown.

APPENDIX G

THE STORY OF BABA-DONKA

Donka [name withheld] of Bitola, the FYROM told this story to the author in the summer of 1972. Donka [name withheld] or commonly called baba-Donka is the author’s great aunt.

During the Bulgarian occupation of the area, baba-Donka’s son Nikola decided to walk from Bitola (Present-day The FYROM) to a neighboring village to see a friend. On his way, he met up with some Bulgarian troops, who, thinking that he was a partisan, threw gasoline of him and burned him alive.

Because of the above event, after the communist took over Yugoslavia, the communist authorities bestowed the "honor" to baba-Donka, as a hero’s mother, to escort the kidnapped children from Greece to Tetovo (Present-day The FYROM). Baba-Donka went to Kremenica (Present-day The FYROM), a town on the borders to Greece where the communist Partisans kept the children, put them on a train and from there they took the children to Bitola and from there to Tetovo. From Tetovo their final destination was Buljkes, present day Bački Maglić (Present-day Serbia), a town about 20 kms WNW of Novi Sad, Vojvodina, Serbia. Many of the children were babies crying, the older ones, speaking only Greek, made the task of the women-escorts difficult. However, what made baba-Donka’s life extremely hard was that a good number of children died of illnesses such as dysentery, privation, etc. The children were under partisan control and unattended for long periods.

After the first journey, baba-Donka "thanked" the authorities for the "honor," but she also told them that she was too old to continue such trips. She was about 50 years old at that time. Baba-Donka felt pity for the children and she was disgusted by what was happening to them in the name of scientific communism. She never forgave the authorities. She had already lost one child to the war and she did not like to see other parents losing theirs. The communist regime of Titoic Yugoslavia blamed the Nazi Germans for my uncle Nikola’s death, something that was not true. German troops were not in the area; the Bulgarians were. Simply, the communist government of Yugoslavia did not want to blame the newly discovered “comrades.”

APPENDIX H

The Referendum Question Announced (August 7, 1991)

AU0808110191 Skopje Radio Macedonia Network in Macedonian 2000 GMT 7 Aug 91.

The Macedonian Assembly today adopted a proclamation addressed to the citizens, which reads:

At its session of 6 August 1991, the Macedonian Assembly unanimously adopted the decision to call a referendum in the Republic of Macedonia at which the citizens of Macedonia should answer the question: "Are you in favor of a sovereign and independent state of Macedonia with the right to join a future union of sovereign states of Yugoslavia?"

By voting for it you will be voting for the realization of your centuries-old historic aspiration for your own nationality, sovereignty, autonomy, and the democratic state of Macedonia, which will guarantee to all its citizens the civilized achievements of a humane and common life.

Citizens of Macedonia, by voting for it you will be voting for the right of Macedonia to preserve and protect your interests in a future union of sovereign states of Yugoslavia. By taking part in the referendum you will be contributing to the solution of the Yugoslav crisis in a peaceful and democratic way.

Citizens of Macedonia, the Macedonian Assembly asks all citizens of Macedonia, in the republic and outside, to take part in the referendum and perform your citizens' duty to [word indistinct], freely, and directly express your will and wish for the future state-legal position of the Republic of Macedonia.

The referendum will be held on 8 September 1991. The referendum's decision will be the one made by the majority of citizens who are entered in the electoral registers.

This was stated in the proclamation issued by the Macedonian Assembly for the citizens of the republic.

APPENDIX I

UNSC RESOLUTIONS REGARDING THE NAME DISPUTE BETWEEN GREECE AND THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

UN

Security Council

3191st Meeting Resolution

S/RES/817

April 7, 1993

Resolution 817 (1993) 199

The Security Council,

Having examined the application for admission to the United Nations in document S/25147,
Noting that the applicant fulfils the criteria for membership in the United Nations laid down in Article 4 of the Charter,
Noting however that a difference has arisen over the name of the State, which needs to be resolved in the interest of the maintenance of peaceful and good-neighbourly relations in the region,
Welcoming the readiness of the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia, at the request of the Secretary-General, to use their good offices to settle the above-mentioned difference, and to promote confidence-building measures among the parties,
Taking note of the contents of the letters contained in documents S/25541, S/25542 and S/25543 received from the parties,
1. Urges the parties to continue to cooperate with the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia in order to arrive at a speedy settlement of their difference;
2. Recommends to the General Assembly that the State whose application is contained in document S/25147 be admitted to membership in the United Nations, this State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" pending settlement of the difference that has arisen over the name of the State;
3. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council on the outcome of the initiative taken by the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia.


UN

Security Council

3243rd Meeting Resolution

S/RES/845

June 18, 1993

Resolution 845 (1993) 200

The Security Council,

Recalling its resolutions 817 (1993) of 7 April 1993, in which it urged Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to continue to cooperate with the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia in order to arrive at a speedy settlement of their difference,
Having considered the report of the Secretary-General submitted pursuant to resolution 817 (1993), together with the statement of the Government of Greece and the letter of the President of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia dated 27 and 29 May 1993 respectively (S/25855 and Add.1 and 2),
1. Expresses its appreciation to the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia for their efforts and commends to the parties as a sound basis for the settlement of their difference the proposals set forth in annex V to the report of the Secretary-General;
2. Urges the parties to continue their efforts under the auspices of the Secretary-General to arrive at a speedy settlement of the remaining issues between them;
3. Requests the Secretary-General to keep the Council informed on the progress of these further efforts, the objective of which is to resolve the difference between the two parties before the commencement of the forty-eighth session of the General Assembly, and to report to the Council on their outcome in good time, and decides to resume consideration of the matter in the light of the report.

APPENDIX J

PROPAGANDA GOES TO SCHOOL 201

By Dina Karatziou, Newspaper Eleftherotypia, Athens, Sunday- October 16, 2005.

The issue of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia enters a new critical phase with Nimetz’s last proposal, which was rejected by the Greek side, and the concern of the neighboring State’s EU entrance negotiations, connected with the solution that will finally be given regarding the question of the name.

However, even if the problem focuses in the name, other problems should also be regarded. Amongst others the propaganda issue of “Macedonians in bondage” has been pointed out (texts of the special mediator). Especially when propaganda penetrates into the system of the neighboring State’s education system and is recorded in the official schoolbooks. This opinion is conclusive after a decennial research of Professor P. Ksohellis of the Aristotle University in Thessaloniki and scientists of Center of Research of School Books and Cross-cultural Education, regarding books of History and Maternal Language of the FYROM and four additional Balkan States. Examples of excerpts of various schools are interesting:

In the second grade History book of secondary education, the map that defines the national borders of Macedonia includes the current area of the FYROM, Bulgarian Macedonia and an area of Greek territory, of which its south-western utmost point begins from the Greek-Albanian borders, it follows the ridge of mountain Olympus and continues along the whole Aegean coastal area, up to the bordering lines of prefectures Kavala and Xanthi.

No essential change in the handbooks is marked since the Interim Accord was signed in 1995. According to the Agreement “Each Party shall promptly take effective measures to prohibit hostile activities or propaganda by State-controlled agencies and to discourage acts by private entities likely to incite violence, hatred or hostility against each other”.

In 1996-97 the Maternal Language and History books continue repeating the same stereotype: "the distinct element of the Macedonian Nation and the vision of liberating the remaining parts of Macedonia, that politically belong in the neighboring states of Macedonia."

The text reading of the total eight grades of public education, as well as the handbooks of linguistic exercises, present the geographic area of the three administrative sections of the Ottoman Empire in Europe, during the 19th C, as the paternal hearth of the neighboring state’s population.

The Reading text of 8th grade, referring to the Vilayets of Thessaloniki, Monastiri, Kosovo-Skopje, the area of “Greater Macedonia”, states: “Macedonian land, land of the Fathers, land of the Ancestors, from Ohrid to the Aegean and to Pirin.”

Equally characteristic, for the stereotype "Macedonia" and the consecutive fabricated arguments that are cultivated in the students of the FYROM, are also the verses included in the 2nd grade Reader of public school:

"To Macedonia with love:

From Pelister to Pirin,

from Vroutok to the white Aegean,

three flowers

- a bouquet of flowers,

a united nation.

Macedonia, dear land!

Beautiful land since many centuries,

your name awakens love,

a heart in three flowers,

full love to us offers,

Macedonia, name eternal!”

Perhaps however, more indicative of the poem’s intention to maintain and preserve these feelings of "national unfairness", is the question of the text’s comprehension which follows: "Pay attention to the verse. "a heart in three flowers ". Which heart are we talking about? Which are the three flowers the poet sings for?”

The researchers of these books observe that the books of History cultivate feelings of irredentism and national indignation in a greater degree than any other text, targeting the neighboring populations such as Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbs. The picture of an "occupied Macedonia of the Aegean" and an "oppressed Macedonian minority" in the Greek territory, totally dominates all texts.

Also in frequent use are the terms "anti- Macedonians", "assimilation", "oppression", "prohibition", “denationalization” and “cruelty”. Indicative examples:

The "bad" Greeks

Regarding the period of WWI the eighth grade history book claims,

Before the outbreak of WWI, Macedonia was shared in three parts, to three Balkan states, Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria, and a small piece was in Albania. The Macedonians were involuntarily mobilized to join the troops of these three Balkan states and were forced to fight for foreign interests... There was nothing advantageous for the Macedonian people in that region which was under Greek occupation. They mistreated the Macedonian population, just like the Bulgarian occupants in the other part of Macedonia...

