Mature discussion about Bulgaria and Greece

[Romanion]

I want to find out the opinions of Bulgarians here about the relationship between these two countries. Do you think any animosity found due to events almost 100 years ago still resinate with modern Bulgarians? Where do you see the relationship going? does the EU help? is there a relationship at all? Can there be more ways to mutually help each country that is not doing so now? :coffee:

[morski]

I for one do not harbour any ill-feelings towards Greece and it's people. I believe we generally are doing a great job as neighbours recently. EU helps in my opinion. There can still be a bit of tension in certain moments but hopefully it'll get better and better with time.

[Europa]

I for one do not harbour any ill-feelings towards Greece and it's people. I believe we generally are doing a great job as neighbours recently. EU helps in my opinion. There can still be a bit of tension in certain moments but hopefully it'll get better and better with time.

Good post!

[Romanion]

I for one do not harbour any ill-feelings towards Greece and it's people. I believe we generally are doing a great job as neighbours recently. EU helps in my opinion. There can still be a bit of tension in certain moments but hopefully it'll get better and better with time.

That's good you feel this way. When I look at Bulgaria I see a stable neighbour but suffers from what every country in the region does, corruption and a lack of leadership. Greece is getting a hefty kick in the ass to get its act together at the moment and I'm hoping this will change the political atmosphere in Greece. This is why I think there needs to be better cross boarder assistance when it comes to corruption and Illegal activities because it hurt all the countries.

I think what makes a more stable relationship between Greece and Bulgaria compaired to most countries in the region is both countries recognise that irredentist policies against neighbours is a thing of the past. I don't think you can say that about any other balkan country that wants a piece of someone elses territory: Greater Albanian, Greater FYROM, Greater Serbia, Greater Croatia, Greater Romania (moldova), you see where I'm getting too.

But I know reading posts here, even from you morski, that Bulgarians feel it got the very short end of the stick comming out of the balkan wars and WW1, and I would agree that such an area that was dictated by the treaty of San Stefano didn't pan out at all for Bulgarian asperations.

Maybe a new appraoch is needed in the balkans to end political grievences of the past, but the solution might be to radical. In order for the standard of living for all the people in the balkans to raise, there needs to be an end to war in the region, then foriegn investment will be atracted here.

[morski]

You are correct in all what you wrote.

I do regret certain outcomes in the past for Bulgaria and its people. But that's what it is- the past. No irredentism in the 21c. No need for such actually, borders are gone between Bulgaria and Greece. The rest is a matter of historical discussions and I love these:D I may appear somewhat hostile to some neighbours when dealing with history, but I do not advocate actual hostilities between countries and forceful change of borders and what not.:thumb001:

[Trun]

This is my opinion on the topic:

The modern relations between the two countries start with Greece gaining independence from the Ottoman Empire and becoming the cultural force of the region. As a result, many Bulgarians start to identify as Greeks in the beginning, but after the Bulgarian Revival, there are some riots by Bulgarians towards Greek cultural "leaders" (Greek teachers, ecclesiastics, etc). Bulgaria and Greece were cultural rivals even before that, as early as the times when Bulgaria and Byzantine Empire were cultural rivals - the former the birthplace of the Slavic culture, the latter the birthplace of modern Hellenic culture (both cultures actually are close to each other). So, in this first period, the conflicts between Bulgaria and Greece are cultural.

Then it comes the second Balkan war and the WW1, with Bulgaria and Greece being enemies in these two wars. Greece received some Bulgarian territories, inhabited by ethnic Bulgarians and exported some of the population to Bulgaria, then Hellenized most of the remaining population.

After WW2, Bulgaria fell under Soviet control, while Greece remained capitalistic country. Maybe the period between 1944-1989 is the period when Bulgaria and Greece were the most different because of the different regimes.

Communist regime in Bulgaria fell, and now Bulgaria and Greece both are part of the EU and NATO. Many Bulgarians go to Greece for season work in the agriculture or in the tertiary sector, while many Greeks visit Bulgarian ski resorts. Also, Bulgaria is among the top export partners for Greece and vice-versa.

How the two peoples look at each other? In Northern Greece, the Bulgarian minority have some problems with local Greeks (no access to Bulgarian schools, potential problems when self-identifying as Bulgarians, etc). Southern Greece (mainly Athens) is where most of the Bulgarian immigrants in Greece reside and I haven't heard of them being treated worse because they are Bulgarians. Maybe, they are viewed as lower class people by richer Greeks, but let's not forget that Greeks are high fed by the EU money and don't know what is to be fucked up by the commies.

