Ilinden

In the proposed scientific work, we present the circumstances
and analyse the causes determining the artificial imposing of the
political myth of a “Macedonian minority”, purposefully incited in
Bulgaria by the authorities of Belgrade and Skopje. In addition, the
writer aims his research at drawing a detailed portrait of the
macedonism, the interest being naturally directed to the origin of
its state doctrine, as well as to the political mythology related to it.
The metamorphose of its development has been followed and
investigated, which naturally justifies the in depth focus on the
preoccupation catering for the interests of the propaganda and people
in power to deliberately maintain a favourable external political
environment. In the democratic situation after 1989, however, this
particular concern of Skopje is deemed to have no serious prospects.
The structure of the rich authentic archives and documental
materials is displayed chronologically and in relation to the mutual
dependence of the problematic issues. The following four chapters
have been established: Where from, when, why and how the so
called “ethnic Macedonians” appeared in modern Bulgaria;
Institutional development of the peripheral macedonism in Bulgaria
1989-2006; The collective portrait of the OMO macedonism;
Approaches of suggestion of the “Macedonian minority” myth.
Being in its essence both historical and political, this
scientific research provides an answer to a number of questions,
which find place in twelve paragraphs. While the origin of
macedonism is traced, it is proved that regardless of the character
of its actions and mentality of its followers, the anti-Bulgarian substance is preserved in all periods of its development. The writer
finds out that both at the end of the nineteenth century and at the
beginning of the twenty-first century, macedonism as a national
ideology, and furthermore, as a state doctrine and constitutional
norm in modern Macedonia, has always been born and maintained
by the political situation and has constantly served external antiBulgarian goals.
Being vicious, undemocratic, anti-constitutional and hostile
to the Bulgarian people with its propaganda messages, the OMO
macedonism is analysed in the light of its foreign commitments,
the legal groundlessness of its struggle for collective “minority”
rights, the circulated historical myths and the desired but failed to
come true in life immortalization by the census of the population
after 1989. The most important elements of the efforts and
suggestions seeking to create artificially a mythologized
environment, favourable for the development of the provincial
macedonism in Bulgaria, have been outlined.
Regretfully, macedonism and its product — the so called
“Macedonian minority” in Bulgaria - represent a gloomy companion
of the dramatic Bulgarian history. In order to obtain the dreamt
national unification, the Bulgarian people made four uprisings,
participated in numerous rebels’ actions and waged four wars in the
course of 66 years from 1878 to 1944. The victims and the wrecks
of the fatherland ideals are beyond descriptions. From the
geographical region of Macedonia, only the Bulgarians in the valleys
of the rivers Struma and Mesta with their ethnic land inhabited for
centuries have remained an inseparable part of the Bulgarian state.
Nowadays, the “Macedonia issue” is not a priority of the |
Bulgarian external policy. In the democratic conditions after 1989,
Bulgaria has made a lot of efforts to pursue a reasonable and well-balanced foreign policy. It is not Sofia that may cause problems
with the notorious “Macedonian question” in the interstate relations.
The attempts of the ruling circles in the Republic of Macedonia to
use the holders of the peripheral macedonism as an instrument of
the external policy and to pressure Bulgaria aiming at recognition
of a non-existing Macedonian ethnical minority are doomed to
failure. The same family memory, the lessons suffered and the
common cultural and historical life are in accord with the universal
and democratic values that are being endorsed in both neighbouring
countries.

