Talk:Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization/Archive 1

A Remark

What is a nation? What does this term imply? Is this "nation" thing so important that it is worth killing others and dieing for? Is nationality something that exists as a genetic code and thereby defines what you are? I would like to say no, but it is not easy to do so since there is an immense amount of historical evidence supporting the fact that nationalism has strongly influenced people’s actions and determined other people's futures. With no doubt, nationality is a sensitive issue and I would expect that reasonable and good mannered people respect what others feel and how they name what they feel. Therefore, I urge the editors at Wikipedia to respect the position of Macedonian people and their rich history and name them as they name themselves. Wikipedia is more and more popular and respectable open source encyclopedia that is of a global value and it is really against its interest to compromise its position as an informative, objective and unbiased source of information. Indeed Macedonians have Slavic cultural, lingual and other features similar to other Slavic nations but in the same time they have endogenous national characteristics that are distinctive from other Slavic nations and cultures. This also applies to Bulgarians, Croatians, Czechs, Russians, Serbs, Slovaks, Slovenians, Ukrainians and so on, but still they do not have the "Slavic" prefix when being referred to. Please take a note of this and try to be cooperative and careful. Any deviation from these suggestions is indeed against the virtues of this modern global society that we all try to practice. I also kindly ask the Wikipedia team to accept my remarks and respond with a good will to my propositions. There are many pages at this website that Macedonians find offensive. Please make an effort, before publishing texts, to see whether they contain true information by consulting appropriate references and sources. Thank you.

Transliteration

Transliteration is not consistent troughout the article. Either use only official transliteration, as used for Macedonian or this ad hoc one, as used for Bulgarian. It looks messy as it is now.

Furthermore, the ad hoc transliterations are not consistent. You have Todor Alexandrov and then Aleksandar Stamboliyski. Then you have Ivan Mihailov, while from the other transliterations in the the article you'd expect it to be transliterated as Mihaylov. I wouldn't be surrprised if that's the situation in most other articles where Bulgarian is transliterated.

Bulgaria regards IMRO as Bulgarian just as Macedonia regards it as Macedonian

Bulgaria regards IMRO as a Bulgarian organisation just as Macedonia regards it a Macedonian one. the reasons being that nearly all IMRO activists were Bulgarian exharchist teachers, who used standard Bulgarian in all their correspondence and documents and called themselves Bulgarian. The first name of the organisation was actually Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrionople Organisation. Greek sources regard the struggle with IMRO as a struggle between Bulgarians and Greeks, and European media call the IMRO activists "Bulgarian comitadjii". On account of all that the edition is more than necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VMORO (talk • contribs) 00:16, 11 August 2004 (UTC)

Sorry but what is your IQ?

Thats like somebody says:

Germany regards the Swiss City of Zuerich as German Town just as Swizerland regards it a Swiss one?

And sorry for a second time.

The organization was founded in 1893 by Hristo Tatarchev?

Is the name Hristo a Bulgarian name, like the Bulgarian name Khan Asparuh?

How is that posible,that People wich have Greek names, are Slavic People and call them selfs

Bulgarians.

The Greek Kulture, is very strong intergated in the South Slavic Communities like

Bulgaria and Macedonia.

The Antic Macedonian component makes them, the Slavic Macedonians to be Macedonians.

So what makes the Bulgarians to be Bulgarians, what component of them?

Khan Asparuh, because he was for a short time the lider of this people?

For a short Time Macedonians ware allso Yugoslaws, way not befor Bulgarians to,

what just means to be a part of a South Slavic group of people and not

a part of a Nation?

Because to be a Bulgarian in the past was something like to be a Yugoslaw in the 20th Century.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.188.100.224 (talk) 21:05-22:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me but my name is Valentine does that make me a Roman? IMORO is a Bulgarian organisation as well as prety much everything in the Republic of Macedonia. It's a pitty that now so many pseudomacedonians try to use the name of IMORO against the group's cause.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.21.202.41 (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Wikipedia???

Dear all

I am writting about the issue of Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, Macedonian Slavs (like Wikipedia calls the Macedonians) and the problem between Macedonia and Greece about the term Macedonia. I am aware that this issue is largely discussed here, at Wikipedia, and Wikipedia claims that it is trying to take a neutral side. But, that is not the case. Wikipedia is everything except neutral in this question. In the following lines I will explain you why.

From the text in Wikipedia most of the people will conclude that Macedonian nation appeared during the World War 2 and Tito was the one who 'invented' us. The family of my wife (she is Mexican) read this and asked me is it truth. That was actually the first time I read what Wikipedia says about my nation, which was a direct reason for my reaction. My grandfather is born in 1911th. Yesterday I had a talk with him. He took a part in the strugle for independence since 1925th and he took a part in the 2nd world war. He is alive and personal prove that Wikipedia is full of bullshit and lies about our origin. He spent half of his life proving and fighting for that. He was shot 3 times, all 3 from the Bulgarians who wanted to ocupy Macedonia in the Balkan wars and in the WW1 and WW2. Just a 1 min with him will show you how many lies you suport in Wikipedia.

I tried to edit some of the text few days ago, but everithing I wrote was deleted. And all I wrote were facts. Fact 1. Macedonians (or Macedonian Slavs, like ONLY Wikipedia, Greece and Cyprus calls us) is the only nation of many living in the area concentrated inside the borders of the geographical region of Macedonia. This is a pure fact, something that you can even find on the CIA web page. Can you give any fact to deny my fact? If you can not, why you erased it from Wikipedia? Fact 2. Republic of Macedonia has diplomatic relations with about 150 countries in the world. Wikipedia says that "at least 20" countries recognize Macedonia under the name Macedonia. Guess what? That number is more than 100. And this is an officially confirmed by our ministery for foreighn affairs. Fact 3. Wikipedia says that my country Contraversialy calls itself Republic of Macedonia. This is a pure example of taking a side in the problem. Why you don't say that Greece contraversialy deny us the use of the name Macedonia? If you intended to be neutral, just write that we have the naming problem with Greece, but do not call my name "contraversial"!!! Fact 4. While explaining about the antient Macedonia, its kings etc. you highly support the claim for their Greek origin. I can give you 1000s of facts that that is not truth and I beleive that some Greek guy can give you 1000s facts that those claims are truth. That was 2400 years ago and there is no chanse for us to know the real situation. We can only guess. But, when you give the Greek suported version, why you ignore the version suported by the newaged Macedonians? In this moment I can give you 10 names of internationally respected scientist supporting our theory. If you are neutral, why you ignore it? Fact 5. Wikipedia says that the Turkish Empire were calling us Bulgarians. Strange, because the Turks were recognizing the uniqueness of our nation since the moment they occupied the teritory of Macedonia. Actually, the Turkish history archives are the biggest prove of our existance, history and culture. Did anyone of you ever read anything from those archives? Even on the birth certificate of Khemal Ataturk says that he is born in Bitola, Macedonia. And his autobiography is full of memories of his childhood spend with the Macedonians. Fact 6. Wikipedia ignores the egsodus of the Macedonian people from Greece and says they were running because they were supporters of the comunists. 1/3 of the Macedonians have origin from this part of Macedonia. They were runned away from there by force and you can find many historical proves for that. Again, big part of my family has origin from there. As a matter of fact, my grand-grand father was married to a Greek woman, my grand-grand mother. But, no matter of that, his house was burned and he was forced to run away for his life and the life of his family. How dare you deny this? Do you know that even today my grand father is not allowed to visit Greece, because he was a kid when his family runned away from there? Fact 7. There are about 500 000 Macedonians that live outside Macedonia, mostly in Canada, Australia, USA, Sweden etc. At least 1/3 moved there before 1930s. If we were a product of Tito, how can you explain that even they feel of Macedonian nationality? I have a family in USA which moved there in 1927th. Their ancestors (my cousins) do not even know how to talk Macedonian well. But, they still feel Macedonian. One of them is even one of the financiers of the party of the Macedonians in Bulgaria, trying to help their strugle to keep their national identity. I repeat, first time he visited Macedonia was in 1995th, far after Tito. And his family moved in USA in 1927th, far before Tito. Fact 8. Wikipedia claims that the book of Macedonian songs by Dimitar Miladinov is actually Bulgarian. Have you maybe seen a original copy of the book, printed in Croatia? IT says clearly "Macedonian". Not to mention that the same author wrote one of the most important books in the Macedonian history "For the Macedonian issues", again printed in Croatia, where it clearly talks about the Macedonian nation and non-Bulgarian origin.

All this was simply erased from the database. I didn't erase anything when editing these pages, I support the other side and I do not want to hide their facts. But why Wikipedia wants to hide our facts, which show that we are not a product of Tito's ambitions for the Aegean Sea. In Tito's time, the Yugoslav army was far superior in the region. If he wanted the Aegean Sea, he would get it very easily.

Many things in Wikipedia are very offensive for the nowdays Macedonians. Wikipedia simply ignores us, gives us a new name and supports the theories of denial of our existance, culture and history.

I will try to give you an example that includes with Mexico. I beleive that you know that the Maya civilisation was invaded by the Spanish kingdom. Spanish were ruling Mexico for centuries and millions of Spanish people moved at Mexican teritory. Later, after the liberation war, Mexicans formed its own country. Fact 1. Mayas were living in Mexico (same as Antique Macedonians). Fact 2. Spanish invaded them and great number of Spanish people moved to Mexico (The Slavs moved on the theritory of Macedonia and there was no reported fights or movements of people away from the teritory where the Slavs settled). Fact 3. Nowdays, everyone of the Mexican is aware that they are partly Spanish, but they still have Mayan origin (Wikipedia says that the people living in Republic of Macedonia are Slavs. When there was no reported resetling of the Antique Macedonians, how is possible they not to mix with the Slavs? It is a fact that the nowdays Macedonians are not same as the Antique Macedonians, but they certanly have a significant part of their genes. Same as I beleive that Greece has a part of their Genes, but they are definitly not their direct ancestors). Fact 4. Mexican speak Spanish. Reason: The Spanish culture was superior in that time. (The Antique Macedonians accepted the Helenic culture, including a variation of the Greek language. Reason: the Helenic culture was superior in that time. Everyone who knows at least little history will know that Hellenic and Greek are not synonims. Greek is nation, Hellenic is religion/culture. USA and England both speak English, both are mostly cristians, but they are SEPARATE nations. Aren't they? Same happens to Germany and Austria, or Serbia and Croatia, or Canada and France, or Brazil and Portugal, or the rest of Latin America and Spain)

And here is a comment about the claims of the Bulgarians, that the Macedonians are actually Bulgarians. If that is truth, I am going to kill myself. Bulgarians through the history made the worst for my nation. During the strugle of the Macedonian people for independence from the Turkish empire, at the end of the 19th and begginbing of the 20th century, the Bulgarians were the ones who killed the most of our revolutionaries, including 4 members of my close family which were members of the Macedonian revolutionary organization (VMRO). Whis is not something that I was told by Tito. My grandfather (the same grandfather from above) was in fact a member of the same organization. He personaly knew many of the revolutioners that Bulgarians claim are theirs, including 2 of the leaders: Goce Delcev and Gorce Petrov. They were Macedonians and they all gave their lives for free and independent Macedonia and they had nothing to do with Bulgaria. There was a part of them who were Bulgarians inserted in the organizations, who were actually the killers of the real Macedonian revolutioners, because it was in Bulgarian interest to weaken the organization, so they could take the lead in the organization and later put Macedonia in the hands of the Bulgarians. Thanks god, they did not succeed. Wikipedia claims that VMRO was pro-Bulgarian and the revolutioners were Bulgarian fighters. You suposed to see the face of my 94 year old grandfather when I told him your claims. Neurtal Wikipedia? I do not think so.

At the end I have to ask for Wikipedia NOT TO TAKE A SIDE IN THIS. I am not asking to remove the Greek and Bulgarian side of the story. But, why you ignore our claims, which are suported by many non-Greek and non-Bulgarian scientists and very largely through the web. There are just about 2-2.5 million Macedonians around the world. We do not have enought influence and strenght as Greece has, which is much more powerful and richer country than Macedonia. The Macedonian-Greek question is too hard and too complicated to solve. History can be interpreted in 1000 ways, especially on a teritory like the Balcany, where there are so many nations on so little space. Fortunately, DNA testings are getting more and more reliable and soon it will be possible to be used to acuratelly show the origin of our nations. I hope that then the denyal of me, my history, culture and existance will finaly stop. It is very disapointing that Wikipedia takes a part in all that.

With all the respect, Igor Šterbinski Skopje, Macedonia is@on.net.mk

---

ALL the Macedonian history (the one that the Macedonians, the one that Wikipedia calls Macedonian Slavs) before the 6th century is given in Wikipedia as Greek history. I am talking mostly about the Antient Macedonia. I do not claim that Macedonians (Macedonian Slavs in Wikipedia) have the exclusive right to this history. But, Greece can not have that right eighter. It is a history that this region shares and both, we (Macedonians) and Greeks have a part of our origin from those people. In the same time ALL the Macedonian history after the 6th century is given in Wikipedia as Bulgarian history. I am talking about the Wikipedia claims that in the 9th century the Macedonian Slavs got Bulgarized or assimilated by Greece, that in the 10th century Macedonia become a center of Bulgaria (which is not truth, because there are 1000s of hard proves and writtings found in Ohrid denying the Bulgarian claims), the tzar Samoil kingdom (which was everything than Bulgarian, because he had several fights with them and won in all and you can find again 1000s of proves in his fortress in Ohrod), then the Macedonian Ohrid Archbishopry which was clearly Macedonian and everything else than Bulgarian, with dressings and crowns with a completely different stile than the Bulgarian ones. Later Wikipedia claims that after 1018th Byzantine Empire makes Macedonia a Bulgarian province, but it doesn't say the reason for it (the Bulgarians were fighting at his side, so this was his reward towards them, something that will happen in the WW2, when the biggest part of Macedonia will be given to Bulgaria by the Germans. 3 of 4 sons of Samoil were actually latter killed by pro-Bulgarians Another reason is the wish of Vasili II to make a revenge towars Samoil and his people, with denying them, something that Wikipedia does NOW). Then, Wikipedia claims that the Ottoman Empire was seeing us as Bulgarians, which is completely not truth. You have incredible written archives in Turkish museums for this, so you can make a search by your own. All the Macedonian uprisings were characterised as Macedonians. Even the after-capture execution of the leaders was taking place in Skopje, the biggest town in the teritory of Macedonia and not in Sofija, which was the Bulgarian biggest town. Wikipedia says that the following Macedonian history is Bulgarian: IMRO, Ilinden Uprising in Krusevo (where the only newspapers that write about it as Bulgarian uprising are the ones who didn't have their Journalists in the region and were using the Bulgarian sources, which in that time was already liberated, who wanted to show the uprising as their own. Why you don't read some Russian sources which have their journalists in Krusevo and Bitola at the time? Some of the grand sons and grand daughters of the revolutioners are still alive, so you might ask them what their grand-fathers were fighting for. The Krusevo Manifesto says that their goal is FREE and INDEPENDENT Macedonia. Why would their form their own Republic, if they wanted to be part of Bulgaria? All Wikipedia claims simply have no sence), Goce Delchev and the other revolutioners (NOTE: Goce Delchevs nephews which are still alive all spent half of their life proving Goce Delchev's belongding to the Macedonian nation. NOTE 2: Why would he fight for Macedonia's independence if he was Bulgarian? If he was Bulgarian, wouldn't he fight for unification of Macedonia and Bulgaria? Why was he betrayed by a Bulgarian, which resultet in his death in Banica 1903rd? You are corupting our biggest revolutioner, something that we keep as a saint). Wikipedia says that the "St Cyril and Methodius" high school in Solun, where Delchev studied was Bulgarian. How come, when no Bulgarians were living in Solun?... A prove for the Bulgarian, Serb and Greek ambitions to assimilate the Macedonians and take their teritory is the deals and fights they had in the both Balcan wars. They were all exterminating the Macedonians, burning their houses and grabbing their lands, but Wikipedia completely ignores all that. I (and many more) have a living family members who were witnesses of that time. Then, the WW2, when 2/3 of Macedonia was given to Bulgaria by the Germans. Why the hell 100000 Macedonians were fighting against the Bugarians? 25000 died in that war, again many members of my family. And Wikipedia says that we have Bulgarian origin. Why they didn't fight at the Bulgarian side if that was the case? Wikipedia later claims that our country (Republic of Macedonia) was given to us by Tito. What a lie!!! As I said 100000 Macedonians were fighting for freedom. If Tito made us be under the Serbs again, that wouldn't be freedom and 100000 heavily armed Macedonians would continue fighting for it. Even my 94 year old grand-father, who took a part in the WW2 fighting for the partizans, and who was looking at Tito as a saint agrees with this, that he wouldn't rest till he saw Macedonia free. Wikipedia even denies the exodus of 250 000 Macedonians from Greece, saying they were running away by their own. Who the hell will leave his house and land if he was not forced to? My other grand father's house was burned and he was shoot at in order to make him leave his hometown.