What happens when Bulgarians and Greeks decide to make a party night together in the UK? Drinking, laughing, suddenly history debate, almost fighting afterwards, but leaving as friends in the end :lol: (personal experience).

[Romanion]

This is my opinion on the topic:

The modern relations between the two countries start with Greece gaining independence from the Ottoman Empire and becoming the cultural force of the region. As a result, many Bulgarians start to identify as Greeks in the beginning, but after the Bulgarian Revival, there are some riots by Bulgarians towards Greek cultural "leaders" (Greek teachers, ecclesiastics, etc). Bulgaria and Greece were cultural rivals even before that, as early as the times when Bulgaria and Byzantine Empire were cultural rivals - the former the birthplace of the Slavic culture, the latter the birthplace of modern Hellenic culture (both cultures actually are close to each other). So, in this first period, the conflicts between Bulgaria and Greece are cultural.

Then it comes the second Balkan war and the WW1, with Bulgaria and Greece being enemies in these two wars. Greece received some Bulgarian territories, inhabited by ethnic Bulgarians and exported some of the population to Bulgaria, then Hellenized most of the remaining population.

After WW2, Bulgaria fell under Soviet control, while Greece remained capitalistic country. Maybe the period between 1944-1989 is the period when Bulgaria and Greece were the most different because of the different regimes.

I am studying the history of Bulgaria at the moment and it's interesting to sees the others perspective on situations you only conserned your side with. When it came to Macedonia and Thrace during the balkan wars and WW1, Greece wanted not just to receive what we thought as ancient historical lands back, but as a land brindge to Constantinople for future expansion, which I hope you can understand why is became a large motivating factor to expand northwards.

Reading medieval Bulgarian history, I think it was a little nieve that the Khans could think that they could somehow minimize the cultural influence seeping into Bulgarian lands from Byzantium, but at the same time Byzantium did not impose christianity they way Rome did, and it deserves some credit here.




Communist regime in Bulgaria fell, and now Bulgaria and Greece both are part of the EU and NATO. Many Bulgarians go to Greece for season work in the agriculture or in the tertiary sector, while many Greeks visit Bulgarian ski resorts. Also, Bulgaria is among the top export partners for Greece and vice-versa.

How the two peoples look at each other? In Northern Greece, the Bulgarian minority have some problems with local Greeks (no access to Bulgarian schools, potential problems when self-identifying as Bulgarians, etc). Southern Greece (mainly Athens) is where most of the Bulgarian immigrants in Greece reside and I haven't heard of them being treated worse because they are Bulgarians. Maybe, they are viewed as lower class people by richer Greeks, but let's not forget that Greeks are high fed by the EU money and don't know what is to be fucked up by the commies.

Communism was the worst thing to happen to Eastern Europe, I always have fun dreaming what Eastern Europe would be like if the Communist revolution never happened in Russia during WW1, things would be alot different...

As for the Bulgarian minorities in northern Greece being treated differently than southern Greece, I would bet it has to do with the current dispute with FYROM than anything else. I personally don't have a problem with the people of FYROM calling themselves slavo-Macedonian, slavo being their culture and Macedonian being their geographic position (based off the ancient Roman province mind you...), but when I see statues of Alexander and some of the propaganda from that country it does hit a nerve.



What happens when Bulgarians and Greeks decide to make a party night together in the UK? Drinking, laughing, suddenly history debate, almost fighting afterwards, but leaving as friends in the end :lol: (personal experience).

Sounds about right :thumb001:

[morski]

Yep. Bulgarian culture is Slavo-Byzantine and as I have stated in another thread we were all one folk during most of the Ottoman period- Eastern Orthodox Romans.

[Trun]

I am studying the history of Bulgaria at the moment and it's interesting to sees the others perspective on situations you only conserned your side with. When it came to Macedonia and Thrace during the balkan wars and WW1, Greece wanted not just to receive what we thought as ancient historical lands back, but as a land brindge to Constantinople for future expansion, which I hope you can understand why is became a large motivating factor to expand northwards.


Greece never wanted Thrace. The fact that today Western Thrace is in Greece is because of the Great Powers not wanting Bulgaria to border the Mediterranean and the Greece's lost in Greco-Turkish war.


Reading medieval Bulgarian history, I think it was a little nieve that the Khans could think that they could somehow minimize the cultural influence seeping into Bulgarian lands from Byzantium, but at the same time Byzantium did not impose christianity they way Rome did, and it deserves some credit here.


