| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 6,157 Given: 6,705 |
Smartest thing Pendarovski has said.Originally Posted by MegaArgus1
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 219 Given: 36 |
Доколку условот за започнување на преговори на Македонија со Европската унија е откажување од Македонскиот јазик, тогаш такви преговори не се ни потребни да се започнуваат смета првиот човек на Комисијата за историски прашања, Драги Ѓорѓиев. Појаснува дека тензијата што се создава меѓу Македонија и Бугарија во однос на идентитетските прашања може само да влијае лошо врз понатамошната работа на Комисијата. Според Ѓорѓиев, ставовите на Бугарија, придонесуваат за македонската страна да го крене гардот со чувство на недоверба кон Бугарија и бугарската политика бидејќи македонскиот јазик е реалност и ниту бил ниту ќе биде тема на разговор во работата на комсијата.
https://kanal5.com.mk/gjorgiev-ako-u...ochnat/a420375
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 1,896 Given: 1,003 |
Cr. Misirkov is a Bulgarian will submit one document from the National Archives of the Republic of Moldova (NARM) - F. 727, Inv. op. 2, doc. 77, p. 23. This is a hand-filled questionnaire of Krustyo Petkov Misirkov, representative of the Bulgarian bloc in the Council of the country in 1917. The council is the legislative body, it is called "Sfatul tseri" and exists until 27. 03. 1918 The icon of today's Macedonians himself wrote that he was Bulgarian from Macedonia, a member of the Bulgarian National Party and was elected by the Bulgarians and the Gagauzes in Chisinau.
...Even if a man lives well, he dies and another one comes into existence. Let the one who comes later upon seeing this inscription remember the one who had made it. And the name is Omurtag, Kanasubigi.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 1,896 Given: 1,003 |
For Gruevski's grandparents (DPMNE, Prime Minister of the Republic of Macedonia for 10 years), as well as Sekerinska's grandparents (SDSM, acting Minister of Defense of the Republic of Northern Macedonia) of Shtip. Among the founders of the Bulgarian Action Committee in Shtip is the prominent Bulgarian patriot Mikhail Miyalkov, whom I believe Gruevski and his cousin know well, because this is not anyone else but their own grandfather.In fact, not only Miyalkov identified himself as a Bulgarian, but according to the Statute of the Action Committee, he worked for the "development of sound Bulgarian nationalism" for the "unification of all Bulgarians into one Greater Bulgaria" and "for the fight against the hostile elements of the Bulgarian".
It is also interesting to note that Gruevski's grandfather interceded in 1943 for his fellow countryman Radka Sekerinova to receive a state Bulgarian pension "for services to the Bulgarian" as the wife of the "prominent Bulgarian worker" killed earlier by the Serb Alexander Shekerinov.
These, of course, are the grandparents of Radmila Sekerinska - Minister of Defense of the Republic of Northern Macedonia. Gruevski's grandfather, as well as Sekerinska's grandmother, were then among the most worthy Bulgarians in Shtip. Because of their unreserved devotion to the Bulgarian in Macedonia, they deserve our respect and respect today.
...Even if a man lives well, he dies and another one comes into existence. Let the one who comes later upon seeing this inscription remember the one who had made it. And the name is Omurtag, Kanasubigi.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 1,896 Given: 1,003 |
The bad surprise is another grueling attempt by Nikola Gruevski to make himself a historian. With a solid dose of mediocrity, he got involved in Budapest's hysterical crucifixion of Denko Malevski for acknowledging the worst - the Bulgarian past. I understand it somewhat, he, as a refugee in Hungary, probably has some spare time to settle. Certainly, however, history, and especially that of Macedonia and the IMRO, is not given to him. I have a duty to say about his historical questions to Malevski. First, because I'm a professional historian who has spent my entire life on the subject, and second, because I'm chair of VMRO. Във ВМРО няма гръцки вергини и шумадийски шайкачи VMRO is the real, authentic, red-black and most of all - the Bulgarian one! Gruevski begins his "analysis" by saying that only the Communists admired the Bulgarian army and power in 1941. According to him, the Bulgarian Action Committees were created by Communists. The "colleague" Gruevski here demonstrates his total delusion and ignorance. Not only the Communists, but the whole Bulgarian people in Macedonia welcome the Bulgarian army with flowers and songs! The hundreds of photos showing the enthusiasm and joy of welcoming Bulgarian troops in every Macedonian city cannot be hidden on the Internet. The backbone of the new local administration - mayors, police officers, institutions and institutions - is quickly made up of local patriotic Bulgarians. Such are Spiro Kitinchev, who becomes Mayor of Skopje, Dimitar Gyuzelov - Chief of Bulgarian Radio Skopje, Dimitar Chkatrov - Co-founder of the Bulgarian Action Committees, Iliya Kotzarev - Mayor of Ohrid, Hristo Svetiev - Mayor of Bitola, Yosif Andonov Methodius Nochev - Mayor of Prilep, Konstantin Vanov - Mayor of Veles. And that's a very small part of them! Not only are they all from the respective Macedonian cities, and not only are they not communists, but they are also WMD activists! Just days after the entry of the Bulgarian army into Macedonia, the front page of the Macedonian Tribune - an organ of the Macedonian Patriotic Organization in the US and Canada - was "Bulgarian Easter Has Come!"