On some places Wikipedia says that this 'Bulgarian part' of the history might be Macedonian, but that is very well hidden so it even can hardly be noticed.

On the other hand, Wikipedia says that 'In 2000 several teenagers threw smoke bombs at the conference of pro-Bulgarian organisation 'Radko' in Skopje causing panic and confusion among the delegates'. Yes, that is completely truth. But in 1000s of years, you find one incident that we caused against the Bulgarians and you wrote it. What about centuries of incidents, murders, wars, assimilation made by the Bulgarians towards the Macedonians? What about the fact that Bulgaria and Greece do not allow the Macedonian parties in those countries to register and take a part in the ellections? This is something that was taken even to the European court. HOW CAN WIKIPEDIA IGNORE THIS??? BTW, Radko had just about 50 delegates and members. Most of them born in Bulgaria and moved latter in their life in Macedonia.

In this case, Wikipedia is only a tool in the Bulgarian and Greek propaganda of denying and stealing the Macedonian history, culture and existance. Just search the internet and you will see that this kind of 'history' can ONLY be found on pro-Bulgarian and pro-Greek web sites. I am a living prove of the existance of the Macedonian nation. And that is not because I was told so by Tito. Macedonians were Macedonians far far before Tito. That is a fact that NOONE can change. How dare you deny everything what I am? How dare you to deny 1000s of killed people, who gave their lives for FREE and INDEPENDENT Macedonia?

Senceirly, Igor Šterbinski Skopje, Macedonia

---

---

JUST SEARCH THE WEB, YOU CAN SEE HOW WRONG WIKIPEDIA IS!!! ONLY THE PRO-BULGARIAN AND PRO-GREEK SITES HAVE THE SAME CLAIMS AS WIKIPEDIA. MOST OF THEM ARE ONLY CLAIMS THAT ARE CONFIRMED BY FALSIFICATED LETTERS. The TURKISH WERE SUPERIOR AT THAT TIME AND ARE A NEUTRAL SIDE. AND FAR BIGGER PART OF THEM IDENTIFY THE MACEDONIANS AS SEPARATE NATION, MACEDONIANS. WIKIPEDIA IS NEUTRAL??? I DO NOT THINK SO!!!

---

---

I sterbinski 13:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Why my dear Igor do not call yourself Serb instead of Macedonian?!?!?!?!? To say Macedonian is equal to say that you are Bulgarian!!!

I always understand that IMRO is Bulgarian, or pro-Bulgaria. Only Bulgaria gave the names of IMRO to towns, Goce Delchev and Sandanski. So it is logical that Macedonians are Bulgarians from Macedonian region and they are like one family. All history books say that. In France the Provencal people, and the Languedoc people, and the Alsace people are more different to the French people from the north French people, than the slav Macedonian people are from the Bulgarians. But in France all those people are one country and all French. 161.74.11.24 12:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Realek and Dipazi

Would you care to provide sources, to show at what point the people that formed BMARC, which later became IMARO, and who signed the statute explicitly stating that only bulgarians can join, became Macedonian? Or is it one of those "what you fight for determines your nationality" arguments again? By the way, everyone is free to define minor edition in his own way, and there is no wikipedia policy stating what is a minor edit and what is not. My way corresponds changing a few words. I'll be glad to hear your stance. FunkyFly 02:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral? not even 1%!

because of and macedonians and bulgarians claiming imro as their own, this page should have a neutral view on the subject, but it doesnt provide its neutrality, despite many times adding neutrality to this page, its getting reversed immediatelly by certain nationalists. thats why i've added the pov. be neutral people, wether you disagree with the neutrality is a private case. --Makedonia 23:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Makedonia, please understand that Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy does not extend to everything. There is a little proviso called undue weight, according to which, propagandistic fringe theories are not given as much gravity as the generally accepted view. Most truly peer reviewed and neutral sources (British, American etc) do not even mention the existence of a Macedonian ethnic group at that time. If you want to say that IMRO was Macedonian and give this view equal weight with Bulgarian, then you must cite a few non-Macedonian (ie non partisan) sources confirming this claim. Telex 23:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The first name of IMRO

After "Memoirs" of d-r Hristo Tatarchev, one of the founders and the first leader of the organization, the first name of the organization, accepted in 1893, was Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (Bulgarian: Македонска революционна организация). The name Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Committees (BMARC) emerged after the Second congress in 1896, which was held in Solun, and was used in the statute from the same year, created bu Gotse Delchev and Gyorche Petrov. Please check the text of the "Memoirs", translated from Bulgarian original to contemporary Macedonian. The same version is accepted by the eminent revolutionary and historian of the IMRO Hristo Silyanov in his monograph "The liberation struggles of Macedonia" (Bulgarian: Освободителнитe борби на Македония). In spite of this the assertion that the first name was BMARC is defended by Macedonian academician from the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts historian prof. Ivan Katardzhiev: "The first name of the Macedonian liberation organization was "Bulgarian-Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Committees" (in Macedonian: Првото име на македонска ослободителна организација било „Б'лгаро-македоноодрински револуционерни комитети“.) His interview with this position could be read here (in Macedonian). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackanapes (talk • contribs) .

If it's the "authorized" version of his memoirs (such as the "authorized" version of the Miladinovs' "Macedonian" Folk Songs), then it is a revisionist unreliable source. --Tēlex 17:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Telex, I could assert that this Macedonian translation is quite reliable and adequate to the Bulgarian original "The first central committee of IMRO. Memoirs of the d-r Hristo Tatarchev", Materials for the Macedonian liberation movement, book IX (series of the Macedonian scientific institute of IMRO, led by Bulgarian academician prof. Lyubomir Miletich), Sofia, 1928 (in Bulgarian: "Първият централен комитет на ВМРО. Спомени на д-р Христо Татарчев", Материяли за историята на македонското освободително движение, книга IX, София, 1928) in contrast to many other contemporary Macedonian "translations", such as notorious macedonistic publication of "Zbornik" instead the original name "Bulgarian folk songs" of Miladinov brothers, as you suppose. The same passage from Tatarchev's "Memoirs" is cited in the monograph of Hristo Silyanov: "The name "Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation" was given to the organization, and to the committee in Solun - "Central Macedonian Revolutionary Committee" (C. M. R. C.)." (in Bulgarian: "На организацията се даде името „Македонска революционна организация”; а на солунския комитетъ — „Централенъ македонски революционенъ комитетъ” (Ц. М. Р. К.)."). --Jackanapes 17:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I want an explanation for this:

User talk:Jackanapes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3RR

You are in danger of violating Wikipedia:3RR on Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization. If you continue reverting, you might be temporarily blocked from further editing. /FunkyFly.talk_ 22:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

FunkyFly, I don't understand how you are able to delete my correction, but I am in danger as a result of mine?! Why did you delete my redaction without giving any reason? Have you ever read the memoirs of the prominent Bulgarian revolutionary d-r Hristo Tatarchev, the first chairman of the IMRO? Have you ever read the history of Hristo Silyanov, member of IMARO? Do you think that d-r Tatarchev lied? --Jackanapes 22:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Jackanapes, do you have a reliable modern source proving this. Yes, Tatarchev's memoirs may say that, however, experts on the topic say that the name was BMARC until 1902 (see Talk:Nikola Karev). Tatarchev could have been using an abbreviation, we don't know. At best we could sya that modern researchers say it was BMARC until 1902, and Tatarchev referred to it as something else in his memoirs. --Tēlex 22:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, you version is original research - you assume that Tatarchev was using an informal name. --Tēlex 22:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Telex, what does reliable source mean after you? I cited the original publication of the memoirs of d-r Hristo Tatarchev from 1928, it is on my writing table at this moment, its contemporary (incredibly, but it is trustworthy!) macedonian translation in the internet, and the same passage cited in famous Bulgarian history of the Macedonian struggle, written by the revolutionary of IMARO Hristo Silyanov. The first publication was made from IMRO's Macedonian scientific institute, the second from the emigrant Ilinden organization in 1933 in Sofia. What other type of source do you expect? Full English translation of these relatively rare balkan texts on the internet may be? Check "History of Bulgaria", Volume 7, Bulgaria 1878-1903, Publishing house of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, 1991, page 440 - the first name was Macedonian Revolutionary Organization. But... I doubt is this enough reliable and modern for FunkyFly and Telex?! --Jackanapes 23:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, but it seems that here, in Wikipedia, there isn't place for historians like me. What would happen if I continue my redactions of the article IMRO, which contains some other mistakes and inaccuracies? Certainly I will be blocked permanently... --Jackanapes 23:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Jackanapes, welcome to Wikipedia :). Telex and FunkyFly, I really don't understand how come you are deleting that info. It's sourced by arguably the most pro-Bulgarian element in the IMRO - Tatarchev. --FlavrSavr 01:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

But more importantly it's sourced... Also, we should altogether work out a more NPOV and sourced version of this article, but I don't have the time at the moment. --FlavrSavr 01:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

We can certainly add that "according to Tatarchev the name was "MRO"". --FlavrSavr 03:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Biased article, completely distorted facts, missinforming the readers etc...

This article needs a good and radical cleaning and I MEAN radical. its simply because it's a complete distortion of facts. Examples without any particluar order:
1. QUOTE:
In 1903 the undisputed leader of the organization, Goce Delchev, was killed in a skirmish with Turkish forces. In 1903 IMRO organised the Ilinden Uprising against the Ottomans in Macedonia and the Adrianople Vilayet, which was crushed with much loss of life, including the life of Delchev, who had actually opposed the rising as premature.
RE: Goce Delchev was killed on the 4TH OF MAY 1903 MONTHS BEFORE THE ILINDEN UPRISING WHICH HAPPENED IN THE SUMMER THAT SAME YEAR.
People, I understand that some of you may advocate certain POV or should I openly say: political and nationalist agenda (Greek, Bulgarian etc..) but fact is a FACT and cannot be denied. Delchev was dead months before the uprising. How can you put such nonsence here?!
However I do agree that he opposed the premature uprising.

2. QUOTE: some of its leaders like Dimitar Vlahov and Pavel Shatev entered the government there but were quickly ousted due to their pro-Bulgarian bias (according to Macedonian historian Ivan Katardjiev [11]).
RE: This statement not only that is incorrect but it's a pure lie and I'm saying it even if you accuse me for personal attacks!
DIMITAR VLAHOV, not only that was NOT persectuted but:

he supported the Yugoslav system (want pictures of him sitting next to Tito only a month before his death in 1953??)

he wrote a book of Memoirs: First edition published in 1970 in Yugoslav COMMUNIST_TITOIST Skopje, the second in 2003, Dimitar Vlahov "Memoirs" Slovo publishing, Skopje ISBN 9989-103-22-4 in which he attacks Bulgaria, the Bulgarian policy towards Macedonia, the bulgarian right wing, the bulgarian left wing...almost everything!

There are places named in Vlahov's honour during Yugoslavia, incl. the embankment (key) of the river Vardar in Skopje (on the side where the Komercijalna bank and the National Theatre (opera, ballet) is. why would anyone name a street after a disident in a socialist country??! Pure nonsence.

Pavel Shatev WAS persectuted, yes, but not for being "pro-bulgarian". Pavel Shatev fought all his life for autonomous Macedonia and against the official Bulgarian policy. That's why he became a first MINISTER OF JUSTICE in the socialist post-WWII Republic of Macedonia after all

In that post-WWII period in Yugoslavia some people from Macedonia were persectued for many reasons, but mainly for:
a) For cooperation with the Informbiro or supporting Stalin and the Eastern Bloc, after Tito-Stalin split in 1948
b) For suppiorting the Vancho Mihajlov's right-wing oriented fraction of VMRO
c) For demanding more independence of the Macedonian federal unit in the Yugoslavian federation (NOT in favor of Bulgaria, but I repeat for INDEPENDENCE of Macedonia from the Federation. Some wanted just MORE independence, some COMPLETE independence)
d) something else (dunno at the moment). In this category u may add ppl who have been persectuted for nothing.(wrong word at a wrong time etc.)
Shatev belongs to the category No.3 same as THE FIRST PRESIDENT of the Macedonian state Metodija Andonov- Chento, Panko Brashnarov, the first speaker at the Antifascist Assembly of the National Liberation Front of Macedonia 2nd of August 1944 where this state was formally formed and others. All of them were for INDEPENDENT MACEDONIA and have fought Bulgaria or pro-Bulgarians in the past
The link to Ivan Katardjiev (historian from Skopje) interview means aboslutely nothing as Katardjiev doesn't say such thing as quoted in the article there (he never mentions Vlahov being persectuted nor the possible cause for such thing). What Katardjiev says is completely misinterpreted and abused in the article. After all Katardjiev is known as a representative of the official POV of the historiography in Rep. of Macedonia (FYROM) so how he would defend the official Bulgarian historiography? However its true that he DOES accept the claim that what we call ethnic Macedonians today in one phase of their development used the name Bulgarians (which he explains why and how, its not important now, its a long story, ethogenesis bla-bla). No persecution of Shatev or Vlahov for being "pro-bulgarian" is mentioned!

3. Nothing much is explained about the conflict between the VMRo and the Supreme comitee in Sofia. I just saw mentioning that they were "rival" organisations and thats all. The conflict between these two organisations was a WAR. Open the book of Memoirs of EVERY SINGLE authentic VMRO member from the Ilinden period, you will alsmost not find any that doesn't mention battles between armed groups etc.
Nothing much is added about the fact that the right wing is responsible for killing of many AUTHENTIC ilinden revolutionaries incl. Gjorche Petrov who was shot in Sofia, Petre Chaule in Milano, Todor Panica in Vienna etc...among other things about this WAR testifies also Albert Sonichsen, the american volunteer in VMRO.

4. VMRO was never a nationalcahuvinistic organisation as the greek or bulgarian nationalists want to present it. the Krusevo Manifesto is a great example (the Moslems were invited to join the struggle), also the fact that the've formed the Krushevo REPUBLIC on the liberated territories with participation of Vlahs and other nationalities in it's government (unlike the other Balkan countries who formed monarchies and had right-wing policies). Claiming that it was a nationalist organisation is wrong.

5. The struggle of VMRO, The Ilinden Uprising and the so called "second Ilinden" in 1944 are ideological basis of the modern Macedonian State (FYROM) formed on the "second Ilinden" at Antifascist Assembly on the 2nd of Aug. 1944. As these people fought for autonomous Macedonia, many later joined the antifascist struggle as well (I mentioned Panko Brashnarov above).Rep. of Mac. (FYROM) has every right to claim these people (incl. Delchev, his grave is in Skopje) and the Organisation as her's and I really protest why when there's an article about topic related to R. Mac. (FYROM) there are always Bulgarian, Greek, Vietnamese and milion other's POV EXCEPT the Macedonian (FYROM) POV?! even in the external links section no source from RoM/FYROM is mentioned?! And when I want to add something like that I'm warned that I must cite sources and all, WHAT ABOUT REST OF YOU? How do you justify YOUR claims? By adding Bulgarian or Greek websites? Greek and Bulgarian websites are not biased, only those from RoM/FYROM are?!
its really time that the administration of Wikipedia must take strict measures!--Vbb-sk-mk 03:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Organisation changed its name sveeral times, thats OK, but the word 'Adrianople' was NEVER used! It was called Makedonsko-ODRINSKA organizacija (Odrin is the toponym that these people used for Adrianople a.k.a present day Edrene and it's region in Turkey. You may like it or dislike it, thats it).--Vbb-sk-mk 04:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I explained in detail what and why should be changed and Im starting now.--Vbb-sk-mk 04:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

My dear Macedonian fellow:

1. You're right, Delchev was killed before the Ilinden uprising.

2. Pavel Shatev was totally pro-bulgarian disposed in the begining of his revolutionary career around 1903, for example check his memoirs "In Macedonia under yoke", written in bulgarian language, online publication here. Dimitar Vlahov had the same fate according to macedonian historian prof. Ivan Katardziev. In his interview (in Macedonian) he asserts that Dimitar Vlahov, Panko Brashnarov, Rizo Rizov and other leftist leaders declared themselves as Bulgarians.

3. Relations between IMARO (VMORO) and Supreme Macedonian-Adrianople Committee (SMAC, VMOK) were different in different periods. There were times of peaceful cooperation and also years of open armed conflicts. But! Many of the leaders and members of these organisations were one and the same persons like Boris Sarafov. SMAC participated in Ilinden uprising mainly in Pirin region along with IMARO. After all the Rila congress of IMARO in 1905 sent a letter to SMAC leader general Iv. Tsonchev with demand for termination of existence of his organisation and... unexpectedly this proposal was accepted and SMAC merged into IMARO. For Rila congress check Hristo Silyanov's history of The Liberating struggles of Macedonia (written in Bulgarian), he was IMARO rebel, annalist and historian.

