Historical Evidence of the Greekness of Macedonia

 

All the historical sources are agreed on the location of Macedonia: it lay

between the Aegean Sea and the Mounts Cambounia, Pieria and Olympus to the

south, lakes Ochrid and Prespa and Mounts Bambouna, Skomion (Rila Planina)

and Rhodopon to the north, the river Nestos to the east and the Grammos and

Pindus ranges to the west.

The inhabitants of this area (Macedonians) were one of the most ancient

Greek tribes. Their closest relatives were the Thessalians and particularly

the Magnesians, with whom they shared Aeolian ancestry. The language they

spoke was among the oldest forms of Greek, and it had affinities with the

Aeolian, Arcado-Cypriot and Mycenean dialects. The religion of the

Madeconians was that of the other Greeks, and their myths and traditions

were those found throughout the Greek world (Wells, The Outline of History,

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Glimpses of World History).

King Philip II of Macedon and his son Alexander the Great – to whom Skopje

is currently attempting to attribute a ‘Slavomacedonian’ (sic) identity -

acted not simply as Greeks but as Panhellenic leaders in the sense that they

embodied the old idea of the formation of a united Greek state with the

amalgamation of the Greek city-states. As Johann Gustav Droysen – among

other scholars – points out in his History of Alexander the Great, both

Philip and Alexander “brought to the peoples of Asia and implanted in them

not the Macedonian culture, which had no independent standing, but the Greek

culture”.

In subsequent periods, and especially after the appearance in the Balkans of

the Slavs and Bulgars (6th and 7th centuries AD), the geographical area of

Macedonia as defined above continued to be the bulwark and bastion of the

Greek race, just as it had been in antiquity. Polybius calls Macedonia “the

advanced line of defence” and pays tribute to the Macedonians for fighting

the barbarians (’non-Greeks’) to preserve the security of the (other)

Greeks” (Polybious, Historiae, Leipzig 1898.). This view is reiterated for

the Byzantine period by the French historian Paul Lemerle in his classic

work Philippe et la Macedoine Orientale (Paris, 1945).

No mention is made of ‘Macedonia’ or ‘Macedonians’ as a distinct

ethnological group in any official text of either the recent or the more

distant past. Neither the Treaty of Berlin, for example, nor the Treaty of

San Stefano which was revoked by it make any reference to such concepts. The

official Turkish census of 1905 gives figures for the populations of Greeks,

Bulgarians and “quasi-Bulgarians” in the vilayets of Thessaloniki and

Monastir, where the Greeks were in the majority, but contains no reference

to ‘Macedonians’-for the simple reason that none of those questioned stated

such descent.

E.M. Cousinery, who served as French consul in Thessaloniki, informs us in

his Voyage dans la Macedoine (Paris, 1851) that “the Bulgarians” (as the

Slav-speakers were called at that time) “never penetrated into the forests

below Mt. Vermion, where the population remained Greek”. The German

geographer Leonard D. Schultze, writing of the same area in his Macedonien

Landschafts und Kulturbilder (Jena, 1927) observes that in terms of

language, tradition, cultural affinities, national will and religion the

inhabitants of Macedonia are “as genuinely Greek as their brothers to the

south”. Both these authors repeat, in different ways, what Lord Salisbury,

representing Britain at the Congress of Berlin, said at the session of 19

June 1878: “Macedonia and Thrace are as Greek as Crete”.

The fact that a small percentage of the population of this area also speaks

a language which is fundamentally Bulgarian (though containing numerous loan

words from Slav, Greek, Vlach and Albanian) is no proof of Slav or Bulgarian

origins. As demonstrated in the recent past with the forcible removal to

Greece of Greeks from Asia Minor who spoke not a word of the Greek language,

the linguistic criterion, taken in isolation, is of no value whatever.

It is also characteristic that among the freedom-fighters of the ‘Macedonian

Struggle’ (1904-1908) there were many who spoke the local tongue but were

fully Greek in terms of national consciousness. Their names-Kotas, Dalipis,

Kyrou, Gonos and others-are still remembered. The Russian historian E.