The same rule applies in full to the Bulgarian Action Committees, which Gruevski mentions, unaware of the deep waters. Almost everywhere in the cities of newly liberated Macedonia, the most active VMRO activists are again among their main creators. I will not have the place and time to list them all, but they are described in detail both in the Bulgarian archives and in the court proceedings organized against them by the beloved of the Gruevski titans after 1944. Let me just mention that among the founders of the Bulgarian Action Committee in Shtip is also the prominent Bulgarian patriot Mikhail Miyalkov, whom I believe Gruevski and his cousin know well, because this is not their own grandfather, but their own. Gruevski mentions that only the IMRO, but not the communists, was tracked and prosecuted by the Bulgarian police during the war. This is also far from the truth. The VMRO, like all other Bulgarian parties and organizations, were formally banned immediately after the pro-Yugoslav coup of the 1934 Circle. Since then, all parties and organizations have been monitored by the police because they are officially outlawed. As I said above, VMRO officials are not only massively included in the ranks of the Bulgarian administration and army, they are automatically taking their place in the local Bulgarian public elite. This is far from the fate of the Communists. Both within the borders of "old" Bulgaria and in the newly liberated territories, they are indeed subject to persecution. But not because they were Macedonians, but because they were communists - ideological enemies who rose in armed struggle to change the state system.I know perfectly well why Gruevski has the heart to defend the Communists and the guerrillas, even though most of them are ordinary terrorists, executors and servants of Moscow and Belgrade then. I would just like to remind you that VMRO then (and never in its history) was on the side of communists and guerrillas, much less on the side of Belgrade and Moscow, and to say the least…. After Gruevski first stated that only the VMRO had been persecuted by the Bulgarian authorities and not by the Communists, he suddenly listed the names of several Communist guerrillas killed in the fighting with the Bulgarian troops. I will not dwell on the lack of elementary logical consistency in his reasoning, because it is the subject of another scientific specialty, but I will only mention that while in Macedonia there are hundreds of guerrillas killed, thousands are killed in the territory of old Bulgaria, without are "Macedonians". Of course, these are sad and tragic facts from our history, as are the facts about the tens of thousands of Bulgarians killed as a result of the communist regime in Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. At the risk of repeating myself, this is a civil war between left and right, not a national conflict between Bulgarians and Macedonians!