4. In fact in some periods and concrete events MRO/BMARC/SMARO/IMARO/IMRO acted as nationalistic organization, especially in its right wing after the revival in 1918 as IMRO, when there weren't vain illusions about possible cooperation and peaceful concomitance with rival greek and serbian nationalistic regimes.

5. The majority of prominent revolutionaries from "First Ilinden" in 1903 were persecuted and repressed from the communist revolutionaries from "Second Ilinden" in yugoslav Socialist Republic of Macedonia and also in People's Republic of Bulgaria because of their incompatible non-communist ideology and ethnic affiliations (the majority of old IMRO leaders had Bulgarian self-consciousness, not only these from right wing, but also these from left stream, for example see Katardziev's interview, cited above).

6. Words Adrianople or "Adrianople's" were used, of course. The whole region from Rila mountain, western Rhodopes and lower stream of river Mesta (where lied eastern macedonian boundary) on the west to Black sea coast on the east, which was often named also Eastern Thrace, was known as Adrianople's region or Adrianople's Thrace (Одринско, Одринска Тракия) among Bulgarians. For example - check Mihail Gerdzhikov's memoirs (translated to Macedonian), he was one of the leaders of IMARO in this region.

Finally, my dear Macedonian friend, don't forget - historical documents aren't POV, but facts. - 85.187.163.40 02:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

REPLY TO User:85.187.163.40|85.187.163.40: QUOTE: In his interview (in Macedonian) he asserts that Dimitar Vlahov, Panko Brashnarov, Rizo Rizov and other leftist leaders declared themselves as Bulgarians.

I checked Katardjiev statements, he NOWHERE mentions that "Vlahov was persecuted because he was Bulgarian". PLEASE I BEG YOU COPY AND PASTE SUCH STATEMENT IF THERE SUCH.

Im not questioning that Katardjiev says that "they declared themselves Bulgarian", cause he says so, i agree. Have you really checked my comments completely? what I dispute is particulary the statement previously in the article that "Vlahov was persecuted". He was not, actually he was in the top circles of the yugoslav establishment until his death, while Shatev WAS persecuted, I AGREE, Brashnarov WAS persecuted etc. , there are documents from trials, the verdicts and so on and so on for many of those persecuted ppl, there are books published etc., but for Vlahov particulary no one heard of him being imprisoned or trialed or anything?! Actually he even STRANGELY survived the Yugoslav purges during the Informbiro (have in mind that he was in Comintern, he cooperated with Dimitrov etc.). After all I referenced his Memoirs in which he attacks Bulgaria, the vrhovistst, the alexandrovists, the mihailovistst, Stalin, USSR, Dimitrov and you name it, no one is spared. The man was quite pro-yugoslav i would say or at least an opportunist maybe? I have pics of him sitting with the top Yugoslav officials, including sitting with Tito one month before his death in 1953 (that means he survived all the major purges in the post war and Informbiro period!). No one ever questioned his loyalty to the regime. Shatev, Chento, Shatorov, Kocho Racin, Venko Markovski are another story, dont mix Vlahov in that company.

Also, how can you judge ad hoc that those people who were persecuted-were persecuted EXACTLY because of declaring Bulgarian identity?! Katardjiev doesnt say so. Do you have the documents, the verdicts etc? No document says such thing. People were persecuted for milion other things: Informbiro (MOSTLY), national separatism, "Vancho-Mihailovsism", pro-western bias and you name it. but solely for saying "Im Bulgarian"? no. Also have in mind that there were plenty of imprisoned people who strongly opposed any relation with Bulgaria or Bulgarian identity. Even today they are trying to explain to the public that they always declared themselves as "Macedonians" and fought solely for Independence. Why you insist that all persecuted ppl were pro-Bulgarian??

QUOTE: Words Adrianople or "Adrianople's" were used, of course. The whole region from Rila mountain, western Rhodopes and lower stream of river Mesta (where lied eastern macedonian boundary) on the west to Black sea coast on the east, which was often named also Eastern Thrace, was known as Adrianople's region or Adrianople's Thrace (Одринско, Одринска Тракия) among Bulgarians. For example - check Mihail Gerdzhikov's memoirs (translated to Macedonian), he was one of the leaders of IMARO in this region.

RE: The members of the Organization used the particluar word: ODRIN. ODRIN is a bulgarian toponym for Adrianople, of course, but they have never said exactly "Adrianople" nowhere in their documents, they always said Makedonsko-ODRINSKA organizacija. In the Ottoman times (when the Org. was formed) and today still that city is Edrene. Why Adrianople then?! Because the greek-biased wikipedians prefer so? thats a greek name for that same place, ok it may be ancient and all, but these VMRO guys were definetly not greeks. it is that simple, no need for scientific debates. It should be changed to Macedonian-Odrin Revolutionary Organisation, cause THAT WAS THE NAME (ok, a footnote can be added that this city and the region is a.k.a. Adrianople so the greek side will be satisfied)

QUOTE:In fact in some periods and concrete events MRO/BMARC/SMARO/IMARO/IMRO acted as nationalistic organization, especially in its right wing after the revival in 1918 as IMRO, when there weren't vain illusions about possible cooperation and peaceful concomitance with rival greek and serbian nationalistic regimes.

RE: Yes, but AFTER 1918. The authentic Goce's VMRO from the Ilinden period was in question. As the events in the article are mentioned in somewhat chronological order, it was mentioned somewhere near the Ilinden period (with infiltration of pro-greek and pro-serb units) that the organisation "was nationalistic" or at least "it became nationalistic" which is pure contradiction to the facts (I mean the facts for THAT particular period). What happened AFTER 1918 is a completely other story, like completely another organisation. have in mind that Aleksandrov's and Mihailov's agents killed some of the most authentic vmro members (Gjorche Petrov for example, Todor Panitsa, the Sandanski's right-hand etc. although it hapened previosuly and i would add here the Sandanski's assasination too), so they kill a whole generation of authentic ilinden people how can I consider Aleksandrovists and Mihailovists as an authentic continuation of the Ilinden VMRO?! Why we dont put things upside down and say that the federalists were "the right guys" and real followers of Goce's ideas? Heh, but then you will say that's "Skopjan propagandha", myths of the "Macedonism" etc.

QUOTE: The majority of prominent revolutionaries from "First Ilinden" in 1903 were persecuted and repressed from the communist revolutionaries from "Second Ilinden" in yugoslav Socialist Republic of Macedonia and also in People's Republic of Bulgaria because of their incompatible non-communist ideology and ethnic affiliations (the majority of old IMRO leaders had Bulgarian self-consciousness, not only these from right wing, but also these from left stream, for example see Katardziev's interview, cited above).

RE: I strongly disagree. First I dont find Goce's VMRO incompatible with communism, oncontrary. Also Metodi Shatorov, Kocho Racin, Brashnarov and all were actually comunists. Even Venko Markovski was declaring himself as communist. The whole movement for creating the new macedonian state based on Ilinden traditions was communist. The ASNOM assembly started with "Izgrei zora na svobodata" (the "march" of the VMRO), so the Ilinden traditions and antifascist traditions WERE compatible actually.
Chento was not really a communist, but more what we can say "national-patriot" but anyway he was a typical "second-Ilinden" figure, Ilinden traditions + antifascist partisan struggle and related to communist movement (he joined the Party in 1943) and all, I've never heard him persecuting Shatev or anyone. However the new postwar government did trial the collaborators, well excuse me, collaborator is collaborator, regardless if in France, USSR or whatever. You can say that Lazar Kolishevski did hunt both the left and the right,yes but then he was not really a "communist revolutionary", actually i;ve never heard of him shooting a single bullet in the war (he was in prison in Bulgaria most of the time as I know). So, the conflict here is not so simple like u say: communists vs. non-communists or macedonists vs. those who declare Bulgarian identity, its deeper and more complex than that. Add Cominform in 1948 in all that mess too, cause there were people who initialy had nothing agaginst Macedonia in Yugoslavia but in 1948 Tito-Stalin split choosed Stalin (or have been accused for doing so). i find that the members from Bulgaria on wikipedia tend to simplify things a lot.--Vbb-sk-mk 04:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And one more thing
QUOTE:However, part of historic traditions of IMRO struggle for autonomus Macedonia and the Ilinden uprising in 1903 (completely excluding its Adrianople branch) were used as a basis of myth-making of modern Macedonism and paradoxically combined with the myth of the so called "Second Ilinden uprising" in 1944 they both served as basis for forming of the ideology of modern Macedonian state. Represented as purely ethnic Macedonian, they were respected and oficialy celebrated during all the period of Socialist Republic of Macedonia as a Yugoslav federal state, as well as in the Yugoslav federation. The names of the IMRO revolutionaries Goce Delchev, Pitu Guli, Dame Gruev and Yane Sandanski were included in the lyrics of the anthem of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia Denes nad Makedonija ("Today over Macedonia").(end of quote)

MYTHMAKING? Well excuse me to whoever wrote this, but all the states on this planet are created upon some myth actually. The difference is that you can always bash the weak small Republic Macedonia but never the bigger nations. In my POV a typical examples for states based purely on myths are Greece, Bulgaria and Albania. Nothing but pure MYTHS

Greece
I mean Iliyad by Homer, Trojan Wars, Deuklion etc. Their whole history is myth after myth. Heinrich Schliemann (who btw married a 14 year old girl in his 40s-50s) was excavating in a ground where normally u can always find some archeology anyway (Minor Asia). He found some stones (of course there was civilisation there in antiquity so there r plenty of artefacts) and "Eureka! I found Troya! See Homer was right!". But of course no one disoutes things like that (u trust them by default??), but you question things from 2nd of August 1944 which can always be verified. what a Paradox... Also we all know that modern Greece ethnicaly is actually a mix of Turks, Slavs, Albanians and what not. The greatest national heroes of Greece were everything but not greeks (Arvanites, Vlahs, Slavs etc..), the whole cuklture is Turkish (turkish cofee which they ridiculously call "greek cofee", souvlaki= shishkebap, mpoureki= burek, giro= donner kebap, baklava, The "Karagiozis shadow theatre", the folk music etc..). Peloponesse, Thessaly, Macedonia etc, are full of non greek toponyms. Have in mind that under the Treaties beteween Ataturk Turkey and Greece, Turks in Thrace were exempted from the exchange of populations. The imaginary "greek moslems in Thrace" are in fact 100% pure Turks) and the population that the greek state colonised from Asia Minor or Caucasus are everything else than Greeks (Turkish speaking Karamanli's, Armenians and what not). Not to speak about the myth of "slaviziced Greeks" (slavophones). Karavangelis in his book "the Macedonian struggle" says: "slavophones, vlahophones, albanophones, you are all parts of ythe greek tribe!", WHAT ELSE IS THAT EXCEPT PURE MYTH?? He takes Vlahs, Slavs, Albanians, Turks and what not and suddenly "they are all Greeks". If someone complains and says "but wait, Im slav!" Karavangelis would "educate" him "aa no,no, u r greek but the bad slavs "slaviziced" you by force"..sounds stupid I know, open the oficial greek historiography books, thats what they say, their whole history and national myths are based on that
Of course no one mentions all these things.

Bulgaria
Similar example. Some tribes related to Mongol-Tatars came from Asia, they had nothjing to do with the slavs and how suddenly modern Bulgaria can claim Slavic heritage or origins? St. Clement a Bulgarian? How? He was not from tatarstan as far as I know, he was a Slavic scholar and he was OHRIDSKI. As Greece, Bulgaria is also one mix of everything. The Turkish names were forcibly renamed also and thus Turks were assimilated and absorbed. The state itself includes territories like Plovdiv (Philipipol, built by king Philip) which have nothuing to do with the Bulgarian people or anything. Also cehck the article about People's Republic of Bulgaria, says "it was considered as Moscow sattelitte"., what a ridiculuous statement, Bulgaria WAS a Mosocw satellite 100%, same as Czech republic, Hungary, German Democratic Republic, Poland and the rest of today's EU, which are obviously ashamed of their own history so they add "well..it was considered as...". Also all these new EU members want to get ridf of being properly described as Eastern Europe. If u have noticed they prefer to be called "Central Europe", "Niorth Europe" etc.Why being ashamed? say the facts as they were. THEY WERE ALL MOSCOW SATELLITES, only Yugoslavia of course was NOT.

Albania
South of Albania is Northern Epirus which is greek, the area areound Ohrid and Prespa lake is full of ethnic Macedonians, the North has Montenegrians and serbs etc. So, its a multiethnic territory like any else in the Balkans, so one day they decided to mix them all into one and invent a new nation. And all those "misty" stories which no one can take as truth: Dardanians were albanians. Albanians are the oldest nation in the Balkans etc.. what is that than pure nationalistic myths? Only Hitler beleived in them.

I wasnt trying to insult anyone's national feeelings but I tried to explain the following: If all countries have their own myths (and THEY DO HAVE), we can have our own too. If not, then let me write in the article about Greece that it is a "artificaly created nation", "myth" etc..etc.. like u wrote in ur additions to the article here. Justice for all or for no one. --Vbb-sk-mk 19:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What Mongol-Tatars? Those who claim that do not know what they are talking about - and most of all they do not know fundamental history. These must not right anything before they educate themselves. According to all ancient chronicles Bulgarians are old Moesians and Illyrians. And in Thrace, Macedonia and Illyria lived only Bulgarians. Those who do not understand fundamental ABC history... are spreading hear-sayings like parrots. There was no Tatar land in Volga Bulgaria long before the GOLDEN HORDES minority people "Tatars" came and destroyed Bolgar. Secondly, Volga Bulgaria was created later than Danubian Bulgaria. Both Bulgarians were descendants from Kubrat and came from Scythia (North to the Black sea) - Bulgaria Magna (in Ukraine and Krim. So do first read real sources, and ancient chronicles, before any of you are spreading FALSIFICATE history about Bulgarians. Political conspirators know very well what OLD CHRONICALS says. The truth - not Modern lies from written Modern books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.156.42 (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

why?

My last corrections have been reverted. the explanation is: (Reverted to 23:40, 24 August 2006 85.187.163.40 version because of unproven POV innformation, closely related to contemporary Macedonian antibulgarian nationalism.)
According to that logic I should delete half of Wikipedia for pro-greek or pro-bulgarian bias. Obviously, the person who did that haven't read all of muy additions or just ignored them because some of them ARE known facts:

1. Fact is that Todor Panitsa killed Boris Sarafov and Ivan Garvanov because of the damage they've done to the organization. Actually he wanted to kill Hristo Matov too togehter with them but he was not present at the moment. Source: Dimitar Vlahov's Memoirs (which is listed among the books)
2. Fact is that Pavel Shatev beside his imprisonment in Sahara and his persecution in Yugoslavia was also sentenced in fascist Bulgaria to 15 years of imprisonment. Not only that I didnt invent this, but I have actually took this information following the links to biographies and other texts posted by some previous obviously pro-bulgarian members. Now, if they find these links reliable, why Im not allowed to use them?! Paradox
3. Fact is that Goce Delchev was killed under strange circumstances and fact is that he stopped at Banitsa on his way to meet his ally Jane Sandanski hoping that they together can do something to stop the "vrhovist" pushing of the uprising. Check the history of the article and you'll see that I wrote that SOME SOURCES claim he was betrayed by the agents of the bulgarian government (so they could get rid of him not to mess their plans together with Sandanski). They killed Sandanski later too, in 1915. Of course these sources are from Skopje, so what? Why should a source from Sofia automatically be reliable and from Skopje not?
4. Fact is that Aleksandrov and Mihailov claimed that their organization is continuation of the original VMRO, but in fact those claims were false: they purged a whole generation of very important authentic revolutionaries: Gjorche Petrov, Dimo Hadji Dimov, Panitsa, Chaule and many others, they collaborated with the official bulgarian government etc...
And fact is they perverted the whole original idea of the Organization (see Albert Londres "The Comitadjis: Les Terrorisme dans les Balkans)
5. Regarding this: QUOTE: paradoxically combined with the myth of the so called "Second Ilinden uprising" in 1944
Now this is a pure biased POV. There's no myth about the second Ilinden. Panko Brashnarov, Vlahov, Shatev took part in it and they were all former VMRO. The partisans fought following these traditions: Metodija Andonov-Chento, Kocho Ratsin, Kuzman Josifovski- PITU etc. Partisan units had names of Goce Delchev, Dimitar Vlahov etc. Venko Markovski who defected to Bulgaria later also was in the partisans and most of his poetry is about Ilinden and VMRO, he praises ASNOM too. Now should I delete all ur additions and explain that with "because they advocate bulgarian fascism"?