Regarding the period after WWII the 8th grade history book states,

After the Varkiza agreement the Macedonian name and Macedonian language were both prohibited for a second time in the region of the Aegean Macedonia, as well as all national and cultural privileges that the Macedonian population had ensured at the duration of the struggle of liberation. Immediately after 1945, the Greek governments applied a policy of terrorism in order to force the Macedonian population to emigrate or to paralyze them in a national and political sense ... The cruelty of Greek authorities, the imprisonments, the retribution, as well as the violent persecutions of the Macedonian people, fascinated the entire world. For the inhuman behavior [of the Greeks] toward the Macedonians the League of Nations became interested also.

Of course a divided Macedonia “occupied” by foreign peoples.

APPENDIX K

INTERVIEW WITH A CITIZEN OF THE FYROM

(name withheld for interviewee’s safety reasons)

(Because this interview was conducted by electronic means it has been left unedited)

-====================-

Interview

1. I want to thank you for accepting to participate in this interview. I understand you could be prosecuted under article 179 of the Penal Code. Could you please tell me about this law?

Thank you. The article 179 of the Criminal Code of FYROM forbids derogation of the i.e. “Republic of Macedonia” without no further definition of both the concept of the RM as well as the scope of acts which may be considered a derogation in a judicial process. There exists a loose possibility that I may be persecuted by the Office of Public Persecutor on the basis of the statement, but that did not actualized conclusive to this moment. I do consider this law, in light of my Libertarian political beliefs, a repressive one since it protects a contraction i.e. “RM” in a manner that any serious discourse about how that particular manifestation of statehood came into being may be potentially considered derogation per se, regardless of the value of the presented thesis and arguments.

2. Why are you giving this interview risking your education, future, even your freedom?

Because of my desire to challenge indolence and nihilism motivated by however human, nevertheless wrong frame of mind: conformism, in spite of gross transgression represented by the ideology of Pseudo-Macedonism, omnipresent in the social fabric and generator of much confusion, both within academia and in the fields of politics. In recent several years there is certain marked liberalism with regard to exercise of speech, but unlike societies where historical/ethnological discourse represent nothing more and nothing less than a legitimate topic pursued for the enrichment of truth, in FYROM it is still at minimum an eyebrow-rising topic.

Thus certain risk exist with regard to one safety and professional prosperity, but neither living in society overwhelmingly saturated by extremely elaborated lie is free and safe, nor professionalism exist where truthfulness, that sacrosanct principle is rejected in favour of conformism.

3. I understand that you had hard time finding a notary public to notarize a document. Please tell me about the document. Did you translate it all?

That is true; several notaries rejected my statement after giving a glance at the statement. It is likely they all of them were “ethnic Macedonians”. The reason for their rejection remains unknown to me; I can only guess that perhaps some of them did not want to relate themselves with such document. That stands in contrast with the FYROM legislative regulating notary work, which explicitly rejects notary's responsibility for the content of the statement, its accuracy or the lack thereof.

The statement was notarized in the office of an ethnic Albanian jurist, which lend plausibility to my theory that the “Macedonian” notaries were appalled by its content and haven't performed this service due to this fact.

There is no “judiciary authorized translation” of that statement, which would be only valid in domestic legal conditions. Only my translation of certain paragraphs exists.

4. What would you characterize as roots of instability in the FYROM?

The primary root of instability of FYROM lies in the desire, coupled with various form of might and strong social cohesion, of the ethnic Albanian element to secede from FYROM as a result of the aforementioned factors plus Balkan and macroglobal circumstances which allow such strategic projection by their leadership.

While extremely ravaging economic situation in FYROM (technological obsolescence, degraded basic infrastructure, high unemployment) are contributing factors to the general state of insecurity, even energetic palliative measures cannot override the ethnic instability.

The lack of genuine identity proliferated by the ideology of Pseudo-Macedonism is also a generator of tensions which official Skopje tends to project abroad.

5. I assume that in the Department of History of the University they teach you that the ancient Macedonians were not Greeks. What is it that made you think otherwise?

Your assumption is correct. The demagoguery that ancient Macedonians were not Greeks is strongly promoted at the University I attend. The entire curriculum about ancient Macedonia is carefully crafted in order to instil compliance. For example, publications by non-Balkan authorities are not allowed in the library of the aforementioned Department. ”Hammond” is a taboo name, as well as many other authors whose names students may dare to mention only if they polemically “challenge” their points. The only trend observable during recent years in local historiography is improved level of openness about the Bulgarian aspects of the past.

I had the privilege to have access to a much wider materials than most of my colleagues, having even before my academic studies began, serious doubts on the official version of the history which in its entirety is post-1992 fabrication loosely related to the post-1944 dogma. After exploring archaeological material, historiographic and paleo-ethnologic works regarding the ancient Macedonians, my picture of them was complete in sense that I had certain outlines of their genesis and ethnological features. At a latter stage it become evident that Macedonians after the defeat by Romans passed through variety of cultural evolutions which in light of some general trends predating the invasion of Slavs, consolidated them further within the wider Greek world, to which they belong with their inception.

Alternative theories like “Illyrian”, “Illyro-Thracian,” ”Pelasgian” have been discredited with arguments and cannot be longer held relevant. Ancient Macedonians represented a stock of people with all typological characteristics relevant for their categorization into the wider Hellenic world. Minor cultural syncretism, certain instance of historically attested apparent antagonisms with the rest of the Greece and several decontextualized sources do not undermine the authenticity of Macedonian's Hellenism.

6. How do the people of the FYROM feel about the Greek people?

In general, they consider the Greek state as foe No 1, as attacker on the sacrosanct character of their imagined identity, with rare attempt to give second thought to what are serious arguments from official Athens. There is no hostility in its direct form against Greek people and among many Slavs of FYROM there is a rational understanding that ethical, mutual based interests. Greece, regardless of the complicated administrative procedure, remains very popular tourist destination. But the genuine reconciliation, in my opinion, should come via broadening of cooperation, while the main problem: existence of pseudo-ethnic identity coupled with unjustified irredentism is a issue which awaits major internal social transformations, dictated both by academia and politics.

7. What name do you think would be appropriate for the FYROM?

“ Republika Vardar”/”Republic of Vardar”

The deficit, which is negligible, is that Axios/Vardar passes also through Northern Greece (Greek Macedonia). Also, it is somewhat reminiscent of “Vardarska Banovina,” briefly lasting subdivision of Royal Yugoslavia, a period disliked by many Slavs of FYROM.

The River Vardar, its very name, is a proverbial part of the local folklore and it is not only ethnically neutral, but a preferred way to call what many of them perceive as the “Liberated Macedonia”. Of course, the name Macedonia should not under any circumstances figure into the name of this state, not even with descriptive part of the name which would (in vain) distinguish from Greek Macedonia.

8. How do the people of the FYROM feel about the name of their country and their ethnicity?

The totalitarian system instilled into many people of older and mid-generation a cult of the state. That vestige of the communist past still follows its own path determined by inertia and popular negligence to radically challenge the dysfunctional habits and patterns of mentality. Therefore, what are natural feelings towards a name of one's own nation is augmented by the cult of the state in case of general population of FYROM. Their feelings, often expressed with marked affect when challenged by arguments are indicative of the lack of internal opposition to the Pseudo-Macedonism. The only individuals who act in according to reason are those who, mostly on private genealogical basis, opt for a draft-out from this fake ethnicity, by far most commonly by affiliation into Bulgarism. The only possible way to challenge the dogma of Pseudo-Macedonism is individual-based reconsideration of one's own identity which would provide person's true place in space and time. This, however, asks for initiative from inside and from the top. Regardless of what the dynamics of real political relationships in the Balkans brings, Pseudo-Macedonism may be defeated only by sound implementation of assertive academic stance. Only in this manner FYROM will cease to be a forgery-based bastion of totalitarianism.

9. Thank you very much for this interview and good luck with your studies.

You are welcome.

APPENDIX L

HRES 356 IH 202

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. RES. 356

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) should stop the utilization of materials that violate provisions of the United Nations-brokered Interim Agreement between the FYROM and Greece regarding `hostile activities or propaganda' and should work with the United Nations and Greece to achieve longstanding United States and United Nations policy goals of finding a mutually-acceptable official name for the FYROM.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 1, 2007

Mrs. MALONEY of New York (for herself, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. GALLEGLY, and Mr. BILIRAKIS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) should stop the utilization of materials that violate provisions of the United Nations-brokered Interim Agreement between the FYROM and Greece regarding `hostile activities or propaganda' and should work with the United Nations and Greece to achieve longstanding United States and United Nations policy goals of finding a mutually-acceptable official name for the FYROM.