Gruevski also mentions the children killed around Watash. It does not honor him to abuse the tragedies of these innocent child souls, suggesting that they are the victims of bad Bulgarians because they were Macedonians. There is such a drama with children at the same time in Yastrebino on the other side of the Fatherland, in Northern Bulgaria. And there the children are not and cannot be Macedonian. What is happening in Vatasha is the will of the commander of the 56th Welsh Infantry Regiment - Colonel Luben Apostolov. He himself is from the Curve of the Palanka, and at a young age is an VMRO activist. From Macedonia are also two-thirds of the soldiers in the regiment. May such dramas never happen to anyone again! The film "Third Half" was commissioned and funded by it for one purpose only - to blacken the image of Bulgaria, showing again the Bulgarians as cruel and heartless occupiers, blood mongers of poor Macedonians. The film is grotesque in its entirety, but surpasses itself in the episode, which shows the players of the visiting Levski from Sofia raising their hand for the Nazi salute. The real case is the opposite - the Hitler greetings are the work of FC Macedonia players from Skopje, while those of Levski simply "fit". Trying clumsily to analyze the milieu of the system in the Ottoman Empire, Grueski asks if it is possible for one brother in one family to be Bulgarian and the other brother Greek. Obviously, this is possible and not only in the milieu system. As we have seen above, one of Gruevski's grandfather is a proven Bulgarian patriot by Shtip. His other grandfather, self-identified as a Greek, was a soldier in the Greek army. So the answer is - yes, it is possible. It is possible that you have a Bulgarian and a Greek in one family, but it is not possible to have a Macedonian! The point is different, Gruevski is an interesting mix of his two grandfathers. The Bulgarian grandfather explains why Gruevski liked a Bulgarian organization like VMRO. The Greek grandfather explains his pronounced taste for Greek antiquity and the masculine figure of Alexander the Great.
Gruevski claims that the Statute and the documents of VMRO did not say anything about Bulgarians. With this he concludes that there is no concept in the history of VMRO. The first statute of the BMROK (Bulgarian Macedonian-Edirne Revolutionary Committees), written in 1896 by Gotse Delchev and Gyorche Petrov, explicitly mentions that any Bulgarian could be a member of the Organization. In the subsequent statutes of TMORO (Secret Macedonian-Edirne Revolutionary Organization) and VMORO (Internal Macedonian-Edirne Revolutionary Organization), members of the organization may also be representatives of all nationalities living in the territory of Macedonia. Among these nationalities, only one is missing - the Macedonian one. The reason is simple - there is no such nationality then. The Bulgarian idea is at the heart of the creation of the Organization. Its first president, Hristo Tatarchev, testifies to this in his memories -
"We have been discussing for a long time the purpose of this organization and we have finally focused on the autonomy of Macedonia with the advantage of the Bulgarian element. We could not accept the view of "Macedonia's direct accession to Bulgaria" because we could see that it would face great hardship because of the opposition of the Great Powers and the aspirations of the neighboring small states and Turkey. It crossed our minds that an autonomous Macedonia could later become easier to join Bulgaria, and in the extreme, if this was not achieved, it could serve as a unifying unit of a federation of the Balkan peoples ... we set out on the purpose of our organization, and at the same time set out to work out the statute of the organization. We had on hand one volume of "Notes" by Zakhariy Stoyanov and we took from them the model of the statute of the Bulgarian Revolutionary Committee. " Yes, the hidden goal of our organization then is precisely the accession of Macedonia to Bulgaria! Even afterwards, after the 1919 rise of the idea of Independent Macedonia by Todor Alexandrov and Ivan Mihailov, VMRO has always advocated only for the Bulgarian in Macedonia and the creation of a second Bulgarian state. All of her official documents and correspondence are written in Bulgarian. Some of these archives and documents were even released during Gruevski's reign in Macedonia, edited by the late Zoran Todorovski, and anyone can check them himself. All of these documents refer to Bulgarians, to the Bulgarian population, to the Bulgarian church in Macedonia. All VMRO leaders and figures, whether left, right, federalist, supreme or autonomous, were Bulgarians and fought for the Bulgarian one. VMRO is not only a Bulgarian organization - it is the most Bulgarian one! Gruevski asks where 180,000 Macedonians disappeared from the census in Bulgaria between 1946 and 1956. With this question he defends the forced Macedonianisation of the Pirin region, undertaken by the Bulgarian Communist Party of Georgi Dimitrov with the active support of Tito and under Stalin's orders. The greatest resistance against this national betrayal of the Bulgarian Communist Party is precisely the VMRO and its overseas arm - the MPO (Macedonian Patriotic Organization). VMRO's activists are in the prisons of communist Bulgaria, precisely because they are against becoming Macedonians. Ivan Mihaylov himself remained until the very end of his life a staunch Bulgarian patriot and the greatest opponent of Macedonianism, the Macedonian nation and the Macedonian language. Once again Gruevski is not on the side of the IMRO, but on the side of Tito, the side of the Communists and of the Serbian propaganda!