6. Lets say today's "ethnic Macedonians" are Bulgarians (lets say they are, they use to declare themselfes so, even Misirkov says "Nie se velevme Bugari") and lets say that VMRO revolutionaries are Bulgarians too.
That would mean they came from this people, they are of same nationality like people here in RoM/FYROM. Why u dont allow us to use them (as well as in relation to ASNOM and all)? On the other hand Bulgaria, which killed many of them (Sandanski for example) uses them, names towns and streets after them, takes control over wikipedia articles about them?! And not only that but also official Bulgaria praises Aleksandrov and Mihailov who killed wast of these original revolutionaries?! Now thats what a call an absurd.

As you see, maybe not very skillfully but I always explain all my changes. What are your explanations?
In any case, seeing all this and seeing how things are now, on Balkan topics Wikipedia is definetly not a reliable source.--Vbb-sk-mk 16:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Bravo (ironically...) or NPOV dispute

QUOTE:
please use the discussion section first in order to voice your concerns and be careful to provide citations from established sources

My reply: Finally you succeded to turn this article into a 99% nazi point of view (which you obviously defend with all your hearts). its so obvious that is embarasing. What can I say, poor Goce and Vmro- that once honest freedom fighting Organization. I will quote the Wikipedia rules here: Be active and bold in improving the article.

Suddenly the butchers Mihailov and Aleksandrov who covardly assasinated a whole generation of honest original VMRO reviolutionaries: Gjorche Petrov, Todor Panitsa, Dimo Hadji Dimov, Chaule, Sandanski, Todor Chopov etc.(and most probably betrayed Delchev too) are presented as innocent sheeps who were against bloodshed. Collaborators with the nazis- the kontracheta's are portrayed as heroes while "The Second Ilinden" is a communist "myth" (although strangely Vlahov, Shatev and many other original VMRO members took part in this what u call "communist myth" with Shatev being the first minister of justice?! LOL).

The Tito's authorities are paradoxally called "PRO-SERBIAN" while Tito himself was a Croat (or half Croat-half Slovene) from Zagorje who among other things partitioned Yugoslav Serbia into 1. a Serbian republic on one side and provinces (pokraina) of 2. Kosovo and 3. Vojvodina on other side giving them a high degree of authonomy!(incl. University in Albanian language and what not). he also recognized the bosnian moslems as a separate ethnicity, he recognized the right for a Macedonian and Montenegrian state and what not. Quite pro-serbian...yeah right. Also let me point (if you ever read this at all, i know u will just ignore) that Tito's authorities captured, trialed and shot the leader of serbian ultranationalist royalists in the WWII Draza_Mihajlovic (the Chetniks leader) and so on and so on. The Serbian ultranationalists are in fact the first ones who openly criticised Tito, even labeling him as "Srbozhder" (Serb-eater), claiming even that there was a conspiracy between Tito and the western Allies for an intentional bombing of german occupied belgrade by RAF and USAF in the WWII and so on and son. To make the mess even more messy, the croatian Ustashe also attack Tito for persecuting their people, for the "Bleiburg Massacre" and so on (so how can you claim that Tito was a "pro-serbian" when he nicked litteraly everyone? LOL: Chetniks, Ustashe, pro-Stalinists, VMRO, Albanian nationalists, bosnian islamic fundamentalists as izetbegovic etc...etc..etc.. you name it) Your statements are comkpletely ridiculuous.

Also you abuse Katardjiev's interview as a source, for what I can easily contact the author himself and offer him to start a legal procedure because of this misinterpretation (Skopje is not Mexico City with 20 milion of inhabitants, its easy to find everyone).
Funny in this situation is that actually he is a typical exponent of the official historiographical point of view in RoM/FYROM and a member of the socialdemocratic alliance SDSM which is a complete opposition to the POV of Bulgaria on these matters). Those readers that do not understand the language of the interview cannot really see that he never mentions that "Shatev, Vlahov and others were persecuted for "declaring as Bulgarians" as quoted in the article. However he does admit that they labeled themselfes as Bulgarians, thats not questionable! Miladinovci Brothers, Prlichev, VMRO, all of them used the name "Bulgarians", even Misirkov who struggled for a "macedonian nation", macedonian chruch and standard language admits that! but Katardjiev never mentions that they were imprisoned for "declaring as Bulgarians". Actually Vlahov was never persecuted, while Shatev was, indeed, but after the Tito-Stalin split (see Cominform, Informbiro). He was persecuted for ideological reasons. as before 1948, in that same YUGO-COMMUNIST-TITOIST Yugoslavia that you attack so much, that same Shatev was a Minister! Before that he was sentenced to 15 years of prison in fascist Bulgaria, what pro-bulgarian bias are you talking about? But of course, why am I explaining anyway, its pointless.

QUOTE: 1) have a neutral POV
2) are based on legitimate sources

RE: now thats a good laugh, Your statements are everything except NEUTRAL and are representation of the oficial Bulgarian point of view.
For you, a definition of a legitimate source can be somehow described as "what you personally like". You completely ignore what a foreign observer such as Alber Londres says, what Dimitar Vlahov an authentic participant in this whole history says etc...etc..
Your sources also include:

• Добрин Мичев. БЪЛГАРСКОТО НАЦИОНАЛНО ДЕЛО В ЮГОЗАПАДНА МАКЕДОНИЯ (1941 – 1944 г.), Македонски Преглед, 1, 1998.
  
• Димитър Гоцев. НОВАТА НАЦИОНАЛНО-ОСВОБОДИТЕЛНА БОРБА ВЪВ ВАРДАРСКА МАКЕДОНИЯ. Македонски научен институт, София, 1998
  
• Никола Петров, "Кои беа партизаните во Македонија", Скопje, 1998
  

This is what you call NEUTRAL and LEGITIMATE sources?

Its however true that you do offer some "legitimate sources" (I would only accept the Memoirs of the authentic members of VMRO listed in the article), for many of the the rest of ur statements you provide little or no proof. I folowed a link (posted by Bulgarian members previously) and I have copied an information that Shatev was "sentenced to imprisonment in fascist Bulgaria". I added that and suddenly its deleted :) well, you dont accept info even from your own links, quite entertaining I would say.

Also, lots of other entertaining stuff can be found in the article's history. There was a statement that Ljupcho georgievski of VMRO-DPMNE came to power in 1998 opposing the Albanian side (actually he was in coalition with one of the most radical albanian pol. parties DPA or DPSH -in macedonian and albanian respectively, a party led by Arben Xhaferi, with members such as "commander Leka" who took active role in the conflict in RoM/FYROM in 2001 etc..)

There was a statement that "macedonia became independent in November 1991", while we r going to celebrate 15 years of independence on 8th of september (just few days from now).

And at the end, why I call you nazis? No it's not a pejorative use of the term just out of excitement. You are nazis. -You obviously support Vancho Mihajlov that supported the Ustashe and NDH and was in Zagreb with Ante Pavelic while in present day RoM/FYROM there were partisans supported by Vlahov, Shatev, panko Brashnarov, kocho Racin and even Sharlo and Venko Markovski and all the "second Ilinden" guys, fighting the nazis (the whole thing was recognized by the Allies);
- you placed an interesting statement that "the locals greeted the Bulgarian army in 1941" but you forgot to add how they greeted them? It is important for the readers. They greeted them warmly with an armed uprising on the 11th of October 1941.
- As mentioned above Shatev was a Minister of JUSTICE in the postwar period in which captured Bulgarian fascists (Spiro Kitinchev, Asen Bogdanov etc..) were trialed and executed by the new communist authorities. it is logically to claim that Shatev (a former VMRO and a MINISTER OF JUSTICE OF THE STATE) took part in all that lol. But of course you ignore those facts...

QUOTE: 3) are written in correct English

RE: The fact that you have a better knowledge of english doesnt help u much, a biased and a wrong information is still wrong and biased, even wriiten in perfect oxford english. Also, I always explain the nature of my changes begforehand providing generaly known facts (I mean known to people interested in this subject). You dont explain anything, you just change (actually I saw some poor attempts in the discussion history. some replies to my statements were started but strangely were deleted afterwards :))

From all this I can finally conclude that Wikipedia as it is now, for Balkan topics is absolutely biased, unreliable and inacurrate source of information obviously abused as a private website by 3-4 people. I will try somehow 9through a website etc.) to warn the internet community to take these informations with great caution or to disregard them completely. if nothing else, at least the masks are falling. --Vbb-sk-mk 05:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Vbb-sk-mk, I don't want to enter in vast discussion although most of your statements are full with partizansship, common cliches of communist yugomacedonian historiography, untolerance, factual inaccuracies and quite strong emotivity. But I want to demonstrate to our readers what kind of "neutrality and factual accuracy" you have shown until now with at least one example.

"Suddenly the butchers Mihailov and Aleksandrov who covardly assasinated a whole generation of honest original VMRO reviolutionaries: Gjorche Petrov, Todor Panitsa, Dimo Hadji Dimov, Chaule, Sandanski, Todor Chopov etc.(and most probably betrayed Delchev too) are presented as innocent sheeps who were against bloodshed."

Vbb-sk-mk, could you prove just with one historical document or academic publication that "butchers" Todor Alexandrov and Ivan Mihailov were accused or even suspected for betrayal of Gotse Delchev? Please give us short and exact information but not spacious expressions of your inner emotional life. Thank you! Jackanapes 11:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with VBB, I have pointed this before. This article is not neutral, to put it simple. I'll try to explain why these days, (with sources). For start, he's totally right about using Bulgarian sources as "neutral", and totally dismissing Macedonian sources as "common cliches of communist yugomacedonian historiography". To be even more hypocritical, those same Macedonian historians are quoted only when they seem to align with the Bulgarian point of view. --FlavrSavr 14:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that these three sources I have given are non-neutral and should be replaced with more respectable citations (as I believe the rest are):

1) Никола Петров, "Кои беа партизаните во Македонија", Скопje, 1998

2) Добрин Мичев. БЪЛГАРСКОТО НАЦИОНАЛНО ДЕЛО В ЮГОЗАПАДНА МАКЕДОНИЯ (1941 – 1944 г.), Македонски Преглед, 1, 1998.

3) Димитър Гоцев. НОВАТА НАЦИОНАЛНО-ОСВОБОДИТЕЛНА БОРБА ВЪВ ВАРДАРСКА МАКЕДОНИЯ. Македонски научен институт, София, 1998

However, I am inclined to keep the remaining sources, including Bulgarian ones like Tatarchev's and Sandanski's memoirs as well as Siljanov because these are written by first-hand witnesses before any Bugarian vs. Macedonian disputes arose (that happened in the mid-1960's with communist Bulgaria's official reversal of policy). They are also widely referenced by Macedonian, Bulgarian, Greek and foreign non-partisan scholars. I also believe the credibility of Banac as an expert on Balkan history is impeccable, Brailsford and Sonnichsen are first-hand accounts, Adanir, Brown and Grishina are completely neutral foreign scholars, who have written in very respectable peer-reviewed publications or else have been published by serious academic publishing houses.

To return to the list of controversial publications: it will be changed, I promise. Petrov's is clearly a pro-Bulgarian partisan view from Macedonia. However, it very extensively quotes official Yugoslav documents as well as the memoirs of Yugoslav communists. I will do my best to source to the original rather than to the secondary non-neutral work. In fact, I really do not believe the wartime partisans in Macedonia have a place in the history of IMRO but we can include them for completeness.

Michev's is indeed a Bulgarian publication but I have not to this moment read (nor am I aware of) a non-Greek, non-Macedonian and non-Bulgarian scholarly work on IMRO's activities in Aegean Macedonia during WW2. I have a Macedonian friend in Australia who wrote a very decent history of the Ohrana and the IMRO volunteer battalions but it has not been peer-reviewed or published except online. So I am forced to cite a non-neutral source. However, I am not aware of any dispute among Greek, RoM and Bulgarian scholars as to the fact that Mihajlov's IMRO was behind the organisation of the Ohrana and IMRO volunteer battalions in 1943-44 Greece. Both Andon Kalchev and Georgi Dimchev, their leaders, were conneced and sent by the legal structures of the IMRO in Bulgaria. This is all I have claimed in the text of the Wiki article, nothing more. There is no dispute about that so I propose we keep this source.

Gocev's is clearly non-neutral as well. He was among those Macedonians whose family was persecuted in Yugoslav Macedonia for being pro-Bulgarian. However, I am pretty sure that similar but neutrally stated statements exist in Palmer and King's book from the 1970's, which is very NPOV, written by Americans and widely cited. I hope to correct that by tonight.(VMRO 15:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC))

REPLY TO JACKANAPES: For the particulkar case of Gotse Delchev I can't prove anything, thats why I wrote: SOME SOURCES claim that he was betrayed (see article's hhistory). The suspicion is based on the following:
1. He was opposing the premature uprising as I said, fearing that this may lead to weakening of the Organization and partitioning of Macedonia.
+ 2. Certain individuals who WERE really connected to official Bulgaria within VMRO DID insisted on uprising all the time (Garvanov, good example, as he started the whole euphoria with the Thessaloniki congress in absence of many important vmro leaders). These individuals were claiming that Bulgarian army will react once the uprising begins. Check the various books of memoirs listed, you will find plenty of examples that VMRO revolutionaries were aware of these vrhovist plans and opposed them (open any Memoirs, lets say, dunno, Pando Kljashev). Also beside that, someone has placed Ivo Banac as source in the article, here's what he says about this topic: The differences between the two groups were not just tactical. Terrorist methods of the VMK (The Supreme Comitee, my note), which the Internal Organization condemned, were an aspect of its strategic course that envisioned the liberation of Macedonia as the work not of Macedonians but of Bulgarian intervention, backed by Russia. The leaders of the VMK were Bulgarian officers, Macedonian-born or descended, who were close to Bulgarian Prince Ferdinand of Coburg (ruled 1887 – 1918) and the willing tools of his self-exalting adventures. Though they repeatedly urged a speedy uprising, they had little faith in the strength of the internal movement, nor were they sensitive to the danger of Macedonia's partition, a threat that caused the BMORK to fight for Macedonia's autonomy within the Turkish state in the first place, rather than for her incorporation within Bulgaria.
+ 3. Delchev goes from Thessaloniki to Serres revolutionary district to meet Sandanski to stop these vrhovist "adventures" (note that Sandanski openly fought against the interferences from Bulgaria, no mysteries about that at all)
+4. Delchev is caught on suprise and killed under strange circumstances on his way north.
+ 5. Panitsa (Sandanski's "right-hand") executes the death warrant by the Organization for Sarafov[1] and Garvanov[2] and he wants to nick Matov as well because of their pro-Bulgarian activities which resulted in premature and thus failed uprising and AS THOSE ABOVE MENTIONED SOURCES suspect: also probably because they betrayed Delchev to get rid of that obstacle for their plans . When I say "pro-Bulgarian", I mean in favour of the state of Bulgaria, the interests of the Coburg dynasty etc. The national self-consiousness of all of them is not questioned, all of them both left, right etc. declared as "Bulgarians", but they had different concepts about the future of Macedonia. Katardjiev says: the leftisdts were sort of "ideological separatist" from oficial Bulgarian plans for Macedonia. Those that later joined forming of Rep. of Macedonia accepted the "macedonian conciousness" (I mean they WERE in the establishment when Koneski codified the alphabet, when teachers of macedonian language were sent to Dimitrov's Bulgaria and so on and so on.
+ 6. Sandanski is killed under strange circumstances, guess why. + 7. Plenty of others incl. Petrov, Panitsa, Chaule etc. are killed later too

SUMMARY: connect all the facts (one side pushing the uprising, collaborating with the Coburgs vs. another side pro-autonomy within Turkey + fratricidal war + symptomatic place and time (just before Ilinden) of Delchev's death and you have a base for a good suspicion that Goce was intentionally betrayed. I should have wrote that SOME SOURCES have certain hypothesis on these matters. Anyway, i didnt say "Goce was betrayed" but "Some sources claim that..." and "that" is based on certain facts that i mentioned above.