Goloubinsti (Brief History of the Orthodox Churces of Bulgaria, Serbia and

Romania, Moscow 1871) wrote of these Greeks who were not Greek speakers that

“they had relentless hate and profound contempt for everything Bulgarian or

Slav”.

After the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913, the area occupied by ancient Macedonia

was divided up, 51% of it becoming Greek territory, 38,32% going to

Yugoslavia and 10,11% passing into Bulgarian hands. This brought about a

territorial status in which, with the voluntary exchange of populations

under bilateral agreements (the Treaty of Neuilly, 1919, which provided for

the voluntary exchange of populations between Greece and Bulgaria, and that

of 1926 known as the ‘Kafantaris-Moloff agreement’) and the settling of

Greeks from Turkey in the Greek part of Macedonia, the population of that

area became purely Greek even though some of the inhabitants were bilingual.

In other words, Greek Macedonia became an entirely homogeneous part of the

Greek State. This became even more the case in the post-Occupation period

(1945-1949), when almost all the bilingual inhabitants of the area whose

national consciousness was not Greek moved to neighbouring states, and to

Yugoslavia in particular, where their quasi-Greek or quasi-Bulgarian

nationalities were mutated into the ‘Macedonian’ – that is, Slav-Macedonian

- nationality.

The emergence of this state of affairs was preceded by a number of violent

incidents, such as the Ilinden rising, during which the Bulgarians were

alleged to have revolted against the Turks on 2 August 1903 in the town of

Krushevo, near Monastir, where the population was overwhelmingly Greek. In

fact, however, the Bulgarians rose in revolt against the Greek population,

whom they attempted to exterminate-with the co-operation of the

Turks-without significantly harming the other inhabitants of the town

(Douglas Dakin, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia 1897-1915, Thessaloniki

1966).

Until the year 1914, the concepts of “Macedonia” as a Slav state and of “the

Macedonian race” as a separate nationality were completely unknown. The part

of Macedonia which was incorporated into Serbia, like that which became

Bulgarian, was a narrow strip of territory along the Greek border, and it

amounted to a very small proportion of Serbia as a whole. Skopje, which

today claims to be the capital of what it calls “the Republic of Macedonia”,

in fact lies a considerable distance outside Macedonia. The “People’ s

Republic of Macedonia” later renamed “Socialist Republic of Macedonia”, was

founded at the end of the German Occupation as a deliberate political

attempt intended – with the conceding of the Skopja and Tetova districts,

which had never belonged to Macedonia in any sense – to state the presence

of a Serbian population in the thinly-populated part of Macedonia beyond the

Greek frontiers (where the inhabitants were Serbs, Greeks, Greek Vlachs,

quasi-Turkish Muslims and Bulgarians), or, at least, of a Slav-speaking

population with a language of their own and a shifting national

consciousness. The founding of the People’s Republic of Macedonia was thus

intended to lead, in the long term, to the re-constitution of a ‘Macedonian’

state-though this time under a Slav mantle and with the aim of giving

Yugoslavia an outlet on the Aegean.

Conflicts between National Movements in the 19th Century

During the l9th century, as the Balkan peoples – one after the

other-acquired the nuclei around which their nation-states would be built,

their national ideologies coincided in areas where there were mixed

populations and where there were also overlapping national claims.

One of the areas in which these problems manifested themselves in

particularly acute form was Macedonia. In the l9th century, this part of the

world was the place where four mutually conflicting national ideologies-the

Greek, the Bulgarian, the Serbian and the Albanian-came up against one

another. As a result, it was inevitable that the national identity of the

inhabitants of the area should be one of the fundamental factors in the

promotion of each side’s claims.

Leaving aside the Muslims, who made up approximately 1/3 of the total

population, it was at this time extremely difficult to determine the

national identity of the Christian population groups. Until the mid-19th

century, the bulk of the rural population remained faithful to the

Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, which was the guardian of the

Greek language, the Greek Byzantine tradition and even of historical memory.