Whereas on April 8, 1993, the United Nations General Assembly admitted as a member the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), under the name the `Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia';

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 817 (1993) states that the dispute over the name must be resolved to maintain peaceful relations between Greece and the FYROM;

Whereas on September 13, 1995, Greece and the FYROM signed a United Nations-brokered Interim Accord that, among other things, commits them to not `support claims to any part of the territory of the other party or claims for a change of their existing frontiers';

Whereas a pre-eminent goal of the United Nations Interim Accord was to stop the FYROM from utilizing, since its admittance to the United Nations in 1993, what the Accord calls, `propaganda', including in school textbooks;

Whereas a television report in recent years showed students in a state-run school in the FYROM still being taught that parts of Greece, including Greek Macedonia, are rightfully part of the FYROM;

Whereas some textbooks, including the Military Academy textbook published in 2004 by the Military Academy `General Mihailo Apostolski' in the FYROM capital city, contain maps showing that a `Greater Macedonia' extends many miles south into Greece to Mount Olympus and miles east to Mount Pirin in Bulgaria;

Whereas in direct contradiction of the spirit of the United Nations Interim Accord's section `A', entitled `Friendly Relations and Confidence Building Measures', which attempts to eliminate challenges regarding `historic and cultural patrimony', the Government of FYROM recently renamed the capital city's international airport `Alexander the Great';

Whereas the aforementioned acts constitute a breach of the FYROM's international obligations deriving from the spirit of the United Nations Interim Accord, which provides that FYROM should abstain from any form of `propaganda' against Greece's historical or cultural heritage;

Whereas such acts are not compatible with the Article 10 of the United Nations Interim Accord regarding `improving understanding and good neighbourly relations', as well as with European standards and values endorsed by European Union member-states; and

Whereas this information, like that exposed in the media report and elsewhere, being used contrary to the United Nations Interim Accord instills hostility and a rationale for irredentism in portions of the population of the FYROM toward Greece and the history of Greece: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) urges the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) to observe its obligations under Article 7 of the 1995 United Nations-brokered Interim Accord which directs the parties to `promptly take effective measures to prohibit hostile activities or propaganda by state-controlled agencies and to discourage acts by private entities likely to incite violence, hatred or hostility' and review the contents of textbooks, maps, and teaching aids to ensure that such tools are stating accurate information; and

(2) urges the FYROM to work within the framework of the United Nations process with Greece to achieve longstanding United States and United Nations policy goals by reaching a mutually-acceptable official name for the FYROM.

APPENDIX M

SRES 300 IS 203

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. RES. 300

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) should stop the utilization of materials that violate provisions of the United Nations-brokered Interim Agreement between FYROM and Greece regarding `hostile activities or propaganda' and should work with the United Nations and Greece to achieve longstanding United States and United Nations policy goals of finding a mutually-acceptable official name for FYROM.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

August 3, 2007

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Ms. SNOWE, and Mr. OBAMA) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) should stop the utilization of materials that violate provisions of the United Nations-brokered Interim Agreement between FYROM and Greece regarding `hostile activities or propaganda' and should work with the United Nations and Greece to achieve longstanding United States and United Nations policy goals of finding a mutually-acceptable official name for FYROM.

Whereas, on April 8, 1993, the United Nations General Assembly admitted as a member the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), under the name the `Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia';

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 817 (1993) states that the dispute over the name must be resolved to maintain peaceful relations between Greece and FYROM;

Whereas, on September 13, 1995, Greece and FYROM signed a United Nations-brokered Interim Accord that, among other things, commits them to not `support claims to any part of the territory of the other party or claims for a change of their existing frontiers';

Whereas a pre-eminent goal of the United Nations Interim Accord was to stop FYROM from utilizing, since its admittance to the United Nations in 1993, what the Accord calls `propaganda', including in school textbooks;

Whereas a television report in recent years showed students in a state-run school in FYROM still being taught that parts of Greece, including Greek Macedonia, are rightfully part of FYROM;

Whereas some textbooks, including the Military Academy textbook published in 2004 by the Military Academy `General Mihailo Apostolski' in the FYROM capital city, contain maps showing that a `Greater Macedonia' extends many miles south into Greece to Mount Olympus and miles east to Mount Pirin in Bulgaria;

Whereas, in direct contradiction of the spirit of the United Nations Interim Accord's section `A', entitled `Friendly Relations and Confidence Building Measures', which attempts to eliminate challenges regarding `historic and cultural patrimony', the Government of FYROM recently renamed the capital city's international airport `Alexander the Great Airport';

Whereas the aforementioned acts constitute a breach of FYROM's international obligations deriving from the spirit of the United Nations Interim Accord, which provide that FYROM should abstain from any form of `propaganda' against Greece's historical or cultural heritage;

Whereas such acts are not compatible with Article 10 of the United Nations Interim Accord, which calls for `improving understanding and good neighbourly relations', as well as with European standards and values endorsed by European Union member-states;

and

Whereas this information, like that exposed in the media report and elsewhere, being used contrary to the United Nations Interim Accord instills hostility and a rationale for irredentism in portions of the population of FYROM toward Greece and the history of Greece: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate—

(1) urges the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) to observe its obligations under Article 7 of the 1995 United Nations-brokered Interim Accord, which directs the parties to `promptly take effective measures to prohibit hostile activities or propaganda by state-controlled agencies and to discourage acts by private entities likely to incite violence, hatred or hostility' and review the contents of textbooks, maps, and teaching aids to ensure that such tools are stating accurate information; and

(2) urges FYROM to work with Greece within the framework of the United Nations process to achieve longstanding United States and United Nations policy goals by reaching a mutually-acceptable official name for FYROM.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexandrou, Dimitris N., Καλάς, οι Έλληνες των Ιμαλαϊων. Thessaloniki: Erodios, [1993?].

Alexiou, I. Archimandrite (=Abbott), Κύριλος και Μεθόδιος, οι Ιεαραπόστολοι. Athens.

Anastasiou, I. "Constantine's Life” Scientific Year-book of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Thessaloniki 12. Greek edition. Thessaloniki: 1968.

Andriotis, Nikolaos P., Το Ομόσπονδο Κράτος των Σκοπίων και η Γλώσσα του. Thessaloniki: 1960.

Angelopoulos, Ath., To Aftokephalon tis "Makedonikis" Orthodoxou Ekklisias epi ti Vasei ton Apofaseon tis Ektaktou Synodou tis Ierarchias tis Servikis Ortnodoxou Ekklisias. Thessaloniki: 1968.

Angelopoulou, Anna, O K. P. Misirkof (1874-1926) kai i kinisi ton ‘Makedoniston.’ Thessaloniki: University Studio Press, 2004.

Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander.

Association of Macedonians in Poland, What Europe Has Forgotten: The Struggle of the Aegean Macedonians. 1992.

Auty, R., Handbook of Old Slavonic. London: University of London, 1977.

Bagov, Vasil, Macedonian Revelation. Canadian Macedonian Historical Society. Toronto: 2001.

Banac, Ivan. The National Questionin Yugoslavia. Origins History Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University, 1984.

Barford, P. M., The Early Slavs. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001.

Barr-Sharrar, Beryl and Eugene Borza, Studies in the History of Art, Volume 10, Symposium Series I. Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times. Washington: National Gallery of Art, 1972.

Biris, Kostas, Αρβανίτες, οι Δωριείς του νεώτερου Ελληνισμού: H ιστορία των Ελλήνων Αρβανιτών. Athens: 1960.

Bitrakova-Grozdanova, Vera, “Ohrid,” The Art in Macedonia, Skopje: 1984.

Bitrakova-Grozdanova, Vera, Hellenistic Monuments in S. R. Macedonia. Skopje: 1987.

Bitrakova-Grozdanova, Vera, The Valley of Vardar in 1st millennium BC. Skopje: 1982.

Blaisford, N. H., Macedonia: Its races and their future. London: Methuen, 1906.

Blau, George E., Invasion Balkans!. Shippensburg: Beidel, 1997.

Borza, Eugene, In the Shadow of Olympus. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990.

_______, Makedonika, Ethnicity and Cultural Policy at Alexander's Court. Claremont: Regina Books, 1995.

Botsford, G. W., Hellenic History. New York: MacMillan, 1939.

Bougas, Ioannis, Η Φωνή της Ειρήνης. Θεσσαλονίκη: Ερωδιός, 2006.

Bridge, F. R., Austro-Hungarian Documents relating to the "Macedonian" Struggle, 1896-1912. Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1976.

British and foreign state papers, London, HMSO, 1931.

Buck, Carl Darling, "The Interrelations of the Greek Dialects. Classical Philology, 2, 3 (July 1907), 241-276.

_________, "The Source of the So-called Achaen-Doric Κοινή," The American Journal of Philology, 21, 2 (1900), 193-196.

_________, "The Language Situation in and about Greece in the Second Millennium BC," Classical Philology, 21, 1 (Jan., 1926), 1-26.

Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Macedonia, Documents and Materials, Institute of History. Sofia: Bulgarian Language Institute, 1978.

Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Makedonskiot Vapros. Sofia: Bulgarian Language Institute, 1968.

Bulgarian Ministry of Education, Istorija za 10th klas. Sofija: Prosveta, 1991.

Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, For all-round development of Bulgaro-Yugoslav relations, Sofia: 1978.

Byzantius, Stephanus, Ethnika. Athens: Cactus Publishers, 1992.

Casson, Stanley, Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria. Westport: Grenwood Press, 1971.

Časule, Slobodan, Foreign Minister of the FYROM, interview by Utrinski Vesnik, Skopje, December 26, 2001.

Clogg, Richard, A Concise History of Greece. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Cohen, E., The Athenian Nation. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003.