Thats about Goce, about the rest of my claims no need for explaining much, u know it all. mencha kills Panitsa for Garvanov and Sarafov and after that is welcomed in Bulgaria as a hero, Mihajlov openly cooperated with the fascism, Shatev was a Minister for 4-5 years etc.etc.. I repeated myself hundred times. And tyou still haven't provided me with a copy/paste from Katardjiev text that "Vlahov was persecuted" and/or "Vlahov, Shatev etc. were persecuted because of pro-Bulgarian bias". PLEASE DO IT --Vbb-sk-mk 15:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

To Flavrsavr: Also the statement that Tito's authorities were "pro-serbian" should be changed. They use to nick everyone in those days: chetniks, ustashas, cominform etc...etc.. which doesnt sound very "pro-serbian" really. I mean they shot Drazha after all.--Vbb-sk-mk 15:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Vbb-sk-mk, all those points you are raising about the ideological differences between centralists and supremacists have been mentioned in one way or another in the article - they are there. You are not correct to identify the centralists who pushed for an uprising with the supremacists however. This is a very POV partisan view that came about in Yugoslav Macedonia. I can't be read in any of the original IMRO leaders' memoirs, for example. Plus the connection with Goce's murder is based on very far-fetched conjectures that again were developed only 50 years later in Yugoslav Macedonia with an anti-Bulgarian intent. I do not believe they have a place in this article. And when you say some sources, what are they? Please mention some respectable historians please (Pandevski, Ristovski, Katardjiev) and I will be happy to include them. (VMRO 15:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC))

I agree that the “pro-Serbian” term is also a typically Bulgarian usage and is not entirely correcct. What I meant by it is not that the Yugoslav Communists were acting to serve Serbian nationalistic goals but that they intentionally pulled Macedonia into the Serbian cultural space in order to distance it from Bulgaria. For example, in the language commissions, the Serbian educated (and former Serbomans) Koneski, Polenakovich and others prevailed over the Bulgarian-educated native Macedonian intellectuals (Markovski, Kiselinchev) in their view of the language and alphabet. Politically, former Serbian cadres like Kolishevski and Apostolski prevailed over Macedonians that came from within the Bulgarian Communist Party and VMRO (United). Have a look at Katardjiev’s foreword to Ivanovski’s “Why We Macedonians are a Separate Nation?”. Here it is as quoted and translated by a Bulgarian (non-nationalist) historian:

В предговора си към съчиненията на Васил Ивановски, македонският историк Иван Катарджиев описва тази любопитна ситуация в цялата й сложност: “На кадрите израснали в крилото на КПЮ, които имаха властта в ръцете си, им беше по-близък и в практиката употребяваха сръбския език. Същевременно те не познаваха или слабо познаваха историческото минало на македонския народ и имаха резерви към него. От своя страна, кадрите, които дойдоха от България след освобождението... познаваха по-добре миналото на македонския народ, историческите традиции, с декларирано македонско чувство, но говореха български, поради което допирът с новия македонски литературен език преживяваха като разочарование и поражение.”^[3] Тъкмо получилият българско образование Васил Ивановски се противопоставя на “сърбомана” Лазо Колишевски, който заявил, че Гоце Делчев е “един българин без значение за Македония”.^[4] (VMRO 16:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC))

The footnote tells you something about Shatev as well and why he got where he he got to in the end. He was also a Russian spy most likely, as were many VMRO (United) members. After all, they had been funded by the Comintern for a long time and lived in the USSR in the 30's. I completely agree that Bulgarian nationalist historians (incorrectly) do not distinguish between Mihailovists and Leftists being persecuted in Yugoslav Macedonia. The former were definitely imprisoned and killed for their pro-Bulgarian affinities (they were in government during the occupation, etc.), even though they were the only ones who called for an Independent Macedonia. The latter were indeed ousted in a power struggle and were far from Being pro-Bulgarian politically. However, accusations of Bulgarian nationalism were used (however unjustly) against them. Also, their being raised in a Bulgarian cultural millieu prevented them from seeing the Yugoslav Macedonian project from a "correct" point of view and they were tainted with connections with the Bulgarian communists. Vlahov did indeed manage to survive unlike Shatev and Brashnarov but in a largely diminished role in Belgrade far from Macedonia, which was being steered on a course with far more "brotherly" relations with the fellow Socialist Yugoslav (among them Serbian) peoples.

In conclusion, I have to correct the wording regarding the post-War period but give me a day to consult neutral sources and I will do it. (VMRO 16:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC))

Just a note; I'm not sure Katardjiev can be called a WP:RS (Ristovski seems OK). I've made a control, and he is never mention in international scholarship, and "ivan katardijev" has only five hits, including wiki. This leaves quite a lot of doubts on his reputation. Regarding the memoirs, they are obviously valid as primary sources, whatever the period they were written; but remember that politicians have a tendency to lie and to cover-up the less noble parts of their political career, and so not everything they say should be taken as truth (even if their pov should alwys be stated).--Aldux 16:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Trust me, Katardjiev is one of the big names in Macedonian historiography. Ristovski is his ideological rival but one thing they agree upon is their assessment of IMRO's leaders as Bulgarians. Ristovski gets more hits because he has been translated in English and is more familiar to Western historians without a knowledge of Macedonian. While Katardjiev at least tries to exonerate the VMORO left as Bulgarians but with a correct political view on Macedonia, Ristovski is more radical and lumps all VMRO and Supremacist leaders together as anti-Macedonian. (VMRO 17:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC))

Dear Aldux, prof. Ivan Katardziev is academician from Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, he is one of the oldest historians in contemporary Republic of Macedonia, check the official site of MASA or, as it is more known, MANU:

"Department of Social Sciences

The Department encompasses the scholarly and scientific fields of History, History of Art, Archaeology, Economy and Finance, Demography, Statistics, Law, Political Sciences, Philosophy, Pedagogy and other fields in the Humanities. Its members are: Blaga Aleksova (Early Christian and Slavonic Archaeology) Ksente Bogoev (Financial Theory and Policy), Evgeni Dimitrov (Constitutional Law), Taki Fiti (Economic Sciences - Macroeconomy), Cvetan Grozdanov (Mediaeval and Byzantine Art), Ivan Katardžiev (Historical Sciences), Nikola Kljusev (Theory and Policy of Economic Development) and Nikola Uzunov (Contemporary Economics)." (here)

Katardziev is leading researcher of modern macedonian political history, especially history of revolutionary struggle and IMRO movement. His thesis about Macedonian identity differs from this of prof. Ristevski, as VMRO explained. His general ideas could be found clearly expressed in his interview in Macedonian, cited above. In brief: contemporary macedonian identity has its roots in some kind of local Macedonian particularity from Middle Ages, but whole Macedonian population named itself as "Bulgarians" from the times of Boris I of Bulgaria. This name was used until 20th century and also in MRO/BMARC/SMARO/IMARO/IMRO. Old leftist members of this organisation like Shatev, Vlahov, Brashnarov, etc. had Bulgarian self-consciousness even after "The second Ilinden uprising" and even after 1944 they remainеd supporters only of political, but not ethnic separation from Bulgaria. About the case of Vlahov he said in the cited interview:

"Practically neither right wing, nor left wing questioned its Bulgarian provenance. It would lead even Dimitar Vlahov in 1948 in а plenary meeting of Political Bureau, when he spoke about the existence of Macedonian nation, to say that in 1931-32 was made a mistake." (In Macedonian: "Практично, ни левицата ни десницата не ја доведуваа во прашање својата бугарска провениенција. Тоа ќе го доведе дури и Димитар Влахов во 1948 година на седница на Политбирото, кога говореше за постоењето на македонска нација, да рече дека во 1931-32 година е направена грешка.")

Katardziev raises the theory that Macedonian identity, different from Bulgarian, emerged mainly in Vardar Macedonia under Serbian and Yugoslav regime in interwar period mostly among young generations, which were cut off from old traditions and Bulgarian influence. This process according to him didn't affect sensibly Pirin Macedonia, where under Bulgarian rule macedonian population was able to carry on Bulgarian identity. Crucial phase of ethnicization of Macedonian identity in Vardar Macedonia after prof. Ivan Katardziev was establishing of modern communist yugoslav Socialist Republic of Macedonia, in which Bulgarian identity was supressed and Macedonian identity developed with creation of standard language and alphabet, new historical concepts, new ideology, etc. Jackanapes 09:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

VMORO left wing

Vbb-sk-mk, I understand why you are so enamoured with the VMORO left wing - because ASNOM was a leftist affair. However, I do not know of one instance when the left-wingers chose a Macedonian ethnic identity. Neither Sandanski, nor Shatev, nor Vlahov or anyone else for that matter. In fact, most of the leftists were from the Principality of Bulgaria and not Macedonia: Todor Panitza (Orjahovo), Alexander Bujnov (Shumen), Pavel Deliradev (Panagjurishte), Chudomir Kantardjiev (Sliven), Mihail Gerdjikov (Plovdiv). On the other hand, the Supremacist leaders were almost exclusively from Macedonia. Some of these "authentic" Macedonian patriots from Northern Bulgaria were killed by the "fascists" Alexandrov and Mihailov. And while your favourite leftist "patriots" called for the inclusion of Macedonia in a Federal Yugoslavia or a Communist Balkan Federation, the "fascists" were the only ones who called for an Independent Macedonia. (VMRO 23:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC))

Oh, forgot to say that your claim that Garvanov was "sentenced to death" by the Rila Congress rests on no facts. I am hearing it for the first time. Let's provide sources, please!

As for the October "uprising" it was organised by Kolishevski over the head of the Regional Committee of the Macedonian communists (led by Sharlo) and consisted of the Serboman Dushko Naumovski (born in Kragujevac, Serbia) shooting a Bulgarian soldier born in Aegean Macedonia. So much for that uprising which amounted to nothing until Tempo brought over his Serbian and Montenegrin boys in 1943 to fight the Bulgarian army in... the Italian-occupied Western regions. (VMRO 23:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC))

References

1. ^ Предговор на Катарджиев към Васил Ивановски. Зошто ние, Македонците, сме одделна нација?, Скопје, 1995, стр. 49. Катарджиев се позовава по-нататък на направената от Павел Шатев в двора на българската легация в Белград жалба от есента на 1946 г.: той заявил, че македонският език «се сърбизирал», прогонвал се българският език и помолил Георги Димитров да се намеси. Самият Васил Ивановски критикува доближаването на македонската книжовна норма до сърбо-хърватския език, оперирано от официалните филолози на момента като Конески.
2. ^ Катарджиев, цит. съч., стр. 56.

Step by step

OK, long discussions are good, but I think we need a step by step method. This article obviously needs to conform more to the NPOV. Let's start with the opening paragraph. --FlavrSavr 22:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm changing the order of the languages as per Britannica. Also, I find this sentence problematic: In the 1990s it was revived as a nationalist political party in both the Republic of Macedonia and Bulgaria. There are no real basis to claim some continuity between the original IMRO and the modern parties (there are plenty of them in RoM, it's not just DPMNE), so I'll rephrase the sentence. --FlavrSavr 22:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally do not think the Macedonian transliteration is at all necessary but we should keep it to maintain NPOV and because this is how the IMRO's (alleged) descendent parties call themselves in the RoM. It should be only normal to have the English name (because this is an English-language encyclopaedia) and the original name, by which the organisation called itself when writing about the historical IMRO. The Macedonian name for it was created after the historical organisation had ceased to exist. (VMRO 22:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

Forgot to add that the in neither of modern Bulgarian organisations carrying the name, the acronym does not have the original meaning since none of them actually aspire to be revolutionary organisations.(VMRO 22:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

Dear FlavrSavr, why don't you try something more necessary instead? Look at the Macedonian article about IMRO in Macedonian Wikipedia here:

Мак-никулец

Оваа страница се однесува на револуционерната организација ВМРО. За друго значење види ВМРО (појаснување).

Внатрешно Македонската Револуционерна Организација (ВМРО) е македонска револуционерна организација која дејствувала за време на турското ропство.

На 23 октомври 1893 година (стар стил) во куќата на солунскиот книжар Иван Хаџи Николов во Солун се собраа шестмина млади мажи за да ги постават основите на она што ќе стане симбол и знаме на борбите на Македонците за слобода. Д-р Христо Татарчев – лекар, родум од Ресен, Даме Груев – учител, родум од с. Смилево - Битолско, Петар Поп Aрсов – учител, родум од с. Богомила - Велешко, Иван Хаџи Николов – книжар во Солун, родум од Кукуш, Антон Димитров – учител, родум од с. Ајватово - Солунско и Христо Батанџиев – учител, родум од с. Гуменџе, Ениџе Вардарско, основаат конспиративна група, нарекувајќи ја Македонски револуционерен комитет.

==Надворешни врски==

• Страница посветена на историјата на ВМОРО
• Вежбанка за критичко мислење БМОРК-ТМОРО-ВМР0

Isn't it funny that this Macedonian article about revolutionary movement with such big importance for contemporary Republic of Macedonia is a humble stub, but sundry furious Macedonian patriots regularly come here to fight against Bulgarian "vrhovistichki nazis" and the original names of this organization, written in Bulgarian? So why don't you do your best to develop Macedonian article as authentic NPOV version? :-) Jackanapes 23:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Jacknapes, haven't you thought that you could that yourself, if you care so much? FlavrSavr is one of the best editors active in the area, and if he voices some doubts, they should be adressed seriously, not making comments of doubtful usefulness.--Aldux 19:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Aldux, you're right, I could do this, my Macedonian isn't too bad, but... I'm afraid my edits would be erased from the same furious Macedonian patriots. I have unpleasant experience with deletions of citations from authentic documents, translated into contemporary Macedonian, because they are unacceptable for Macedonian nationalism, which still dominates Macedonian Wikipedia. I can't believe that the name BMARC for example could live longer than a day there. Or, another example, some Macedonian users persistently refuse to accept that a revolutionary, born in northern Bulgaria (outside Macedonia!), could be defined not only as Macedonian revolutionary but also as Bulgarian revolutionary because according to them he fought for Macedonia, not for Bulgaria. Tragicomedy... So I don't want to wage war for my every word. Jackanapes 20:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

P. s. I want to be understood correctly. Bulgarian self-identication of many historical figures in Macedonia is undisputable fact and the declaration of this fact isn't indication of my personal attitude to contemporary Macedonians and their self-identification, which must be respected whatever it is. But in Macedonian Wikipedia the statement that some historical Macedonian hero defined himself as ethnic Bulgarian often could be accepted as agression against contemporary Macedonian identity, nation and state. Jackanapes 20:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit dispute

Jackanapes, I do appreciate your input with the images but you have again made them look awful - lots if blank spaces and bad fit. I will take the liberty to re-edit them again so that the page flows smoothly and there are no images on the left on top of each other. Please feel free to re-order them again, as long as you can make them fit better.

Also, can we please stop emphasizing "Bulgarian" everywhere? It is irrelevant for the purpose of illustrating the history of the Organisation. Its ethnic character is already discussed in the article as is its relationship with Bulgarian nationalism. While such emphasis is not factually incorrect, it is never done in such a way when discussing other topics in Bulgarian history and I suspect its only purpose here is to wage a propaganda war. I do not think Wikipedia is a good venue for that. Also, such overemphasizing violates the NPOV policy and invites vandalism from ardent Macedonian nationalists. (VMRO 16:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC))

VMRO, the qualification "look awful" is just a question of your own personal taste, nothing more! Overemphasising on factually correct information - equal to non-neutral point of view?! But... What is overemphasising, isn't it a question of personal point of view again? I have put 10 new pictures until now and the name "Bulgarian" was used in only one of these 10 pictures (image "IMARO Activists - Bulgarian Comitadjii - Captured by the Ottoman Police.jpg" and its explanation "A convoy of captured Bulgarian IMRO activists after the terrorist acts in Thessaloniki in 1903" aren't my contribution). Propaganda war, consisted of one single description of an image - this is ridiculous. In fact you're in edit war with me! I will revert your redactions - why did you erase map of Balkan boundaries after 1913 too? I strongly advise you to do something new for this article, not to destroy what was created by other users with hypocritical arguments! Jackanapes 18:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

P. s. You may prove you could do something truly necessary - expand the text of the article and thus you'll create opportunity to place these pictures really well arranged. Jackanapes 18:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the assessment of the way the images fit is purely subjective. I have no intention to start an edit war, I was acting out of aesthetic considerations. I did not delete the other images, I just put them in comments to make them invisible. There is a distinction. We can leave the poor-fitting configuration for the time being until I add more text. More is needed on the Huriet and the Balkan Wars.

About "Bulgarian" - it is factually correct that most IMRO members were Bulgarians. But how do you know the ones in the picture are all Bulgarians? I know this was not your contribution. Some overzealous Greek must have put it to make HIS point. And I do believe that overemphsizing is pushing a POV. Also, characterising Chernopeev as a Bulgarian officer in the picture gives the FALSE impression that this is the picture of a band led by a Bulgarian officer. Read the actual caption of the picture in Bulgarian! I would not say that Chernopeev's general career was that of a Bulgarian officer. In fact throughout most of his career as a leader he opposed official Bulgaria and supremacist leaders who were actually officers. I will revert that back and leave the convoy of hapless Bulgarians to continue on their way to Fezan and Diarbekir.

