The Position of the Macedonians towards the Establishment of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes

Од Wikibooks

The unification of peoples for their own protection and prosperity is undoubtedly a progressive integrative step. The Macedonians have always found themselves in historical situations that have impelled them to aspire towards such a unification. Bearing in mind the struggle of the Macedonians for their statehood from the 1870s to the start of the First World War, it is quite understandable why they reacted so resolutely against the way the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was established, no matter in which part of their dismembered land they lived. Following the Treaties of Versailles and Neuilly, when the fate of Macedonia was finally sealed, the Macedonians started seeking new ways to gain freedom and defined their position towards the new Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slo- venes. As early as June 1920, even the Vrhovist-oriented Central Committee of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO, VMRO) prepared a “directive for work in Macedonia”, in which it set out: “The aim of the Organiza- tion remains the same as before: winning freedom — in the form of autonomy or independence — for Macedonia within its ethnic and economic borders.” ^[1]

That is how the activity of Todor Aleksandrov and Aleksandar Protogerov started; it soon turned into a powerful armed force which had to be reckoned with, and not only in the neighbouring states. Incursions began inside the territories of the Vardar and even the Aegean part of Macedonia, involving armed actions against the greater-state assimilatory regimes.

It must be emphasized that IMRO underwent an evolution in its position and relations which was dictated by the circumstances. As a result, at the 1920 municipal elections in Yugoslavia, Aleksandrov categorically recommended to the Macedonians to vote for the candidates of the Communists, as it was in the communist movement that he saw his ally in the struggle for the settlement of the “Macedonian question”. ^[2]

Taking into account the armed potential in the Balkans and the constellation of political forces, Soviet Russia showed special interest in the activity of Aleksandrov and Protogerov’s IMRO, and offered them moral and material assistance. Closer contacts and talks ensued, and an agreement was even proposed. ^[3]

Aleksandrov himself, in December 1923, proposed a project for agreement between IMRO and the Soviet government, which included the following:

The Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization, which represents the Macedonians fighting for national self-determination, political freedom and the greatest possible social justice, has as its aim:

Unification of Macedonia — partitioned by Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece in 1913 following the Peace Treaty of Bucharest and the 1919 Treaty of Neuilly — into a political unit which would later become an equal member of a Balkan federation or at least, in the first stage, of a Yugoslav federation. ^[4]

The negotiations were held in this spirit and their outcome was the signing of the May Manifesto and other accompanying documents in 1924. ^[5]

As a result, Aleksandrov was killed in Sofia that same year (the same happened to Protogerov somewhat later) and there was a dramatic split within the Organization. Yet this laid the groundwork for the foundation of IMRO (United) the following year, which was to become the most important proponent of the Macedonian national liberation struggle under the wing of the progressive movement — up to the organization’s abolition a decade later.

These concepts were also in accord with the programme of the Balkan Communist Federation. The great majority of the Macedonian people stood on the side of “progressive forces” and this crucial factor in the Macedonian liberation movement was to lead to ultimate success, even though only in a part of the divided land. The Balkan federation became the ideal of the Macedonian fighters.

Even after the change in the concepts of struggle (within the Comintern in 1935), which marked the start of the creation of the anti-fascist movement and, within its framework, of “the general popular front”, the slogan of the Balkan federation remained still strong in the consciousness and action of the Macedonians. In 1923, vigorous discussions on the national question commenced within the progressive circles in the Balkans. Similar discussions were held in both Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, and even in Greece. The Macedonian national question was discussed with special attention. Even the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party worked out “theses on the Macedonian question”, and discus- sions concerning the federalist visions once again could frequently be heard in Macedonian émigré circles. The mouthpiece of the Ilinden Organization in Bul- garia, Ilinden, on August 26, 1923, asked in one of its headlines: ‘Yugoslav or Balkan Federation?’ ^[6] and gave the following answer: “those who long for a federal Yugoslavia are right in one respect only: at the current moment, due to the ethnic struggle in present-day Yugoslavia, this federation can be a stage towards the common Balkan confederation, just as the autonomy of Serbian Macedonia can be the core around which Greek and Bulgarian Macedonia will be assembled”. For “once Macedonia wins independence, achieved even partially, once the first step towards a federation is made, the elimination of conflicts around Macedonia as far as Greece and Turkey are concerned, and the full independence of Macedo- nia, and also the pacification of the whole of the Balkans, will come only through a Balkan federation, in which Macedonia will take a central economic and cultural position.”