Crampton, R. J., A Concise History of Bulgaria. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Cvetanovski, Viktor, Sofia's Offensive Against Macedonia, Utrinski Vesnik, Skopje, 03 April 2008, EUP20080403049007.

Čulev, Dimitar, "Neo-Methods," Nova Makedonija, Skopje, 04 October 1997.

Dakin, Douglas, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia 1897-1913. Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1966.

Danforth, Loring, The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995.

Kyosev, Dino, Gotse Delchev. Letters and other materials. Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Institute of History, 1967.

Dino Kyosev, Gotse Delchev. Letters and other materials, Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1967.

Delta, P. S., Στα Μυστικά του Βάλτου. Athens: Ypsilon Books, 1991.

_______, Τον Καιρό του Βουλγαροκτόνου: Athens: Ypsilon Books, 1991.

Demosthenes, Olynthiac III.

Demosthenes, Philippic II.

Djordjevic, D., Ιστορία της Σερβίας ("History of Serbia, 1800-1918"). Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1970.

Djordjic, Petar, Петар Ђорђић, Историја Српске Ћирилице, Палеографско-филилогиски прилози, Треће изданије. Београд: Завод уџбенике и наставна средства, 1990.

Donski, Aleksandar, The Descendants of Alexander the Great of Macedon. Štip: Macedonian Literary Association, 2004.

______, The Genealogical Lineage between Queen Elizabeth II and the Medieval Macedonian Czar Samuel. Toronto: Canadian Macedonian Historical Society, 2001.

Dvornik, F., Byzantine Missions among the Slavs: Ss. Constantine-Cyril and Methodius. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1970.

Embassy of Bulgaria, New Delhi, India. http://www. bulgariaembindia.com/news_ Constantine_methodius.htm. Accessed 20 November 2007.

Errington, R. Malcom, A History of Macedonia, Translated by Catherine Errington. Berkeley: Univerisity of California Press, 1990.

Eudes, Dominique, The Kapetanios. Partisans and Civil War in Greece...1943-1949. London: Monthly Review, 2000.

Eustathius 1398.

Ferluga, J., Byzantium on the Balkans. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1976.

Fraser, John Foster, Pictures from the Balkans. Toronto: Robarts-University of Toronto, 1906.

Georgievski, Ljubco, “Geographic definition in the name does not mean loss of identity,” FOCUS News Agency, Sofia, Bulgaria, 31 March 2008. http://www.focus-fen.net/?id=f1583. Accessed 02 April 2008.

Gerolymatos, André, The Balkan Wars. New York: Basic Books, 2002.

Gligorov, Kiro, interview by FORUM magazine, Skopje, 24 April 1998.

______, Македонхија е сé Што Имаме, Skopje, 2000.

Goshev, I. (И. Гошев), Самуилов натпис, 993. г, Старобългарски глаголически и кирилски надписи от IX и X в. София: 1961.

Gousidis, Dimitris, Burning Balkans. Thessaloniki: Ianos, 2003.

Halecki, Oscar, Borderlands of Western Civilization, A History of East Central Europe. New York: Ronald Press Company, 1952.

Hammond, N. G. L., The Macedonian State. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.

________, A History of Greece to 322 BC. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959.

Herodotus, Histories.

Hesychius, Lexicon. Athens: Cactus Publishers, 1992.

Homer, Iliad.

Homer, Odyssey.

Hopf, Karl, The Slavs in Greece. Athens: Livanis, 1995.

Hostler, Charles Warren, The Turks of Central Asia. Westport: Praeger, 1993.

Imamovic, Enver, "O Elementina Političkog Organiranja Iliskih Zajednica," Prilozi. 30, Sarajevo, 2001, 25-41.

Institute of International Political & Strategic Studies, The Macedonian Affair. Athens, [1995?].

Josephus (ben Matthias), The Works of Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews), trans. By William Whiston. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987.

Kedourie, Elie, Nationalism and self-determination in Nationalism, edited by John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith. Oxford: 1994.

Kellas, James G., The Politics of Nationalism and Ethnicity. London: MacMillan, 1993.

Keramidchiev, Mihailo, Aegean Mother. Totonto: Bran Graphics, 1995

Kofos, Evangelos and V. Vlasides, Us and the Others: Greece’s Image in the Press and the FYROM Educational System in Athens - Skopje, Seven Years of Symbiosis. Athens: Papazisi, 2003.

Kofos, Evangelos, Nationalism and Communism in Macedonia. New Rochelle: Caratzas, 1993.

_________, O Makedonikos Agonas sti Yugoslaviki Istoriografia, Thessaloniki, in Nov. 1984.

_________, The Macedonian Question: The Politics of Mutation. Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1987.

Košev, Dimitar, Revisionisticeski Falsifikacii na Balgarska Istorija v Skopskite Istorici. Sofia: Istoriceski Pregled, 1959.

Kostopoulos, Ap. Chr., Μακεδονία, Σύντομη Ιστορία. Athens: Malliaris-Paedia, 1992. .

Laffan, R. G. D., The Serbs: Guardian of the Gate. New York: Dorset Press, 1917.

Lazaroff, Ivan and others, Kratka istoriya na bŭlgarskiya narod. Ruse, Bulgaria: Sts. Cyril and Methodius University, 1993.

Lexovska-Naumoff, Olga, About the Splendid Macedonians…, Sydney, 1982

Liddell, Henry G and Scott, Robert, Great Lexicon of the Hellenic Language, trans. By Xenophon P. Moskhos. Athens: Sideris, 1907

Lilčić,Viktor, Building ceramics in the Republic of Macedonia during the Roman Period: Scupi, Stobi, Heraclea Lynkestis, Styberr., Skopje, 1996.

Livius, Titus, History of Rome.

Lozinski, B. Philip, Essays in Russian History. N.p: Archon Books, 1964.

Lysaght, Thomas, A Selection of Ancient Slav Literary Monuments. Vienna: E. Bevcar, 1982.

Macedonian Welfare Workers' Network, From War to Whittlesea: Oral Histories of Macedonian Child Refugees. Victoria, 1999.

Mallias, Alexandros, Ambassador of Greece to Washington, letter of response, U.S. Think Tank "Center for American Progress," 18 March 2008.

Markou, Dr. Christos and others, "Υπάρχει βιώσιμη λύση στο Μακεδονικό;" ("Is there a viable solution to the "Macedonian" [Question]?"), Oikonomikos Tachydromos, 44, 2165, November 2, 1995: 35-37.

Martis, Nikolaos K, The anti-democratic residuum in Europe and the problematic stabilization and Association Agreement with the EU. Athens: The Society for the Study of Greek History, 2003.

__________, The Falsification of Macedonian History. Athens: Euroekdotiki, 1983.

__________, The United States and the Case of Macedonia. Athens, Apopsis Press, 2005

Mihailov, Ivan, Macedonia: A Switzerland in the Balkans. St Louis: 1950.

Mikulčić, Ivan, Ancient towns in the Republic of Macedonia. Skopje: 1999.

__________, Pelagonija. Skopje: 1966.

Ministry of Defense of Greece, II Army Corps, Συνοπτική Ιστορία της ΙΙ και VΙ Μεραρχιών. Thessaloniki: 1965. .

Ministry of Education and Religion of Greece, Μακεδονία, Ιστορία και Πολιτική. Athens: 1992.

Narsullah, Binbaşı M. and others, Osmanlı Atlası: XX Yüzyıl Başları. İstanbul: Osmanlı Araştırmaları Vakfı Yayınları, 2003.

Nurigianni, Giorgio, The Macedonian Genius Through the Centuries. London: David Harvey Publishers, 1972.

Nystazopoulou – Pelekidou, Maria, The Macedonian Question: A Historical Review, Translated by Ilias Kyzirakos, Corfu, Ionian University, 1988.

Obolensky, O., The Byzantine Commonwealth. London: Phoenix Press, 2000.

Pan-Hellenic Confederation of Organizations of National Resistence, Η Εθνική Αντίσταση των Ελλήνων 1941-1945. Athens: 2001.

Panov, B. and others, Etnogeneza na makedonskiot narod,. Etnologija na Makedoncite. Skopje: MANU, 1996.

Papagianopoulos, Apostolos, History of Thessaloniki. Thessaloniki: Rekos, 1982.

Papakonstantinou, Theoph., Political Education. Athens: Kabanas, 1970.

Papastathis, Ch., L'autocephalie de I'Eglise de la Macedoine Yugoslave. Thessaloniki: Balkan Studies, 1968.

Papavizas, George, Blood and Tears – Greece 1940-1949. Washington, DC: American Hellenic Institute Foundation, 2002.

_________, Claiming Macedonia. Jefferson: McFarland, 2006.

Papazoglu, Fanula, The Central Balkan Tribes in Pre-Roman Times, English Edition. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1978.

________, Македонски градови у римско доба ("Macedonian cities during the Roman Times"), PhD dissertation. Advisor Dr. Mihail D. Petruševski, University of Skopje, 1957. Facsimile provided by the Library Services of the Serbian Academy for Sciences and Arts, Belgrade 2002.

________, "О Територији Илирског Племена Ардиеја," Зборник философског Факзлтета. Београд, VII (1963) 71-86. Facsimile provided by the Library Services of the Serbian Academy for Sciences and Arts, Belgrade 2006.