In the present first author’s monographic work the IMRO supporting organization is the main object of research and scientific analysis. This original Bulgarian public institution is the only active political factor in the Pirin region from 1922 to 1934. The establishment and support of the organizational non-party regime in the region, the ideological aspect, legal and illegal forms of existence and activity, as well as the IMRO participation in all Bulgarians’ political life is the object of scientific explanation and interpretation. From the researcher’s point of view an emphasis on IMRO the activities in the free Bulgarian state could be made in a more detailed and purposeful way.
During IMRO ten years’ practice a whole financial and accounting mechanism for raising funds is finally applied. The income for the treasury of the organization, received almost regularly, determines substantially the IMRO independent behaviour and the financial support of several sensible and efficient legal and illegal liberation activities.
Todor Alexandrov and Ivan Mihailov deserve most of establishing and functioning of the supporting organization upon some ideological and moral foundations. Its first leaders Aleko Vassilev and the lieutenant-colonel Georgi Atanassov are not strangers to leaders’ ambitions and organizational time-serving, which is financially determined. The other two regional representatives of the Central committee Yordan Gyurkov and Pancho Toshev are their exact opposites. A large number of IMRO members from the region are their associates: Argir Manassiev, Stoyan Philipov, Ivan Karadjov, Boris Bunev, Ivan Ingilizov, Atanas Madjarov, Zahari Novev, Strahil Razvigorov, Assen Avramov, Iliya Gadjev and dozens of other participants in the liberation movement, who believe that in this way they support the Macedonian Bulgarians’ struggle.
The end of the legendary organization, which has 40 years of life, is tragic. In spite of the fact that the numerous IMRO supporters and followers in the region do not betray the Bulgarian national spirit, they sustain on them some undeserved attacks on the part of the regimes of violence and oppression from 19 May 1934 and especially after 9 September 1944.
IMRO strengthening in the difficult time between the wars as the most militant, revolutionary and conspiratorial unit, not only in the Balkans but also in Europe, is a direct consequence of the activity of its supporting organization in the Petrich region as well.
The revolutionary organization of the Macedonian Bulgarians in the free motherland is an original part of the Bulgarian political system. The lack of a united point of view and a joint action between the ruling and non – responsible factors makes the connection with Bulgarian ethnical community fragile. Being a revolutionary in Bulgaria leads to results opposite to the expected ones.
IMRO supporting organization in its whole contradictory and complicated actions is an institution with its own contribution in Bulgarian cultural and political history during the period between the wars. In spite of all weak points for nearly 12 years hundreds of ordinary Bulgarians take part in armed units and village police, in local organizational committees, in mass performances of cultural and economic councils. They are brought up in the spirit of patriotism, love of their country and readiness for any sacrifice in the name of a national ideal, suffered and dear - liberation and unification of all Bulgarian territories.

Humanitarian intervention is a relatively new concept in international
relations. Although the origins of interventionism can be traced back well in history, its humanitarian aspect had been gradually formulated during the course of the 19th century. In my paper I focus on the ideas and proposals of the London-based Balkan Committee to solve the “Gordian Knot of the Balkans”: the Macedonian Question. In 1903, after the abortive Ilinden Uprising, the European Great Powers concerted to pacify Ottoman Macedonia and to implement reforms in the judiciary and administrative systems, which became known as the Mürzsteg Program. The representatives of the Committee such as its founder Noel Buxton or the well-known journalist at the time, Henry N. Brailsford, suggested international control for Macedonia “by establishing a Government responsible to the Powers.” I argue that their ideas were influenced by the notions of contemporary international law which deeply internalized the period’s European perception of civilizational hierarchies of the world.

This article aims to map and periodize memory regimes in North Macedonia, with the
divergent set of Ilinden commemorations epitomizing the developments and critical
changes in the period from 2001 to 2018. Ilinden is still by and large considered to be
pivotal for Macedonian nation-building, structuring the long Macedonian 20th century
and serving as the most prominent state holiday. The commemorative narratives,
understood as political strategies with the aim of taking a position towards and interpreting the past, establish a set of patterns, groups or trajectories which will be argued to be principal in the creation of official memory in North Macedonia. Herein, the set of 18 Republic Day/Ilinden commemorations will be reconstructed, triangulating the
analysis of Macedonian media outlines, institutional discourses and political rhetoric,
and finally, it will be discussed as a tripartite periodization model, drawing upon the
theoretical framework offered by Kubik and Bernhard (2014).

1877-78 Osmanlı-Rus Harbinden sonra yaşanan siyasi gelişmeler, Balkanlar özelinde, Osmanlı Devleti’ni oldukça zor duruma düşürmüştür. Özellikle Berlin Antlaşmasının bazı maddeleri Anadolu'dan Ermenileri, Balkanlar'da ise milliyetçi Bulgarları harekete geçirmişti. 1903 yılında Makedonya’da yaşayan Bulgarlar, İlinden dedikleri isyanlarıyla kamuoyu oluşturmayı hedeflerken, bu isyanı desteklemek amacıyla Kırkkilise (Kırklareli)'de de bir isyan çıkartılmak istendiğini kayıtlardan anlayabiliyoruz. Nitekim, Vize Kaymakamı Ahmet Galip Bey’in Rumeli Müfettişliğine gönderdiği telgraf metinlerinde Bulgarların Kırkkilise ve Vize taraflarında gerçekleştirdikleri eşkıyalık hareketlerini (adam kaçırma/öldürme, gasp, yağma vs.) sıklıkla görüyoruz. Bulgarların gerçekleştirdikleri bu hareketlerin, bölgedeki Rum ve Türk nüfusunu korkutarak başka yerlere göç ettirilmesi ve Büyük Bulgaristan'a yeni topraklar katmak amacını taşıdığını açıkça anlayabiliyoruz.