This factor reinforced an automatic tendency towards Greek culture on the

part of the population groups which did not speak Greek: in other words,

those which spoke Slav languages, Vlach or Albanian. However, in the

hinterland and particularly in the Slav-speaking areas of central and north

Macedonia, the Greek national ideology advanced slowly and new influences

began to penetrate the region. The antagonism between the Greek and

Bulgarian churches, which became much more acute after the foundation of the

Bulgarian Exarchate in 1870, caused sharp clashes between Greeks and

Bulgarians in the parts of Macedonia which they shared.

 

The Greek-Bulgarian Conflict

The Greek national ideology attached particular importance to the Classical

Greek past of Macedonia and, naturally enough, stressed the period and

achievements of Alexander the Great. At about this time, a pamphlet telling

the story of Alexander’s life and emphasising the continuity of the Greek

nation was printed in the local Slav dialect (though in the Greek alphabet)

and placed on the curriculum in schools in areas still under Turkish

control. Attention was also paid to cultivating and disseminating the

tradition of the Byzantine Empire. The two multi national empires, that of

Alexander and that of Byzantium, provided forceful arguments for believing

that despite their differences of language and custom the various population

groups would choose to identify themselves with Greek culture against a

background of broader state formations. Indeed, Rigas Pherraios had

envisaged something of this nature with his Balkan Federation.

The Bulgarian national ideology, on its part, attempted to graft the

cultural tradition of Bulgaria on to the Slav-speaking population of

Macedonia. There was one major obstacle to this: the fact that a

considerable proportion of the Slav speaking population, particularly in the

central and southern regions, had retained a flourishing Greek historical

tradition. The Bulgarians soon realised that the factor of history militated

against the dissemination of the Bulgarian national ideology, and for that

reason they turned their attention to other mechanisms by which national

consciousness can be moulded.

The first such mechanism which they exploited was that of linguistic

affinity. Subsequently, the Bulgarians attempted to manipulate popular

indignation over the social oppression exerted by the area’s Ottoman rulers.

Their aim was to provoke a popular uprising which, suitably handled, might

turn into a Bulgarian national movement. In parallel, the Bulgarians

fomented a confrontation between the rural population and the Greek clergy,

launching a violent attack on what they called the ’spiritual slavery’ of

the Ecumenical Patriarchate. With the help of the Bulgarian State, Bulgarian

schools began to spring up in the towns and villages of Macedonia. The basic

aim of these schools was to inspire in the pupils pride in the medieval

history of Bulgaria and particularly in the empire of Tsar Samuel, whose

capital was at Ochrid. The Bulgarian historical armoury was not, of course,

sufficient to eliminate the Greek cultural and historical heritage in

Macedonia, and for that reason a system of forging historical truth by

appropriating historical events and personalities was adopted. The Greek

missionaries Cyril and Methodius were thus presented as Bulgarians, while

their apostolic and civilising work among the Slavs was deemed to be a

‘political and cultural achievement on the part of the Bulgarians’. Even

Alexander the Great, who occupied so important a place in the hearts and

minds of the people of Macedonia, was portrayed in popular texts of the time

as being of Bulgarian descent. This is closely related to the nature of

Skopje’s current propaganda target, which is to portray Alexander the Great

as a ‘Skopjian’.

The Serbs, Romanians and Vlachs were late in appearing on the scene in

Macedonia. However, they, too, saw it as expedient to enlist the aid of the

memory of a Serbian presence in Macedonia in the Middle Ages-regardless of

the fact that from the chronological point of view this presence was

confined to the period of Tsar Dusan and his successors (14th century).