In circumstances when a group of Macedonian intellectuals in 1923 tried to establish a legal Macedonian party in Yugoslavia and form a legal Macedonian movement around it, when the Communist Party of Yugoslavia prepared itself to define its programme on the national question, the Croatian communist activist, Ante Ciliga, who had first-hand knowledge of the aspirations of the Macedonians, expressed, among other things, the discontent of the Macedonian people with the existing situation and stated before the Yugoslav progressive public that the Macedonians had “developed as an individual people in the course of the entire 19th century”. ^[7] In another of his articles he wrote:

We want autonomy for Macedonia. All right. But we must clearly — in the resolution, too — emphasize that we do not consider Macedonia to be Serbian and that we are in favour of an independent Macedonia, and that we see in its autonomy the first step towards independence. Here a line must be drawn between us and Serbian Republicans who see in that autonomy the first step towards gradual Serbianization of Macedonia. ^[8]

The Belgrade middle-class press, however, was full of chauvinistic excitement and glorified Serbia as ‘the Balkan Piedmont’. Reacting to the writing of the Serbian press, Krste Misirkov responded, on September 2, 1923, with a polemic article entitled ‘Piedmont or Austria?’: ^[9]

“Present-day Serbia is not the Piedmont but the Austria of the Balkan Peninsula. Like Austria, which was a conglom- erate of regions with different populations in terms of nationality and culture, so too present-day Yugoslavia is a conglomerate of such different geographical, historical and ethnic units with centrifugal tendencies.” Therefore, Misirkov recommended that Yugoslavia started “along the cultural road of concessions and equality in the state in order to create contentment and support among the population towards the state. In other words,” Misirkov wrote, “not oppression in the name of unity, but a federation of regions and nationalities in the name of freedom and equality — can save Yugoslavia from inevitable disaster.”

The federalist concept, however, had been present for a long time in the Macedonian movement. At this same period Dimitrija Čupovski, in his letter to Moscow Pravda, reacted to the Yugoslav-Bulgarian Accord in Niš of March 23, 1923, envisaging joint action against Macedonian revolutionary activities, and said: “In the name of the freedom and right of a people to be the master of its own destiny, the Macedonian revolutionaries cannot be left without support. The ideal of the Macedonians is not narrow, but revolutionary. We defend the independence of Macedonia together with the idea of the establishment of a Balkan People’s Federal Republic as the necessary condition.” As a result, Čupovski emphasized: “The liberation and independence of Macedonia is the first and greatest step in the realization of the Balkan Federation.” ^[10]

Following the establishment of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, many people abroad supported a “Yugoslav” solution to the Macedonian question in the Balkans. Here, for example, is the opinion of the prominent British General Thomson: “The solution which finally seems most effective to me is an autono- mous Macedonia within the borders of a federal Yugoslavia.” ^[11]

Taking into account the actual situation in Yugoslavia and in the Balkans, and also the difficult position of the Macedonian people, Krste Misirkov replied strongly to Thomson:

We, the Macedonians, have been used to suffering under the most tyrannical regimes, to enduring the indifference of Europe towards our destiny and to dealing with cunning and brutal oppressors, but despite all of this we have never for a single moment doubted that one day we shall gain freedom. This faith did not abandon us even when, well-informed on Macedonian affairs, the English journals and politi- cians convinced us that Europe was not willing to add a free Macedonia to the existing newly-established states after the war. We believe in the fulfilment of our ideal, because only in an independent Macedonia will Europe find a means of thwarting new wars of world character, such as the last one. ^[12]

Misirkov did not nourish a very favourable opinion even of Slavic solidarity, in particular bearing in mind the history of Macedonia, and in his article entitled ‘Macedonia and the Prague Congress’^[13] he wrote:

