Chapter 1
What we have already done and what we ought to do in the future?
The long-planned and long-awaited Uprising has finally been launched.
Our people have shown all their heroism and all their readiness to
sacrifice themselves in the interests of the country. The battle has
been, and still is, desperate. All Europe is watching us. The newspapers
are filled with reports of the Uprising. And, along with the news of
the fighting between the rebel detachments and the Turks, reports are
coming in of Turkish cruelty towards ordinary civilians. The people of
Europe, shaken and horrified by these reports, are bringing all their
influence to bear upon their governments, urging them to do something to
put an end to this slaughter of civilians and to come to the aid of the
unfortunate people of Macedonia. The Bishop of Worcester held a service
in Birmingham at which he prayed for the Macedonian Christians to be
spared. The Archbishop of Canterbury approached the Prime Minister, Mr.
Balfour, in the name of the Anglican Church asking him to send aid to
Macedonia. The people of Europe have begun to collect money to help the
stricken Macedonians. The German Emperor’s travels have taken on a
political significance, partly because of affairs in Macedonia. Turkey
seems to be finding itself in a tight spot and has proposed to Bulgaria
that they should reach an agreement on the Macedonian question. Many
governments have made of official declarations concerning the position
in Macedonia. Telegraph messages have been sent from Istanbul to many
European newspapers (Standard) saying that the French and British fleets
have received orders to remain close to Macedonian waters. The same
sources also announce that War between Turkey and Bulgaria is
unavoidable. News comes from Sofia that the Bulgarian Minister of
Defense has agreed to let officers from several European and American
states join the Bulgarian army. What do these facts tell us? Do they
show that the Movement has: achieved its: end? Can the leaders of the
Movement congratulate themselves on their success? Have not all the
sacrifices for the liberation been in vain?
Some people, perhaps the majority, will say that it is still too
early to evaluate the results of the Uprising. The Revolutionary
Committee and the rebel detachments have still to face their main task.
So far not even half, not even quarter of the plan drawn up by the
Committee and the General Staff has been carried out. Yes. There are
always different points of view to every question. This case is no
exception.
I shall have absolutely no compunction in saying that I regard this
present movement as a complete fiasco. What little has been achieved
over and above the more progressive Austro-Russian reform projects is
surely no justification for the hundred thousand people left homeless,
the three to five thousand human casualties and the utter demoralization
of the inhabitants of Macedonia – it would not even be a justification
for the loss of a hundred lives. What has been gained might have been
gained without a drop of blood being spilt. Judging by the results that
will follow this Uprising one may say that it is one of the greatest, if
not the greatest of all misfortunes to befall our people. It is not too
early to foresee the outcome and the end of our Uprising. The
consequences might have been foreseen even before it began. Even at the
time of the Russian February Report it was clear that Europe would not
completely satisfy the Revolutionary Committee’s demands. These demands
could not be satisfied without going to war against Turkey; only through
pressure could the Turks be forced to meet our requirements. But
neither the Bulgarians nor we could bring pressure to bear on Turkey; it
would have to be either the Great Powers or a united force of
Macedonians, Bulgarians, Serbs and Montenegrins, with the other states
remaining neutral.
Under the conditions prevailing at that time, however, neither
solution was possible. The Committee, I feel, should have known this.
And it did. But the leaders thought differently; they saw, in the
future, and in the present reality, only what it pleased them to see.
“We want no other country to fight for us,” they said, “they can only
send their fleets to Salonica and press Turkey to grant us the reforms.
We would like them to do with Macedonia what they did with Crete.” More
than once we have discussed the fact that there are differences between
Crete and Macedonia, for there are countries that are interested in
maintaining the status quo and will do everything to avoid intervening
to our advantage. And even if there were to be intervention, are there
any grounds for believing that this intervention would really be to our
advantage and not to our disadvantage? It has been shown that the
present moment is most inauspicious for an uprising; but our leaders
closed their eyes to the truth and the uprising was launched. It was
launched in glory only to end in tears and sorrow. I was not the only
one who felt that the uprising had been started prematurely. Many others
shared this opinion, but nobody spoke out against the uprising. The
Committee’s behavior was criticized in Macedonian circles. But this
criticism was ineffectual and even dangerous, not only for those who
were criticized but also for those who did the criticizing: the
Committee was all-powerful, the life and death of all citizens lay in
its hands and it would stand for no criticism of its actions. Those who
were not for the Committee were against it; they were its enemies and
they had to be destroyed. The Committee could be criticized only by
another committee, which wielded some power. But it was already late to
form a counter-committee, and pointless too, because this would simply
give rise to a battle in which the committees would attempt to destroy
each other. So the Uprising began, counter to all the dictates of
reason. It did have results, but not those, which were expected. Of all
the reactions to the liberation movement, that which is most worthy of
attention is the Russian Pravitelstvenoe Soobshchenie (The Government
Announcement) of 11 th of September, then the petition of the
Austro-Hungarian delegate to the Grande Porte and to Sofia, and the
letter from the English Prime Minister, Balfour, to the Archbishop of
Canterbury. The Pravitelstvenoe Soobshchenie declares that the Russian
government demands reforms for Macedonia, that is, the reforms which
were worked out in February by Zinoviev and Kaliche, and that these
reforms are only an initial move and are subject to expansion accor-ding
to the needs of the people. This was also the position expressed in the
February Pravitelstvenoe Soobshchenie, but does it not indicate that we
could gain wider reforms than those we have already been given, and
that we could gain them through short sharp popular movements, without
any revolution? If this is the case, then the present uprising has not
changed
But there is another extremely important statement in the
Pravitelstvenoe Soobshchenie: the revolutionary committees; according to
a statement made by the Russian government, want to create a Bulgarian
Macedonia, but Russia, who is closely concerned, with the interests of
the other Christian nationalities in Macedonia, does not wish to
sacrifice their interests to the Bulgarians.
Has the meaning of these words been understood in Bulgaria? Or in
Macedonia? Have we, too, finally understood? Russia openly tells us what
she is doing, because she could not behave differently. Is Russia right
in the claims she makes? Could she take a different approach? If we
were to put ourselves in the position of the Russian government, we
would not be able to take a different approach either.
Up to 1878 everybody, including the Russian government, claimed that
the Macedonians were Bulgarians. After the Berlin Treaty the Serbs began
to lay claim to Macedonia. Over the last twenty-five years; and
particularly during the last twenty, the Serbs have succeeded, if not in
turning the Macedonians into Serbs, at least in convincing Europe that
there are Serbs in Macedonia. Although the villagers may still speak as
they did in the past – for all over Macedonia only one Slav language was
used – in the towns Serbian schools can be found alongside the
Bulgarian boys’ and girls’ elementary and grammar schools. Some villages
have Serbian schools and some have Bulgarian schools. Some villagers,
along with their teachers and priests, recognize the Patriarchate and
come under the protection of the Serbian or Greek consul, while others
recognize the Bulgarian Exarchate and place themselves under the
authority of the Bulgarian trade representatives.
These are all facts for diplomats who should be reckoning with
reality and not with theories concerning the nationality of the
Macedonians. Politics has nothing to do with science, and even if it
had, could one claim that it had been established beyond any shadow of
doubt that the Macedonians are Bulgarians? Up to the time of the
Russo-Turkish War there existed only one theory concerning our
nationality. Now there are two. And a third is making its way in: that
the Macedonians are something in between Serbs and Bulgarians. The
supporters of this theory, however, are divided into:
1. those who claim that the Macedonians are far away from both the Serbs and the Bulgarians;
2. those who claim that they are closer to the Serbs;
3. those who claim they are closer to the Bulgarians (because one
part is closer to the Serbs and the other to the Bulgarians). It is of
no importance to the diplomats where the truth lies.
What matters is that the Serbs have an ethnographic interest equal to
that of the Bulgarians and the Greeks in the Macedonian question.
Furthermore, Serbia is by no means less interested politically than they
are in the fate of Macedonia. In fact, this is of even greater
importance for Serbia than it is for Bulgaria, because Bulgaria also has
an outlet to the Aegean Sea through Kavala and Dede-Agach.
If this is so, can we really be surprised at the attitude of the
Russian government concerning the Macedonian question or its declaration
that Russia would not help the Committee if it meant the creation of a
Bulgarian Macedonia? Some of us may naпvely remark that: “the Committee
does not want to make Macedonia Bulgarian; it seeks justice for all
Macedonians, regardless of faith or nationality.”