Romanians and Vlachs

A further problem was the appearance among the Vlachs of Macedonia of the

Romanian national ideology in the last two decades of the l9th century. Of

all the non Greek-speaking population groups in Macedonia, the Vlachs had

given the most whole-hearted support to the Greek national ideology. They

were a living example of how a non Greek-speaking population could be fully

incorporated into the Greek national movement. During the War of

Independence of 1821 a similar phenomenon had been observed in the case of

the Christian Albanian-speakers (the ‘Arvanites’), who identified themselves

completely with the Greek national cause. However, in the late 1860s the

Romanian national ideology began to penetrate some Vlach communities, and

its impact was still stronger after Romania gained its independence in 1877.

The Romanian ‘enlighteners’ pointed to the common Latin origin of the

Romanian and Vlach languages and also attempted to exploit the historical

factor, inventing theories about a common historical origin for the Vlachs

of the southern Balkans and the Romanians of the Danubian areas. These

efforts had very limited-though far from negligible-results. One of the

fundamental reasons why the Romanians failed to win the majority of the

Vlachs over to their cause was undoubtedly the fact that for many centuries

the Vlachs had identified themselves with the Greeks by whose side they

lived and had taken active part in all the struggles of the Greek nation for

its liberation. This living memory could not be substituted by historical

references to the Roman period.

A further central problem which arose during the l9th century was that of

whether the Slav-speakers of Macedonia were Bulgarians or belonged to a

separate Slav group. At that time, the term ‘Macedonians’ was very widely

used, sometimes in a regional and geographical sense and sometimes

culturally. When the Serbians realised that they could not pass the

Slav-speakers of Macedonian of as true Serbs, they chose to put forward the

theory of the existence of a separate Slav-Macedonian people which differed

from the Bulgarians but had affinities with the Slavs. At a later date, some

of the revolutionaries who emerged from the ranks of the Bulgarian national

movement began to promote the idea of an autonomous ‘Macedonian’ state which

would be independent even of Bulgaria. They took as their slogan “Macedonia

for the Macedonians”, but in effect this was only a tactical maneuver.

Although the leaders of this movement appeared to be supporting the creation

of an independent Macedonia, they made no attempt to interfere with the

Bulgarian historical identity of the Slavs of Macedonia, thus demonstrating

that in fact they continued to be attached to the Bulgarian national

identity. The only difference was that their political aim was autonomy and

not union.

 

The ‘Macedonian Struggle’

After the foundation of the Bulgarian Exarchate in 1870, clashes between

Greeks and Bulgarians began in Macedonia. The main aim of the Greek side was

to prevent the Bulgarian attempt to gain control of the Slav-speaking

populations who lived in the area between a

Kastoria-Ptolemaida-Yannitsa-Zichni (Serres) line to the north and a

Ochrid-Perpeles-Stromnitsa-Meleniko-Nevrokopi line to the south. The Greek

defeat in the war of 1897 allowed the Bulgarians to compel a large part of

the Slav-speaking population in this area to embrace Bulgarian ideals. This

resulted in the Ilinden rising on the feast day of the Prophet Elijah in

1903, a revolt which was crushed by the Turkish army.

The rising led, in turn, to the sacking of many Greek villages and towns,

including Krushevo. The looting and the persecution of Greek populations put

the Greek on to a war footing, and 1904 saw the beginning of the Greek armed

rising known as the Macedonian Struggle, which was to last until 1908.

Throughout the Macedonian Struggle armed bands of volunteers from the free

Greek state (from Crete, Epirus, Thessaly and many parts of the Greek world

which were as yet unredeemed), fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with the local

inhabitants, were able to prevent any extension of Bulgarian activities and

to preserve the Greek character of southern and central Macedonia. In many

cases, the Greek units consisted principally of Slav and Vlach-speaking

guerrillas fighting for the Greek cause. This preference for the Greek

national ideal caused the Bulgarians to call them ‘Grecomani’-that is,

fanatical Greeks. The descendants of these freedom fighters still live in

the Monastir district.

The armed Macedonian Struggle was broken off in July 1908, because of the

Young Turk Revolt. When the Young Turks overthrew the feudal regime of the

Sultan, they issued a general amnesty and also promised all the

nationalities equal civil rights.