________, "Хераклеја и Пелагонија," Жива Антика. 4. (1954), 308-345. Facsimile provided by the Library Services of the Serbian Academy for Sciences and Arts, Belgrade 2006.

________, "Дарданска Ономастика," Зборник философског Факзлтета. Београд, VIII, 1, (1964), 49-74. Facsimile provided by the Library Services of the Serbian Academy for Sciences and Arts, Belgrade 2006.

________, "Inscription Hellenistique de Lyncestide," Živa Antika, 20, (1970) 99-113. Facsimile provided by the Library Services of the Serbian Academy for Arts and Sciences, Belgrade 2006.

Pei, Mario, The Story of Language. N.p: J. B. Lippincott, 1965.

Perry, Duncan M., The Politics of Terror- The Macedonian Liberation Movements 1893-1903, Durham: Duke University Press, 1988.

Plutarch, Alexander.

Polybius IV; VII; IX; XXVIII.

Renan, Ernest, Qu'est-ce qu'une nation?, in Nationalism, edited by John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith. New York: Oxford, 1994.

Republic of Macedonia, Criminal Code. http://unpan1.un.org/ intradoc/groups/ public/documents/ UNTC/UNPAN016120.pdf. Accessed 7 February 2008.

Ristović, Milan, Το Πείραμα Μπούλκες, Thessaloniki: Kyriakides Bros, 2006.

________, A long Journey Home, Thessaloniki, Institute for Balkan Studies, 2000.

Rompress, Basescu: Greece is right to Veto, Bucharest, 03 April 2008. EUP2008043009014.

Roucek, Joseph S., Balkan Politics, International Relations in No Man's Land. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1948.

Routier, Gaston, La Question Macedonienne. Paris: 1903.

Seraphinoff, Michael, Macedonian Gold. Toronto: Canadian Macedonian Historical Society, 2004.

Skylitzes, John, Synopsis Historion, Basil and Constantine, c. 35 ed. Thurn. Madrid: Biblioteca Nacional, n.d.

Smyth, Herbert Weir, "The Dialects of Northern Greece," American Journal of Philology. 28, VII, 4, 421-445.

Stalin, Joseph, The Nation, in Nationalism, edited by John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith, Oxford, New York, 1994.

Stavrianos. L. S., The Balkans 1815-1914, Classic Edition. Berkshire, 1963.

Stojčev, Vanče, Military History of Macedonia – Maps. Skopje: Military Academy 'General Mihailo Apostolski' 2004.

Strabo, "Geography," fragment VII.

Sturz, Fr. Paul, De Dialecto Macedonica et Alexandrina. Leipzig: 1808.

Tachiaos, Antonios-Aemilios, The Bulgarian National Awakening and Its Spread into Macedonia. Thessaloniki: Society for Macedonian Studies, 1990.

________, Cyril and Methodius of Thessalonica. The Acculturation of the Slavs. Crestwood, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001.

________, Kyrillos kai Methodius. Thessaloniki, Kyriakides Publishing, 1992.

Taskovski, Dragan, Etnogenezeta na Makedonskiot Narod. Skopje: 1974.

________,Radjanje makedonske nacije. Belgrade: Zavod za izdavanje udžbenika SR Srbije, 1969.

Theopompus, in F.H.G. fr. 30, 1, 283.

Thucydides, History of the Peloponesian War.

Time Magazine, Innocent's Day, 09 January 1950.

Titus Livius, History of Rome, XXXI.

Troebst, Stefan, Die bulgarisch-jugoslawische Kontroverse um Makedonien 1967-1982. Munchen: 1983.

U.S State Department, Foreign Relations Vol. VIII, Circular Airgram, Washington D.C. 868.014/December 26, 1944.

U.S. Department of Defense, Marine Corps Intelligence Activity, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Country Handbook, 1999.

U.S. Department of State, Letter of Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs Jeffrey T. Bergner to U.S. Senator Barack Obama, March 14, 2006.

U.S. Congress. House. Resolution on Expressing the Sense of the House of Representatives on the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), 110th Cong., 1st. sess., 2007, H. Res. 356.

U.S. Congress. Senate, Resolution on Expressing the Sense of the House of Representatives on the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), 110th Cong., 1st. sess., 2007, S. Res 300.

Vakalopoulos, Constantine A., Ο Βόρειος Ελληνισμός κατα την πρώιμη φάση του Μακεδονικού Αγώνα: 1878-1894. Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1983.

Vasiliev, A. A., History of the Byzantine Empire, AD 324-1453. N.p.: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1980.

Veljanovska, Fanica, An Attempt at Anthropological Definition of the Paeonians. Skopje: 1994.

Vulic, Вулић, Н., "Ратовање Македонског Краља Персеја ц Римљанима у Нашој Земљи 170 и 169 год. пре Хр.," Глас, 16 (1934), 28-39. Facsimile provided by the Library Services of the Serbian Academy for Sciences and Arts, Belgrade 2006.

Vulic, Вулић, Н., "Антички Споменици наше Земље," Споменик Српске Академије Наука, 98 (1948), 21, 53. Facsimile provided by the Library Services of the Serbian Academy for Sciences and Arts, Belgrade 2006.

Weber, Max, The Nation, in Nationalism, edited by John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith. New York: Oxford, 1994.

Wilcken, Urlich, Alexander the Great. New York: Norton, 1967.

Yugoslavian Military Encyclopedia, Ed. 1974, s.v. Makedonija.

Zahariadis, Nikolaos, "Greek Policy toward the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 1991-1995," The Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 14, 2, 1996.

________, "Is the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia a Security Threat to Greece?" The Mediterranean Quarterly, 5, 1, 84-105, 1994.

________, "Nationalism and Small-State Foreign Policy: The Greek response to the "Macedonian" issue," The Political Science Quarterly, 109, 3, 1994.

________, "External Interventions and Domestic Ethnic Conflict in Yugoslav Macedonia," The Political Science Quarterly, 118, Summer 2003.

________. Review of Nationalism and Communism in Macedonia by Evangelos Kofos, Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 13 (2) 1995.

Zahopoulos, Christos, The Sources of mid-Byzantine period and the new appellation of Slav-Macedonians. Thessaloniki: Mikros Ianos, 2007.

Zakythinos, D. A. Constantine the Philosopher and the Formation of the Slavic languages. Athens: 1970.

Zografski, D., Д. Зографски, Извештаи од 1903—1904 година на австриските представници во Македониjа, (D.Zografski, Reports of the Austrian Representatives in Macedonia (1903-1904). Skopje: 1955.

204

1 Herodotus, Histories, VII, 173; Strabo, Geography, VII fragment 14.

2 Herodotus, Histories, VIII, 137, Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, II, 99, 4.

3 The area today includes the territories of the Greek Prefecture of Kastoria, partially South Florina and the Albanian area of Korce.

4 Fanula Papazoglu, The Central Balkan Tribes in Pre-Roman Times: Triballi, Autariatae, Dardanians, Scordisci and Moesians (Amsterdam, Hakkert, 1978), 268.

5 Dimitris N. Alexandrou, Kalash, the Greeks in the Himalaya, 9th Ed. (Thessaloniki, Erodios, 1993), 112-113.

6 Polybius V. 97.1

7 Stanley Casson, Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria (Westport, Grenwood Press, 1971), 158; R. Malcom Errington, A History of Macedonia, Translated by Catherine Errington (Berkeley, Univerisity of California Press, 1990), 4.

8 Demosthenes, Olynthiac III, 14 - 21; Demosthenes, Philippic II.

9 Aristophanes, Clouds 492 and Birds 1573; Plato, Menexenus 245c-d; Thucydides, VIII.98; Xenophon Anabasis 5.4, 34; Aristotle Politics 1.2,4.

10 E. Badian, Studies in the History of Art: Macedonia And Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times, Greeks and Macedonians, Vol 10.

11 Andre Gerolymatos, Espionage and Treason (Amsterdam, Gieben 1986), 76.

12 Aeschines, Against Ctesiphon, 138-139.

13 Aeschines, On the Embassy, 141.

14 Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, III, 94.

15 R. Malcom Errington, A History of Macedonia, Translated by Catherine Errington (Berkeley, Univerisity of California Press, 1990), 4.

16 Urlich Wilcken, Alexander the Great (New York, Norton, 1967), 23.

17 Herodotus, Histories, VIII, 43.

18 Maria Nystazopoulou – Pelekidou, The Macedonian Question: A Historical Review, Translated by Ilias Kyzirakos (Corfu, Ionian University), 1988, http://www.hri.org/docs/macque/, accessed 12 March 2008.

19 Also Makedni. The word Macedonia derives from the Doric and Aeolic dialects word mākos meaning length, in humans and mountains means height. In Attic dialect and Modern Greek the same word is mēkos. Compare to Homer Odyssey book VII, 106. Homer’s Greek was mostly Ionic, but included Aeolic words and syntax. It was natural for him to mix both dialects since Smyrna (present day Izmir, Turkey) his most probable birthplace was inhabited by the Aeolian Greeks who lost it later to the Ionian Greeks. Smyrna was located on the borders between the Asia Minor Aeolians and Ionians.

20 Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, II, 99.