Creating an implicit sense of a climax of his historical thought, Gruevski finally asks if at least one Bulgarian soldier participated in the Ilinden Uprising and why Bulgaria did not help. There is an apogee of Gruevski's historical thought, but it has the opposite effect of what he is trying to prove. 48 Bulgarian officers took part in the Ilinden Uprising, including one general (Gen. Tsonchev), 1 colonel (K. Yankov), 1 lieutenant colonel (Gen. Protogerov) and over 20 lieutenants and only a few lieutenants. In addition, 146 of the leaders of the uprising and the voivods of detachments were born on the territory of "old" Bulgaria - without any roots at all from Macedonia. The chairman of TMORO / IMORO during the uprising was none other than Ivan Garvanov, a "Macedonian" from Stara Zagora. Voivode Hristo Chernopeev is "Macedonian" from Dermantsi, Lovech, voivode Toma Davidov is "Macedonian" from Lovech, voivode Tane Nikolov is "Macedonian" from Haskovo, voivode Bobby Stoychev is "Macedonian" from Dryanovo, voivode Nikolay Zhekov is from Macedonian Stara Zagora, Voivode Mihail Apostolov - The pope is "Macedonian" from Gorna Dikanya, Radomirsko, voivode Marko Lerinski is "Macedonian" from Kotel ... and so are 136 other voivods coming from all over Bulgaria. It is also interesting to note that Bulgarians from Macedonia take part in the rebellious zone in Edirne Thrace. Such are, for example, Lazar Madjarov of Sukho, Thessaloniki or the chronicler Hristo Silyanov of Ohrid. All of them then, no matter where the Bulgarian lands came from, were Bulgarians, who gave their lives to the freedom of their compatriots from Macedonia and Edirne Thrace.
Regarding weapons, ammunition, insurgent uniforms, it is enough to look on the Internet for the huge photo material that survived to this day. You will see, for example, that almost all rifles are manliheri, and in the Balkans they are only available in the Bulgarian Army. You will also see many Chetniks wearing Bulgarian military uniforms. The explanation is simple. Then the senior intelligence officer of the Bulgarian military intelligence Goryche Petrov was responsible for the weapon and everything else, which simply opened discreetly several military depots for the purpose.
Gruevski also asks why Bulgaria does not formally join its insurgent army. The reason is prosaic - she can't afford it. We have to look for wines in 4 favorites of Gruevski countries. The first is the Ottoman Empire. At that time, the Principality of Bulgaria was still its vassal territory and the empire was looking for every convenient occasion and waiting for the right moment to recover the lost Bulgarian territories. Another country, also beloved by Gruevski, is Russia. At that time, she had formally stated her position against the uprising and threatened Bulgaria that if it intervened it would not support it in subsequent hostilities. Gruevski's third beloved country, Austria-Hungary, has also declared an uprising and threatened Bulgaria not to intervene. The fourth country, Gruevski's favorite, Serbia, was on alert to attack Bulgaria and Macedonia in case of Bulgarian intervention in the uprising. Let us also add the fact that dozens of Greek officers have volunteered in the Ottoman army in its actions against the rebels.
Gruevski often struggles to make historical analyzes that are clearly not given to him. He didn't give in to politics either! We saw him infamously, in a trunk, end his political career. The decaying styrofoam buckwheat faades of the Skopje buildings, which he invented during his architectural period, are also decaying. His attempt to steal the name of the VMRO by rewriting and falsifying the Organization's history and ideals will also end up glorious. But his DPMNE is not VMRO. From VMRO, Serbian and Russian whistle does not and never will!
VMRO has been and will always remain the most Bulgarian cause!