The Macedonian Struggle, which began under the most adverse circumstances

and lasted four whole years, was an unqualified triumph for the Greeks. One

reason for this was that the Struggle attracted Greeks from the free state,

from Crete and from other enslaved areas, who fought side-by-side with the

Macedonians. A second, and equally serious, reason for the success was that

the Greeks were fighting in an area inhabited by a fraternally-related

population with the same ideals and the same dedication to the Ecumenical

Patriarchate and the Greek national idea, regardless of the fact that the

Greek language was not always spoken.

 

How to Construct a Nationality

The Turkish defeat in the First Balkan War brought the Ottoman period in the

history of Macedonia to an end. Of the geographical area of Macedonia as a

whole, Greece received 51%, Serbia 39% and Bulgaria 10%. The mass exodus of

populations which found themselves living on foreign soil, together with

exchanges and deportations, drastically altered the ethnological composition

of all these parts of Macedonia, and were particularly noticeable in the

Greek section.

The successive defeats of Bulgaria in the First and Second World War led to

the growth in Bulgarian Macedonia of a combative Bulgarian Macedonian

nationalism. The Comintern attempted to exploit the irridentist trends of

this nationalism by adopting the policy of a “unified and independent

Macedonia” to form part of a “Balkan Communist Federation “.

In Yugoslav Macedonia, the policy of conversion to Serbian ideals applied by

Belgrade produced relatively poor results. In order to escape ill-treatment,

part of the population refrained from expressing its pro-Bulgarian

disposition, suppressed its Bulgarian names and made use of the politically

neutral geographical term Macedones. Other sections of the population chose

to incorporate themselves openly into the Serbian national community.

In Greek Macedonia, the remnants of the Slav-speaking population amounted to

100-150,000 after the exchange of populations and were divided into two

groups: one fairly large group, which under Turkish rule had thrown in its

lot with the Greek national identity, and a smaller group which had adopted

the Bulgarian national identity or remain non-aligned.

During the Second World War, the incursion of the Bulgarian army into

Yugoslav Macedonia was welcomed by one section of the population as the

first step towards the liberation and incorporation into the Bulgarian state

for which they longed. A similar phenomenon, though on a much smaller scale,

also occurred in Greek Macedonia.

The Yugoslav partisans under Tito soon became aware that at all costs they

must break the bonds between the population of Yugoslav Macedonia and

Bulgaria. They thus exploited the growing discontent towards the Bulgarian

occupying forces among the population: the Bulgarians reacted with cruelty

and mass reprisals to the attacks of the partisans. Tito’s partisans

promised the population that in post-War Yugoslavia the Macedonians- that

is, the Slavs of Yugoslav Macedonia-would have rights equal to those enjoyed

by all the other nationalities, and even equal to those of the Serbs. They

emphasised, however, that the Slavs of Macedonia had no affinities either

with the Serbs or with the Bulgarians: they constituted a separate,

Macedonian, nationality. The idea of distinct Macedonian nationality was

welcomed by a significant proportion of Yugoslav Macedonia. The political

and social conditions were ripe for acceptance of the new theory: Bulgaria

had been defeated, Tito had succeeded in gaining Stalin’s consent to

implementation of the new Macedonian policy, and the population was worn out

after half a century of Serbian and Bulgarian efforts to impose on it their

own national identities.

After the success of the Patriotic Front revolution in Bulgaria (in which

the Communist Party of Bulgaria played the leading role) in September 1944,

negotiations began between the Communist Parties of Yugoslavia and Bulgaria

on the future of Macedonia and of the Balkans as a whole once the War was

over. On 2 August 1944 the formation of the “Socialist Republic of

Macedonia” was announced at Prohor Pcinjsci Monastery: it was to form part

of the new federal Yugoslavia.