“The forthcoming congress of Slavonic ethnographers in Prague, where Macedonian ethnographers will not take part, as there is no Macedonian independent or autonomous state and, accordingly, there is no Macedonian capital with a Macedonian government, Macedonian academy of sciences and a Macedonian university, which would be able to send their own representatives to the congress, is nevertheless of considerable interest to us, Macedonians.” Referring above all to the Serbs and Bulgarians, Misirkov reacted strongly against the “oppressor Slavs” who “in Prague may forge new chains for our unfortunate fatherland, which, having been dismembered by Slavs and through the initiative of Slavs allied with non-Slavic peoples, having been heavily bound by Serbo-Bulgarian political accords, it would also be bound by the scholarly chains of the victor oppressors.” He then added: “Our ideal is not a Slavic ideal, but a general human one; we want to be freed from your Slavism and make our fatherland not a similar Slavic but simply a cultured state, in which every village and every human group in this village or town will have absolute freedom of religious and national self-determination.”

The central question concerning Balkan peace and understanding in the period between the two world wars was precisely the question of Serbo-Bulgarian (later Yugoslav-Bulgarian) relations. It was, in turn, directly dependent on the question of Macedonia’s destiny and position. As a result, the Macedonian press of the time very frequently analysed those relations, and Krste P. Misirkov devoted a number of articles to them, competently presenting the Macedonian position: “The Serbs and Bulgarians should know that we, the Macedonians, have suffered the most and are still suffering because of Serbo-Bulgarian disagreement, and can hence help the most in the attainment of a permanent Serbo-Bulgarian reconciliation and the well-being of the whole of southern Slavdom, if we are but granted greater freedom in the hammering out of general south-Slav prosperity.” For this reason, Misirkov appealed again: “Give us the right and freedom to respect ourselves, our own language, our own past, as we respect you, your present and past, and we shall build a permanent bridge between Yugoslavia and Bulgaria.” ^[14]

Speaking about the situation and role of the Macedonians in Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, and pointing to the means of reconciliation, ^[15]

Misirkov first ad- dressed the Bulgarians: “[A]llow us to freely call and feel ourselves Macedonians, without the addition Bulgarians”, and then the Serbs: “[I]f you want us to love Yugoslavia as we love Bulgaria, give us the right and freedom to call ourselves simply Macedonians, without attaching the Serb name to it. As Macedonians we want to love equally the states in which we live as free and equal citizens and at the same time to love our long-suffering and dismembered fatherland.” He asked the Serbs why the Macedonian, as “a good and loyal Yugoslav citizen has no right at the same time to feel himself a Macedonian and also to be interested in the past, present and future of all the parts of Macedonia?”, and warned: “In both Bulgaria and Serbia they should remember one thing, that in Macedonia there lives a population with a passionate patriotic feeling and with a specific national con- sciousness, which must be correctly taken into consideration and employed reasonably for both the benefit of the local population and the benefit of the Slavic states in which the Macedonians live, and also in the interest of South-Slav solidarity.”

Summarizing his activity and the activity of his generation, Misirkov pointed to his book Za makedonckite raboti (On Macedonian Matters, 1903) and his study Za značenjeto na moravskoto ili resavskoto narečje za sovremenata i istoriskata etnografija na Balkanskiot Poluostrov (On the Significance of the Morava and Resava Dialects to Contemporary and Historical Ethnography on the Balkan Peninsula, 1897), as proofs that “a part of the Macedonian intelligentsia sought and found other means of struggle — namely independent Macedonian scholarly thought and Macedonian national consciousness”. Therefore, he wrote: “I do not regret that I spoke out in favour of Macedonian separatism as long as 28 years ago. This was and remains for me the only solution, the best road along which the Macedonian intelligentsia could fulfil and will fulfil its debt towards its own fatherland and towards our people!”