21 Latin the same town is called Dium.

22 The word Zeus exists in the Greek literature under a number of different but related names: Zeus, Deus, Sdeus, Zēs, Zas, Dan, Dēn, Tēn, Tan, Tiēn and Dis. Compare to the Indian god of the Heavens Dyaus pitar meaning "father God." Thus, Dion means the City of Zeus or in essence the City of God.

23 Herodotus, Histories, I, 58.

24 Polybius XXVIII, 8, 9.

25 For a list of ancient Macedonians participating in the Olympic games (see Appendix A).

26 Ivan Mikulčić, Ancient towns in the Republic of Macedonia (Skopje, 1999), 9.

27 Macedonian Heritage (July 1996), 1, 5.

28 Vera Bitrakova-Grozdanova The Valley of Vardar in 1st millennium BC (Skopje, 1982), 2.

29 Vera Bitrakova-Grozdanova, "Ohrid," The Art in Macedonia (Skopje 1984), 85.

30 "Bryges on the central Balkans in the 2nd and 1st millennium BC," Arheologija ( Skopje 1995).

31 Fanica Veljanovska, An Attempt at Anthropological Definition of the Paeonians (Skopje, 1994).

32 Vera Bitrakova-Grozdanova, Hellenistic Monuments in S.R.Macedonia (Skopje, 1987), 130.

33 Vera Bitrakova-Grozdanova, Hellenistic Monuments in S.R.Macedonia (Skopje, 1987), 103.

34 Vera Bitrakova-Grozdanova, Hellenistic Monuments in S.R.Macedonia, (Skopje,1987), 134.

35 Lilcic,Viktor, Building ceramics in the Republic of Macedonia during the Roman Period: Scupi, Stobi, Heraclea Lynkestis, Styberra, (Skopje, 1996), 120.

36 Ivan Mikulčić, Pelagonija, (Skopje, 1966), 2.

37 Ivan Mikulčić, Pelagonija (Skopje, 1966), 4.

38 "Guide to the archaeological exhibition" (Skopje, 1996), 54.

39 Aristotle’s Works, passim.

40 Wilcken, Alexander the Great (New York: Norton, 1967), 22.

41 Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, II, 99.

42 Hammond, The Macedonian State (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), 390.

43 Eugene Borza, Makedonika, Ethnicity and Cultural Policy at Alexander's Court (Claremont: Regina Books), 149-58.

44 Eugene Borza, Makedonika, "Ethnicity and Cultural Policy at Alexander's Court,” 149-58.

45 Yugoslavian Military Encyclopedia, Ed. 1974, s.v. .Makedonija.

46 Yugoslavian Military Encyclopedia, Ed. 1974, s.v. .Makedonija.

47 Yugoslavian Military Encyclopedia, Ed. 1974, s.v. .Makedonija.

48 Dimitrios P. Dimopoulos, Η Καταγωγή των Ελλήνων (The Origins of the Greeks), (Αθήναι, Ελεύθερη Σκέψις, 1995), 226. Translation is mine.

49 Yugoslavian Military Encyclopedia, Ed. 1974, s.v. .Makedonija.

50 Douglas Dakin, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia 1897-1915, (Thessaloniki, Institute for Balkan Studies, 1966), 92 – 106.

51 This Icon is by the hand of Nicholas Papas; Available from http://www.comeandseeicons.com/ papas.htm, accessed 20 November 2007. Used by written permission.

52 Embassy of Bulgaria May 10, 2004, New Delhi, India. Internet. http://www.bulgariaembindia.com/news_Constantine_methodius.htm, accessed 20 November 2007.

53 Ivan Lazaroff, Plamen Pavloff, Kratka istoriya na bŭlgarskiya narod, Faculty of History (Veliko Tŭrnovo, Bulgaria, Sts. Cyril and Methodius University, 1963), 36-38.

54 Oskar Halecki, "Moravian State and the Apostles of the Slavs," Borderlands of Western Civilization, A History of East Central Europe (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1952).

55 Petar Djordic, Istorjia Srpske Ćirilice (Beograd), 11.

56 Istorija za 10th klas (Sofija: Prosveta, 1991), 44 – 48.

57 The nationality of the Apostles to the Slavs has been treated thoroughly with a quotation from the sources by Prof. Ant.-Aem. Tachiaos, The nationality of Cyril and Methodius according to the Slavic historical sources and evidences, Cyril and Methodius, Festive Volume, vol. II, 83-132. See also D. A. Zakythinos, "Constantine the Philosopher and the Formation of the Slavic languages," Proceedings of the Academy of Athens 45 (1970)], 59-77. Compare to I. Karayannopoulos, "The Historical Framework of the Work of the Apostles of the Slavs", Cyril and Methodius, Festive Volume, vol. I, 139-151.

58 Kostas Biris, Αρβανίτες, οι Δωριείς του νεώτερου Ελληνισμού: H ιστορία των Ελλήνων Αρβανιτών. (Athens 1960).

59 Karl Hopf, The Slavs in Greece (Athens: Livanis, 1995).

60 Karl Hopf, The Slavs in Greece (Athens: Livanis, 1995).

62 Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical, September 30, 1880.

63 Tachiaos, Antonios-Aemilios. Kyrillos kai Methodius (Thessaloniki: Kyriakides, 1992).

64 by I. Anastasiou, "Constantine's Life" Scientific Year-book of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Thessaloniki 12 (1968), 126, 138.

65 Alexander A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire: Vol. 1, Madison, University of Winsconsin (1980), 301.

66 John Skylitzes, Synopsis Historion, ed. Thurn (Madrid: Biblioteca Nacional), 348-9. http://www.geocities.com/nbulgaria/bulgaria/kleidion.htm, accessed April 01, 2008.

67 Stelian Brezeanu, O istorie a Imperiului Bizantin (Bucharest, 1981), 110.

68 I. Goshev, Самуилов натпис, 993. г . Старобългарски глаголически и кирилски надписи от IX и X в. (София, 1961).

69 Thomas Lysaght, A Selection of Ancient Slav Literary Monuments, (Vienna, E. Bevcar, 1982). Translated text copied as published.

70 Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-07. s.v. Stephen Dushan, http://bartleby.net/65/st/StphnDs.html

71 By Adrianople the revolutionaries meant Thrace.

72 Duncan M. Perry, The Politics of Terror- The Macedonian Liberation Movements 1893-1903, 19.

73 Goce Delchev (Гоце Делчев), Писма и други материали, Издирил и подготвил за печат Дино Кьосев (Gotse Delchev, Letters and Other Materials, Researched and Prepared for Publication by Dino Kyosev, Sofia, 1967), 183.

74 D. Zografski, Д. Зографски, Извештаи од 1903—1904 година на австриските представници во Македониjа, (D.Zografski, Reports of the Austrian Representatives in Macedonia 1903-1904 (Skopje: n.p, 1955), 251-252.

75 Loring Danforth, The Macedonian Conflict : Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World (Princeton U.P., 1995), 64.

76 Giorgio Nurigianni, The Macedonian Genius Through the Centuries (London: David Harvey Publishers, 1972).

77 Nikolaos Zahariadis, "Nationalism and Small State Foreign Policy: The Greek Response to the Macedonian Issue," Political Science Quarterly, 109 (4), 1994, 64, 7.

78 John Foster Fraser - Pictures from the Balkans, 20.

79 Gaston Routier, La Question Macedonienne (Paris: 1903), 50-51.

80 Douglas Dakin, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia 1897-1915 (Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1966), 2 ft. 1.

81 N. H. Blaisford, Macedonia: Its races and their future (London: Methuen, 1906), 111 – 171.

82 The actual name of the organization was "The Young Ottomans."

83 28 July 1913 under the Old Calendar.

84 International Commission, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Report on Macedonia (Endowment Washington, D.C. 1914), http://www.kroraina.com/knigi/ en/carnegie/, accessed April 08, 2008.

85 N. H. Blaisford, Macedonia: Its races and their future (London, Methuen, 1906), passim.

86 R. G. D. Laffan, The Serbs: Guardian of the Gate (New York, Dorset Press, 1917), 18.

87 Fani Dimitriou – Papazoglou, interview by author, Thessaloniki, 1971.

88 Resolution, Academy of Athens, Δημόσια τοποθέτηση της Ακαδημίας Αθηνών για το Μακεδονικό ζήτημα (Public Position of the Academy of Athens regarding the Macedonian Issue), 28 March 2008. Translation is mine.

89 Fani Dimitriou – Papazoglou, interview by author, Thessaloniki, 1971.

90 Historical Archive of Macedonia/General Administration of Macedonia, file 79, Department of Special Security to Police Headquarters in Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, 01 March 1914; ibid: Police Headquarters to Public Prosecutor’s Office of the First Instance, Thessaloniki, 03 March 1914; ibid: Gen. Adm. Mac. to Police Headquarters in Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, 25 April 1914; ibid: Gen. Adm. Mac. to Supreme Command of the Gendarmerie of Macedonia , Thessaloniki, 30 April 1914.

91 Joseph S. Roucek, Balkan Politics, International Relations in No Man's Land (Greenwood Press, Westport, 1948), 150.

92 Article VI of the Peace Treaty of Bucharest.

93 Binbaşı M. Nasrullah, Kolagaşı M. Rüdü, Mülazim M. Eref, Osmanlı Atlası (Osmanlı Arastımaralı Vakfı, İstanbul 2003).

94 The term Politics of Mutation appears in Kofos’ The Macedonian Question: The Politics of Mutation (see below).

95 Ivan Mihailov, Macedonia: A Switzerland in the Balkans (St Louis, 1950) in Evangelos Kofos, The Macedonian Question: The Politics of Mutation, (Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1987), 2.