Bulgaria and Greece were bound to be cultural rivals since they first had a contact. Bulgaria was too proud country to accept to be under Hellenic cultural influence, and wanted to establish something that would make it a dominating country. With the developing of the Cyrilic alphabet and spreading of Orthodox religion to other Slavs by Bulgarian missioners, Bulgaria stated that it wants to be the dominion of the Slavic world because of establishing the Slavic culture. Too bad this didn't happen because of the Ottoman yoke.

[Trun]

Communism was the worst thing to happen to Eastern Europe, I always have fun dreaming what Eastern Europe would be like if the Communist revolution never happened in Russia during WW1, things would be alot different...


There have been three countries starting the Renaissance. Now, only one of them is recognized as the mother of the Renaissance. The other two are not recognized because of their modern inferiority caused by Ottoman rule for the first and Ottoman rule and communism for the second.
But this is the least problem with communism...

[Romanion]

Greece never wanted Thrace. The fact that today Western Thrace is in Greece is because of the Great Powers not wanting Bulgaria to border the Mediterranean and the Greece's lost in Greco-Turkish war.

From what I've studied it was Venizelos that wanted to cut Bulgaria off and form a monopoly on the Aegean so to speak with the expectation from the great powers that Greece would let Bulgaria lease a port in western Thrace... which didn't pan out. The lost of Greece to Turkey in the 1922 war saw Greece lose Ionia, eastern Thrace, Tendros and Imbros islands. Western Thrace had nothing to do with Turkey.




Bulgaria and Greece were bound to be cultural rivals since they first had a contact. Bulgaria was too proud country to accept to be under Hellenic cultural influence, and wanted to establish something that would make it a dominating country. With the developing of the Cyrilic alphabet and spreading of Orthodox religion to other Slavs by Bulgarian missioners, Bulgaria stated that it wants to be the dominion of the Slavic world because of establishing the Slavic culture. Too bad this didn't happen because of the Ottoman yoke.


Can't blame everything on the Ottomans, during the high middle ages the Serbian kingdom was a rival to the slavic hegenomy in the balkans. Though it would have been nice so see a repeat in 1453 with the events of the arab seige of 718. :D

[Romanion]

Yep. Bulgarian culture is Slavo-Byzantine and as I have stated in another thread we were all one folk during most of the Ottoman period- Eastern Orthodox Romans.

Have you read the ideology of Riggas Ferras? He was a pharniotes Greek who wanted to establish a Christian country out of the Ottomans Empire in the Balkans. It was to be composed of all Orthodox christians regardless of background with Constantinople as the capital. Him being a Greek, he thought the citizenship should be called Greek regardless of ethnic background. This didn't pan out because serbs among others started to have their own nationalistic movements but it was a nice idea.

[Trun]

Have you read the ideology of Riggas Ferras? He was a pharniotes Greek who wanted to establish a Christian country out of the Ottomans Empire in the Balkans. It was to be composed of all Orthodox christians regardless of background with Constantinople as the capital. Him being a Greek, he thought the citizenship should be called Greek regardless of ethnic background. This didn't pan out because serbs among others started to have their own nationalistic movements but it was a nice idea.

This had no chances to become reality. Slavic identity is too strong in Serbs and Bulgarians to adopt Hellenic culture.

[morski]

Have you read the ideology of Riggas Ferras? He was a pharniotes Greek who wanted to establish a Christian country out of the Ottomans Empire in the Balkans. It was to be composed of all Orthodox christians regardless of background with Constantinople as the capital. Him being a Greek, he thought the citizenship should be called Greek regardless of ethnic background. This didn't pan out because serbs among others started to have their own nationalistic movements but it was a nice idea.

The name is new to me, though I have read several studies and articles on the matter of identitry in Balkans prior to the nation-building period in Balkan history. Interesting stuff. Did you red this post (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=736511&postcount=390) of mine? Some tendencies are mentioned briefly.

[Romanion]

The name is new to me, though I have read several studies and articles on the matter of identitry in Balkans prior to the nation-building period in Balkan history. Interesting stuff. Did you red this post (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=736511&postcount=390) of mine? Some tendencies are mentioned briefly.

yup


Grecomans is a term used in Bulgaria, FYROM, Romania, Albania and other countries for people of Bulgarian, Vlach or Albanian ethnic origin from the regions of Macedonia, Thrace or Epir, who consider themselves to be part of the Greek nation or for people with Bulgarian national consciousness who after the establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchy and the making of the Bulgarian church schismatic decided to remain loyal to the Constantinople Patriarchy.