1903 yılının Ağustos ayında başlayan İlinden İsyanı Osmanlı
Devleti’nin Rumeli topraklarında büyük bir karışıklığa sebep
olmuştur. Bu isyan dâhilinde Bulgaristan’dan da çeşitli destekler
gören Bulgar komitaları Osmanlı Devleti’nin Bulgar tebaasını
tahrik ederek büyük çaplı bir başkaldırı hareketine girişmiştir.
Osmanlı askeri birliklerine, mülki birimlerine saldırıların
yaşandığı isyanda birçok köy isyancılar tarafından yakılmış,
siviller ise yine Bulgar isyancılar tarafından katledilmiştir. İlinden
isyanı yurt dışında ve yurt içinde birçok akademik çalışmada bir
alt başlık olarak incelenmiş olmakla beraber bu konuda Osmanlı
arşiv evrakı en geniş anlamda değerlendirilmiş değildir. İşbu
çalışmada İlinden İsyanı sırasında gerçekleşen ve aralarında
Kruşevo hadisesinin de bulunduğu kayda değer vakalar Osmanlı
arşiv evrakı ışığında incelenmiştir.

The Ilinden Uprising, which broke out in the August of 1903, has caused a widespread wave of disturbance on the Ottoman Roumelia. Within the uprising, the Bulgarian committees, which are also supported by Bulgaria, sparkled a rebellion against the Ottoman State by provoking the Bulgarian subjects of the Ottoman State. In the rebellion within which Ottoman military and administrative units were attacked, the Muslim villages were burnt and Muslim civilians were massacred by the Bulgarian armed bands. The Ilinden Uprising has been viewed by some academic studies as a subtitle in their works however there aren’t any studies which widely evaluated the Ottoman state archives in a wider aspect. In this work, the significant events of the Ilinden Uprising including the Krushevo incident have been examined by widely evaluating the Ottoman archive papers on the matter.

Предмет на истражување во овој труд ќе бидат меѓусебните судири на христијанското население и судирите на христијанското со муслиманското население во Битолскиот вилает  1905-1908. Започнувајќи две години по Илиндеското востание па следејќи ги настаните се до „пресвртницата“ во Османлиската империја- Младотурската револуција од 1908 година.  Преку извештаите на Австро-Унгарските дипломатски представници кои во овој период престојувале во Битола се доаѓа до богати сведоштва за меѓусебните судири. Ваквите судири се должат на различните конфесионална припадност на милетите, или на делови од милетите, дејствувањето на пропагандните чети и неможната на ВМОРО да го заштити населението. Истражувајќи го овој аспект може да се дојде до богати сознанија за тоа какви биле состојбите меѓу населението пред почетокот на избивањето на Младотурската револуција.

The development of Macedonian revolutionary movement in area of
Kostur begins in second half of 1885. Since Macedonian revolutionary
organization (MRO) had not enough capacity in its first stage of
development, as well as the domination of Greek Patriarchy in Kostur
region, were the reasons the real development to begun two years after its formation. In the period to the beagining of Ilinden Uprising (1903), MRO in the area of Kostur had passed all of development stages of revolutionary activity, which was characteristic for all of the territory of Ottoman Macedonia. The culmination was during the events of the period of the Uprising, when in act there were all positive, but and negative aspects of the development of the revolutionary movement in the area of Kostur.

This paper presents two Western narratives of the Ilinden uprising (1903) in late Ottoman Macedonia, arguing that our present understanding of the uprising is a representation based on a political ideology, distorting our picture of the event and social dynamics in the late Ottoman Balkans. A comparative review of three British newspapers on their coverage of the period prior to, during, and in the aftermath of the Ilinden uprising shows not only that there are substantial differences within and between the Western discussions of the Balkans, but also that Western history writing is no less subjective or politically neutral than non-Western history writing.