96 Douglas Dakin, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia 1897-1913 (Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1966), 47.

97 Douglas Dakin, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia 1897-1913 (Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1966), 47 f. 10.

98 Otečestven Vestnik (Sofia daily), June 19, 1991.

99 Evangelos Kofos, The Macedonian Question: The Politics of Mutation, (Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1987), 3.

100 Evangelos Kofos, The Macedonian Question: The Politics of Mutation, (Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1987), 3.

101 Ch. Papastathis, L'autocephalie de I'Eglise de la Macedoine Yugoslave (Balkan Studies VII, 1968), 151-154; Ath. Angelopoulos, To Aftokephalon tis "Makedonikis" Orthodoxou Ekklisias epi ti Vasei ton Apofaseon tis Ektaktou Synodou tis Ierarchias tis Servikis Ortnodoxou Ekklisias (Thessaloniki: 1968); also, Palmer and King, op. cit, 165-173, in Evangelos Kofos, The Macedonian Question: The Politics of Mutation, (Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1987), 4.

102 Dragan Taskovski, Radjanjelo na Makedonskata Nacija (Skopje: 1967) ; Kon Etnogenezeta na Makedonskiot Narod (Skopje: 1974). For a Bulgarian critical appraisal: Dimitar Kosev, Revisionisticeski Falsifikacii na Balgarska Istorija v Skopskite Istorici: Istoriceski Pregled (Sofia: 1959), 15-44. For a Greek appraisal: Kofos, I Makedonia ...• op. cit .• and by the same author, paper on O Makedonikos Agonas sti Yugoslaviki Istoriografia, in the Annals of a Symposium on the Macedonian Struggle, held in Thessaloniki, November 1984. A penetrating analysis in Stefan Troebst, Die bulgarisch-jugoslawische Kontroverse um Makedonien. 1967-1982 (Munchen: 1983), 41-92 and 151-182, in Evangelos Kofos, The Macedonian Question: The Politics of Mutation, (Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1987), 4.

103 In a speech at Skopje on October 11, 1945, Tito declared: "We have never refused the right of the Macedonian people to be united. We will never renounce this right. This is our principle" in Theoph. Papakonstantinou, Political Education (Kabanas, Athens, 1970), 492- 493.

104 Regardless the Interim Agreement the government of Skopje does not recognize Greek sovereignty over the Greek part of Macedonia, which they call Aegean. In the last EU election, the Slavic party received about 6,000 votes out of 8.5 million voters or 0.00071.

105 The Bulgarians have repeatedly complained about the anti-Bulgarian elements of the mutation policy applied in the S.R. Macedonia. See the publication of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Makedonskiot Vapros (Sofia: 1968) and the pamphlet of the Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, For all-round development of Bulgaro- Yugoslav relations (Sofia: 1978).

106 Details in Palmer and King, op. cit., chapter "Macedonian nationalism under Yugoslav Communism," 133-183.

107 Joseph S. Roucek, Balkan Politics. International Relations in no man's land (Westport: Greenwood Press ,1948), 161; Milan Ristović, A long Journey Home (Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 2000), 9.

108 Joseph S. Roucek, Balkan Politics. International Relations in no man's land (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1948), 161-166.

109 U.S State Department, Foreign Relations Vol. VIII, Circular Airgram, Washington D.C. (868.014/26 Dec. 1944).

110 Theoph. Papakonstantinou, Political Education (Athens: Kabanas, 1970), 451.

111 From Turkish yeniçeri, from yeni new + çeri soldier; a soldier of an elite corps of Turkish troops organized in the 14th century and abolished in 1826.

112 Theoph. Papakonstantinou, Political Education (Athens: Kabanas, 1970), 452 - 454.

113 Ioannis Bougas, Η Φωνή της Ειρήνης (Thessaloniki: Erodios, 2006).

114 "Innocent's Day," Time, January 09, 1950, passim.

115 AVNOJ stands for antifašističko veće narodnog oslobođenja Jugoslavije meaning National Antifascist Liberation Council of Yugoslavia.

116 Evangelos Kofos, The Macedonian Question: The Politics of Mutation (Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1987), 1-16.

117 West Balkan Research University, Institution and Company Directory http://www.westbalkanresearch.net/doks/researchlandscapeoverview_fyrom.pdf

118 Republic of Macedonia, Criminal Code, http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/ public/documents/ UNTC/UNPAN016120.pdf, accessed 7 February 2008.

119 Sentencing of Archbishop Jovan Endangers Fyrom’s Negotiations With The European Union, http://freearchbishop.com/?p=4, accessed 7 February 2008.

120 The Austrian Parliament, History of Parliamentarism in Austria, Development of Austrian Parliamentarism:

“From Monarchy to Republic;” “The Republic and the Parliamentary System;” “Towards a Federal Constitution.”

http://www.parlament.gv.at/EN/AP/PA/TURN/GESCH_5/Gesch5_MonarchyRepublic-E_Portal.shtml http://www.parlament.gv.at/EN/AP/PA/TURN/GESCH_6/Gesch6_Republic-E_Portal.shtml

http://www.parlament.gv.at/EN/AP/PA/TURN/GESCH_7/Gesch7_TowardsFederalConst-E_Portal.shtml

121 Richards J. Heuer, Psychology of Intelligence Analysis, Chapter 6 (Keeping an Open Mind), Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, 1999. https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/psychology-of-intelligence-analysis/index.html

122 Vanče Stojčev, Military History of Macedonia – Maps, (Skopje: Military Academy 'General Mihailo Apostolski' 2004), http://www.militaryhistory.com.mk, accessed June 25, 2007.

123 Lieutenant Commander, Richard D. Chenette, USN, “The Argentine Seizure of the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands: History and Diplomacy” Marine Corps Command and Staff College, Marine Corps Development and Education Command, (Quantico, May 04, 1987). http://www.globalsecurity.org/ military/library/report/1987/CDR.htm.

124 Internal Macedonian Revolutionary organization – Democratic Party for Macedonian National Unity.

125 Free Republic, "Macedonians, Moldovans Rush to Get Bulgarian Citizenship for EU Perks," August 13, 2006. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1683034/posts, accessed August 31, 2007; Novinite, Sofia News Agency, "Bulgarian Passports "Suicidal" for Macedonia." February 8, 2008.

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=90197, accessed February 9, 2008.

126 Ljubco Georgievski “Geographic definition in the name does not mean loss of identity,” FOCUS News Agency, Sofia, Bulgaria (March 31, 2008). http://www.focus-fen.net/?id=f1583, accessed 02 April 2008. Translation is mine.

127 Richard Lewis Jasnow, James G. Keenan, and George R. Hughes, Hawara Papyri: Demotic and Greek Texts from an Egyptian Family Archive in the Fayum (Fourth to Third Century B.C.). (University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications, 1997), passim; Jean-Pierre Mahé, "Preliminary Remarks on the Demotic 'Book of Thoth' and the Greek Hermetica," Vigiliae Christianae, 50, 4 (1996), 353-363; E. A. Wallis Budge, The Rosetta Stone Dover Publications 1989), Passim; The British Museum, "The Rosetta Stone, From Fort St Julien, el-Rashid (Rosetta), Egypt Ptolemaic Period, 196 BC." http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/aes/t/the_rosetta_stone.aspx, accessed April 20, 2008; The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, The Chicago Demotic Dictionary (CDD). http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/projects/dem/, accessed April 20, 2008; John Baines, "Literacy and Ancient Egyptian Society," Man, New Series, 18, 3 (Sep., 1983), 572-599;

128 For similar U.S. Congressional Resolutions see Appendices L and M.

129 Xhelal Neziri, "State of Citizens With Dual Citizenship," Fakti, Skopje (April 04, 2008).

EUP20080404181002.

130 "The Macedonian Economy, Past and Present," MI-AN Publishing. http://www.unet.com.mk/ mian/eco.htm, accessed February 07, 2008.

131 Binbaşı M. Narsullah and others, Osmanlı Atlası: XX Yüzyıl Başları (İstanbul: Osmanlı Araştırmaları Vakfı Yayınları, 2003), 23 – 29.

132 Yugoslavian Military Encyclopedia, Ed. 1974, s.v. .Makedonija.

133 Joseph Stalin, The Nation, in Nationalism, edited by John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith, (New York: 1994), 20.

134 Ernest Renan, Qu'est-ce qu'une nation? (What is a Nation?) in Nationalism, edited by John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith, (New York: 1994), 17.

135 Max Weber, The Nation, in Nationalism, edited by John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith, (New York: 1994), 21-25.

136 Elie Kedourie, Nationalism and self-determination in Nationalism, edited by John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith, (New York: 1994, 49.

137 James G. Kellas, The Politics of Nationalism and Ethnicity (London: MacMillan, 1993), 20.

138 Ivan Banac, The National Questionin Yugoslavia. Origins History Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University, 1984), 23.