In September 1944, a Yugoslav delegation headed by General Tempo and Lazar

Kolisevki, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Macedonia, visited

Sofia and extracted from the new Bulgarian leadership a promise that the

inhabitants of Pirin (Bulgarian Macedonia) would be granted autonomy as a

first step towards unification with the federal “Republic of Macedonia ” in

Tito’s Yugoslavia. In April 1945, Tito imposed a federal system on

Yugoslavia and installed the governments of the federal states of Serbia,

Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Montenegro and Skopje, the last of which was

founded on 30 April 1945.

In the meantime, and while the outcome of the civil war which had broken out

in Greece remained in the balance, the Yugoslavs exerted ever-increasing

pressure on their Bulgarian comrades to have Bulgarian Macedonia ceded to

Yugoslavia. By the end of 1946, the Bulgarians’ had made specific

concessions to Yugoslavia over Macedonia. At its 10th Session in August

1946, the Central Committee of the CPB resolved to work “towards cultural

convergence between the inhabitants of Pirin Macedonia and the People’s

Republic of Macedonia “. This was followed by a sweeping programme of

cultural exchanges, while at the same time the inhabitants of Pirin were

given the right to chose between the Bulgarian and the “Macedonian”

nationality.

Tempted by the various incentives offered, most of them chose to be

“Macedonians”. After a long period of consultation, Tito and Dimitrov, the

leaders of Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, met at Bled in Yugoslavia on 2 August

1947 and signed a series of agreements known as the Bled Protocols, by which

Bulgaria agreed, in return for certain minor concessions, to recognise the

inhabitants of Bulgarian Macedonia (Pirin) as “Macedonians” and to prepare

the ground for the incorporation of the Pirin province into the “Socialist

Republic of Macedonia”. In return, Bulgaria requested only that the

so-called “Western districts” which the Serbs had occupied at the end of the

First World War be returned.

However, Tito’s grandiloquent plans for a “Federation of the South Slavs”

under his leadership fell foul of Stalin. The split came in the summer of

1948, and it made nonsense of all Yugoslavia’s plans to make Tito the master

of the Balkans using the ‘Macedonian question’ as a lever. In these

circumstances, Bulgaria was able to release itself from the concessions it

had made over Macedonia. It rejected the theory of the “Macedonian nation”

and expelled the political instructors dispatched to Bulgaria by Skopje.

Sofia then attempted to exploit the difficulties in which the Yugoslavs

found themselves to raise once more the pre-War slogan of a “united and

independent Macedonia “.

———————————————————-

SKOPJE’S THEORETICAL SLEIGHT OF HAND

1. Cyril and Methodius, the “Patrons Saints of Europe”

It is historically proven fact- and one which is accepted by Slav

historians- that the Slavs settled in the Balkans in the 6th century AD and

that their cultural history begins in the 10th century AD. The cultural

history of the Slavs was founded by two Greek monks from Thessaloniki, Cyril

and Methodius, who taught the Slavs the Cyrillic script and initiated them

into Orthodox Christianity. It is a matter of common knowledge that the

Byzantine Greek achievements in science, the arts and letters constitute the

main and central part of the infrastructure of Slav cultural history.

However, some Slav historians argue that these two Greek monks were actually

“Slavs”, and Skopje has advanced an even stranger and less accurate theory:

that since Cyril and Methodius were from Thessaloniki, they were “Macedonian

Slavs” and that, consequently, as their descendants (!), they have the

honour of having “enlightened” their fellow-Slavs.

A serious blow to the credibility of these theories was struck by Pope John

Paul II (himself a Slav), who on 31 December 1980 issued an official

apostolic encyclical (Egrigiae Virtutis), to the Catholic Church as a whole

and sent a private letter to the President of the Hellenic Republic

proclaiming Cyril and Methodius, “our brother Greeks, born in Thessaloniki”,

patron saints of Europe. The Pope reiterated this proclamation in an address

delivered on 14 February 1981 in the church of San Clemente, Rome.

There is no shortage of Slav politicians and historians who accept that

Cyril and Methodius were Greek: They include the Czech Byzantologist F.

Dvornik, the Serbian historians of early Serbian literature P. Popovich, Dj

Sh. Radovich and Dj. Trijunovich, and the Slovenian Professor B. Grajeneurer

of the University of Ljubljana.