The author is Krasimir Karakachanov - Minister of Defense of Bulgaria and forerunner of VMRO - Bulgarian National Movement, historian
...Even if a man lives well, he dies and another one comes into existence. Let the one who comes later upon seeing this inscription remember the one who had made it. And the name is Omurtag, Kanasubigi.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 219 Given: 36 |
Macedonians have never had opportunity to declare freely their national identity. You cannot expect Goce Delcev to be admitted in the Bulgarian Military Academy if he stated that he was Macedonian distinct from Bulgarians. You cannot expect Mihailo Apostolski to be admitted in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia Military Academy if he stated that he was Macedonian distinct from Serbians.You cannot expect the birth certificate issued by the Bulgarian Church to state that the new born baby was Macedonian not Bulgarian. One of my close relatives when he was serving military service in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia declared that he was Serbian from South Serbia. That was not because he freely declared his nationality but because of the consequences he would face if he didn’t do so. I expect may document to be shown with the intent to prove something which was not correct and are results of circumstances at that time.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 219 Given: 36 |
Macedonians have never had opportunity to declare freely their national identity. You cannot expect Goce Delcev to be admitted in the Bulgarian Military Academy if he stated that he was Macedonian distinct from Bulgarians. You cannot expect Mihailo Apostolski to be admitted in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia Military Academy if he stated that he was Macedonian distinct from Serbians.You cannot expect the birth certificate issued by the Bulgarian Church to state that the new born baby was Macedonian not Bulgarian. One of my close relatives when he was serving military service in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia declared that he was Serbian from South Serbia. That was not because he freely declared his nationality but because of the consequences he would face if he didn’t do so. I expect many document to be shown with the intent to prove something which was not correct and are results of circumstances at that time.
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 219 Given: 36 |
Mihajlo Apostolski (Macedonian: Михајло Апостолски; born Mihail Mitev Apostolov,[2] Bulgarian: Михаил Митев Апостолов;[3] or Mihailo Mitić, Serbian: Михаило Митић;[4] November 8, 1906 – August 7, 1987) was a Yugoslav general, military theoretician,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mihailo_Apostolski
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 6,157 Given: 6,705 |
Karl Hron on the Macedonians
“The question of the proper position of the Macedonians with respect to nationality is still open today. Before it can be solved it will be necessary to investigate and report on the peculiarities of the Language, customs, habits, traditions, folk songs and other aspects without bias and in a scientific manner. The more I see of today's conclusions, the more I am firmly convinced that the national particularity of the Macedonians will be confirmed and clarified by advance in research.
In fact, the Macedonian question is interesting politically though not yet so topical. Its political solutions rest with a later generation.”
K. Hron (1890)
These remarks were written in 1890 by the Austrian student of Macedonian matters Karl Hron who, with evident scientific objectivity, tried to describe, and prove the independent development of the Macedonian people. He set out his views and conclusions on the independent development of the Macedonian people and the Macedonian nationality with Impressive erudition in his book, The Nationality of the Macedonians Slavs, published in Vienna in 1890.
To understand this study by Karl Hron, and its most valuable observations on the Macedonian question, it is necessary to describe the times and the atmosphere as they then affected Macedonian.
This was a period of revolutionary ferment in Macedonia. Already we find all the social and economic conditions for the concrete, revolutionary unification of all forces in one, revolutionary organism which could lead the Macedonian people in the battle for national and social liberation. At this time, three years before the formation of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization, Macedonian activists were already tracing the road which would unite the Macedonian revolutionary currents and lead the enslaved Macedonian masses to the foot-hills of the revolution.
All the conditions, attributes of a national revolution, were present. The Macedonian slave could no longer endure either the economic or political suppression. The earlier revolutionary occurrences now served only as traditional, instructive examples for a bolder and more vital march along the paths of a far reaching revolutionary epic, to the peaks of the Macedonian revolution whish could already be felt stirring in the country.
It was during this period that the Balkan monarchies increased their efforts to expand and establish their aspirations towards Macedonia. The entire apparatus of government was involved in this propaganda action with the aim of ensuring influence in Macedonia, and "proving" the existence of some imaginary "historical" and "national" cause. These aims were pursued without scruple.
It was during times such as these that Karl Hron and his book, The Nationality of the Macedonian Slavs, appeared. In it he set out his assessment of the independent development of the Macedonian people and nationality without any prejudice or partiality.
The very objectivity of his survey of Macedonia and the Macedonians prompts us to emphasize the origins of his interest in Macedonian affairs, and the intentions which led him to study this question.
Karl Hron came from Czechoslovakia. He was a journalist, publicist and scientist by profession. He served in the Austrian army. He traveled through the Yugoslav countries and learned the Yugoslav languages. In 1888 he traveled through Macedonia and this helped him to learn the language of our people better and to note the historical particularities of its development more thoroughly.