Finally, I believe that excessive nationalism will not benefit the promotion of the Bulgarian viewpoint. Unlike the other viewpoints, it has the most to gain from a dispassionate reading of the evidence. My aim is to promote a neutral reading of the facts. It goes against modern Macedonian nationalism but it also recognises that the nationalistic Bulgarian interpretation is incorrect or misleading in many cases as well. (VMRO 19:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC))

In fact, VMRO, Hristo Chernopeev, who was born outside Macedonia and therefore his Bulgarian national origin isn't questioned even in present-day Republic of Macedonia, served in Bulgarian army from 1889 to 1899 and relinquished active service with strong wish to devote his life to the Macedonian struggle. He was involved in antisupremacist actions between 1902 and 1905, when SMAC was dismissed. Although he was supporter and close friend of extreme autonomist Yane Sandanski, he cut off their joint actions around 1908 and in 1909 returned into underground revolutionary activity. In 1911 he became a member of Central committee of IMORO along with Todor Aleksandrov. Participated in the Balkan Wars. By the way, in this period of his life-work he was elected for a deputy of the Bulgarian parlament. Died in 1915 on Macedonian front of First World War as Bulgarian reserve captain. Check his autobiography hehe. So, VMRO, I can't accept words like "throughout most of his career as a leader he opposed official Bulgaria" - they are pure speculation. I warn you again - be more accurate and constructive! Jackanapes 19:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Step by Step does not work evidently

I will reply to everything later as Im busy, for now I want you to see how the article use to look (and still looks in some segments):

"The evil Serb of Croat nationality Tito born of Slovenian mother killed innocent nazis who were against bloodshed just because they collaborated with the ustashas. As that evil Serbian communist suppressed all non-communist activities he persecuted the communists Vlahov, Shatev and Brashnarov who were hardline communists, supported by the Comintern and closely related to Dimitrov. They opposed the "macedonism" and they were no less than ministers of justice in the government of that very same country where macedonism was an official ideology. Shatev wrote to Dimitrov criticising the macedonism but Dimitrov was accepting teachers from Macedonia to teach Macedonian language to Pirin Macedonians all the time while he was in power. The bulgarian troops were greeted with an uprising, but that wasnt an uprising just one guard was shot in Aegean Macedonia by some serb, although the uprising was in Prilep and Kumanovo on the 11th of October 1941 but anyway lets not go too much into details. The Macedonian nation was invented by Tito in 1945, the alphabet by Koneski, Misirkov never wrote a book named "On the Macedonian matters" in 1903 where he predeceses the modern macedonian phonetic alphabet vs. the bulgarian standard. VMRO was persecuted in Macedonia, the authorities have put the names of all VMRO ppl in the anthem, they named streets, schools and towns after them, historians wrote books about them and film directors made movies about them and 2nd of August was and is a national holiday, but nevermind vmro was oppressed. The evil Serb of Croatian nationality Tito in a typical serbian evil way suppressed the Albanians by giving them University of Albanian language in Prishtina, he created autonomus provinces for albanian populated Kosovo and Hungarian populated Vojvodina jin a typical sadistic way! He forced Albanians to go to school! Also very typicaly serbialy nationalisticaly communisticaly he shot the chetnik leader Drazha Mihajlovic, recognized Bosniak Moslems as a separate nation and recognized a Montenegrian state too. Luckily democracy came in Macedonia which will celebrate 15 years of the proclaiming independence in november 1991, the jubilee celebration will take place on the 8th of September exactly on the date of the independence. After the independence the ultranationalist party VMRO-DPMNE came to power opposing the albanian nationalism in coalition with the radical Democratic Party of Albanians led by Arben Xhaferi"--Vbb-sk-mk 17:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Vbb-sk-mk, first of all, what I wrote has been referenced extensively. Yours is a modern communist-influenced interpretation. Just goes to show the extent to which Macedonian nationalism was shaped by the communists.

The evil Serb of Croat nationality Tito born of Slovenian mother killed innocent nazis who were against bloodshed just because they collaborated with the ustashas.

Completely twisting the point of the article. Nowhere has Tito been called evil or a Serb. Calling the IMRO nazis is a communist intepretatioin, which is complete BS. Name one historical source where they espouse Nazi beliefs. For all his brutality (which is exposed in the article) and other deficiencies, Mihailov proved responsible and did avoid bloodshed on two occasions:

a) when he ordered VMRO not to resist the coup of 1934 and the brutal supression of the organisation and everything Macedonian in Bulgaria

b) when he chose not to proclaim a German-backed Independent Macedonia only to be destroyed by the Red Army

The shooting of the Aegean Macedonian soldier by the Serb did happen in Prilep, yes. All the sources I have read, including Yugoslav ones like Tempo, characterise the "uprising" as a failure. It was organised on orders from Belgrade. The local communists were against it. Plus it was several months after the majority of the popultion did greet the BG army as liberators.

The article clearly states that Socialist Macedonia (extremely selectively) adopted some Ilinded leaders (while killing their close relatives for being Bulgarians - Guli and Karev come to mind). And even that would not have happened had the Serbian clique around Kolishevski ("Goce Delchev is a Bulgarian with no significance for Macedonia.") had their way. Obviously they had to tread a fine line between imposing Belgrade control and denying everything Bulgarian on the one hand and not looking too much like the previous Serbian occupation of 1918-1941.

Nowhere does the article claim that the Macedonian nation was invented in 1945. Nowhere does the article deny Misirkov's work of 1903.

Nothing is mentioned of Tito, Albania, Vojvodina, chetniks etc. in the article.

You really ought to control your emotions, read some Western-written historical accounts and stop producing page-long diatribes. Please suggest NPOV corrections with sources. Key word here - sources. --VMRO

While npov problems may remain (when I have some time for it, I'll try to search for non-balcan sources so to confront them with those you use), I must adress my most sincere congratulations to all for the sincere effort made to respect WP:V, a thing that is done very rarely by new users. That said, please consider non-balcan editors, starting by transliterating the footnotes in the latin alphabet. And for the same reason, please try to use also English, French or German sources, that are more easy to verify for non-balcan editors, and can give an outside view on the article.--Aldux 19:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Alexandrov assassination

Made a first rapid control, choosing as case to verify the Alexandrov assassination; none of the English books I've read mention a communist responsability, and instead are concord in considering the killer Mihailov, or at least an inter-imro assassination. Obviously, this generates the reemersion of the WP:RS problem, and the question to what limit Bulgarian and Macedonian secondary sources can be trusted. This counts in particular for Grishna; I have very strong doubts now it will be possible to accept him as a reliable source, judging from this first control.--Aldux 23:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Aldux, Ritta Petrovna Grishina (in Russian Ритта Петровна Гришина) is a woman, member of Institute of Slavic Researches in Russian Aacademy of Sciences, Department History of Slav People in the period of World Wars, you could check here... Her words about Aleksandrov assasination:

В исторических исследованиях неоднократно упоминалось, что данное Александрову обещание не обнародовать Манифест без его разрешения было нарушено. Ныне на давно дискутируемый вопрос об обстоятельствах публикации Манифеста можно получить документальный ответ - указание пришло из Москвы и принято оно было на самом высоком уровне. 19 июня 1924 г. Политбюро ЦК РКП(б), занимаясь на своем заседании болгаро-македонскими проблемами, в числе прочего постановило:

"Декларацию македонских автономистов опубликовать за их подписью."

Что из этого получилось - хорошо известно. Если вспомнить, что одной из главных целей большевиков и Коминтерна в отношении национальных организаций было добиться их объединения, а также попытаться овладеть их руководством, то в случае с ВМРО автономистов это оказалось невозможным. Большего, чем бумажный Манифест, - не получилось. Оставалось скомпрометировать Александрова, т.е. разрушить сложившуюся иерархию организации, дискредитировать ее руководство. Результатом стала взаимоистребительная распря, Александров и многие другие македонские деятели были убиты, македонское движение понесло большие жертвы. 22 сентября 1924 г. Чичерин направил в берлинское полпредство СССР ориентировку: "Александров совершил предательство и поплатился жизнью. Мы в этом не участвовали. Это не наших рук дело. Не наш метод. Но положительные результаты его смерти признаем." (source)

Excuse me, but do you speak any Slavic language? Jackanapes 00:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As you can see from my user page, absolutely not, so I'm afraid it's of no help to me to give links to them. If you could use English or French or Italian or Spanish links I would be grateful; after all, this is the English wikipedia. Thanks for your work, and ciao--Aldux 13:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Aldux, which English books did you consult? Do you mind sharing? As for BG sources - I have the memoirs of Kiril Prlichev and Georgi Bazhdarov, prominent rivals of Mihailov and members of the Protogerovist wing. They do not accuse him of organising the murder, nor do they accuse the Bulgarian government. The physical perpetrators were Dincho Vretenarov and Shterju Vlahov. All sources are in agreement that the murder was ordered by the local leaders Aleko "Pasha" Vassilev and Georgi Atanasov. The former was close to the left and the Sandanists, the latter was close to the military circles just as Protogerov was. Nobody has proved for sure who was responsible so I have indicated both versions. It is not impossible that both sides had an interest in his death. By the way, Mihailov belonged to neither side. (VMRO 02:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC))

You're right, I should have mentioned them immediately. Keith Brown in The Past in Question simply states that he was killed in a factional dispute within the IMRO; Alan W. Palmer The Lands Between instead explicitely says he was killed by the "centralists", of which the author considers Mihailov the leader. Victor Roudometof in Collective Memory, National Identity and Ethnic Conflict the author speaks of the context (the balkan federation, the manifesto) and of a factional strife in which many were killed, Alexandrov among them. George Georgiades Arnakis and Wayne Vucinich in The Middle East in Modern Times ascribe the death of Alexandrov to the "Mihailov group". In Voin Bozhinov's collective work La Macedoine it is stated that he was killed at the end of August by assassins acting on the Bulgarian government's orders (this work may be biased, as it was written in Bulgaria in 1980). In the Encyclopedia of world history, it is said that he was killed on August 31 in part of the conflict between federalists and centralists. In Joseph Held's Columbia History of Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century it is stated that Mihailov killed Potogerov in 1928 for alleged collusion with the Alexandrov killing; the author doesn't take positions, and simply notes that who had sent the assassins immediately became matter of speculation. The author also speaks of the manifesto, and of the complex history involving it.

To conclude: after a better research, I partially retract what said before, because from the sources it appears that Mihailov's responsibility is far fom certain, even if well possible. A consensus appears instead to be strong instead on this: 1) Alexandrov was killed in an internal IMRO factional war; 2)the story of the "communist plot" is utter nonsense, that the sources mentioned don't even consider it serious enough to be worth a confutation.--Aldux 13:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, communist sources such as Bozhinov would definitely ascribe Alexandrov's murder to the Bulgarian "fascist" government. Same goes for Vlahov, mentioned below. I would prefer Grishina as a neutral source. Otherwise there is a range of Bulgarian and Macedonian books and articles written and opinions vary. The Encyclopaedia of World History is hardly a serious historical source but it is essentially right. Except for Alexandrov was definitely with the Centralists, not the Federalists. The interwar IMRO was a descendant of the centralist wing. It was opposed by the Federalists and later IMRO (United). Held's Columbia history is also right - Protogerov was killed by Mihailov formally because of complicity in Alexandrov's murder. But that does not answer our question - who killed Alexandrov. It is beyond doubt that the perpetrators were IMRO members so it was in a sense an internal thing. Brown I have read and he does not take a stance, nor is this his main concern. Roudometof also does not take a stance. Not sure where Palmer, Arnakis and Vucinich and the rest get their conclusions from. So Mihailov's complicity is not beyond any doubt but if anything, he and the IMRO leadership were the quickest to punish the immediate perpetrators - Atanasov, Vasilev, etc. Mihailov was Alexandrov's closest confidante and personal secretary. It is also a fact that the army assisted IMRO in the hunt for the murderers. This would not square well with a murder ordered by the army (BG government was run by them partly at the time) and organised by their man Atanasov.(VMRO 18:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC))

The story of the communist plot is very far from "utter nonsence" since the leftist faction, closely allied with the Bulgarian Communists had the most to gain from Alexandrov's murder and the weakening of the organisation. The other sources you cite are msotly general works unconcerned with the period. Grishina's work is focused on those events and she has done serious research in the communist archives. To translate for you:

If one the Bolshevkis' and Comintern's main aims with respect to national organisations was to unite them and try to take over their leadership, then in the case with the autonomist VMRO this proved impossible. Nothing more than the paper Manifesto was achieved. What was left was to compromise Alexandrov, i.e. destroy the established hierarchy of the organisation and discredit its leadership. The result was fratricidal strife, Alexandrov and other Macedonian activists were killed, the Macedonian movement sustained many casualties. On 22 September 1924 Chicherin sent a report to the Berlin legation of the USSR: "Alexandrov committed a betrayal and paid with his life. We did not participate in that. It was not by our hands. Not our method. But we acknowledge the positive results of his death." (VMRO 19:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for your exhaustive and careful awnser, and, most of all, your useful translation. Just a thing, are you sure that the name is transcribed Ritta Grishina? Google doesn't awnser anything for that name, and there's only one hit for "Rita Grishina". I'm thinking of editing extensively this article, using some of the sources I mentioned and others, and I feel we shall have no problem on agreeing. Regards the "communist plot" story, I was only made suspicious by the wording, as I thought it was meaning that he was killed by KGB secret agents. Could you also tell me the title of Grishina's work? The Cicerin quotation is very interesting. And again let me tell you how happy I am to see an editor who, even if so new, clearly gets the importance of WP:V, and awnsers always to the point.--Aldux 20:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the kind words. I kind of changed the wording in the section. Please bear in mind when editing that I worked really hard to write this article, even before I was registered at Wikipedia. I added a lot on the early years and most on the Interwar years. Regarding the transliterations of the sources - I promise I will get to that. In Russian it is Ритта Петровна Гришина. (double "t"). I googled her and I got some lists of her books:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22r.+p.+grishina%22

(VMRO 20:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC))

The two main versions of who instigated the murder of Alexandrov (the organisers and physical murderers are known) are:

1) Bulgarian government, which was declared to be an enemy in the May Manifesto. This may or may not have been done together with Mihailov. I tend to believe he was genuinely surprised by the murder with the rest of VMRO's leaders except for Protogerov. Protogerov was together with Alexandrov at the time of the murder and was clearly spared which is suspicious. These suspicions against Protogerov were partly responsible by his murder ordered by Mihailov. But one thing that casts doubt on Mihailov's complicity is the fact that Kiril Drangov, sent by Mihailov to assassinate Aleko Vassilev (who was with Protogerov at the time), afterwards pointed his gun on Protogerov and shouted at him to say who organised the murder of Alexandrov. This is reported by Bazhdarov and Prlichev, later enemies of Mihailov.

2) Local (not Russian) Communists/leftists within the VMRO or the BCP/CPY who viewed Alexandrov's retraction of his signature as a betrayal (this what Chicherin is talking about). They had a motive and one of the organisers of the murder, Vasilev, was a known former Sandanist/Federalist turned Autonomist/Centralist.

My conclusion is that both versions are equally likely but it seems that Mihailov and the rest of the IMRO people around him were genuinely caught by surprise. Whoever the perpetrator, they acted to neutralise the communists first, whom they viewed as endangering the organisation by trying taking it over. Alexandrov's policies before 1924 had been very much directed against the communists/federalists as well. He fought the federalist bands organised by Panitza, he also supressed the communist rising in Pirin Macedonia. He was clearly a thorn in their side. That is why the communists launched this big campaign to win him over and when they could not they tried to discredit him. Who is ultimately responsible for the murder is hard to know.

Mihailov was clearly a very power-hungry, uncompromising and ruthless man. He was very much responsible for the split of the Protogerovist wing and the following feuds within the autonomists. But he was no friend of the Bulgarian government and always acted independently. Towards the end of his "reign" in Pirin Macedonia, IMRO left the slogan for an autonomous Macedonia and called for an independent Macedonia. The Bulgarian anthem was never played but only the Macedonian one ("Izgrej Zora na Svobodata"), the VMRo flag wasraised higher than the Bulgarian one, etc. Mainstream Bulgarian nationalists accused him of separatism, etc. (VMRO 20:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC))

Dear Aldux, Ritta Grishina defines Aleksandиov assassination as a result of internal IMRO conflict, which was definitely provoked by intentional operation of Comintern with such aim. Jackanapes 13:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

For the benefit of Aldux, some quotes from the international press, following Alexandrov's murder:

THE BRITISH PRESS ON THE ASSASSINATION OF ALEXANDROV AND THE MACEDONIAN QUESTION

News East Review, in its September 25 edition, says the following:

In the present case we have plenty of evidence that the Macedonian organization has found itself on a crossroad. During long years it lay its expectations on an intervention by the Powers, but they refused any help whatsoever, they even noglected to pay any attention to Macedonia. Then a new movement came into existence, a movement that believed there is only hope for help from Russia, a postulate that the Soviet Government was quick to use. It was only Alexandrov that stood in the way of this trend and this is why he was eliminated. We are left to follow the struggle between the communist and anti-communist trends among the Macedonians. This is quite a clear lesson for the West and for the Balkan states. They still deny, with the same enthusiasm as before, that there is such a thing as a Macedonian question, but the Bolsheviks will try to replace it with a Communist question. If the new Yugoslav government has at least a little bit of political sense, it will try to preserve the Macedonian population which has up to now held on its Balkan legacy alone from the corrupting aspirations of the communist tyrants which can easily succeed following the negated right of self-determination.