Well, under the definition of a grekoman I read from you post, Ferras would be considered it aswell because he was a hellenized vlach :D He could read and speak Greek.


In the first sense the term is equal with the Greek terms Slavophone Greeks (Σλαβόφωνοι Έλληνες), Albanian speaking Greeks (Arvanites) and Vlach speaking Greeks analogous with Turkish speaking Greeks - Karamanlii. Those terms appeared in Greece in the middle of the XIX c. Until the 40s of the XIX c. the tendency called in Bulgarian historiography Hellenization of the intelligentsia overlapped to some extent with the tendency of Europeanisation. In a similar way to the French who after the French Revolution tried to spread throughout Europe a culture which they considere to be universal and not ethnic French the Grecophone Romaioi were spreading universal (French) culture in the Balkans. This European culture was as alien to the Greek peasant as it was alien to the Bulgarian one and therefor the Rum millet was subjected to a disintegration process. From the 40s onward in the whole peninsula began a fervent work of the so called "ethnic activists" whose aim was the destruction of the old Rum millet and the transformation of the language communities into nations. The Greeks changed the common, shared by the rest of the Balkanians Eastern Orthodox, patriarchist identity with the unshareable Hellenic Megali idea, while the Bulgarians started the building of the Bulgar millet.


It seemed like there were two dimension Greece and Bulgaria based citizenship off of: Language and Relgion, and in alot of cases in Macedonia and Thrace like you pointed out they often clahsed with one another. Greeks has Greek speaking people and Patriarchists as Greek citizens, and Bulgaria saw Bulgar phone and exarchist as Bulgarian citizens.



At first the term designated for the "Slavophone Greeks" is Bulgarophone Greeks (βουλγαρόφωνοι Έλληνες), but at the end ot the century it was changed to Slavophone in order to sever the ties with the newly created in 1878 Bulgarian national state. In some British sources as a synonim is used Hellenized Bulgars in a distinction to Greeks and Bulgarians, while the Bulgarian term Grecomans is also given as a local term.

The Grecomania is a direct result of the high status the Greek culture had among the Orthodox populations of the Balkans, the identification of the religios with the national identity and at the end of the XIX and the begining of the XX c.- the purposive Greek national propaganda in Macedonia and Thrace. In this period Grecomanism in Macedonia is tied to emotional attachment to Greek culture as well as pragmatic considerations with regard to the possibilities of Greek annexation of the region.

Mihail Dumbalakov wrote:

Speaking pure Bulgarian language, without knowing a single Greek word, those Hellenized Bulgarians, what the heroic Andartes actually were, proved to be more dangerous than the real Greeks. Victims of the deft nad clever propaganda of the cunning Hellens those traitors had spilled far too much holy Bulgarian blood...

Today almost all Albanian and Vlach speaking people in Greece have Greek national consciousness. A considerable portion of the Bulgarian speaking Christian minority in Northern Greece also have Greek national consciousness, i.e. they can be defined as Grecomans. The term Grecoman in Greece does not have a negative connotation of national traitor, with which it is loaded in Bulgaria and FYROM and is percieved as maniacal Greek- a peron infinitely loyal to Hellenizm.

The second meaning of the term Grecoman- a person loyal to the Constantinople Patriarchy, a PAtriarchist. The two meanings often overlap in Bulgaria and in Greece. But one has to keep in mind that although all Grecomans are Patriarchist not all Patriarchists had Greek national feelings. Greek historians often treat Patriarchist as equal to Greek.

There are the examples of armed groups from both Greek and Bulgarian sides threatening with violence to make villages switch from Patriarchist to exarchists and vis versa, but I think it would be impossible to influence the entire region. I'm sure that slavo-phone population in general, Patriarchist and exarchist, dominated the Macedonia and thrace regions, but there was other factors in play aswell, like religion. :)

Religion during this time period was more of a political tool than spiritual, and declaring if you were exarchist or patriarchist was pretty much a show of your identity. If the Bulgar-phones wanted to follow the Patriarch and fight for Greece it was their decision. :)

I'm sure this might sound wierd to people, how can a group who speak the same language and are related to each other become two seperate identities? Well it can, and to use a very contemporary example is serbs/croatians. Genetically they are the same people, they can understand the same language, so why did you yugoslavs wars start? Its because national feeling and you loyalties are influnces by a whole sort of dynamic factors. And what we saw with the ygoslav war of the 90's is pretyt much what happened in the balkan wars. It's not pretty.