139 James G. Kellas, The Politics of Nationalism and Ethnicity (London: MacMillan, 1993), 28.

140 Speech by former Minister of Macedonia -Thrace N. Martis at the Athens War Museum, January 10, 2005.

141 PDSh leader Arben Xhaferi, interview by Vasil S. Sotirov; in Skopje, date not given: "Macedonia Must Stop Stealing History," 24 Chasa, Sofia, Bulgaria, April 30, 2004, 34.

142 Evangelos Kofos, Nationalism and Communism in Macedonia (New Rochelle: Caratzas, 1993), notes to Appendix III, Endnote 64, 336.

143 Dimitar Čulev, "Neo-Methods," Nova Makedonija, Skopje, October 04, 1997. Translation is mine.

144 Titus Livius, History of Rome, XXXI, XXIX, Loeb Publishers “The Aetolians, the Acarnanians, the Macedonians, men of the same speech, are united or disunited by trivial causes that arise from time to time.”

145 Livy, History of Rome, b. XLV, XXIX, Loeb Publishers.

146 Jeffrey T. Bergner, Letter of Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of State to U.S. Senator Barack Obama, March 14, 2006.

147 Alexandros Mallias, Ambassador of Greece to Washington, letter of response, U.S. Think Tank "Center for American Progress," 18 march 2008.

148 United States Senate Resolution 476/2008.

149 Gregory R. Copley, "The Road to Peace in the Balkans is Played with Bad Intentions," address to Conference on a Search for the Roadmap to Peace in the Balkans, Pan-Macedonian Association, Washington, DC, 27 June 2007).

150 Fani Dimitriou-Papazoglou, interview by author, 27 December 1999.

151 Nikolas Zahariadis, “Nationalism and Communism in Macedonia” by Evangelos Kofos. Book review in Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 13 (2) 1995, 360-362.

152 Kiro Gligorov, Македонија е сé Што Имаме (Macedonia is All that We Have), Skopje, 2000, 354. Translation is mine. The text in the original language is as follows:

"Па добро ... ", ми одговори еден од нив. "Вие зборувавте, ама не ja кажаВте главната работа, не кажавте дека ние сме потомци на Александар Велики. Тoа не може така. Таа kaj нас сега ке се толкува дека ние Македонците сме се откажале од нашето потекло, од нашите предци." Jac ce мислев што да им кажам, па наjпосле реков: "Знаете што,jас тоа ваше мислен, е и убедуван, е го почитувам, нека си биде, тоа е ваше право. Но, споре~ нашата историографиjа сепак постои едно пошироко убедуван,е мегу македонскнот народ дека ние сме Словени. Доjдени на Балканот во шестиот, во седмиот век, населени на просторот што се викал Македониjа, и оттогаш живееме таму. Дали во нашите жили тече уште по He koja капка крв од античките Македонци, тоа jac не знам, но и да тече, ова е она што преовладува и што го означува идентитетот на нашиот на род. Мегу тоа, не сакам да ве убедувам, штом вие сте на тоа мисле!-Ье, мислете си така, но тоа не треба да го менува вашиот став сп рема Република Македониjа како независна држава."

153 Kiro Gligorov, Македонија е сé Што Имаме (Macedonia is All that We Have), Skopje, 2000, 354. Translation is mine.

154 Border, Symbols, Stability, Citizens' Movement (Athens, January, 1993), 8.

155 Fox News, "Anti-Illegal Immigration Group Calls for 'Absolut' Vodka Boycott," April 8, 2008. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348290,00.html accessed April 9, 2008.; Mark Stevenson, "Vodka-Maker Absolut Apologizes for Ads," Associated Press, 7 April 2008. <http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5je6CYV2MW9sNYNOAOhc1qskVT7pwD8VTPELO3>, accessed 11 April 2008.

156 Dora Bakoyanni, Foreign Minister of Greece, "A Compromise Is No Humiliation," interview by Christiane Schloetzer, Munich Sueddeutsche Zeitung 17 Mar 2008, 8

157 Charles Warren Hostler, The Turks of Central Asia (Praeger, 1993), 14.

158 Enver Imamovic, "O Elementima Političkog Organiziranja Iliskih Zajednica," Prilozi (30, Sarajevo, 2001), 25-41.

159 Plutarch, Alexander, 47, 6. Compare to honorary degrees some American universities award the Litt.D. (Doctor of Letters), the L.H.D. (Doctor of Humane Letters).

160 Plutarch, Alexander, 69, 4.

161 Dimitris N. Alexandrou, Kalash, the Greeks in the Himalaya, 9th Ed. (Thessaloniki: Erodios, 1993).

162 George Papavizas, "Claiming Macedonia" (Jefferson: McFarland, 2006) 161-173.

163 Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 93.

164 Carl Darling Buck, "The Interrelations of the Greek Dialects," Classical Philology (July 1907, 2, 3), 241-276.

165 Carl Darling Buck, "The Interrelations of the Greek Dialects," Classical Philology (July 1907, 2, 3), 241-276.

166 Polybius XXVIII, 8, 9; also IX, 37,7 - To the Achaeans and the Macedonians belonging to the same race, and to Philip, their leader; IV, 9 and VII, 9, 3.

167 Nokolaos K. Martis, The Falsification of Macedonian History (Euroekdotiki, Athens, 1983), 33.

168 Theopompus, in F.H.G. fr. 30, 1, 283.

169 Pausanias, Description of Greece 7.25.12.

170 Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, VII, 9, 10.

171 Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, VII, 8-11.

172 Polybius IV 4, 5; Eustathius 1398; Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, VII 22; cf. Sturz, De dialecto Macedonika et Alexandrina (Leipsig: 1808), 41.

173 Literal translation is “shield-hat Ionians” with Ionians rendering Greeks in general.

174 Hammond, The Macedonian State (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), 13.

175 Herodotus, Histories, book V, 20-22.

176 Ivo Banac, The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origin, History, Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984); Us and the Others: Greece’s Image in the Press and the FYROM Educational System In Athens—Skopje, Seven Years of Symbiosis (1995)—2K12 , eds. E. Kofos and V. Viasides (Athens: Ekthoseis Papazisi, 2003), 295—366.

177 Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe, February 26, 1992, 35.

178 Toronto Star, March 15, 1992.

179 Ljubica Achevska, Ambassador of the FYROM to USA, speech on the Balkans, Washnigton, DC, January 22, 1999.

180 Gyordan Veselinov, FYROM'S Ambassador to Canada, interview by Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa, Ontario, February 24, 1999.

181 Slobodan Časule, Foreign Minister of the FYROM, interview by Utrinski Vesnik , Skopje, December 29, 2001.

182 Dimitris Gousidis, Burning Balkans, (Thessaloniki: Ianos, 2003), 28. Translation is mine.

183 Kiro Gligorov, interview by FORUM magazine, Sofia, April 24, 1998.

184 Smith presents a fine argument on the Conference, R. E. Smith, "The Opposition to Agesilaus' Foreign Policy 394-371 B.C." Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Vol. 2, No. 3 (1954), pp. 274-288.

185 Aeschines, On the Embassy, 2.32.

186 Arrian, Anabasis, VII, 9.

187 British and foreign state papers, 1931 (London: HMSO, 1936), CXXXIV, 1170 - 1192.

188 Magazine Makedonsko Sonce of Skopje has as its symbol the Sun of Vergina, which the United Nations Security Council deemed as purely ancient Greek symbol. http://www.makedonskosonce.com/, accessed on April 01, 2008.

189 Xhelal Neziri, "State of Citizens With Dual Citizenship," Fakti (Skopje, April 01, 2008), 2. EUP20080404181002.

190 "Basescu: Greece is right to Veto," Rompress, Bucharest, April 03, 2008. EUP2008043009014.

191 Viktor Cvetanovski, "Sofia's Offensive Against Macedonia," Utrinski Vesnik, (Skopje, April, 03, 2008). EUP20080403049007.

192 Viktor Cvetanovski, "Sofia's Offensive Against Macedonia," Utrinski Vesnik, (Skopje, April 03, 2008). EUP20080403049007

193 This part is re-printed by permission of Mrs. Nina Gatzoulis, President of the Pan-Macedonian Association of the USA.

194 Professor Radcliffe G. Edmonds III, Assistant Professor, Department of Greek, Latin, & Classical Studies, Bryn Mawr College, PA. http://www.brynmawr.edu/classics/redmonds/csts212w4.html.

195 MyMacedonia, History. http://www.mymacedonia.net/history/manifesto.htm, accessed June 07, 2008.

196 Murtar is an Ottoman word meaning convert.

197 Milan Ristovic, Long Return Home, Children Refugees from Greece in Yugoslavia 1948-1960, (Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 2000), 95.

198 Dominique Eudes, The Kapetanios. Partisans and Civil War in Greece...1943-1949 (London: Monthly Review, 1972) 317.

199 UNSC, Resolution 817, 1993 between Greece and the FYROM. http://www.nato.int/Ifor/un/ u930407a.htm, accessed 21 March 2008.

200 UNSC, Resolution 845, 1993 between Greece and the FYROM. http://www.nato.int/Ifor/un/ u930407a.htm, accessed 21 March 2008.

201 Original printed in Greek. The text above was translated by Prof. Nina Gatzoulis.

202 House of Representatives, Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), 110th Cong., 1st. sess., 2007, H. Resolution 356.

203 Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, Expressing the sense of the Senate on the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), 110th Cong., 1st sess., 2007, S. Resolution 300.

204