THE YUGOSLAV PRESS: A SIGN OF AGREEMENT

Under such a title, "Samouprava" writes in its September 27 edition:

A new, macabrous paper of Radic's has been appearing lately in Zagreb under the title of "Zagreb". We can very well understand, from its second edition, what direction this paper is going to follow. There an obituary column is dedicated to Todor Alexandrov. Here is the full text:

"Todor Alexandrov lives no more! He died, probably without even suspecting what clouds had gathered above him. A criminal hand shot to death the man who never had mercy on himself, but deserved the right to live more than anyone else. T. Alexandrov was a living genius and will remain an immortal genius even in death. Noone deserves to live if underestimating his real grandour. They try to make him an imperialist, a militarist, a brigand, but he was neither of these. On the contrary, he lived and worked for his people alone. He fought for the independence of his homeland and died for it. Is this evil? He was a leader of the Macedonian komitadjis, he was a komitadji himself, the proudest of all. He used the arguments of brutal force because he was forced to do it. It is the same brutal force that serves as base of all "peace and order" in the world, in Europe, in the Balkans. Surrounded by imperialists, Alexandrov had to fight, so as not to retreat.

Todor Alexandrov is a peace-lover! He adored peace, he insisted on his pacifism when it was possible, but knew, in the same time, how to defend himself and his people. Todor was an exceptionally intelligent man. He was a man who spoke many languages and led an organization with members working all over the world. Today he is no longer living, but his spirit will remain alive and will breathe with the lungs of every true Bulgar, because Todor was just a Bulgarian and a Slav. We, Croats, will pray for his soul, because if alive, he would be the surest guarantor of the agreement and unity between Bulgars, Croats and all other Southern Slavs. Eternal glory to Todor Alexandrov!"

THE END OF A REVOLUTIONARY LEADER

September 29, the Journal des debats published an article by Alfred Mousset in which, among others, we read:

Todor Alexandrov is a strange and fearsome person, who died in a rather romantic way, in weird circumstances, without anyone knowing the real reasons for his death...

... Alexandrov played a major role in the coup d'etat of June 9 and that is why Tsankov's government could not get rid of his person and his despotism. An agreement was signed lately between the Communists uin Russia and the Macedonian revolutionaries. Alexandrov refused to follow the movement because this way he would confront Tsankov. Two separate Macedonian revolutionary movements appeared.

THE SITUATION IN BULGARIA

The Athenian daily Elephterion Vima wrote on September 24:

Informations from Bulgaria testify that the recently killed archkomitadji Alexandrov is going to serve the government of Tsankov as a holy national symbol. We had no reasons to doubt this. The real strongman behind the present-day government in Bulgaria was the assassinated Alexandrov.

Don't worry, I'm not going to put in doubt Grishina anymore ;-) From the awnsers you gave me, I have no more doubts that she may be considered a WP:RS. Also, the Alexandrov assassination was just an example I took, just to be sure Grishina could be. I also appreciate the rewording you made of the paragraph; it's now much more NPOV. Ciao,--Aldux 10:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

reply

1. QUOTE: You really ought to control your emotions, read some Western-written historical accounts and stop producing page-long diatribes. Please suggest NPOV corrections with sources. Key word here - sources. --VMRO

Sources? Well I added some sources (not much) but you ignore most of them. Some of them are written by foreign contemporary observers, while some r domestic (If u can add Bulgarian ones I can add Macedonian ones I suppose or I am an Untermensch perhaps?)

• Albert Sonnichsen: Confessions of a Macedonian Bandit: A Californian in the Balkan Wars, Narrative Press, ISBN 1-58976-237-1
  
• Albert Londres "Les Comitadjis (Le terrorisme dans les Balkans), Kultura, Skopje ISBN 9989-32-067-5 (original edition: Arlea, Paris, 1992).
  
• Dimitar Vlahov,"Memoirs", 2nd edition, Slovo publishing, Skopje 2003 ISBN 9989-103-22-4
  
• Memoirs - Ivan Hadzi Nikolov, Dame Gruev, B. Sarafov, Jane Sandanski, Mihail Gerdzikov, Hristo Tatarchev, Kultura, Skopje ISBN 9989-32-022-5
  
• Memoirs - S. Arsov, P. Kljashev, L. Dzherov, G.P. Hristov, A. Andreev, G. Papanchev, L. Dimitrov, Kultura, Skopje] ISBN 9989-32-077-2
  
• Nikola Kirov Majski "Pages from my life", Kultura, Skopje, 1994
  

BTW For some of these books, you can find info HERE

I can add more sources, but you disregard them anyway. EXAMPLE: When I added the part about the failed unification of the divided fractions and the May manifesto (the first version), soon after that section was completely turned upside down. I used Vlahov's Memoirs for that, where he claims something like: Alexandrov and Protogerov signed the agreements but later denied. You replaced that with a statement (and you used Grishina as source):
"Failing to secure Alexandrov's cooperation, the Comintern decided to discredit him and published the contents of the Manifesto on 6 May 1924 in the "Balkan Federation" newspaper. VMRO's leaders Todor Aleksandrov and Aleksandar Protogerov promptly denied through the Bulgarian pressthat they've ever signed any agreements, claiming that the May Manifesto published in the "Balkan Federation" newspaper was a communist forgery."
Now did they reach an agreement or not? Is May manifesto an agreement or not? What about my additions about the "Protocol for unification" from Vlahov's book that you deleted? Did Alexandrov firsly accept everything and later just denied or he never accepted anything at all? then what was the manifesto? just a piece of paper? and How come they suddenly wanted to discredit him just 7 days after the signing of the agreements (29 April)? Now which source is more important Vlahov, an authentic participant in VMRO's history or Grishina, as an third-party observer? Quite complicated I would say, I don't know.

Also I added something like "certain sources" claim (i should have said SUSPECT or SPECULATE) that Goce delchev was betrayed, you removed that also as not reliable, if i put particular sources and names would you accept it back? I see Zoran Todorovski's SPECULATIONS about Aleksandrov's assasinations are accepted (at least they r still there in the article, I mean currently).

I also told you about Albert Londres (1884 - 1932) a French journalist, one of the inventor of investigative journalism. Check his french wikipedia article also, its bigger. CLICK HERE He wrote the book "Les Comitadjis: Les Terrorism en Balkans" about Mihailov's VMRO and he condemns it for it's terrorist policy as well as for perverting the original ideas of the first VMRO. You disregarded that also (that part when I said that: Mihailov and Aleksandrov falsely claimed they are original descendents of the authentic VMRO at the same killing authentic people like Petrov, Panitsa etc.) Note that in France there is a journalist award (prize) named after Londres, if thats not good enough source, I really dunno what to say to u ppl. Info on the award Albert Londres, I dont know whether its relevance is comparable to the Pulitzer Price but its certainly "something like that".

I could also add some stuff from "The trials as a last defeat" (Sudenjata kako posleden poraz) by Jovan Pavlovski, a book about the post-WWII trials in Macedonia (of Bulgarian and Albanian fascists), where he writes about the attrocities, the holocaust of Jews in Macedonia under Bulgarian occupation, the killing of antifascists such as Mirche Acev, Cvetan Dimov, Kuzman Josifovski-Pitu, Nevena Georgieva Dunja etc. The book includes overview of Mihailov's VMRO and the "kontracheta's" also (there's an edition with interesting photographs too, incl. the kontrachetas, Mihajlov with NDH leader Ante Pavelic etc.). But of course u will again disregard this for various reasons, 1st because its a "commie" book, 2nd it's not an english source too and of course you will say there was no antifascist movement, "only one guard was shot", the uprising was a failure, the whole thing is a myth etc..etc.. (although for example general Mihajlo Apostolski not only operated in Vardar Macedonia but he also entered greek Aegean Macedonia with the partisans organizing congress in the liberated village of Fushtani in Meglen etc. I wouldnt call that an insignificant movement, as you try to trivialize everything I say).

Also speaking of the TYPICAL OFFICIAL BULGARIAN statements that KOLISHEVSKIi is behind all that communist/antifascist thing, well how he could be, when both bulgarian and macedonian side agree that he was actually in bulgarian prison since 1941 till 9th of september 1944??!! BULGARIAN sources, NOT macedonian, spread a copy of Kolishevski's letter where he begs the Bulgarian Tsar Boris III to change his death sentence to prison sentence. I can freely draw a conclusion that the guy was in priosn during 99,9% of the war sitting in a cell, how he could organize anything? telepathy? His prison card HERE.(these r bulgarian sources, if they r still not good enough for u then I dunno)

Speaking of Sharlo, for whom you claim that he opposed confrontation with the Bulgarian forces, he is a highly controversial figure. here's a TEXT about him by Eftim Gashev, who was persecuted in the post-WWII period, now a publicist from Skopje.(if u can point to newspaper articles and interviews I can do the same). Gashev denies the Bulgarian claims, pointing out to Shatorov letters where he spaeks about "bulgarian occupation" etc. On the other hand Bulgarian sources point to the fact that he was separatist from the Yugoslav communists, that he joined the Macedonian communists to the Bulgarian communists etc..etc.. The opinions are divided on the subject. In any case, even after his emigration to Bulgaria after he has been expeled from the Yugoslav communist party, he still remaind an antifascist and he was a political commesar of the Third operative zone of Bulgaria and a member of the district comitee for Sofia ofd the Bulgarian Worker's Party (communists).

2. QUOTE: Name one historical source where they espouse Nazi beliefs.

Why u need any source? You know these things very well. I mean look what u wrote (or what ur friends wrote) in the article: VMRO was also active in organising the resistance of the Bulgarian population in Aegean Macedonia against Greek nationalist and communist bands. With the help of Mihailov and Macedonian emigres in Sofia, several pro-German armed detachments were organised in the Kostur, Lerin and Voden districs of Greek Macedonia in 1943-44. These were led by Bulgarian officers originally from Aegean Macedonia - Andon Kalchev and Georgi Dimchev

Mihailovists also cooperated with the Ustashe who were Croatian nazis (they've cooperated with them long before WWII while Ustashe were still not in power), Vancho Mihajlov was in Zagreb during most of the WWII with Ante Pavelic and he comes to then german occupied Skoopje after the September uprising in 1944 in Bulgaria with an aim to create Independent Macedonia under German protectorate. I wrote that in the article and although it was changed anyway the point is still the same, he did cooperated with the nazis, after all why they would offer him to create that NDH alike Macedonia which he refused (as u say)?

3. QUOTE: Isn't it funny that this Macedonian article about revolutionary movement with such big importance for contemporary Republic of Macedonia is a humble stub

RE: RoM/FYROM has only 2 milion of inhabitants of which only a small percent uses internet and not all of them actually use it for educational purposes but rather for fun, so u have only a few enthusiasts who would work on the mk.wikipedia. Also have in mind how many people around the world speak macedonian language and how many people may find those articles useful? Having all this in mind its normal that macedonian articles are quite humble. Thats why we are more interested what is happening on the english wikipedia as it is the most influental version of wikipedia visited by people from all around the world. also we r interested because speaking of macedonian topics here, u can read the Bulgarian, Greek, Vietnamese, Bangladesh and other POV but never the POV of republic of Macedonia.

4. QUOTE: Nothing is mentioned of Tito, Albania, Vojvodina, chetniks etc. in the article

RE: I mentioned them in a desperate attempt trying to point examples that Tito's authorities were not "pro-serbian" as it was written before (see version history). And still in some segments in the text i find "serbian leanings" and so on, people, why the hell they recognized Socialist republic of Macedonia then? Why it didnt remain Juzhna Banovina as it was before if there was a serbian plot in all that? Why Montenegro? Why bosnia? etc... But of course my irony was misunderstood.

Also: Quote: Belgrade-controlled authorities

RE: i can't say for sure, but these things are highly controversial. Undoubtely Tito "was a king" and he controled everything, but some say it is possible that actually Kolishevski was the main man for all those purges. Maybe the whole thing was a power struggle and Kolishevski wanted to get rid of some competition. Anyway, Im not sure. --Vbb-sk-mk 12:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously primary sources can be always used, whether pro-Bulgarian or pro-Macedonian, or even communist; obviously, as I said before, remembering not to take every word for gold. I would be especially happy to see an extensive usage of the work of Londres; he's often considered among the best reporters of the first half 20th century.--Aldux 14:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to add the following in my reply above:
This statement in the article is completely wrong also:
No agreement was reached besides a paper "Manifesto" (the so-called May Manifesto) signed on the 29th of April 1924(end of quote)
RE: During the attempt for unification of the leftists (federalists) and the right-wing VMRO led by Aleksandrov the following documents have been issued:

• The Declaration (in which the new objectives of VMRO were presented) 29 April 1924 (this is NOT, I repeat NOT the May-Manifesto as it was APRIL, 29TH OF APRIL and not MAY! So The May manifesto was not an April manifesto or July Manifesto or January Manifesto)
  
• The Protocol for unification of the Macedonian revolutionary movement 30th of April 1924 (this is also NOT the May Manifesto yet)
  
• The May manifesto signed on the 6th of May 1924 (THIS IS THE THING)
  

CONCLUSION: An agreement WAS reached unlike what the article says currently. According to Vlahov, Aleksandrov signed all the agreements, but later denied that. Will u trust Vlahov or not, let's be honest I suppose u will not cause he is a "commie" (I wonder what would be if I cited some ustasha or bulgarian fascist?)
The source is Vlahov's book: Memoirs, Slovo, Skopje 2003, ISBN 9989-103-22-4 (2nd edition after the first one published by Nova Makedonija newspaper, I must check for an exact info. Check the Bulgarian wikipedia article on Vlahov! the book is mentioned there and not only that but also quoted (of course they cited only parts that they liked :))--Vbb-sk-mk 16:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Vbb-sk-mk, I'm glad you are calmer at last.

1. Many of your sources are well know and accessible on internet like Albert Sonnichsen and series of memoirs, published by Macedonian scientific institute of IMRO in interwar Bulgaria.

2. About Aleksandrov assassination. Vlahov was participant in this conflict so he wasn't unbiased. Ritta Grishina is neutral contemporary researcher from Russian Academy of Sciences, which uses many documents from archives of Comintern, USSR, Macedonia and Bulgaria and also various publications from all of these countries in her text, cited above. She clearly defines May manifesto as "nothing more than paper manifesto" and the negotiations as failure for Comintern in general.

3. You admit that you could not prove anything about the so called betrayal of Gotse Delchev. Please, prove something at last! According to Gyorche Petrov, Dame Gruev, Hristo Silyanov and Peyo Yavorov Delchev wasn't betrayed from Bulgarian government or from members of SMARO.

4. The concept that there were "authentic followers" and "false traitors" of some "original" IMRO is speculative and naive, it gives a hint that this is a manifestation of partisanship. In Macedonian-Adrianople movement there were several different main streams from its begining, several different phases of development and numerous smaller contradistinctions so how is it possible for us today to define which of these conceptions, stages or persons was "authentic"? Your point of view in this question strictly follows old communist historiography in Socialist Republic of Macedonia, which literally sacralized leftists.

5. Ivan Mihailov's wing could not be defined as fascist - it never shared fascist or nazi ideology. For example Carl Orff was one of Hitler's beloved composers, but was he a fascist? Another typical neocommunist method - all enemies are proclaimed for fascists...

6. In 2005 there was public scandal in Republic of Macedonia connected with the past of Evtim Gashev. Today he denies his pro-Bulgarian bias, but some prominent leaders of Macedonian union of the antifascist fighters accused him as former member of one Bulgarian nationalist youth organization, named "Brannik" and defined as fascist, check here. His past differs from his present asseverations.

7. Another similar scandal emerged around 60th anniversary of ASNOM after 2004 with Metody Shatorov - Sharlo in Republic of Macedonia. Some Macedonian antifascist veterans and historians accused him as probulgarian traitor, but other tried to acquit him and argued that his probulgarian orientation could not be proved with documents. You could search archives of online macedonian newspapers like "Dnevnik" and "Utrinski vesnik" for this.

8. Enough from me for now. Jackanapes 16:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

1.