How could the Committee prove that this is what it is working for?
This cannot be proved by words alone. The very behavior of the Committee
itself contradicts these assertions. If a revolution is to be started
in the interests of all the nationalities living in Macedonia, then the
Committee must be formed from the representatives of all the
nationalities living in Macedonia. One cannot help asking who gave the
Committee the right to act in the name of all Macedonians and on their
behalf?
The Committee could have worked both in the name of and on behalf of a
large section of the Macedonians, i.e. the most powerful nationalities.
But much proof would be needed to show that the Committee’s work is not
bound up with the interests of the neighboring states and
nationalities, that it is, in fact, opposed to these interests, and that
its work is of benefit not only to the ruling nationalities but also to
all the others. No such proof exists. The Organization has close links
with Bulgaria. It was in Bulgaria that the movement of the Organization
first made itself heard. This showed who was most interested in the
Macedonian movement and this was why they shifted its center to
Macedonia, making a number of other moves to show that the
misunderstandings were internal and that they were the outcome of a
self-generative phenomenon. But who was deceived by this maneuver? Is it
not perfectly clear that the misunderstanding was in fact closely bound
up with Bulgaria, with Bulgaria’s name and Bulgaria’s money?
Most of those, you may say, who sacrificed themselves for the
liberation movement belonged to the people. This is true, but one should
not forget that most of the organizers of the movement were officials
of the Exarchate. It is self-evident, then, that by taking part in the
work of the revolution they were acting at variance with the interests
of the Exarchate; yet for all this they were still Bulgarian officials.
Thus the Revolutionary Committee was, both by origin and by
constitution, a purely Macedonian organization; in its work, however, it
represented only a part of one of the nationalities in Macedonia,
linked in name, and in church and school matters, to the people of
Bulgaria, their country and their interests. Although this Committee was
essentially Macedonian, for the outer world and for the Macedonian
Christians who did not belong to the Exarchate, it was a Bulgarian
Committee. The Committee could not prove to the outer world, or even to
the Macedonians who did not belong to the Exarchate, that it was not
Bulgarian. Through his Mouvement Macйdonien* Radev hoped to convince
Europe that the movement was purely Macedonian and that it had nothing
in common with Bulgaria. Pravo and other Macedonian and Bulgarian papers
wished o prove the same point. But did they achieve their aim? No. The
late Rostkovski** often said: “The Bulgarians think they are the only
people in the world with brains, and that all others are fools. Whom do
they hope to deceive with their articles in Pravo and other papers
saying that the Macedonians want Macedonia for the Macedonians?
We know very well what they want!” And what sort of effect was made
on the diplomatic world by the announcements made in the newspapers by
the Committee and the Bulgarians concerning the Macedonian question! It
should also not be forgotten that the European newspapers, when writing
of the clashes between the rebel detachments and the Turks, referred to
the detachments as “bands”, Bulgarian bands what’s more, and not
Macedonian. And when speaking of the rebel losses they did not say “so
many Macedonians were killed” but “so many Bulgarians.”
One asks, then, who was persuaded by papers such as the Mouvement
Macйdonien, Pravo and Avtonomija that it was the Macedonians who were
fighting for freedom and not those who were called Bulgarians and
originated from Macedonia or Bulgaria? Nobody. The Committee did perhaps
succeed within Macedonia in being accepted as Macedonian, but in Europe
it did not gain this recognition, or only to a very small extent. The
Revolution should be the concern of all. Macedonians, or at least most
of them, if it is to be called a general revolution. All the
nationalities – or several of them at least – should be represented in
the Committee itself. The intelligentsia of these nationalities should
offer one another a helping hand and do their best to popularize the
idea of the revolution in their region. But what actually happened? Not
only were the intelligentsia of all the nationalities, or the greater
part of them, not represented on the Committee, not even the
intelligentsia of the most powerful Macedonian nationality – the Slavs –
were fully represented, for the Serbophile and Hellenophile Macedonian
Slav intelligentsia were left out of the Committee, and their attitude
was hostile. So, in the towns and villages attached to the Patriarchate,
or in certain parts of the towns and villages, the Committee was an
uninvited guest. The Patriarchate Slavs could have felt sympathetic
towards it, but, since their intelligentsia were opposed to the
Committee, the villagers themselves undoubtedly felt very little
sympathy, and what sympathy they did feel was mixed up with a lack of
conviction in the promises of the Committee. This ill-defined feeling
was accompanied by a sense of fear.
The villagers were caught between two fires: the army, and the rebel
detachments. When a movement is spread by conviction in one place and by
force in another, can it be called a general movement? We can call the
Uprising whatever we like, but in fact it was only a partial movement.
It was, and still is, an affair of the Exarchists: that is, a Bulgarian
ploy to settle the Macedonian question to its own advantage by creating a
Bulgarian Macedonia. Perhaps it is still not clear whether Macedonia
will really become Bulgarian if the Committee has its way? I shall try
to explain more clearly how the reforms might lead to the Bulgarization
of Macedonia.
If one asks which will be the official language, the answer is – the
language of the majority. Which majority? That remains to be seen.
The question goes no further. Nobody asks how this majority will be
discovered. Let us assume for the moment that somewhere around the time
of St. Demetrius’ Day an international brigade comes and occupies the
land. Amongst other things, this division must also settle the question
of the official language; but let us leave aside the question of the
official language and ask what will happen to language in the schools.
For some people this is a very easy question: several official
languages will be recognized, i.e. Turkish, Bulgarian, Serbian, Greek,
Romanian and Albanian, depending on the nationality of the population in
the various regions. They will also mention what happened in Eastern
Rumelia (South Bulgaria), where one can also find Greeks, Serbs,
Bulgarians, Turks, Vlachs and Albanians. Some will also mention that
Eastern Rumelia was also described as a region where Greeks lived, but
after the liberation it became clear how many Greeks there really were.
In other words, place the government in the hands of the Macedonians –
and this is understood to mean give it to those who are called
Bulgarians – and after a few years you will see that there will be no
more left of the other nationalities in Macedonia than remained of the
Greeks in Eastern Rumelia after it was liberated. So, all of Macedonia
will become Bulgarian.
Is it not, then, clear that Bulgaria and the Revolutionary Committee
want to create a Bulgarian Macedonia to the detriment of the other
Christian nationalities of Macedonia? But why should Macedonia become
Bulgarian and not Serbian? It will become Bulgarian because that is the
way it is; if there were more Serbs in Macedonia it would become Serbian
and the Bulgarian element would grow weaker. This is all very
straightforward and correct from the Bulgarian point of view. But it
should not be forgotten that there are many other attitudes to the
Macedonian question, such as those of the Serbs, Greeks, Vlachs,
Russians, Slovenes and Austrians, and many of the countries in Western
Europe. If this is the case, which section of the population should be
accepted by our theoretical occupying force?
No doubt this international brigade will have no difficulty in
settling the question of the language to be used in schools, in local
administration and in those places where there are Greek-speaking
Patriarchists, Albanian Muslims and Catholics, and Turkish Muslims. It
will be more difficult, however, to settle the question in areas where
there are
1. Orthodox Albanians,
2. Orthodox Vlachs,
3. Orthodox Slavs,
4. Slav Muslims and
5. Exarchate Slavs.
In their efforts to have greater importance given to the Slav
language in Macedonia, the Slavs would request the international brigade
to ensure that their language was also accepted as the official
language in areas occupied by Slav Muslims; but the Slav Muslims
themselves, on account of their religious loyalties, might well demand
Turkish as their official language. Which of the two will be given
preference? If the international brigade is to act correctly, without
giving due consideration to religious needs, it will be resorting to
repression. It will come across the same difficulty in an even more
complex form when attempting to settle the question of which language
should be officially recognized in the schools and in the social
administration of the Orthodox regions. The Vlach authorities will
demand Vlach, and the Patriarchate will demand Greek for its
parishioners. If the requirements of the Vlachs are not met, the
decision will be irregular and unjust; on the other hand, if the Vlach
administration gets its way against the will of the parishioners, this
would again be repression.
The Patriarchate will also ask for Greek as the language for the
Orthodox Albanians – the Tosks. National awareness has not yet developed
amongst the Tosks, and this would enable the Patriarchate to succeed.