One characteristic example of this can be found in the History of Early Slav

Literature (Belgrade, 1980) by professor V. Bagdanovich, a Serb, who writes:

“Cyril and Methodius were born in Thessaloniki and were of Greek not Slav.

descent”.

 

The Greekness of the Slav-Speakers

Various sets of Statistics saw the light of day during the period of intense

Greek Bulgarian conflict concerning the ethnological composition of the

Macedonian population. The numerical data given fluctuate wildly, since the

sets of statistics were based on different criteria and were designed to

serve the national ambitions of those who compiled them.

When it was ruled by the Ottoman Empire, Macedonia was divided

administratively into two vilayets of Thessaloniki and Monastir. The general

inspector of vilayets had his headquarters in Thessaloniki, and in the

run-up to the Balkan Wars this post was held by Hilmi Pasha. His census of

1904 must be a close approximation to the real situation; it gives the

following proportions of Greeks and Bulgarians:

 

                              Greeks    Bulgarians

                                     ——-   ———

Vilayet of Thessaloniki 373,227 207,317

Vilayet of Monastir       261,283 178,412

Total                             634,510 385,729

In an interview with the French writer Paillares, Hilmi Pasha had the

following to say about the Slav-speakers: “My view, and the view of my

government, is that these people are Greeks. We classify our subjects

according to the churches and schools they frequent. Unless violent pressure

is applied to them, these people call themselves Greeks” (L’ improglio

Macedonien, Paris 1907, pp. 50-51.).

As early as 1871, the Russian author Golonbinski wrote that “these so called

Greeks display towards anything Bulgarian or Slav a more relentless hatred

and more profound contempt than even real Greeks would have done”. And in

memorandum which the inhabitants of the Monastir area sent to the French

government in 1903, they expressed the point more eloquently than any

traveller could do :”We speak Greek, Bulgarian and Albanian; that does not

make any of us the less Greek, nor do we permit to call our Greekness into

question”.

Further proof of the Greekness of the Slav-speakers-and of the inhabitants

of the area in general – is to be found in the educational organisation of

the Greeks of Macedonia. In the Monastir area there were 284 Greek schools,

of which the town of Monastir alone had a secondary school, a teacher

training school, a girls’ school, a boys’ school, a seminary, an ‘urban

academy’ and 14 primary schools. In Krusheno there was a junior secondary

school, a girls’ high school, a boy’s high school, four primary school and a

nursery school. They were primary school, girls’ schools, institutes of

advanced education and nursery schools in Megarovo, Trnavo, Milosista,

Nizopoli, Gopesi, Upper and Lower Belista, Brusnik, Lahci, Bukovo,

Stromnita, Gevgeli and Meleniko. In some cases, the Greeks may have lost

their language as a result of living in close proximity with members of

other races, but they never lost their sense of nationality. Greek education

kept that sense alive even when it was delivered in Slav or Vlach.

The area which was incorporated into Greece after the Balkan Wars included

the greater part of the vilayets of the Thessaloniki and Monastir. Over the

next ten to fifteen years (to 1925), tremendous shifts of population took

place and radically altered the ethnological composition of the area. During

the period of wartime (1912-1919), scores of thousands of Bulgarians left

the area, a trend which continued with the departure of 53,000 Bulgarians by

virtue of the agreement for the voluntary exchange of populations between

Greece and Bulgaria. Only the Slav-speakers of western Macedonia remained:

the majority of this population was Greek in terms of national consciousness

and had chosen of their own free will to stay in Greece.

The League of Nations produced the following statistics for Greek Macedonia

in 1926, when the exchange of populations between Greece had also been

completed:

 

Greeks 1,341,000 88%

Muslims 2,000 0.1%

Bulgarians 77,000 5.1%

Miscellaneous (mostly Jews) 91,000 6.0%

Total 1,511,000

In 1924, within the framework of the League Nations, Greece and Bulgaria

signed a protocol (known as the “Kalfoff- Politis protocol”) by which Greece

recognised as Bulgarian the Slav-speaking population which had remained on

its territory. However, there was such an outcry in Greece (while at the

same time Serbia reacted by abrogating the Greek- Serbian Treaty of Alliance

of 1913) that the Greek Parliament refused to ratify the protocol and the

League of Nations released Greece from the obligations which it had

undertaken.

Alexander’s name is Greek. The word “Alexandros” is produced from the prefix

alex(=protector) and the word andros(=man) meaning “he who protects men”.

The

prefix “alex” can be found in many Greek words today (alexiptoto=parachute,

alexisfairo=bulletproof – all these words have the meaning of protection).

Philip’s name is also Greek. It is produced from the prefix Philo(=friendly

to

something) and the word ippos(=horse) meaning the man who is friendly to

horses.

The prefix “philo” and the word “ippos” are also found in many words of

Greek

origin today (philosophy,philology, hippodrome,hippocampus).

The Slavic propaganda insists that ancient Macedonians did not have Greek

names or (in some cases) that only the royal family had Greek names. Here is

a list of names of ordinary Macedonian people,mentioned in history, which

proves once again the falsity of the Slavic arguments.

Ifestionas – Alexander’s closest friend

Aristotelis – Famous phiosopher, born in Stageira

Hermias – Philosopher

Anaksarxos – Philosopher

Kalisthenis – Philosopher

Marsias – Writer

Zoilos – Writer

Zeuxis – Painter from Heraclea

Leocharis – Sculptor

Lysippos – Sculptor

Deinokratis – He helped Alexander to create Alexandria in Egypt

Antipatros – Historian

Aristokritos – Actor

Thessalos – Actor, friend of Alexander’s

Philotas – Another friend of Alexander’s

Argeos – Rival of king Philippos

Pausanias – The man who killed king Philippos

Kassandros – Army general, founded the city of Thessaloniki

Ptolemeos – Army general

Antigonos – Army general

Selefkos – Army general

Arrianos – Cavalary commander

Nearchos – Navy commander

Neoptolemos – Arrmy officer

Python – Army officer

Hippostratos – Army officer

Kleitos – Army officer

Permenion – Army officer

Attalos – Army officer

Aristoboulos – Army officer

Kleitarxos – Army officer

Polycratis – Soldier

Bolon – Soldier

Koinos – Soldier

Xenokratis

Deukalos

Arrhideos

Charidimos

Parmenion

Antiochos

Krateros

Kalas

Perseas

Meleagros

Arpalos

Eumenis

Lyssimachos

Leonatos

Assandros

Memmon

and yes the above names are greek also

Now…..Let’s try to decipher

informacii = information

istorijata – history or in Greek Istoria, from the Greek Histor = Knowing,

also

look up Herodotus, the father of History

Main Entry: his?to?ry

Etymology: Latin historia, from Greek, inquiry, history, from histOr, istOr

knowing, learned; akin to Greek eidenai to know

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

kulturata – culture, or Koultoura

politikata – politics, from the Greek polis – city, politis – citizen

Main Entry: pol?i?tics

Etymology: Greek politika, from neuter plural of politikos political

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

Makedonija – Makedonia

“The name of the ancient Macedonians is derived from Macedon, who was the

grandchild of Deukalion, the father of all Greeks. This we may infer from

Hesiod’s genealogy. It may be proven that Macedonians spoke Greek since

Macedon,

the ancestor of Macedonians, was a brother of Magnes, the ancestor of

Thessalians, who spoke Greek.” (Nicholas Hammond, 1993)

The archaeological discoveries form the Macedonian land are the stongest

proof

that ancient Macedonia was part of the Greek civilization. All the ancient

monuments and inscriptions use the Greek alphabet. Furthermore there is a

large

number of discoveries in Asia in the route of Alexander the Great. All these

monuments, discovered in Pakistan, Kuweit, India and many more countries,

prove

that Alexanders quest was Greek.