As soon as he had gathered a large amount of empirical data on the Macedonian people Karl Hron turned to the study of this subject from its historical, philological and ethnological aspects with unusual honesty and scientific lucidity.
Karl Hron was directly stimulated to write his study on Macedonia and the Macedonians by the publication, in 1889, of works by Stefan Verkovich and Spiridon Gopchevich, who viewed the Macedonian national question in quite a different light. Hron made a detailed analysis of these studies, particularly that by Spiridon Gopchevich, and disproved their views with scientific argument. He uncovered their weaknesses, distortions, falsifications and unscientific conclusions concerning the proper position of the Macedonians with respect to their nationality.
In his own work Hron described his own position on the development of the Macedonian language, the specific points and subtleties of the Macedonian speech. This was followed by a discussion of the historical facts with the accent on the most notable characteristic moments in the development of the Macedonian people during the period which lasted from the settlement of the Macedonian Slavs to the end of the seventeenth century. Hron succeeded in delineating the development of the Macedonian people in stages and drawing from his exposition theoretical and practical conclusions. He gave a theoretical, objective description of the problem of the Macedonian nationality and advanced his practical hypotheses concerning the possibilities for a solution of the Macedonian question.
The major part of Karl Hron's study on Macedonia and the Macedonians was devoted to a critical and, at times, polemical estimation of the views expounded by Spiridon Gopchevich on Macedonia. In his preface and in the ninth chapter of his book Hron underlined Gopcthevich's statements so that he could prove and explain the independence of the Macedonian people's development.
Having confirmed Spiridon Gopchevich's unscientific treatment and misrepresentation of the Macedonian question Karl Hron then continued his preface with an explanation of his own views of the development of the Macedonian people. He said: "From my own studies of the Serbian-Bulgarian disagreement I came to the conviction that the Macedonians are a specific national group, both in terms of history and language; they are neither Serbs nor, to an even greater extent, Bulgarians, but the descendants of those first Slav settlers who settled the Balkan Peninsula long before the Serbian and Bulgarian invasions, and later mixed with neither of these nations".
After describing the basic pages of Spiridon Gopchevich's publication Karl Hron then goes on to uncover the defects, distortions, falsifications and unscientific conclusions in the determination of the Macedonian national position. Here he achieved a perfect critical tone; he succeeded in unmasking Gopchevich's statements to the smallest detail, in proving his unserious attitude to the interpretation of serious scientific questions. Hron presented his own scientific formulations on the development of the Macedonian people through the prism of this critical outline.
Hron gave an important place to his profound analysis of the peculiarities and subtleties of the Macedonian language and dialects. He criticized Gopchevich's contention that the article is not found in Macedonian and said: "From personal experience I can say that the Macedonians use articles". He listed examples collected during his stay in Skopje in 1888, when he was imprisoned by the Turkish authorities. About his period in prison he wrote: "In the overcrowded prisons I met many prisoners from Macedonia, which gave me the opportunity to study the linguistic peculiarities. Unfortunately, all my writing materials were removed from me so I could make no notes and was forced to rely on memory for the total impression of these verbal contacts".
Hron criticized Gopchevich for his incorrect conclusions concerning the language of the Macedonians. On this subject he said: "According to such outstanding authorities as Mikloshevich Gopchevich is wrong to claim that they speak Serbian; if Gopchevich wishes to oppose the ‘opinions’ of such authorities he must first prove that he has some knowledge in this field, where linguistic differences should be sought. From my own experience I can conclude that the Macedonians do not speak Serbian. As a classic proof of this I should mention that, when I was in prison in Skopje, another prisoner and his son, Montenegrins, were hardly able to make themselves understood with the other Macedonian prisoners."
On the problem of the Macedonian language Hron posed this question: "What language do the Macedonians speak?" He gave the following answer: "Seen from this aspect we can confirm that the Macedonian language, according to its own rules on the development of the intonation, and its grammatical structure, forms a separate language..."
Having discussed such characteristics of the language of the Macedonians, Hron turned to the independent development of the Macedonian people, the characteristic moments in the history of Macedonia. His views on this were illustrated with numerous details, which contributed to a better synthesis of his thesis on the nationality of the Macedonians.