But the other Macedonian nationalities, including the remainder of the
Albanians, would not be satisfied with the introduction of Greek. There
can be no doubt that the occupying forces would not have an easy time
finding their way out of this situation.
The most troublesome question, however, is that of the official
language and the school language in the Slav parts of Macedonia. Some
are Orthodox by faith, others come under the Exarchate, to say nothing
of those who are Catholic or Muslim. The Turks consider the orthodox
patriarchists to be Greek – urummillet – while the Serbs and Bulgarians
consider them Serbian and Bulgarian. Those belonging to the Exarchate
are considered both by themselves and by the Turks to be Bulgarians,
while the Serbs look on them as Serbians. And so in most of Macedonia
where Slavs are settled the Patriarchate will establish Greek as the
language used in the schools and administration. In these endeavors the
Patriarchate will come up against resistance from the Serbs and
Bulgarians. But in opposing the use of Greek in Slav areas the Serbs and
Bulgarians will find themselves disagreeing as to where Bulgarian
should be used and where Serbian.
Does the Committee consider – if it wishes to ignore, the question of
language in the various fanatical forms it has assumed in the at least
temporarily autonomous state of Macedonia – that the other Balkan
nations with interests in Macedonia, especially the Serbs, are also
ignoring this question? Does the Committee consider that the Serbs
believe that if it is a question of Macedonia for the Macedonians, and
if one is to ignore the question of the language of the Macedonian
Slavs, this question can be simply and justly settled through the
acquisition of autonomous rights? If the Committee thinks so, it is
mistaken.
If the autonomy of Macedonia should result from the present Uprising,
the Macedonian question will be settled not to the advantage of the
Macedonians but of the Bulgarians, for the Committee, as we have seen
earlier, is working behind a Bulgarian front. Those Macedonians who were
educated in Bulgaria have taken over the task of liberating the country
and thus far they have played, one may say, not only the main part but
also the only part. If their work should be crowned with success they –
together with the interests of Bulgaria – will stand above all other
interests in Macedonia. If the Uprising should fail it is not clear
whether the Bulgarians should be thanked for this, or those people
against whom the Serbs are now competing with their own money and
propaganda, losing all influence with their clients, who are receiving
Bulgarian money and Bulgarian propaganda. Have the Serbs ever really
asked themselves if the uprising were to succeed, what language a judge
in Tetovo, for instance, would be expected to speak? Does it not occur
to them that this autonomous government which is “in the majority” will
speak Bulgarian? And so too will the local inhabitants, for it is the
Bulgarians and not the Serbs who are the heroes in their eyes. Thus the
question of the language to be used in town and village schools will
also be settled in favor of the Bulgarians. And since there will be no
opportunity for propaganda in an autonomous Macedonia, the Serbs will
have to give way in this matter to the Bulgarians. But will the Serbs
agree to this? They might agree if the dialect spoken in Tetovo were
closer to the Bulgarian literary language; but they know it is not. They
know that the Tetovo dialect does have something in common with
Bulgarian, but it also has something in common with Serbian; and there
are also dialects which have nothing in common with either Serbian or
Bulgarian and which are peculiar to Macedonia. One must then ask whether
the Serbs would permit – and whether they could permit – an essentially
Bulgarian form of language to develop in Tetovo instead of Macedonian
or Serbian, and, together with the language, Bulgarian interests instead
of Macedonian or Serbian. Have they then the right to protest against
the Bulgarization of Tetovo and the surrounding district, to seek
protection for their interests against the aspirations of the
Bulgarians? Does Russia, in this case, have the moral right to protect
Serbian and Bulgarian interests alike?
From all this it can be seen that the problem of language,
particularly in regions with Slav populations, is one of the most
important matters to be solved in settling the Macedonian question. If
there had been national and religious unity amongst the Slavs in
Macedonia, and if the people themselves had been aware of this unity,
the Macedonian question would already be half settled. But as long as
the Macedonians continue to be divided, some declaring themselves
orthodox and others looking to the Exarchate, some claiming to be
Bulgarians and others Serbs or Greeks, and all seeking the protection of
various Balkan states, thus giving foreign countries the right to
interfere in Macedonian matters – as long as this goes on there can be
no question of a general, uprising. The uprising will remain a partial
movement, Bulgarian, Serbian or Greek in character, but never
Macedonian.
This is clear to everyone except to us, the Macedonians, and to the
leaders of the present Uprising. These leaders are doing everything they
can to put their own interpretation on the motives for the Uprising,
and on the Uprising itself; but the point is that not only we, but many
others as well, have sense enough to see and understand where the truth
really lies. The Committee is angry because the consuls do not explain
things in their true light. But if they were to do so, it would not
please the Committee. In other words, the Committee wants the European
authorities to see the Macedonian situation with Macedonian eyes, i.e.
with the eyes of the Committee; but if this were all that was needed,
the European powers would not have to send their own agents to
Macedonia.
Besides, if we had the moral right to require the representatives of
the European states in Macedonia to provide their governments and the
European public with an accurate and unbiased account of the situation
in Macedonia, it would then be our moral duty to let ourselves be
presented to our own country in the light of European interests, and
particularly in the light of the interests of the Balkan states.
We should have known that the Kara-Vlachs (Romanians), the Serbs, and
Greeks would be against the uprising. The Kara-Vlachs cannot look
indifferently at the efforts of Bulgaria to give Macedonia an autonomous
government.
Autonomy is regarded as a transition phase in the process of joining
Macedonia to Bulgaria. Kara-Wallachia cannot afford to let a powerful
Bulgaria establish itself along its borders and thus run the risk of
later losing Dobrudzha! And even if there were a pure Bulgarian
population in Macedonia, these political considerations would stand in
the way of unification between the Turkish Bulgarians and the Bulgarian
Bulgarians because Kara- Wallachia would not allow the territorial unity
of Turkey to be destroyed to her detriment. And Kara-Wallachia is part
of the triple league formed to protect the interests of Kara- allachia
on the Balkan Peninsula.
The interests of Greece in Macedonia are even greater. Despite the
fact that there are not many Greeks in Macedonia, Greece is no less
interested for her own sake in our affairs than the other Balkan states.
Every state, even if it is unable to make new political, economic and
cultural inroads into Macedonia, strives at least to preserve those,
which have already been made. Using the influence of their Patriarchate
in Constantinople, the Greeks have imposed their language on schools and
churches in many parts of Macedonia where there are no Greeks to be
found. It is natural for the Greeks to make use of all the resources of
diplomacy to maintain the position they held in Macedonia during the
Middle Ages, especially from the time of the Turkish conquest of
Macedonia, and to defend Greek interests in Macedonia not only from
Greece itself but also from the great powers, because they do not want
the Slav element to gain power. But of all these states it is Serbia who
is most interested in Macedonian matters, for she has come up with
ethnographic and historical claims to Macedonia. Furthermore, Serbia
also has political interests in Macedonia, for she will never allow the
Macedonian question to be settled to the advantage of any of the other
Balkan states, above all Bulgaria. Serbia would never countenance
autonomy for Macedonia if this were to lead to an attachment between
Bulgaria and Macedonia. Serbia would never countenance the expansion of
Bulgaria through the appropriation of Macedonia, not only because this
would upset the balance in the Balkans but also because this realignment
would result in Serbia being squeezed in between two more powerful
states – the Austro-Hungarian and the Bulgarian – by which she would be
politically and economically stifled, so that she would have to give way
to one side or the other. The state interests of Serbia, therefore,
would never countenance the formation of a Bulgarian Macedonia. There
can be no longer any doubt that Serbian interests, like those of
Kara-Wallachia and Greece, are protected somewhere.
Consequently, the small Balkan states, although they ostensibly play
no part in settling the Macedonian question, and seem to be simply in
the hands of the great powers, are actually of great importance.
The great states would lead us to believe that they have no direct
interest in Macedonia and that they are concerned only to see that
justice is done. But, as we have said, this justice is differently
regarded by the Greeks, Serbs, Vlachs and Bulgarians, and so the great
states, as protectors of the smaller states, turn out to be representing
their own kind of justice. This is why one cannot hope for a
consolidated effort to: settle the Macedonian question; a united front
is possible only in the smallest reforms.