However, speaking in the name of all the Macedonians, Misirkov wanted to be clearly understood:

[M]ay you forgive me, but I, as a Macedonian, put the interests of my fatherland and my compatriots in the first place, and only then the interests of Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. I am a Macedonian, with Macedonian consciousness, and being that I have my own views of the past, present and future of my fatherland and of the whole of southern Slavdom, and therefore I wish that we, too, the Macedonians, be asked about all the questions affecting us and our neighbours, and that not everything be accomplished through agreements between Bulgaria and Serbia concerning us, but without us. May everyone interested be convinced that the Macedonian will find enough tact, vision and self-sacrifice for the achievement of general prosperity in the Balkans; it will suffice that the national and personal dignity of the Macedonian is respected. ^[16]

When the semi-official Bulgarian newspaper Svobodna Rjač attacked him, insulting him by calling him “A man who still does not know his own national- ity”, ^[17]

Krste Misirkov reacted very strongly with regard to the position of the Macedonians in Serbo-Bulgarian relations by writing an article entitled ‘Self-de- termination of the Macedonians’. ^[18]

He wrote:

Because it is we, Macedonians, above all, who suffer from Serbo-Bulgarian disagreement, it is our obligation to seek and find the means and way of reconcili- ation. This has made us ‘not know’ our nationality to this day and to say to both the Serbs and Bulgarians: forget your greater-Serbian or greater-Bulgarian idea, give up imposing upon us your nationalism and patriotism, based largely on the preference of your interests before ours. Let us have our own understanding of our position towards you and your dispute concerning us and our fatherland, and also of the means by which general south-Slavic prosperity will be achieved. Let us have our own, Macedonian national feelings and develop our own Macedonian culture, as we have been doing for centuries, even when our fatherland and yours did not form part of the same state. The consciousness and feeling that I am a Macedonian should stand higher than anything else in the world. The Macedonian should not merge and lose his individuality, living between Bulgarians and Serbs. We can assume that there is a closeness between Serbian, Bulgarian and Macedonian interests, but everything must be evaluated from the Macedonian point of view.

Because, in his understanding,

[i]t is the Macedonian national feeling, it is the historical call of the Macedonian which he can fulfil only as a free and equal citizen of Yugoslavia who is allowed to think, feel, speak and act as a Macedonian.

This was Misirkov’s position and his vision of Macedonia and the states among which it was partitioned, and his position towards Yugoslavia as he saw it and as he wanted it to be. And this was not an isolated opinion and feeling; he always spoke not only in his personal name, but also as a popular tribune who was widely respected and trusted.

The federalist concept was not only the conviction of communists, federal- ists and Ilinden fighters. It was also fully accepted by the Protogerovist^[19] wing of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization after 1928, seeing a solution in a South-Slav (Yugoslav) federation with Macedonia as its equal member. “The Macedonian people,” it was written in the programmatic article of the Makedonska Pravda^[20] newspaper, “should be ready in any new situation, following any new changes in Greece, Yugoslavia or Bulgaria, to speak out, to express their will and participate there through their active presence.” The newspaper, it emphasized, “will cultivate the idea of a Balkan federation as the only means, at this moment, for the pacification of the Balkans, a federation within the framework of which it [Macedonia] wo u l d b e f r e e and happy”. The newspaper “will pave the road for a federation of the South Slavs on the basis of full equality and equal respect of the rights of all peoples and for the creation, amidst the present Yugoslav chaos, of a free state with free autonomous regions.” But when certain steps were made towards a “Serbo-Bulgarian agreement”, the newspaper of the Protogerovists clearly stated: ¼until the Macedonian question is resolved in the correct way, until that moment, any sincere agreement and brotherly cooperation between the peoples of Serbia and Bulgaria will be incon- ceivable”. Therefore, continues the newspaper: “Our efforts, i.e. the efforts of all the wronged and oppressed peoples and ethnic minorities in the territory of present-day ‘Yugoslavia’ will have to be directed towards the destruction of Serbian dictatorship and the introduction of a new popular authority. Only such a genuine popular authority will be capable of resolving not only the Macedonian problem, but also the great problem of the unification of all the South Slavs into a huge, popular, federal South-Slav republic without dictators and hegemonists. Our Macedonian question will find its final solution within the framework of that popular federal republic and Macedonia will be free.”