Once again he criticized Gopchevich's conclusions. He stressed that “..as long as he makes no effort to study the question of the proper position of the Macedonians with respect to nationality then, without a doubt, he is not going to convince me that the Macedonians are Serbians, even less that they are Bulgarians. They are Macedonians, direct descendants of those Slavs who settled Macedonia long before the Serbian and Bulgarian invasions and did not mix with the Serbs and Bulgarians later."
To prove his point Hron introduced many historical facts on the specific points of Macedonian historical development. He treated these facts through the prism of the historical acts of the remaining peoples on the Balkans, in particular in relation to the development of the South Slavs. On this he said: "..Knowledge of the history is of such importance in understanding the national relationships that a brief review of it is included here."
Hron set out his historical data on the development of the Macedonian people with a considerable amount of argumentation. In doing so he made mistakes and overlooked certain points, particularly when dealing with questions which had not been subjected to proper scientific method in his time. But we should not forget the fact that he was quite precise in his arguments and, of even greater importance, he succeeded in delineating the development of medieval Macedonia in stages and drawing positive conclusions from his material.
Hron described the Slav settlement in Macedonia in detail and brought to light some interesting facts. On this subject he noted: "In 334 Constantine the Great settled 300,000 Slav Sarmatians in Macedonia. This led to the peaceful settlement by Slav colonists of the regions which had been ravaged as the result of war and left empty. The first independent Slav invasion occurred in 493 in Thrace, and in 517 in Macedonia. Between 551 and 558 many Slav tribes penetrated as far south as Thermopylae, that is to the Macedonians of today. One part of this movement of tribes was led by Velizar to Constantinople. In 597 the tribes known in history as the Macedonian Slavs twice surrounded the coastal town Salonica. They were armed with excellent military equipment which proves a high level of culture and indicates that they were already old settlers in these parts. According to Irechek, Yovan Efeski tells us that they fought better than the Romans..."
Similar details and arguments were used by Hron in his exposition which covered the period up to the fall of Macedonia to the Turks. He underlined the characteristic particularities of the development of the Macedonian people with special stress on the period of Samol’s kingdom, the Bogomil movement and the foundation of the Ohrid Archbishopric and Patriarchate. He sets out the many attempts made that enabled Hron to formulate some of his conclusions. With the accent on the Bulgarian subjection of Macedonia he emphasized the following points: "To come to any conclusions on the national relations the following factors from Bulgarian history are important:
1. The Macedonians, during the first and the second Bulgarian empires, were conquered and later broke away once more;
2. They always had their own ecclesiastical organization with a Patriarchate in Ohrid."
Hron also explained the Serbian subjugation of Macedonia adequately. On this he said: "It is important to consider the following facts from the history of Serbian relations with the Macedonians:
1. The aim of the Serbian rulers was to transform this country into a Serbian homeland when they conquered it;
2. Macedonia was part of a Serbian state for only 26 years and their ecclesiastical unity lasted only 21 years;
3. Macedonia suffered under a murderer as ruler after the disintegration of the Serbian Kingdom only so as to win freedom from Serbian rule;
4. Macedonia did not join the Pech Patriarchate, which covered the whole of Serbia after the Turkish invasion."
Hrons argumentative conclusions as to the position of Macedonia with relation to the actions of the Bulgarian and Serbian medieval states clarify many of the peculiarities which were characteristic of the development of Macedonia during this period. In fact they give a clearer picture of the independent development of the Macedonian people who, during those historical times, succeeded in preserving their national identity. Hron explained this extremely important fact for Macedonian history in the following passage:
"From this short, historical sketch which describes the insignificant degree of cohesion achieved when Macedonia was joined either to the Bulgarian or Serbian states, the destruction twice over of the independent ecclesiastical organization, it is impossible to accept the idea that the Macedonians belong to the Bulgarian or Serbian tribes. On the contrary, it seems that in place of foreign elements the Macedonians preserved their own. That the Macedonians cannot be numbered among the Serbs is proved by their separation with which they opposed the later outburst of Serbian national feeling... We can conclude that the Macedonians are neither Serbs nor Bulgarians, but a specific people, the direct descendants of those Slav settled the Balkan Peninsula long before the Serbian and Bulgarian invasions and did not mix with either people later."