If this is the case, in whom did we place our hopes when we launched
the Uprising? Russia? But Russia washed her hands of the whole affair
several times before the bloodshed started. Instead of inveighing
against the Russian representatives I. A. Zinoviev, A. A. Rostkovski and
Mashkov, we would have done better to reflect a little on Russian
policy on the Balkan Peninsula. Russia is a Slav state, an Orthodox
state. She liberated Serbia and Bulgaria; she helped Kara-Wallachia,
Greece and Montenegro to win their freedom. She has always been the
protector of Orthodoxy and of the Slavs. What then could Russia do for
us when so many Slav and Orthodox peoples are involved in Macedonian
matters? Could she, for the sake of the Bulgarians, support the other
independent Balkan Orthodox states whose independence has been won with
Russian blood and Russian money, only to have these states turn from her
to some other (West European) states whom they would serve as weapons
against Russia? Can Russia pursue a policy, which would drive the Balkan
Orthodox states away from her? And what would she stand to gain by this
loss? The gratitude of Bulgaria perhaps! But Bulgarian gratitude would
merely be a shooting star: later the Bulgarians would say that Russia
had been planning to take over the Balkan Peninsula and that the
salvation of the Balkans now lay in the hands of the English. And so the
Bulgarians, instead of being in league with “the great liberator”,
would hasten to join the English or some other enemy of Russia and the
Slavs. Thus, in the modern formulation of the Macedonian question, we
expected Russia rashly to sacrifice her interests in the Far East for
our sake and at the same time suffer a defeat in the Near East. Yes, but
it did not turn out as we thought.
Thus the reason why the Uprising failed is perfectly clear: from the
very outset it was established on the wrong basis instead of being a
general Macedonian Uprising it was a partial insurrection with Bulgarian
overtones. The only Macedonian Slavs who played a leading part in the
Uprising were those who called themselves Bulgarians. The
intelligentsia, not only of the other Macedonian nationalities but also
of the Macedonian Slavs themselves, did not figure among the leaders of
the Revolutionary Committee. The Committee, as a secret organization,
feared to accept on an equal basis members belonging to the other
nationalities, including Slav Serbophiles or Hellenophiles, or even
those who merely had a Serbian or Greek education, for they were
frightened that their secret might leak through to the other Balkan
states. The organization was, and still is, veiled by secrecy, and
consequently the lower-ranking members were mere pawns, serving only to
attend to those matters dictated by the interests and opinions of the
high-ranking members. These opinions were the prerogative of only a few –
those who might be described as usurpers, who pushed their way in, and
those who were Macedonians that had accidentally found their way to the
top. These people took the fate of Macedonia into their own hands and
their actions could not be subject to criticism. If anyone was foolhardy
enough to criticize these leaders he would soon find himself expelled
from the Organization. And this Organization was described as ideal! I
am well aware that not all members can be let into all the affairs of
the Organization, but if limits must exist they should be within the
bounds of reason. All the intellectual power of Macedonia ought to be
concentrated in the Organization; there should be people capable of
taking a wider view of the Macedonian question and of directly and
impartially assessing the results of each move made by the Committee.
Is anything like this to be found in the Committee? Who are the
Organization’s main representatives in Bulgaria? Tatarchev and Matov.
They may both be men who are great patriots and who thoroughly
understand the situation in Macedonia, but they are supporters of
extreme measures and have no regard for the political situation.
Furthermore, as shall be seen, they consider that as far as the
nationality of the Macedonian Slavs is concerned there can be only one
correct attitude – that they are Bulgarian; and perhaps they consider
the question of the nationality of the Macedonians to be a matter of
secondary importance which will be cleared up after the liberation of
Macedonia. But in future they should look to reality and not to their
own concerns.
And all the other leaders, such as Radev, Stanichev, Karayanov and
others, belong to the same category. They thought it would be enough
merely to intimate that Macedonia would belong to the Macedonians.
The Committee can boast more moderate leaders, but they too see the
salvation of Macedonia only in spiritual attachment and submission to
the Bulgarians in Macedonia.
The Committee can also boast people who wanted the Macedonians to be
spiritually separated from the Bulgarians, but these people confined
themselves merely to publishing a few books in Macedonian or to speaking
Macedonian at home or with their fellow-countrymen.
Thus, the main reason why the Uprising failed was that it took on a
Bulgarian bias. If this is so, what can the Macedonian intelligentsia be
asked to do in order to relieve the plight of their countrymen
following this recent misadventure?
The first requirement is that the intelligentsia should know their
own needs and those of the people. At the meetings in Sofia and other
cities it happened more than once that resolutions were accepted in
which the needs of the Macedonians were put forward. But these
resolutions were accepted in Bulgaria, through the influence of
Bulgarian society and of the Macedonian emigrants in Bulgaria. At these
meetings representation was not given to all the Slav peoples and to
their Intelligentsia; as a result the resolutions were one-sided and
incomplete.
For the present, at least, what the Macedonian people most need is
not so much the official voice of the majority, a governor-general
belonging to the largest nationality, or freedom of the press, but a
means of bringing to an end, of paralyzing the enmity between the
adherents of the various religious and national propaganda factions.
Efforts must be made to overcome the present distrust in Macedonian
intellectuals educated in the various Balkan states to serve as
mouthpieces for nationalist and religious propaganda in Macedonia;
official recognition must be won for the Macedonian people; in all
official documents and certificates the designation Macedonian must be
introduced for all persons of Slav origin in Macedonia; it is also
necessary for the land to be shared out as it was to the peasants during
the abolition of serfdom in Russia, Galicia and other countries. Here
numerous other reforms are required, including those drawn up by the
Russian and Austro-Hungarian delegates in Istanbul and accepted by His
Imperial Excellency the Sultan.
From now on the task of the Macedonian intelligentsia should be to
ensure that for everyone – the Macedonians themselves, the Turks, the
Balkan states and the great powers – the interests of the Macedonians
are kept apart from those of the other Balkan states and peoples, and
that close attention is paid to all questions concerning the liberation
of our people and our land from its present state of great poverty, and
the regeneration of our people in a spiritual and material sense.
This is an extremely difficult task and it demands greatly united
efforts. Hence, the examination and fulfillment of this task calls for
the participation of all Macedonian Slavs, regardless of religious or
national differences. The Macedonian intelligentsia, therefore, should
stop treating one another with distrust; they should try to free
themselves from propaganda and be constantly on their guard against the
intelligentsia and society behind this propaganda. From time to time in
the free Balkan states, regardless of propaganda, the Macedonian
intelligentsia should organize meetings at which the questions of the
spiritual and national regeneration of the Macedonians would be
discussed and settled. Even when not engaged on official work, the
Macedonian intellectuals should always speak to one another in the
central Macedonian dialect (that of Veles, Prilep, Bitola and Ohrid) and
this language should be introduced as a compulsory subject in all
religious and national teaching, even in the Turkish schools. The
central Macedonian dialect should become the literary language of
Macedonia.
If the religious and national propagandists do not wish to introduce
our language into their schools – naturally, in those places where there
are Slavs – and if they forbid their teachers and priests to keep
company with the Macedonian intelligentsia and that of other
nationalities, then the Macedonian intelligentsia and the Macedonian
people should find a way of condemning this propaganda. And if these
propagandists are trying to undermine their enemies, the intelligentsia
should show the people what unworthy means they resort to and call on
the people to defend their own vital interests. If the popular protest
concerning religious and scholastic matters, in which the districts
ought to be recognized as being free from propaganda interests, turns
out to be a revolt with a bias against the state and if state measures
are sought against the rebels, then the people and the intelligentsia
should turn to the consuls as responsible arbiters.
If, however, some or all of these propagandists persist in opposing
our requirements and endeavors by using only their own language in the
schools and churches, then strong and sweeping measures should be taken
against all forms of religious and nationalistic pro- agenda in
Macedonia.
Freedom of conscience is recognized everywhere; in Macedonia, too, it
is and will be recognized. The exploitation of this freedom has been
checked everywhere, and it should therefore be checked in our midst as
well. The Jesuits have been driven out of practically all European
countries for exploiting the national conscience. In France, because of
malpractice, the religious orders have been restricted in their
activities in the schools. What has been happening all over Europe could
also happen here in Macedonia.
Everyone has the right to profess the Muslim religion or Christianity
in one of its three basic forms – Orthodoxy, Catholicism and
Protestantism. All people have an inalienable right to their religious
needs and convictions, but religion should never be permitted to become a
platform for political and national propaganda, as it is at present in
Macedonia.
If we consider the present state of religious propaganda in Macedonia
we will be struck by the fact that in most cases it serves as a means
towards national and political ends. Protestantism and Catholicism in
Macedonia have religious aims only because those who propagate these
faiths behave with great respect towards even the most insignificant
aspects of the various ways of life of the Macedonian nationalities. And
so nobody has the right to complain about their activities.
Unfortunately, however, the Orthodox religion – the oldest, the most
widespread, the basic faith of all the nationalities of Macedonia – has
completely lost sight of its main aim, which is to encourage brotherhood
amongst the different nationalities and to ennoble the hearts of the
believers. And instead of pursuing these noble aims the Orthodox
religion has simply spread discord and envy. It has now become the chief
weapon of those who wish to spread purely nationalist and political
propaganda. The Orthodox faith in Macedonia has now become so
compromised that one can no longer speak of a true Orthodox church, for
there are now three churches, and they are not Orthodox but Greek,
Bulgarian and Serbian. Why must this be so? Should not the Church be
One, Holy, Episcopal and Apostolic? Yes. The Church should indeed be One
and Holy, and not Serbian, Greek or Bulgarian. In Macedonia the Church
has been deflected from its main aim, and so the intelligentsia and the
common folk of Macedonia have every right to use all powers available to
them to purge the Church of her purely nationalist aims and replace
them with those which were laid down by the Holy Founder so that the
gospel might be preached in all tongues, i.e. all nationalities would
come to the faith through their own language.
If the propounds of religious propaganda try to disrupt the unity of
the Macedonian people and the intelligentsia they will come to see that
this is impossible and that the only choice left to them is to form One
Holy Apostolic Church in Macedonia, i.e. to form an Archbishopric in
Ohrid which would be the “Archbishopric of all Macedonia”.
If those who spread religious propaganda have anything against the
unity of the Macedonian people and the intelligentsia then it can only
be for nationalist motives. In this case it would be natural for these
church reforms to be extended to school reforms as well, i.e. the
Archbishopric would also take over school affairs, giving due
consideration to the nationality of the congregation in each region;
thus in the Greek parishes the official language both at school and in
church would be Greek, in the Vlach parishes – Romanian, and in the Slav
parishes – Slavonic.
This would lead, then, to the gradual disappearance of all the
nationalist and religious propaganda, which has split the people into so
many groups, all hostile to one another; and peace would follow, peace
for the people, for Macedonia, for Turkey and for Europe.
And, indeed, could there be anything better for bringing the
Macedonian crisis to an end? It would certainly be the best thing for
the people, for they would no longer be plagued by intriguers of various
nationalities, they would be liberated from the various measures which
interfere with their everyday work, and the unfounded enmity between the
various nationalities would be ended by the Church.
This outcome would also be best for Turkey. Turkish diplomats are
gravely mistaken if they believe they can keep Turkey in Europe by
continuing to stand by the policy of divide et impera. As long as there
exists a basis for nationalist propaganda in Macedonia, and as long as
no attempt is made to ensure that other states do not exert a greater
influence in Macedonia than Turkey, it is inevitable that Turkey will
lose Macedonia and gain nothing from the country. As long as this state
of affairs continues to exist, Turkey must live in constant fear of
losing Macedonia. If, however, it is officially acknowledged that there
are not several Slav nationalities in Macedonia but only one, which is
neither Bulgarian nor Serbian, and if Macedonia secedes as an
independent Bishopric, Turkey will be immediately freed from
interference in Macedonian affairs by the three neighboring states.
Our national interests dictate that the Macedonian people and the
Macedonian intelligentsia should assist Turkey to make her way out of
the difficult situation into which she has been drawn by religious and
nationalist propaganda in Macedonia and by the countries behind this
propaganda. We do not need to be joined to Bulgaria, or to Serbia or to
Greece. The integral unity of Turkey is far more important to us than it
is to Russia and Europe. Turkey is a country occupying an excellent
geographical position. Since we Macedonians are Turkish subjects and
interested in maintaining the unity of Turkey, we too have the right to
enjoy our citizenship throughout Turkey. And this right could be of
great material advantage to us. It is clear, then, why the Macedonian
intelligentsia, if they closely examine their own interests, should for
their own sake and for the sake of their people devote all their moral
strength to the prime task of maintaining the unity of Turkey. In
exchange for this support we shall be granted by our bounteous ruler the
right and honor of full autonomy in church and school affairs and full
equality before the law in the local self-government of Macedonia. This
self-government can in no way endanger the unity of Turkey; on the
contrary, it will help to regularize the relations between the peoples
of Macedonia once and for all.
Thus the people of Macedonia and the intelligentsia must strive
towards national unification of the Macedonian Slavs as a whole, and
towards unification of the interests of all Macedonian peoples.
Nationalist and religious enmity should remain as no more than a
regrettable memory. There must be solidarity between the peoples of
Macedonia in their endeavor to preserve the unity of Turkey. In exchange
for this Turkey will treat all the Macedonian nationalities justly
before the law and in local administration, and will protect and
encourage their national development.
If the Macedonians were to pursue such a peaceful policy they would
gain the support and approval of the great powers, who have an interest
in preserving the unity of Turkey. The great powers will assist Turkey
to absolve itself from all the injustices inflicted on the nationalities
of Macedonia through religious and nationalist propaganda, thus
ensuring the independent life and development of the nationalities. The
small Balkan states, ho have a personal interest in supporting this
propaganda, will at first be angry with the Sultan’s Imperial Government
for bringing to an end their century old privileges, but in the course
of time they too will come to accept the abolition of propaganda because
it will in fact be to their own advantage: they will stop pouring
millions of francs every year into Macedonia, an expense which never has
been and never will be of benefit to them. These millions were not
entirely without effect, for they helped to maintain the enmity among
the Balkan states at a time when, on account of their closeness and the
similarity of their interests, they should have been helping one another
in their common economic development.
A short while ago, when speaking of the failure of the uprising, I
attributed this lack of success to the lack of coherence in the
movement. What I said, in fact, was that if an uprising is launched in
the name of and on behalf of the Macedonians, it should be authorized
and supported by all the nationalities in the Organization.
Now that I am speaking of the need to put an end to propaganda in
Macedonia and to reconcile and unite the Macedonian intelligentsia and
the Macedonian nationalities, it may be thought that this unification
will enable us to launch a general uprising, which would be more
successful. But anyone who came to this conclusion would be mistaken.
Only a short while ago I said that we are interested in preserving
the unity of Turkey. And, indeed, what advantage would we gain by being
joined to Greece, Bulgaria or Serbia? These states are more cultured
than we are, and therefore only they would benefit if Macedonia were
joined to them. But in the final count it is impossible for all of
Macedonia to be joined to one of the Balkan states because the other
states would intervene. It would be possible for Macedonia to be
partitioned among the smaller states or to be occupied by Austria. But
could there be any greater misfortune for Macedonia than to be
partitioned or occupied?
The small Balkan states would without the least ceremony move into
the conquered parts of Macedonia, exploit them for their own use and
turn the Macedonians into beggars once they had begun to lose their
national identity and this would be the first thing to happen.
One may easily conjecture what the fate of Macedonia would be under
Austro-Hungarian rule: the fate of Bosnia and Herzegovina has clearly
shown that, after ten years of Austrian occupation, the Macedonians,
regardless of their faith or nationality, would be forced to quit their
homes and emigrate. And even if Macedonia were to become attached to one
of the Balkan states – which, like partition and occupation, would
never happen – the process would not take place without an internal
revolution. And is there any point in these revolutions when His
Imperial Excellency the Sultan has guaranteed the continuance of our
national and religious existence and assured us that we will be equal
with the Turks before the law and in our local self-government?
But there are reasonable grounds for thinking that the Imperial
government is well intentioned towards the different nationalities of
Macedonia. History enables all nations to see the mistakes they have
made and to avoid repeating them. The present uprising has been most
instructive both for us and for the Turks. The Turks, I feel, must learn
from it: nobody can doubt, not even the Turks, that Turkey will no
longer be able to keep Macedonia if it continues to pursue the same
policy towards us as it has hitherto been pursuing. Turkey cannot retain
her provinces without the aid of the local inhabitants. The army alone
is not enough, nor even is the satisfaction of the majority of the
inhabitants. The Turkish government will be able to maintain its
position in Macedonia only if all elements of the population are
included in it and consider their welfare and security to be possible
only under the Turks. It is the local population, which should provide
the main source of support for Turkish interests in Macedonia. And
Turkey will win the support of the majority only if it is prepared to
ensure the introduction of real reforms in Macedonia and to bring in
people capable of looking after the national and religious interests of
the subjects, and of protecting their civil rights and economic
existence. If Turkey does not look after the needs of its subjects and
continues to shirk her duties in implementing reform, she will be the
one to suffer most: 1. she will be driven by force to carry out the
reforms, 2. if the people are still deprived of their national,
religious and economic rights, even after some of the reforms have been
introduced, the enemies of Turkey will use this as an excuse to prove
that she has devious interests in Macedonia.
The first task of the Macedonian intelligentsia, then, will be to
clear away the mistrust that exists between the intellectuals and the
various national and religious groups and to unite the intelligentsia
both within Macedonia and abroad, to assess the general interests of the
Macedonians by getting down to grass roots, to dispel national and
religious hatred, to educate the Macedonian Slavs in the pure Macedonian
national spirit, to make determined efforts to see that the Macedonian
language is widely taught and to maintain contact with schools in the
towns with a Slav population as well as to teach the language in village
schools attended by Slavs. In the Slav villages they should ensure that
church services are held in Macedonian. If these efforts meet with
resistance from any of the foreign propagandists they should call upon
the Turkish government and the Great Powers to remove these demoralizing
forces from Macedonia and to set up an Archbishopric in Ohrid which
would be responsible for the church schooling of Christians of all
nationalities in Macedonia.
Our second task is to persuade our brothers who are fighting in
Macedonia to lay down their arms so as to make it possible for Russia
and the other powers to take all the measures they can to ensure that
all our religious, national and economic interests are satisfied.
I am well aware of the disapproval with which many will greet my
proposal. They may even describe it as treachery; there may even be some
who will say that people who think like this should be removed from the
face of the earth.
Let them think, speak and act as they wish against me. My duty
towards my people and my country has impelled me to give utterance to my
thoughts. I am firmly convinced that there is nothing traitorous in
what I have proposed: 1. because the opinions, not only of individuals
such as myself, but also of all Macedonians from the field of battle and
from Bulgaria, and the opinions, demands and proposals of the entire
Bulgarian nation and of the Bulgarian government are not able to alter
the attitude of the Great Powers and Russia with respect to the needs of
the Macedonian people, 2. all further efforts would bring about hardly
any change in the position taken by the foreign states in relation to
the Macedonian question. The most that could be achieved would be an
European conference, but this conference could not be convened before
the spring, and even then it would be called only if the uprising became
even stronger than it is at present. But is it possible to foresee what
course the uprising will take? And even if we were to allow that the
uprising might be stronger then than it is now, and that Europe would be
consequently forced to call a conference, could anyone hazard the
prediction that the decisions passed at this conference would be to our
advantage? I doubt it.
People in Europe have been entertaining a mistaken idea of the
nationality of the Macedonians and this is why those who bear the full
brunt of the present uprising will benefit least from the decisions
passed at the conference. We would have to be blind not to see the
obvious: all the measures taken at the conference would be for the
benefit of the nationalities of Macedonia – but which are these
nationalities? The Turks, the Bulgarians, the Greeks, the Vlachs and the
Albanians?
How would it be decided at this conference who was Bulgarian, Serbian
or Greek? Where does the dividing line lie? And, finally, which of
these peoples would be present at the conference? Who would provide the
facts about the Macedonian nationalities and their needs? Is it not
absolutely clear that we would have no representatives, that they would
decide our fate without asking us what we want, and that instead they
would turn to our neighbors, who have their own states and their own
diplomats and who will derive every possible benefit from the blood we
have shed?!
No, brothers! There is no conference which could save us. We would do
far better to trust in the states which are most genuinely interested
in our affairs, particularly Orthodox Russia, which is well acquainted
with our needs, and not place our faith only in ourselves and in
conferences of one kind or another. If it were so simple and so
worthwhile to hold conferences we would already find ourselves being
treated differently, and instead of Europe leaving Russia and Austria to
settle the Macedonian question, all the Great Powers of Europe would
want to have an equal say in this matter. For what did the British Prime
Minister write to the Archbishop of Canterbury concerning the policy of
the Great Powers with regard to Macedonian matters: “if all the Powers
were to engage in settling the Macedonian question it would slow down
rather than speed up the actual settlement. The best solution at present
is to entrust the initiative and the main role to the great countries
which have the strongest interest in and the best understanding of the
needs of the Macedonians”. – Yes, we ought to know that if the whole
“orchestra” were to strike up one could only expect great disharmony, a
discord which would partially engulf the Grande Porte (the Turkish
Central Authority) but would be far less injurious than the concerted
activity of the two most interested countries. Each country has a
different way of looking at this question and this disharmony saves the
Grande Porte from being fully submerged. Can we expect greater unanimity
at the conference than has already been shown in the actions of the two
interested countries?
A conference today would be held under quite different conditions
from those which prevailed at the time of the conferences before the
last Russo-Turkish War. A conference now would be of advantage only to
the small states which are attempting to establish and spread the rights
of their peoples to the detriment of the Macedonians. If this is the
case, and it cannot be otherwise, the conference would be nothing but a
sheer waste of time! One thing is certain; there is no point in
continued opposition. Do you know what those people think who are in
favor of continued opposition? First, they hope that the Great Powers
will be squeezed out; second, they hope that a conference will take
place; and third, they say that if neither the one nor the other should
happen, Turkey will still end up by being economically ruined through
having to maintain so large an army for such a long time. It can be seen
straight away that the first two hopes would not be to our advantage.
Even less so the third. You ask why?
Is Europe interested in preserving the Turkish Empire; and will it
provide Turkey with the means to survive? But who will pay for this, who
will provide the interest? – Macedonia, as usual. We may suppose that
Turkey’s economic disintegration will not affect us. But surely it is
clear that if Turkey is economically weakened, we shall be weakened even
more drastically? Surely we realize that as long as the rebel
detachments continue their fighting, the Turkish soldiers will loot and
pillage and cause every imaginable harm to the civilian population? The
people will not be able to carry on with their work, and, worse still,
they will be forced to feed both hungry Turkish soldiers and rebel
detachments. The battle has taken on not so much a national as a
religious character. And it is several times more devastating than
ordinary war! There would, however, be some sense in this devastation if
there were any hope of success. All our hopes lie in the possibility of
Europe’s joining in on our side. But it is clear that she will not do
so. We think that Europe will take pity on the innocent civilian
population and therefore be prompted to intervene in our affairs. But
our calculations in fact do not afford the people of Europe the chance
to rush to the help of the civilian population. The people of Europe say
that they can do nothing, and that the Committee will regard all
European moves as an intensification of their own agitation. This means
that as long as the liberation movement continues we cannot expect real
intervention on our behalf and as long as it continues the people will
be forced to put up with the greatest and most senseless misfortune.
This being the case, is there any sense in continuing to fight? In my
opinion there is not. We do not have such great reserves of national
power that we can afford to sacrifice our people to Bulgarian, Serbian
and Greek interests, for our present struggle is of advantage only to
others. And the strength of our people is needed for the cultural battle
as well. Let us also consider the opposite side of the question and
assume that the present struggle will force Europe to interfere in
Turkey’s affairs and drive Turkey to grant equality to the peoples of
Macedonia. If this were to happen could we Macedonians (Slavs) consider
the outcome a success? I think not. Equality would be given to all the
nationalities, including the Turks, Greeks, etc. So, we should have shed
our blood for the rights of the people of these nationalities, who,
during the fighting, either took no part or else fought against us.
Surely it is no small matter that we should have shed our blood for the
interests of others, even our enemies? But our enemies from the free
states would take advantage of the blood we had shed and the losses we
had suffered to step up their religious and nationalist propaganda, thus
splitting us into hostile opposition camps: Serbs, Greeks and
Bulgarians.
After the fight in the field of battle comes the fight in the field
of culture, but when this time comes, instead of reaping the rewards for
the blood we have shed and at last being able to develop culturally, we
will find ourselves then, just as we are now, serving the interests of
the Serbs or the Greeks or the Bulgarians.
As long as there exists this kind of national dividedness, together
with utter economic powerlessness, nothing can be achieved by any
conferences, reforms or attempts at intervention because everything will
lead to the inevitable partition of Macedonia. All this, reinforced by
the certainty that further successful opposition would be not only
useless but also impossible, leads me to believe that it is our duty to
urge the Macedonian intelligentsia who have some influence on the
present liberation movement to take note of the gravity of the situation
and as quickly as possible find ways and means of indicating our full
faith in the Great Powers engaged on Macedonia’s behalf, and, once we
have promised these powers that the fighting will not continue, to turn
to them for moral and material aid to help the stricken population.
Further, our intelligentsia must ask for all the proposed reforms to be
introduced, including those which will be needed in order to expand the
program that has already been drawn up; they must also ask for the
removal of all propaganda and for the establishment of an Archbishopric
in Ohrid with autonomy in the church and in schooling, for amnesty for
all emigrants and all rebel fighters, for recognition of the Slavs in
Macedonia as a separate nationality Macedonians and for the introduction
of the term Macedonian in all official documents, etc.
Once the uprising has been finally stopped, Turkey and Macedonia will
reestablish relations agreeable to both sides. It will then be seen how
closely our interests are bound up with theirs, so that if the one is
injured the other will suffer, and enmity between us will serve only to
benefit a third party, most probably one of the small Balkan states.
This is particularly clear if one considers the possible consequences of
the uprising, consequences which to our good fortune and that of Turkey
as well have not arisen. I refer to the possible partition of Macedonia
among the small Balkan states.
The uprising has been launched and has destroyed both us and the
Turkish state. The damage it has caused both to Macedonia and to Turkey
is enormous, but it is still less than it might have been. It was
fortunate both for us and for Turkey that Serbia and Bulgaria had
reached no agreement concerning the Macedonian question. No agreement
was reached because Bulgaria wanted to appropriate the whole of
Macedonia to itself, without the help of its neighbors or the great
states. Bulgaria was mistaken in her expectations, which was fortunate
both for us and for Turkey. Up to the present uprising Bulgaria had made
no political attempts to settle the Macedonian question and this is why
all schemes to come up with a solution foundered. Bulgaria had not
previously realized that the solution to the Macedonian question could
not come exclusively from Sofia but that it would have to come from
Belgrade as well, i.e. through an agreement between Sofia and Belgrade.
This agreement was looked upon as a change in the standing of the
states, but now that the Bulgarian diplomats have been brought up
against their own ineffectuality, despite immense efforts to solve the
Macedonian question on their own, there will be many Bulgarian diplomats
who will find themselves looking on this agreement as an unavoidable
evil. If the present Bulgarian attempt had been made earlier a partition
would have been arranged between the two spheres of influence in
Macedonia, between Serbia and Bulgaria, then later, during the uprising,
the Serbian and Bulgarian armies would have marched Into Macedonia.
This, would have been the outcome of the uprising if the Bulgarian
diplomats had been more pressing in their efforts. This time we were
lucky enough to have our country saved from partition, and Turkey was
spared from losing one of its finest provinces. The uprising prevented
Macedonia from being partitioned, and this is one of its more worthwhile
results. But partition was luckily avoided thanks really to the fact
that our enemies happened to be inept and inexperienced. If Bulgaria
wanted to threaten us even more seriously in the future, when our
enemies were more experienced, she might enter into an agreement with
Serbia concerning the partition of Macedonia between the spheres of
influence. This agreement between the spheres of influence would
unfailingly lead to the partition of Macedonia. This is why one of the
prime duties of the Macedonian intelligentsia is once and for all to
drive Serbian and Bulgarian propaganda out of Macedonia so that
Macedonia can establish its own spiritual centre, and free the
Macedonians from this give and take relation with the neighboring Balkan
states and peoples. Hence the need to forestall the partition of
Macedonia and retain it as a province of Turkey. The well known
interests of the Turks and the Macedonians clearly dictate that they
should not waste their strength in fighting against one another to the
advantage of their common enemy, but rather extend a helping hand to one
another in order to free themselves of all those who try to undermine
their friendly relations and meddle with their common interests.
Once the uprising has stopped Macedonia will turn to peaceful
cultural work, and for this good relations will be necessary with all
the nationalities living in Macedonia. Our intelligentsia has not yet
been able to work out the most satisfactory relation between ourselves
and the other nationalities of Macedonia. To some extent this has not
depended on them. For instance, the relations of our people to the Turks
and Muslims in general depend more on the Turks than on us: if the
Muslims had regarded the Christians as people equal to themselves, the
relations between Christians and Muslims would undoubtedly have been
good; indeed, there might well have been no uprising. Unfortunately, not
even at the last moment were the Muslims able to overcome their old
prejudices and cease regarding the Christians, would undoubtedly have
been good; indeed, there government and the Turkish intelligentsia will
come to see how much harm these prejudices have caused, and make every
effort to uproot them. This would help to put relations between Muslims
and Christians on a better footing.
Similarly, good relations between the Greeks and ourselves (the
Macedonian Slavs) depend more on them than on us. If these relations are
to be improved the Greeks should abandon their megalomania and
acknowledge the right of the Macedonians to exist together with the
Greeks in Macedonia. In particular the Patriarchate, as an ecumenical
institution, should cease acting as an institution with a Greek
character. It should be devoted to looking after the rights of all
Christians and not to sacrificing the rights of some to the advantage of
others. It is particularly necessary that the Patriarchate should look
after the holy right of all members of its flock to enjoy their own
national existence. In this way the conflicts between Greeks and
Macedonians would be avoided because the Macedonians do not demand that
those who speak Greek should use the old Macedonian language in church
and modern Macedonian in the schools, for this is only required of those
whose language is Macedonian.
If, however, the Patriarchate persists in barring Macedonians from
using their own language and forcing them to use Greek, it will end up
by making the Macedonians regard the Patriarchate as a tool for Greek
nationalist propaganda. If this happens, both the Greeks and the
Patriarchate will be looked upon as the enemies of our people and it
will become our holy duty to repel all Greek attacks on Macedonian
Slavs. In this battle between Christians our responsibility must devolve
on the Greeks and the Patriarchate because we would not in this case be
attacking, but defending ourselves from the attacks of others.
Our best relations are, and should be, with the Vlachs. Nowhere has
there been any conflict between our interests and theirs. The majority
of the Vlachs live in the towns, as traders, while most of our people
live in the villages, as farm laborers. Those Vlachs who live in the
villages are mostly cattle breeders. The Vlachs and the Macedonian Slavs
differ in language, national dress and character, consequently they can
never lay any claims to our villages, and we have never tried to make
out that the Vlach villages are ours. There have never been any
misunderstandings in the past between ourselves and the Vlachs. They
have never ruled over us nor have they ever done us any harm. On the
contrary, ever since the Middle Ages there has been an understanding
between us. And on the basis of this understanding the firmest
friendship can be expected to develop between ourselves and the Vlachs;
this friendship between our two brotherly nations should be deep rooted
and should enable us to walk side by side along the difficult road
towards cultural progress.
It is one matter to ensure that correct relations are established
between ourselves and others of Christian or Muslim nationality, and
quite a different matter to ensure that our nationality is accepted by
His Imperial Excellency the Sultan, so that the term Macedonian might be
recognized by protocol, for this is necessary if we are to take the
first steps towards national and religious liberation from propaganda
and towards the political changes envisaged by the countries behind the
reforms; and it is yet another matter to ensure that measures are taken
to bring about the economic stabilization of our village farms. And
until these improvements are all made in our national, religious, and
economic life, we the Macedonian intelligentsia have something more to
do, and this is the most important of all: we must devote all our
physical, intellectual and moral strength to the national revival.
This latest uprising has shown us that the path we have been
following is wrong and dangerous. Many sacrifices were demanded and
little advantage was gained. The revolution has compromised us in the
eyes of our government and has not presented us in a favorable light to
the rest of Europe. But we are not greatly to blame for all this. On the
one hand we were being driven to revolt and on the other hand we are a
young nation and it was not difficult for us to be drawn into an
immature adventure. Just as at work young people consider it preferable
to advance by leaps and bounds and not by working solidly and steadily
in one direction, so too young nations prefer leaps and bounds to steady
solid work in the same direction. In all our work hitherto it is the
uprising which stands out as an ill considered and hasty act; but we
must be forgiven for this, firstly because ours is a young nation
scarcely conscious of its national identity, and secondly because we
have hitherto not been living as a national and religious unit and have
been exposed to the influence of various forms of religious and
nationalist propaganda. But we cannot continue to be forgiven for what
we have been forgiven up till now.
We can no longer regard ourselves and our people as a youthful nation
lacking political experience. In our historical development we have
passed through stages of such importance that they might stand as epochs
in the history of any nation. And this new epoch brings with it new
obligations in the form of cultural work.
Up till now the people have been working together with the
intelligentsia, but the work was unequally divided because it was left
to the people to carry out the plans of the intelligentsia, who did no
more than draw up the plans or supervise the organization of the
revolutionary movement. Organizational work is certainly a job, but we
cannot say it is one of the hardest. Preparing for a revolution is
certainly a job which calls for great expenditure of nerves, but it is
not so arduous and difficult as the revolutionaries our young
intellectuals seem to think. The preparations for an uprising last from
five to ten years, after which all those who were involved either die
or, if they remain alive, have to make do with nothing at all or else
turn their hand to something for which they are possibly not even
prepared, something which has to be learned from scratch. Organizational
work is not so demanding as it is made out to be, and, because the
organizers usually consider their own lives more important than those of
the villagers, they usually foist the most difficult jobs onto the
workers or the ordinary people. This is why organizational work is, on
the one hand, the job of one man who places far greater emphasis on his
own attenuated efforts than on the need for solid steady work. And, on
the other hand, organizational work is impersonal because the man who
performs it does not sacrifice himself for society, for his people or
for mankind; instead he uses the people to help him execute the plans
created by his fancy. Intellectuals of Macedonia! – It is time you came
to realize that it is wrong to gamble with other people’s lives for the
sake of plans produced by your fancy.
I am not trying to say that we should forsake our idealism and do
without national ideals. No! We could not live without ideals; but from
now on our ideals should be purer and more progressive. From now on in
our patriotic work we should redeem ourselves in the eyes of the people
for all our mistakes. From now on we should sacrifice ourselves for
their sakes and so repay them for their trust in us and for their
obedience in carrying out the plans of the Organization with such
precision. How can our intelligentsia repay the people for the
sacrifices they have made? I gave an answer to this question when I
spoke of the battle against the disseminators of propaganda and of our
people’s struggle to live on good terms with the other nationalities of
Macedonia.
But, as I also pointed out, our main task is to aid the people through our work in culture and, above all in education.
Science and literature are the most important factors in the
development of any people. The level of culture is determined by the
extent to which the people are advanced in science and literature. Hence
a division is made between cultured and uncultured peoples.
Cultured people rule, uncultured people live in subjugation. It is
only through knowledge, education and cultural work that our
intelligentsia can put itself right and atone to the people for all the
wrongs that have been committed.
It may be objected that cultural work is possible only if political
freedom exists, and that without this freedom it is impossible. This is
true, but it is not the whole truth. The basic precondition for cultural
work is not full political freedom but the moral education of the
people and of the intelligentsia and the awareness of each individual of
his natural obligations to the people. Complete political freedom is
worthless if a man does not come to realize that his human debt, his
debt towards his country and his people, is work, work and more work.
Freedom is useful only to enable us to enjoy the results of our work,
but it is not so vital for work itself. And if one is to enjoy the
results of one’s work, one must first work.
It is possible to work and to take pains with one’s work even under
conditions of political limitation. If we are to stand with a clear
conscience before the people, who have made so many sacrifices, we
should turn with all our energy to cultural work. And in doing so we
should not judge the value of our work according – to outward
appearances but according to inner worth, for the value of work is
measured in terms of its power and effect. If we regard work in this
light, and if we genuinely desire to repay our debt to the people, then
we cannot excuse ourselves by claiming that there exists no basis for
cultural work. The basis does exist, but the will is lacking. Provided
the will can be found, it does not matter even if we are not able to
print many things, because we may be secure in the knowledge that we
have an intelligentsia who will then serve as a living encyclopedia
capable of furnishing us with reliable and accurate information from all
branches of science and literature.
But accurate and reliable information can be acquired only after
years of hard work in the knowledge that in this way one is repaying the
debt to one’s country and people. And these many years of work are more
useful, more difficult, but also more constructive than revolutionary
work – and more reasonable too.
These long years of study by our intellectuals would be of visible
use to the people for they would then be able to look with their own
eyes both at themselves and at other nations, and be made aware of their
own and other people’s merits and shortcomings. An educated people may
be compared to an intelligent man; this is why it is our duty to put all
our efforts into educating our people.
Cultural work is more difficult than revolutionary work because the
former is mental and the latter physical. By way of illustration let us
consider classical and modern languages and the correspondence of the
Committee or the distribution of the armed bands. Revolu-tionary
activity is temporary and destructive, not permanent and creative. And
if a cultured man is to be worthy of this designation be should create
and not destroy. A solid building must stand on firm foundations.
Therefore one should not, in order to make one’s work easier, avoid
tackling the more demanding disciplines, such as the study of ancient
languages, which are fundamental to many branches of learning. The aim
of acquiring accurate information from all the different branches of
learning, not only for our personal sake but also for the sake of
ourselves as individuals belonging to the nation, should make us stop
and think, should make us devote all our energy and free time to
mastering those disciplines which are most needed by our people and
which demand the hardest work, because the easier disciplines can always
be managed in due course. If we wish to face our people and ourselves
with a clear conscience we should be prepared to help even with the most
difficult tasks and not seek the easy way out with the excuse that we
do not have the ability or knowledge required for those disciplines
which demand the greatest pains and devotion if we are to dedicate
ourselves to them.
Cultural work is more delicate than revolutionary work because
through it the intelligentsia is placed at the service of the people
while through revolution it is transformed into a heartless
experimenter.
And, finally, cultural work is more reasonable. Through cultural work
the intelligentsia explains the most important questions concerning
itself and the people, and the most important questions are those
concerning the knowledge of the people.
Recently we have been going into the demand for political freedom,
but we have not stopped to consider whether we are as yet mature enough
for it or whether it is what we most need at the moment. I do not
undertake to meet our most recent demands, whether they are just or not.
The question of our national, religious and economic revival is of far
greater importance to me. But this revival can only be brought about
through studying our own people as separate individuals, then in
conjunction with the other peoples and nationalities of Macedonia, and
finally as members of the Slav national family. If we were to undertake
this study, it would lead to understanding in our relations with all the
nations just mentioned.
Here you have a fair outline of what the intelligentsia of Macedonia
might do in order to correct all the mistakes made in the recent
uprising.
Our work, then, should be concentrated on peaceful, legal and
evolutionary educational work among the people. It should be aimed at
placing the intelligentsia truly at the service of the people, and
nothing else. But if this service is to be worthwhile it is essen-tial
that we should train persons to carry out the task, an intelligentsia
who will be utterly dedicated to the welfare of the people. We need an
intelligentsia imbued with the awareness of the moral debt that each man
owes to his people and his country; we need an intelligentsia that will
aspire towards moral and mental perfection.
Our intelligentsia today should devote all their efforts and all
their moral a nd mental training to the people and to the creation of an
ideal Macedonian intelligentsia.
If this debt to the country is recognized, if we manage to unite our
intellectuals with Bulgarian, Serbian and Greek educational backgrounds,
if we succeed in paralyzing the activity of the propagandists and in
getting them driven out of Macedonia for good, if pro-per relations are
established with all the nationalities of Macedonia, and if the
political and material position of the Macedonians is improved, then,
despite all the sacrifices we have made, we shall have one reason for
satisfaction: the uprising has opened our eyes to the fact that the road
we were taking, and would have continued to take, was the wrong one and
that even without the uprising we ourselves would have prepared the way
for the partition of Macedonia. The uprising has opened our eyes to
many needs which we could not otherwise have anticipated.
May God grant that this uprising will serve as a lesson to our
people, a lesson to all Macedonians regardless of where they were
educated or what nationality they considered themselves to be in the
past. Let us pray that the blood which has been spilt will bind us as an
oath to join together in spreading culture for the benefit and
happiness of our common home, our much afflicted country – Macedonia.
* Simeon Radev (1879-1967), the well-known Bulgarian diplomat and
politician, Macedonian by origin (from Resen); as a student he edited
the Mouvement Macйdonien in Paris, 1902-1903. Editor’s note.
** A. A. Rostkovski (1860-1903), Russian consul in Bitola.
(Page 1-44)