According to the Turkish magazine "Turk Hayati":

... the majority of the Christian population of Macedonia was Bulgarian. The Patriarchy did indeed keep under its influence a lot of Bulgarian villages and almost the whole population thought of themselves as Greeks, but they were Bulgarian, spoke Bulgarian and understood little of the Greek prayers...

In Bulgaria and FYROM when the term Grecomans is used independently it is almost exclusively delt with Bulgarian speaking(MAcedonian speaking) Grecomans and in the rest of the cases it is additionally indicated - Vlach Grecomans or Albanian Grecomans. In Romania and Albania it is the opposite- independent use indicates Vlach or Albainian Grecomans.

During the struggle between the Constantinople Patriarchy and the Bulgarian Exarchate and between the chetas of IMRO and the armed Greek propaganda in Macedonia a lot of villages switched loyalties between both churches numerous times which further complicates the case. Arthur Evans writes:

One of the most comic results of this competitive ethnography is the map published several years ago under the aegis of Athens and distributed in this country. According to this map MAcedonia is practically devided in two parts- Greek and "Bulgarophone Greek"- as if some Celt enthusiast would have to deivde Britain into Welsh and "Anglophone Welsh"! Macedonia is really full of artificial demarcations, the true lines of ethnic borders are constantly crossed with classifications founded on religious adherence(for the moment) to the Greek patriarch or the Bulgarian exarch. A Bulgarian village may for political reasons be bribed into accepting the supremacy of the Greek Orthodox church. The population of the village would be in consequence complacently described by those who accomplish the act of spiritual transfer(spiritual doesn't mean anything) as the hope of Greece. But those artificial acquisitions do not go far. The language of the peasants remains Bulgarian...

I'm certain that in that era people knew what it meant to declare yourself exarchist or patriarchist. The sides were drawn demographically and the unfortunate reality is boarders are set by war and peace treaties and the balkan wars commenced.

This was 100 years ago, and alot of peoples were displaced and thousands of peoples had to move from their traditional homes and settle is distant regions because suddenly they were in a country hostile to them. This happened with Bulgarians in Greece, and Greeks in anatolia 10 years later.

I'm glad though this does not affect relation today. Everyone suffered back then for nationalistc ideologies, maybe its time to be more co-operative :)

[morski]

yup



Well, under the definition of a grekoman I read from you post, Ferras would be considered it aswell because he was a hellenized vlach :D He could read and speak Greek.




It seemed like there were two dimension Greece and Bulgaria based citizenship off of: Language and Relgion, and in alot of cases in Macedonia and Thrace like you pointed out they often clahsed with one another. Greeks has Greek speaking people and Patriarchists as Greek citizens, and Bulgaria saw Bulgar phone and exarchist as Bulgarian citizens.




There are the examples of armed groups from both Greek and Bulgarian sides threatening with violence to make villages switch from Patriarchist to exarchists and vis versa, but I think it would be impossible to influence the entire region. I'm sure that slavo-phone population in general, Patriarchist and exarchist, dominated the Macedonia and thrace regions, but there was other factors in play aswell, like religion. :)

Religion during this time period was more of a political tool than spiritual, and declaring if you were exarchist or patriarchist was pretty much a show of your identity. If the Bulgar-phones wanted to follow the Patriarch and fight for Greece it was their decision. :)

I'm sure this might sound wierd to people, how can a group who speak the same language and are related to each other become two seperate identities? Well it can, and to use a very contemporary example is serbs/croatians. Genetically they are the same people, they can understand the same language, so why did you yugoslavs wars start? Its because national feeling and you loyalties are influnces by a whole sort of dynamic factors. And what we saw with the ygoslav war of the 90's is pretyt much what happened in the balkan wars. It's not pretty.




I'm certain that in that era people knew what it meant to declare yourself exarchist or patriarchist. The sides were drawn demographically and the unfortunate reality is boarders are set by war and peace treaties and the balkan wars commenced.

This was 100 years ago, and alot of peoples were displaced and thousands of peoples had to move from their traditional homes and settle is distant regions because suddenly they were in a country hostile to them. This happened with Bulgarians in Greece, and Greeks in anatolia 10 years later.

I'm glad though this does not affect relation today. Everyone suffered back then for nationalistc ideologies, maybe its time to be more co-operative :)


I agree completely. I always held in higher regard the map of the Exarchate when it comes to who was Bulgarian and what should Bulgarian aspirations in the Balkans have been.