Apart from these conclusions on the linguistic and historical particularities of the Macedonian people Hron also supported the truth with statistical data and with comments from the travelers of the nineteenth century, who traveled throughout Macedonia and described the intolerable situation to be found there. These enabled him to emphasize once again the conclusions of his thesis concerning the separate national identity of the Macedonians. He wrote: "My researches up to now support, in my opinion, the correctness of my view of the national identity of the Macedonian Slavs..." He did not neglect to study more fully and develop research material on the particularities of language, customs, habits, traditions, folk songs and all other national characteristics and specific aspects in the development of the people. He boldly and clearly confirmed a truth, which some had forgotten or deliberately hidden or falsified. With unusual perceptiveness Hron described this truth in the following way: "The more I see of the conclusions up to date the more firmly convinced I am that the separate national identity of the Macedonians will be clarified and supported with the progress of research.…"
Hron was also concerned enough to offer discussion on the political solution to the Macedonian question. He was quite right to say that a political solution to this question did not seem possible at his time. He concluded, in a visionary manner, that "the political solution rests with future generations". With this in mind he stressed the justice of supporting an independent Macedonian literature.
The views of the student of Macedonia, Karl Hron, on the independent development of the Macedonian people and their national identity are of exceptional importance. He threw light on a very important problem in our history. His work is a great contribution to the clarification of the Macedonian question, for perfecting our knowledge of the independent development of the Macedonian people. His conceptions are based on a scientific approach to the history, language and ethnography of the Macedonians. Hron set out to define the problems supremely well and then approached the truth with authority.
His observations on the independent development of the Macedonians were not incidental, nor the result of a momentary need. On the contrary, they were the outcome of long research into the truth of a people's development when the waves of history were beating against it and yet it always succeeded in resisting the tides to bear witness to its position on the historical stage.
Karl Hron’s thesis added to the previous investigations. During his own time the description of the independent development of the Macedonian people was being improved step by step. The aim of his work was to prove that this national identity had been the decisive factor in the survival of this people in history.
At the time when Hron's study was published there were several other students of the question who were interested in the independent development of the Macedonian people, Russian scholars became involved in the discussion concerning the character of the Macedonian language and national identity during 1887, 1888 and later. We should mention the research carried out by Draganov, who proved that the Macedonian language was a specific South-Slav language and that the Macedonians formed a separate national group, in this context.
All these efforts were an obvious step forward in the clarification of the Macedonian problem. Hron's work was not without precedent, it only gave more developed form to the objective, scientific interpretation of this exceptionally interesting question.
Karl Hron's work is also important in that it appeared 13 years before Krste Missirkov's book, On Macedonian Matters, which dealt with similar problems from the history and development of the Macedonian people. In Karl Hron we find the great predecessor of Krste Missirkov, who was later to give us an even more thorough conception of the independent national identity of the Macedonians.
Karl Hron's conclusions helped throw light on many aspects from Macedonian history. They clarify the truth of the Macedonian national identity and justify the survival of the Macedonian people today
| Thumbs Up |
| Received: 1,896 Given: 1,003 |
This is not true. Even before the Bulgarian Exarchate was established, Christians performed their church rituals in the churches that were under the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Births, baptisms, deaths. However, they were recorded with their ethnicity, if it were not so today we would all have the consciousness of the Greeks. The fact that even at that time there was no recorded ethnic Macedonian. The Sultan Ferman for the establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate includes a text that enables residents outside the aforementioned dioceses to submit to the Exarchy if all or at least two-thirds of them request it. Theerman was proclaimed without the consent of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and with the addition of the text of the polls - favorable to the Bulgarians and unacceptable to the Greeks, the Ottoman state continued its old policy of divide and conquer and practically continued the Bulgarian-Greek church quarrel, and the envisaged interrogations of the Ottoman government and the Ottoman local authorities If Gotse did not feel Bulgarian, he would not study at a Bulgarian academy, but could choose another in which he could freely define himself as a Macedonian. The fact that even today, Gotse's relatives also identify as Bulgarians
...Even if a man lives well, he dies and another one comes into existence. Let the one who comes later upon seeing this inscription remember the one who had made it. And the name is Omurtag, Kanasubigi.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Северна Македонија
Северна Македонија
България
България
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks