|
Post by Arxileas on Mar 13, 2008 19:03:49 GMT -5
FYROM put on trial before the European Court of Human Rights Translation : Observations of the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria on application № 74651/01 before the European Court of Human Rights - Association of citizens “RADKO” and Vladimir Paunkovski (Vladimir Pankov) versus the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. 01. On July 17 the, 2007 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) communicated to the Bulgarian Government the application of Association of citizens "RADKO" and Vladimir Paunkovski (Vladimir Pankov) versus the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and forwarded an invitation to the Bulgarian party to intervene as a third party on the case, according to Article 36 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as the second applicant is a Bulgarian citizens. 02. On August 30 the, 2007 the Bulgarian Government informed the ECHR of its willingness to exercise the right to intervene as a third party on the case. 03. The Bulgarian Government deems that the above application is admissible, grounded and well-founded. northmacedonians.blogspot.com/2008/03/blog-post_13.html
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Mar 14, 2008 2:45:14 GMT -5
Good news! Bulgaria should protect the ethnic Bulgarians in fyrom (around 2 mil.) against the brainwashing, historystealing (from Gr and Bg), Serbserving "state".
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Mar 14, 2008 5:04:03 GMT -5
^ l would also blame the exharchate as well ioan, the ottomans gave the exarchate freedom in vardar.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Mar 14, 2008 5:33:00 GMT -5
O please. On and on about the church. Did it make them speak Bulgarian? Are u sure about it? If so how could Hungary not speak latin at this point? Or Romania Bulgarian? Because that were the church languages up till 18-19 century in both states. U just cant bare the fact that the language was always Bulgarian (dialect at best)! U couldnt change it after years of brainwashing them and serbanizing their language. It still is too close to Bulgarian to be a "separate" language. And that after countless years of rule over them. I m saying it again: look at Pirin Macedonia, the greatest bg patriots. U couldnt make them Serbs. Guess why? They never were to begin with!
|
|
|
Post by Ivanov on Mar 14, 2008 10:12:04 GMT -5
I think, most of the regions in Vardar Macedonia were given to the exharchate after some kind of a referendum.
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Mar 16, 2008 9:25:27 GMT -5
The Exarchate consisted of areas inhabited mainly by Bulgarians. Period.
|
|
|
Post by Novus Dis on Mar 16, 2008 17:32:23 GMT -5
Good news! Bulgaria should protect the ethnic Bulgarians in fyrom (around 2 mil.) against the brainwashing, historystealing (from Gr and Bg), Serbserving "state". You do know that the Serbian Orthodox Religion is banned in Macedonia, right?
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Mar 16, 2008 21:31:19 GMT -5
"O please. On and on about the church. Did it make them speak Bulgarian? Are u sure about it? If so how could Hungary not speak latin at this point? Or Romania Bulgarian? Because that were the church languages up till 18-19 century in both states. U just cant bare the fact that the language was always Bulgarian (dialect at best)! U couldnt change it after years of brainwashing them and serbanizing their language. It still is too close to Bulgarian to be a "separate" language. And that after countless years of rule over them. I m saying it again: look at Pirin Macedonia, the greatest bg patriots. U couldnt make them Serbs. Guess why? They never were to begin with!"
For what l write below, l will be quoting D.Rizoff, Floericke, Filov, Mintschev, Baker, Braun-Wiesbaden etc...
In the development of the Macedonian question, the Bulgarian Exarchate played an extremely important part, for it was the first propagator of Bulgarian territorial ambitions among the slavic population of macedonia. However the policy of national repression to which the people was exposed, bulgarian discontent was directed much more against the Greek bishops than against the Turks. "lt is characteristic," says Kurt Floericke, "that the first steps were directed, not against the political oppression exercised by the Turks, but against the religious and linguistic persecution conducted by the Greeks. Thus, they did not leave the path of the law for an instant, but rather appealed to the pashas and the sultan for their impartial and well-disposed mediation." Bogdan Filov says that Pajsije's Slaveno-balgarska istorija was the original stimulus of the Bulgarian national movement, "which took place simultaneously in Macedonia and Bulgaria and which was primarily against the use of Greek in the church service." "The greek schools in Bulgaria," says Ivan Minchev, "were a greater danger than the tyrannical regime of the turks, for they were on the way to denationalizing the Bulgars." In order to avert this danger that was threatening them from the Patriarachate at constantinople, the bulgars threw themselves into the arms of the Turks. The efforts made by bulgarian leaders before the proclamation of the Exarchate did not, however, bear fruit. Rich bulgarian merchants who had awakened to the call of nationalism organized in 1840-45 an opposition to ecclesiastical oppression. In 1867, the Bulgars appealed to the porte for permission to set up a special body for public instruction in Bulgaria. (Baker) In a memorandum which the Bulgarian revolutionary committee handed to the sultan in 1870, it was stated that the Bulgars were fully prepared to remain under the sultans authority. "If our independance," says the memorandum, "could find recognition and confirmation under the glorious scepter of the sultans, and if the sultans were at tyhe same time willing to be also emperors of the bulgars, then why should we not offer our help and our strength to the Ottoman monarchy, as the magyars did to Austria and the Algerians to France?...Diplomacy would then stand in astonishment when it saw a miracle where it had been accustomed to seeing a weak body. In this way, all pretext for intervention and threats from whatever power would be precluded for all time. Not one foreign country would look askance at istanbul under the pretext of liberating the christians, since the latter would be free and would want to remain so." The idea behind this memorandum, with its obvious digs at Russia, is attributed by Braun-Wiesbaden to the porte. "It was," he says, "neither a french, nor a roman, nor a greek, but a turkish idea, although, indeed, completely beyond the grasp of a man like abdul aziz." Joseph Maria von radowitz, whose position at that time would enable him to be well informed on such matters, ascribed the idea of proclaiming an exarchate and the execution of this idea to Russia: "This movement [the bulgarian movement for ecclesiastical separation from the Patriarchate of constantinople] was secretly fostered by Russia, i.e, by Ignatiew, whose personal idea it was, without, however, its suddenly coming out into the open. It represented a complete turnabout in Russian oriental policy; while, until the crimean war, the russian slogan had been the defense of orthodoxy as a whole, now the slavic national idea emerged for the first time as a leading principal to which the ancient patriarchate of constantinople sacrificed, together with the symapthies of the disappointed greeks. From now on, russia was no longer merely the chief power behind holy russian orthodoxy, but a mighty champion of the slav national movement....only in the summer of 1872 did this gradually become clear. Foreign diplomats on the bosphorus did not, apparently, appreciate this as they should have done-least of all the bristish representative, elliot, who spoke of it to me disparagingly. In the meanwhile, l reported it to berlin as the biggest change for centuries in russian oriental policy, and expressed the conviction that it marked the beginning of a future conflict between russian and turkey" (Hajo Halborn). This was the setting in which the bulgarian exarchate was born. Without doubt, the russians exerted great efforts toward its creation, since they believed that in this way they would secure a powerful means of realizing their policy in the balkans. The porte, on the other hand, which understood better than the russian what was going on, thereby acquired a new weapon with which to smash the unity of the balkan christians. Serbia, who was ill informed and prompted, as ever, by sentiment for the slavic cause, interpreted the proclamation of the exarchate as a gain for the slavic world and for orthodoxy. The serbian government, through its envoy in istanbul, and metropolitan mihailo personally-who was favorably disposed toward the bulgars-welcomed the creation of the exarchate in the belief that its influence would be confined to ecclesiatical matters and that a much happier time was thus ahead for the slavic population in the south of the peninsula. A true pan-slav, completely devoted to the russians and to orthodoxy, and one of the main leaders of slavophilism in the balkans, metropolitan mihailo made great efforts to secure recognition of the exarchate, for he was anixious to preserve the unity of the orthodox church in the balkans, which was being subjected to heavy attack, both by propaganda of various kinds and by materialistic ideas. The Bulgars, on the other hand, understood the matterquite differently. Still without a state, they tried to exploit the exarchate for the realization of all their national ambitions, which sprang from the influence of Venelin and that nebulous romanticism which had seized their leaders of the time. Some of these leaders were, in any case, little concerned about the church; what did concern them above all was the realization of their national ambitions and the formation of a bulgarian state at the first opportunity. Richard von mach was not far from the truth when he wrote that firman of March 11, 1870, by which the exarchate was estabilished, marked "the beginning of a new development of the bulgarian people." Mintschev commented that this firman "belongs to the greatest moral victories attained by the bulgarian people during the nineteenth century." Dr Vasil Radoslavoff wrote: "The constitution of the bulgarian pricipality contains state constitutes an essential part of the church and is subordinate to the holy synod, regardless of where the latter shall have its seat." In the light of all these circumstances, it is not surprising that the first five bulgarian bishops, in a letter to the bulgarian nation, urged the people, not only to remain loyal to the sultan, but to redouble their loyality and submission." For the bulgars, the most valuable gain was the official recognition, throughout the territory of the exarchate, of "bugar-mileti" as well as "urum-mileti." The former term was intended as designating all those members of the orthodox church who remained loyal to the patriarchate but who did not feel themselves to be greeks. From the practical or political point of view, this was the first official recognition of bulgarian nationality. On the other hand, the serbs in old and southern serbia suffered a twofold setback: since they had no national church of their own, it was impossible for them to be entered in the population register as a separate nation, and, divided as they were between exarchate and patriarchate, they were thrown into conflict among themselves. "With the creation of the exarchate," says carl Rittervon Sax, "theb Bulgarian name once more acquired official significance." continues next post......
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Mar 16, 2008 22:10:01 GMT -5
.....continuing from my last post....
The edict establishing the exarchate opened up considerable opportunities for spreading bulgarian influence in all the serbian lands under turkish rule. The opportunities were amply exploited. Under the pretext of introducing church services read in slav and liberating the people from the authority of the greek bishops, there began a bitter struggle for the bulgarization of areas that had never been bulgarian. "Those who declared themselves for the exarchate were bulgars, those who acknowledged the patriarchate were serbs. It was scarcely possible at that time to trace any linguistic borderline." Bulgarian agents of whom were from macedonia and had been converted to the bulgarian cause, inundated the whole of macedonia and, under the aegis of the exarchate, engaged in the work of bringing the people over to their side. On january 14, 1899-i.e, at a time when relations had become well defined, freiherr von marschall reported to german chancellor von Hohenlohe that all the bulgarian commerical representatives in macedonia were merely revolutionary agents: "this is especially true," he said, "of the agent Rizov in Skoplje, where he has organized a central depot for the macedonian-bulgarian movement. The same is essentially true of the bulgarian diplomatic representatives, who consider their chief task to be the conducting of propaganda for a greater Bulgaria." The above-mentioned firman required that at least two thrids of the total orthodox population in any area should decide in favor of the exarchate, that it be included in the area of the exarachate and that it given the right to ask for exachate bishops and priests. Taken all in all, this edict subordinated to the exarchate the dioceses of pirot, nis, custendil and samokov, all of which had previously come under the patriachate of pec. The omission of all reference to skoplje, veles and stip in the edict is conspicious. "in macedonia and eastern thrace," says richard von mach, "i.e, in those areas that are today under direct turkish administration, not one diocese was originally subordinated to the bulgarian exarchate." Later, however, they too were included in the exarchate and received bishops appointed by the exarch. In their efforts to obtain this two-thirds majority, bulgarian propagandists did not scruple in their choice of methods. Referring to their work in southern serbia, theodor von sosnosky wrote: "What these methods were the greeks, serbs and turks of this unhappy land felt on their own backs. By plunder and arson, rape and murder, armed bands tried to make them come over to the bulgarian side. The obvious consequence of this terrorism was that other nations retailiated according to their strength. In this manner, one band raged againast another." "Their terrorism," says Hugo Grothe of the bulgars, "brought them more enemies than friends. If power were to come into their hands today, there would be a danger that everything non-bulgarian would be persecuted ten times bitterly as it was bulgaria was in turkish hands." "The fear in macedonia," wrote H.N. Brailsford, "is more than emotion. It is physical diseace, the malady of the country, the aliment that comes of tyranny." For a long time , the turks tolerated this conduct on the part of the bulgarian missionaries, for their old hatred of the serbs had been exacerbated by the serbo-turkish war of 1878. "It is understandable," says heksch, "that the turks preferred the patient and submissive Bulgar to the rebellious serb or greek. Since the serbian principality had gained its freedom, theb turks regarded every serb who declared himself to be such as a rebellious conspirator against the turkish regime. This circumstance was exploited by the bulgars in order spread their propaganda among the serb outside the principality. Whoever was reluctant to become a bulgar and persisted in calling himself a serb was denounced to the turks as conspiring with serbia, and could only expect severe punishment. Serbian priests were maltreated; permission was refused to open serbian schools,m and those that were already in existence were closed; serbian monastries were destroyed. In order to avoid persecution, the population renounced its nationality and called itself bulgarian.....During the thirty or forty years, propaganda has been rife in which the bulgars have encouraged the turks to act against serbs and greeks. Hence, throughout macedonia, thrace and dardania, slavs are considered to be bulgars, which is quite incorrect. On the contrary, the slavs inn macedonia are incapable of understanding a bulgar from jantra. If it is desired to designate these slavs correctly, then they must be considered as serbs, for the serbian name is so popular with them that, for example, male children are sometimes christened 'Srbin' [Serb]. The serbian hero of the folk poems, marko kraljevich, is obviously the serbian ruler in macedonia."
to be continued with my next post....
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Mar 17, 2008 0:28:22 GMT -5
....continuing from my last post....
Scarcely any serious scholars have considered that a vote for the slavic church service was a declaration that one was a bulgar. "If," says Hugo Grothe, "during the church plebiscite of 1872, two thirds of the christian slavs voted for the exarchate, this was by no means a confession of their Bulgarian descent." Brailsford remarks that the inhabitants of southern serbia of that time were bulgars, "because free and progressive bulgaria has known how to attract them." The Exarchate was a laboratory in which they were nationally transformed: on these grounds, Brailsford says that the Exarchate clergy were "missonaries of the Bulgarian idea." It is not, therefore, too much to say that the Bulgarian Exarchate was the precursor of San Stefano Bulgaria, which, as D.Rizov says, "remained the national and political ideal of the entire Bulgarian people." "present-day Bulgaria," wrote Paul Dehn, "is considered by bulgarian politicians as a torso, and they will not rest until they resurrect their country within the frontiers, more or less, of the san stefano treaty, including, in particular, the aegean ports, since Varna, on account of the expensive and time-wasting passage through the bosphorus and dardanelles, is insufficient." In order to consolidate the territory for this dreamed-of state, the bulgars, as Hermann Wendel pointed out, set about the Macedonian slavs with deliberate and well organised propaganda and a program for spreading bulgarian education. "Teachers," says Wendel, "not only taught the children to read and write, but instilled into them the Bulgarian national outlook. Thus, the bulgars emerged, not as the initiators, but as the exploiters, of a movement which, in the form of the awakening of the 'unhistorical nationas,' was bound inevitably to appear one day." "The new state," says Jirecek in reference to the Bulgaria it was hoped to create, "was supposed to embrace the area from the Bashichko lake and the port of kavalla, and in the west to include pirot, vranje, debar and kastoria. These frontiers were never realized, but for the bulgars they remained as a formulated political ideal." Thus the exarachate, as it was envisaged by bulgarian ecclesiastical and popular leaders, was the precursor of san stefano bulgaria-a hastily formed conception that was to become the tragedy of the bulgarian people. Bulgaria, in the form in which it was carved out by the Russians at san stefano, was intended to serve theb russians as a fulcrum in the balkans, as a springboard toward domination of the mediterrean. "Such a Bulgaria," says Dr. Alexander Redlich, "was conceived, not as an independant country, but as a Russian province, which would, formally speaking, remain under the sovereign power of turkey. It was intended to become a russian egypt and to keep the route open for russia to istanbul. In this way, russia became the territorial neighbour of turkey, which her next blow would destroy." In view of HWV Temperley, san stefano bulgaria fulfilled all bulgarian ambitions: it was presented as an ideal for succeedingn generations, and maps of it were in every school. "The realization of these frontiers," he says, "was the aim of the whole of subsequent bulgarian policy." Wolfgang Windelband states that it was an attempt to achieve undisputed russian control in the balkans, "and st.petersburg reckoned on europes bowing before a fait accompli, the force of which has always been attested in the history of diplomacy." In the calculations of those who hankered after a greater bulgarian, macedonia played an essential role. "Bulgaria," wrote D.Krapchev on march 24, 1915, "will never renounce her claim to macedonia. Sooner or later, in one way or another, it will become an inseparable part of our state. Enormous sacrifices have been paid for it, and, if necessary, yet more will be made when a suitable opportunity offers itself. The proper moment and the means....will be determined by the bulgarian government."
The congress of berlin made it impossible for san stefano bulgaria to remain as it had been carved out: instead of bowing to russia, europe threw her plans into confusion. The regions of pirot, vranje, leskovac, prokuplje and nis were annexed to serbia, but southern serbia continued to be subjected to bulgarian propaganda, which, after this setback, merely redoubled its efforts. "That the congress of berlin left macedonia under turkish rule," says gilbert in der Maur, "was the result of complete ignorance and indifference to human dignity, a disgrace for the century in which the italian and german nations on the basis of the national principle, emerged as states." Von Radowitz did not believe that the russian negotiators were convinced of the permanency of their achievement. "If they had been, they would have been under an illusion as regards the world situation." Bismarck appears to have forseen the possibility of such a development in balkan relations. In his memoirs, he wrote: "It is not impossible that in the distant future all these tribes [the orthodox peoples in the balkans] will forcibly annexed to the russian system; that their mere liberation will not make them supporters of the Russian authority has been proved primarily by the greek people.....The liberation movement continued, and the same thing happened with the Rumanians, serbs and bulgars as with the greeks: all these peoples readily accepted russian assistance in their liberation from the turks, but, when they won their freedom, they did not show the slightest disposition to accept the tsar as the sultan's successor." From fear of the russian danger-a fear that at time was justified-the great powers continued to enslave a section of the balkan christians, on whom bulgarian propaganda descended with renewed fervor, persisting in its attitude that what had now proved impossible of attainment would nevertheless one day be achieved.
|
|
|
Post by pagane on Mar 17, 2008 11:15:35 GMT -5
Novi...don't believe everything you read. What territorial amibitions when there was no Bulgaria on the map of the free countries. We were under Ottomans and in the beginning of an organized revolutionary movement. Actually, at that time noone was making any difference between Bulgarians in todays Bulgaria and those in macedonia.
Oh. Didn't the author know that the Sultan was the ultimate authority in this area? Who else could they address in order to carry out what they wanted?
I do wish you to show me which precise areas in the Exarchate were never Bulgarian. This is a frigging biased articcle.
Again...I will not discuss on this anymore. Hidden behind some true facts, there is lot of anti-Bulgarian attitude here.
|
|