The Protogerovists were particularly interested in the then emerging new Yugoslav youth revolutionary organization, URO, whose final ideal within its programme was “an alliance of South-Slav people’s republics from the Adriatic to the Black Sea”, and whose “greatest efforts” were directed “against dictatorship and against Serbia’s hegemony”. The newspaper Makedonska Pravda wrote that “URO is not only against dictatorship and its main proponent, King Alexander, but that it is also against centralism and in favour of federalisCentralism is a means for the forceful imposition of greater-Serbian hegemony over the Croats, Prečans, ^[21] Macedonians and other peoples in Yugoslavia. It is clear to everyone that unitarism leads to catastrophe.” ^[22]

As a result, the newspaper supported the concept of Svetozar Pribičevič, envisaging a Yugoslavia with “a federalist state organization on the basis of historical-political individualities” which would be constituted of seven federal units: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, Vojvodina and Macedonia, ^[23] the same concept envisaged by URO.

Yet the Protogerovists openly stated their fear of integration as a “greater-Ser- bian idea”. Makedonska Pravda adhered to its “final ideal: Yugoslav federation with Macedonia as an equal state unit”, ^[24] but the way in which it understood it was explained in its reply to a reader: “Our ideal, the ideal of the honest-thinking and progressive Macedonian émigré community, and of all good people of the Balkans, is and should be a Balkan federation. For only through a Balkan federation one can reconcile the cultural, economic, commercial and political interests of the Balkan peoples and surmount their rivalriesWe speak of a Yugoslav federation as a stage towards the future Balkan federation, which would be easier to achieve after the realization of the first one.”

In connection with the expression “integral Yugoslavia”, the newspaper makes it clear: “Integrationism is a greater-Serbian idea. Federalism is a Yugoslav idea.” However, supporting Dimitar Vlahov’s position in Makedonsko Delo, the mouth- piece of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (United), concern- ing the question of “‘Integral Yugoslavia’ or a Balkan federation”, ^[25] the Proto- gerovist Makedonska Pravda wrote: “The federation, whatever it may be, makes any sense for us only if we can see our sacred ideal achieved through it — the freedom of our fatherland. A thousand federations would mean nothing to us without this ideal. We are in favour not of an integral but a free Yugoslav republic, in which the republic of Macedonia will figure as a fully free and equal member, as the only means for the pacification of the Balkans.” ^[26] In this context, the newspaper accepted URO’s demands: “a republic, federation, socialization and popular authority”. ^[27]

Macedonian liberation thought in the 1930s moved within the same or a similar framework. The ‘autonomists’ of Vančo Mihajlov indeed fought for a “united Macedonia”, but they did this with an unclear national programme and with a pro-fascist political orientation, as a result of which, after 1934, that section of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization almost ceased to be a significant factor in the genuine Macedonian movement. In this period the masses were attracted to the already proven national programme and concept of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (United) and also to the programme principles of the Comintern and the Communist parties in the Balkans, which nevertheless retained, as their final goal, a Balkan federation, even though not all of them were equally sympathetic to it. The Seventh Congress of the Comintern adopted a directive for the maintenance of the Versailles borders and for the organization of an anti-fascist popular-front movement. Yet the Macedonians never sincerely accepted that part of the directive concerning the preservation of the Versailles partition, and the Macedonian émigré community, particularly in overseas countries, never adhered to it in practice.

1. ↑ Makedoni я. S borni k ot dokument i i mat er i al i , S of i я, 1978, 658.
2. ↑ Jovan Janev, ,,St avovi t e na Ef t i m S pr ost r anov i Jovan Íi r kovi Î za avt onomi ja na Make- doni ja vo sost avot na jugosl ovenskat a f eder aci ja“, Gl a s n i k , HHoe II, 1-2, I NI , 1983, 78.
3. ↑ Di mi t ar Vl ahov, Memoari , S kopje, 1970, 211-232.
4. ↑ Makedoni я. S borni k ot dokument i i mat er i jal i , 676. See also Todor Aleksandrov’s statement of August 1, 1924, concerning Federal Yugoslavia with a united Macedonia within it (Pri l ozi za I l i nden, III, 257) .
5. ↑ D-r Ivan Katarxiev, Vr eme na zr eewe. Makedonskot o naci onal no praš awe meGju dvet e svet ski vojni (1919-1930), I, Skopje, 1977, 219-279.
6. ↑ ,,ja gosl avяnska i l i Balkanska f eder aci я?“, I l i ndenÅ, III, 23, S of i я, 26.oe III.1923, 1.
7. ↑ Mbt, ,,Samoodreğenje naroda u Jugoslaviji“, Borba, 30, Zagreb, 16.VIII.1923..
8. ↑ Mbt, ,,Za jasnoču i odlučnost po nacionalnom pitanju“, Borba, 38, 18.X.1923.
9. ↑ K. Misirkovъ, ,,Piemontъ i l i Avstriя?“, I l i ndenÅ, III, 24, 24.IH.1923, 1.
10. ↑ D-r Blaže Ristovski , Dimitrija Čupovski (1878-1940) ¼, II, 330.
11. ↑ ,,Gener . Tomsonъ za Makedoni я“, Mi rъ , HHH, 7098, S of i я, 11.II.1924, 2.
12. ↑ K. Mi si r kovъ –makedonecъ , ,,Naš at a võr a“, Mi rъ , HHH, 7139, 31.III.1924, 1.
13. ↑ K. Mi si r kovъ , ,,Makedoni я i P r až ki я kongr esъ “, 20 ôl i à, I, 9, S of i я, 8.oe I.1924, 3.
14. ↑ K. Misirkovъ, ,,Razdori i l i razbi ratõlstvo“, Mi rъ , HHH, 7354, 22.HII.1924, 1.
15. ↑ K. Mi si r kovъ , ,,I Ã t Åt ъ na pr i mi r eni et o“, I l i ndenÅ, oe , 5, 30.I.1925, 2.
16. ↑ K. Mi si r kovъ , ,,Makedonski naci onal i zъ mъ “, Mi rъ , HHHI, 7417, 12.III.1925, 1.
17. ↑ ,,Edi nъ čoveõkъ , koàt o oë e ne si znae nar odnost Åt a“, S vobodna r õčÅ, II, 313, S of i я, 14.III.1925, 2.
18. ↑ K. Mi si r kovъ , ,,Samoopr õdel eni et o na makedonci t õ“, Mi rъ , HHHI, 7428, 25.III.1925, 1.
19. ↑ Related to the followers of Aleksandar Protogerov (translator’s note).
20. ↑ ,,Naš i яt ъ pà t ъ , Makedonska pr avda, I, 1, S of i я, 3.IH.1933, 1.
21. ↑ The population of what is today Vojvodina in Serbia (translator’s note).
22. ↑ ,,I deol ogi яt a na U.R.O.“, Makedonska pr avda, I, 2, 10.IH.1933, 3; ,,U.R.O. i f eder aci яt a“, Makedonska pr avda, I, 3, 17.IH.1933, 3.
23. ↑ ,,Novat a pol i t i česka pr ogr ama na Sv. P r i bi čevi čъ “, Makedonska pr avda, I, 3, 17.IH.1933,1.
24. ↑ St . Ki r i l ovъ , ,,P ъ r vat a st à pka kъ mъ Bъ l gar sko-ô gosl avяnsko sbl i ž eni e“, Makedonska pravda, I, 4, 24.IH.1933, 3.
25. ↑ D. Vlahovъ, ,,,I ntegral na ja gosl aviя‘ i l i Bal kanska f ederaciя“, Makedonsko del o, oe III, 168/169, 25.H.1932, 6-7.
26. ↑ ,,I nt egr al na ja gosl avi я l i ?“, Makedonska pr avda, I, 6, 8.H.1933, 3.
27. ↑ ,,Revol ô ci onnat a bor ba na U.R.O.“, Makedonska pr avda, I, 6, 8.H.1933, 3.