Sonnichsen is a great source on VMORO up to 1908. But which one of your claims does he support exactly? Same goes to the other references you have included - they are all good. That link you give only lists the books but there is no additional info. Vlahov is definitely useful but that is the communist partisan view. Your claim of his relevance over Grishina is like me saying - check Ivan Mihailov's memoirs (you should anyway), he was much closer to the action! (VMRO 22:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC))

I have changed the wording of the section on Alexandrov's murder. BTW, have a look at Bazhdarov's memoirs [ here]. Clearly on the autonomist side but he published them after the rift with Mihailov. Lots of info on how the IMRO people thought about the Manifesto, etc. If I had the time I would translate and post it for Aldux's benefit.

I have not read Londres (don't speak French) but sounds very interesting. But let's bear in mind that official France supported Yugoslavia and the Serbian dominance over Macedonia. Clearly pro-Yugoslav Frenchmen would have condemned VMRO, I do not know where Londres stands. Another one of his countrymen, Henry Pozzi wrote this and more specifically this. In any case, I doubt Londres went as far as to insunuate that Alexandrov and Mihailov are fake VMRO members. I have to see the text. I would appreciate a relevant translation of a snippet or two.(VMRO 22:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC))

Kolishevski - your facts are wrong. The "uprising" was in October. Kolishevski was arrested on 6 November. Read Palmer and King - the most detailed account of the issues.

Gashev - that is an interesting if flawed source. I know people who claimed to have been in prison with him and that there he turned from a Bulgarian to a Macedonian. However, his view should be taken into account even if contradicts earlier documentary sources as well as Western and Yugoslav (tempo) accounts. (VMRO 22:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC))

2.

Yes, VMRO collaborated with the Ustasha. They had the common goal of overthrowing Yugoslavian rule and free their countries of Serbian occupation. Yes, fascist Italy supported them both since it fit into its strategic interests. Does that make the IMRO fascist? When did VMRO say that its goal was to establish a fascist country or rule? There were plenty of fascist organisations in Bulgaria and no VMRO member was a member of those. Neither did the VMRO leaders associate with them. On the contrary, the the ones who supressed VMRO in 1934 had a much more fascist political creed.

Yes, Mihailov had dealings with the Germans. He would have wanted an independent Macedonia rather than partial annexation of the Vardar area to Bulgaria. He gave that idea up in 1941. He collaborated with the Germans to help Macedonians defend themselves against Greek nationalists and communists. How does that make him a Nazi? Claiming every ally of Germany to be a Nazi is the most ridiculous thing - a completely communist reflex.

Do you know that the "Nazi" VMRO leaders Vlado Kurtev and Georgi Nastev went to the Bulgarian government and said that "heads will roll on the streets of Sofia" unless the deportation of the Jews is stopped? (VMRO 22:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC))

To Jackanapes:
Q: 1. Many of your sources are well know and accessible on internet like Albert Sonnichsen and series of memoirs, published by Macedonian scientific institute of IMRO in interwar Bulgaria.
RE: I know, member VMRO asked for sources i just wanted to point that I added some from the very beggining of my involvment in all this.

Yes, and they have been kep on the page as you can see. (VMRO 01:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

Q: About Aleksandrov assassination. Vlahov was participant in this conflict so he wasn't unbiased.
RE: What about Добрин Мичев Mr."1941-1944" and Никола Петров Mr. "Who were the partisans?" (when I see this title, dunno how but...somehow I imediatly know what he says in his book...)

Please see above why I decided to keep Michev. I use him to support a claim that is not at all contentious. Have a look at my earlier comments. As for Petrov, I have put a note there and he will be taken out! (VMRO 01:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

Q: Ritta Grishina is neutral contemporary researcher from Russian Academy of Sciences, which uses many documents from archives of Comintern, USSR, Macedonia and Bulgaria and also various publications from all of these countries in her text, cited above. She clearly defines May manifesto as "nothing more than paper manifesto" and the negotiations as failure for Comintern in general.
Re: Ok good, then we will use Albert Londres too, cause he is also a neutral researcher from France and there's an award after his name too and we will add that he presents Mihailov as a bloodthirsty murderer and mafiozo "fighting for Macedonia" from his cosy office in Sofia, accusing him that he distorted the whole idea of the Organization. Good thing this neutrality.

Just to be fair the article does not glorify Mihailov and it certainly points out how VMRO came to be viewed towards the end. We can expand on that, yes. (VMRO 01:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

Q: 3. You admit that you could not prove anything about the so called betrayal of Gotse Delchev. Please, prove something at last! According to Gyorche Petrov, Dame Gruev, Hristo Silyanov and Peyo Yavorov Delchev wasn't betrayed from Bulgarian government or from members of SMARO.
Re: I can't Im not a scientist, I can just say SOME SOURCES SPECULATE THAT MAYBE... (hypothesis, theories etc.. are part of the science..or not?) and I still see Mr. Zoran Todorovski SPECULATING in the article: Some Bulgarian and Macedonian historians like Zoran Todorovski speculate that it might have been the circle around Mihailov who organised the assassination (end of quote)

Yes, Zoran Todorovski is on record saying that. So are some Bulgarian historians (Tyulekov and Bozhinov for example). Todorovski is a respected mainstream guy in the RoM. Which serious historian is on record saying that Delchev was deliberately betrayed by the Bulgarians because he opposed an uprising? Just point me to the source and I will immediately include this sentence you suggest. (VMRO 01:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

Q: The concept that there were "authentic followers" and "false traitors" of some "original" IMRO is speculative and naive, it gives a hint that this is a manifestation of partisanship. In Macedonian-Adrianople movement there were several different main streams from its begining, several different phases of development and numerous smaller contradistinctions so how is it possible for us today to define which of these conceptions, stages or persons was "authentic"? Your point of view in this question strictly follows old communist historiography in Socialist Republic of Macedonia, which literally sacralized leftists.
Re: I find YOUR statements quite naive to be honest. Take the October revolution for example. Trotsky is what we can certainly and undoubtely call one of the authentic leaders of the October revolution, but Stalin, who was faar less important than him, a semi-illiterate peasant absolutely clueless about what the hell that "marxism" and "dialectic materialism" is all about, comes to power and nicks Trotsky together with a whole elite of other AUTHENTIC revolutionaries so he can become an absolute despot of the USSR and he even signs a peace agreement with the nazis. Take the French revolution too, similar stories - what was the original idea of the Revolution and what Napoleon did later? He became an Emperor, completely contrary to the basic idea of Republicanism etc. Why u find my statements so irrational?? There's logic in everything, u just ignore it. Also take the Macedonian revolution too. Shatev, Brashnarov, Chento and many others were persecuted so some Kolishevski who was in prison during the whole war can get the whole power. There's nothing wrong with the concept, on every "komita" there is always a traitor.

Q: Ivan Mihailov's wing could not be defined as fascist - it never shared fascist or nazi ideology. For example Carl Orff was one of Hitler's beloved composers, but was he a fascist? Another typical neocommunist method - all enemies are proclaimed for fascists...
RE: Your example with the composer is ridiculuous, however Mihailov did orchestrated lot of things too (murders mostly). Mihailov cooperated with the croatian nazis, with fascist Italy and finally Germans offered him (or he suggested) a creation of a nazi puppet state. There were armed groups clearly described as pro-german in the article (the "kontracheti") which were formed by the Mihalovists. I really dont understand what do u want more?

Being a Nazi/fascist means to adhere to Nazi/fascist ideology. Being an ally of Germany/Italy does not make you a Nazi. I am sorry but your use of epithets is very partisan. VMRO did not ally itself with these countries because it liked its ideology but because it had its own goals. (VMRO 01:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

Q: In 2005 there was public scandal in Republic of Macedonia connected with the past of Evtim Gashev. Today he denies his pro-Bulgarian bias, but some prominent leaders of Macedonian union of the antifascist fighters accused him as former member of one Bulgarian nationalist youth organization, named "Brannik" and defined as fascist, check here. His past differs from his present asseverations.
RE: Yes I know, but as you refuse all "commie" propagandha, I decided to offer someone that was persecuted by the Yugo authorities on "pro-bulgarian bias" for a change. But for no avail, you don't like him too. Its really hard to please you.

Gashev is an interesting source, as I said. He should be taken for what he is worth. Finally, I think this discussion about the partisans, Sharlo, etc. is very tangent to the topic of the article - IMRO.(VMRO 01:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

Q: Another similar scandal emerged around 60th anniversary of ASNOM after 2004 with Metody Shatorov - Sharlo in Republic of Macedonia. Some Macedonian antifascist veterans and historians accused him as probulgarian traitor, but other tried to acquit him and argued that his probulgarian orientation could not be proved with documents. You could search archives of online macedonian newspapers like "Dnevnik" and "Utrinski vesnik" for this.
RE: I told u he is a controverisal issue, I have checked those newspapers before u pointed out. Opinions are divided on Sharlo as i said. On one hand- bulgarian tratior, on the other- the fact remains that he was a antifascist, I hardly beleive he opossed armed struggle when he was a commesar in the WWII in Bulgaria. (however I do agree he was closely tied to the BRP, no doubt). Bulgarian- yes, but communist. Also some of his correspondence was published where he calls the Bulgarian army "bloody occupators", he condemns the atrocities, ridicules the Independent State of Croatia as dependent from Germany and Italy etc. How much those letters r true, I dunno, they were published in some relevant ppolitical magazines, I have read them (example: "Denes", but not sure if it goes out still, I think no)

Yes, these letters, if authentic, shed important new light on what we knew about Sharlo. But let's bear in mind that in RoM they try to exonerate Alexandrov, Mihailov and others by claiming that they did not work for Bulgaria (true in my opinion) and were Macedonians and not Bulgarians (not so true in my view). (VMRO 01:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

Q: Vbb-sk-mk, I'm glad you are calmer at last.
Re: Of course Im calmer, I have wrote huge referates previously as Im Dimitar Vlahov on a congress of the Comintern or panko Brashnarov as a speaker at ASNOM, but you ignore them anyway so its pointless. Dogs are barking, the caravans are passing by.

To VMRO:
Q: Do you know that the "Nazi" VMRO leaders Vlado Kurtev and Georgi Nastev went to the Bulgarian government and said that "heads will roll on the streets of Sofia" unless the deportation of the Jews is stopped?
RE: Undoubtely the public in Bulkgaria strongly stood against the holocaust, I agree, but Jews from macedonia and thrace (patrts occupied by Bulgaria) ended in the gas chambers in Treblinka anyway, first arrested by the bulgarian authroities and then handed to the germans. Dont forget that the "kontrachetas" were collaborationists and "pro-german" as it is also stated in the article so I do relate the rightwing VMRO to the holocaust in Macedonia.

I really do not see the connection between VMRO and the Jews of Macedonia and Thrace. The contrachetas might have fought the partisans but I have never read anywhere that they assisted in the deportation of the Jews. Seems illogical to kill them in one area and save them in another. Could be true, don't know. Is that what Macedonian historiography claims or is it your speculation? (VMRO 01:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

Q:Sonnichsen is a great source on VMORO up to 1908. But which one of your claims does he support exactly? RE: that VMRO was not a nationalistic organisation, a "tool" of the Bulgarian government and The Exarchy as some claim. thats why i wrote what he says.. he also gives an interesting overview about the penetration of then fresh socialist ideas in macedonia. he also mentions the struggle against the vrhovists too. (although mostly he talks about the Greek struggle for Macedonia)

This is great but all those things are stated in the article - nowhere is VMORO called a tool of Sofia or the Exarchate. I have mentioned the Socialist/Anarchist ideas as well as the struggle against the supremacists. What is your point exactly?(VMRO 01:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

Q: Yes, VMRO collaborated with the Ustasha. They had the common goal of overthrowing Yugoslavian rule and free their countries of Serbian occupation. Yes, fascist Italy supported them both since it fit into its strategic interests. Does that make the IMRO fascist? When did VMRO say that its goal was to establish a fascist country or rule? There were plenty of fascist organisations in Bulgaria and no VMRO member was a member of those. Neither did the VMRO leaders associate with them. On the contrary, the the ones who supressed VMRO in 1934 had a much more fascist political creed.
RE: they collaborated with ustashas, they collaborated with Hitler, they collaborated with Musolini, they collaborated with the devil himself and to whom not and now what am I supposed to conclude from all that?! And speaking of that "independent state of Macedonia dependent of Germany" that Mihailov (who according to u was "not a fascist") was supposed to lead, I can only guess what kind of political regime it would have...hmmm let me guess...errrm..liberal-democracy?

Mihailov refused to create a German-backed independent Macedonia in the end, right? You should read the programmes of the IMRO - everywhere they talk about equality of all nationalities within Macedonia. This does not sound very fascist to me. (VMRO 01:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

Q: But let's bear in mind that official France supported Yugoslavia and the Serbian dominance over Macedonia
RE: Well of course, when I give a source its always received with suspicion..things are really becoming pointelss dont u think? im aware of the offical French policy at that time of course! but Londres was not a President of France. He says: in the beginnings of the maced. movement, the "komiti" who were not only of bulg nationality had a dream about Independence of their country. They didn't sacrifice nor for Bulgaria, nor for Greece and nor for Serbia, only for Macedonia.(...) Anyway, an ideal solution flies over the Balkans, But still too high above our heads so the smallest cloud can hide it. Its a Confederation of all the South Slavs.(...) Such political move would be very wise..but is the man destined to be wise?(end of quote)
Not very good tranbslation but Im really tired.--Vbb-sk-mk 23:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said, Londres is not a source to be dismissed. I was just hoping to learn more about him. What you quote is great and I do not think the article conttradicts it regarding the Ottoman-time VMORO. I would like to find out what he says about the interwar VMRO. (VMRO 01:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

Missing or undeveloped points and suggestions for replenishments

1. Historical background of IMRO or description of the processes in Macedonia and Adrianople Thrace before 1893.

2. Descriptions of the structures of the organization during all periods of its existence.

3. While the main attention in present article is given as if to the inner partitions and conflicts, there is quite insufficient information about military activity, concrete battles and combat questions in general.

4. Descriptions of non-military activities of IMRO, especially after the First World War, such as its system of jurisdiction, political representations in Bulgaria, international diplomatic efforts, auxiliary economic organization in Pirin Macedonia, Macedonian scientific institute, et cetera.

5. More detailed information about political activities during the period of legal struggle after the "Young Turk" revolution.

6. The division of separate Macedonian and Thracian revolutionary movements after the First World War isn't described and explanined with required completeness. May be a remark about the Internal Thracian Revolutionary Organization will be useful.

7. Probably the information about ideological platforms especially during the interwar period have to be expanded.

8. Some new qualitative pictures connected with the interwar period. - Jackanapes 16:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

...

QUOTE (article): Shatev went as far as to send a petition to the Bulgarian legation in Belgrade protesting the anti-Bulgarian policies of the Yugoslav leadeship and the Serbianisation of the Bulgarian language.

RE: How could Shatev send such petition to Dimitrov's People's Republic of Bulgaria when Dimitrov oficialy supported "macedonisation" as you say!, he accepted teachers sent from Skopje, there were censuses in Pirin Macedonia in which Macedonian ethnicity appeared for the first time in the lists etc. How could Shatev expecft help from official Bulgaria in that period???!! This is a pure 100,9999735% nonsence
Also how could Shatev, A MINISTER OF JUSTICE IN THE GOVERNMENT be an opponent of the official policy of "macedonism"?? why the hell he became a minister of such country if he didnt like it??? He was a Minister during all the post-war war crime trials, during the processess of the standardisation of the mac. language and all that thus he was a part of all that

QUOTE:Because some IMRO supporters openly opposed the then official policy of Communist Bulgaria to promote Macedonian ethnic consciousness in Pirin Macedonia they were repressed or exiled to the interior of Bulgaria.
So Dimitrov "promotes macedonian ethnic consiousness" uin Bulgaria while Shatev asks him to help the Bulgarian language in Macedonia?!

as you see your statements are often ridiculuously contradictive, and there r so many other examples above. First it was funny , but now it became boring.

Also you "wave" with Katardjiev's writtings all the time, although some things either he never said, or are presented out of context, distorted etc, Katardjiev is what "anti-macedonists" would call a typical "Skopjan historian" but then once in 234 years you've found something in his works that suits you and then you used it (selectively of course!). In that case, speaking of academics and interviews in magazines, here's what Gane Todorovski, an academic too, a writer, publicist, a former ambasador and a participant of ASNOM says about Ivan Garvanov's and Boris Sarafov's death warrant issued by the Organization which I DID mentioned in the article but you deleted it because it doesn't suit you. Click HERE
He says like i said before that Garvanov and Sarafov were charged with treason and damage to the organization and thats why they were sentenced to death by the Revolutionary organization. U wanted an academic, there's an academic. But I know, you will say "ermm, yeah but..he is a 'partisan' source u know...".

QUOTE: Notable victims included Georgi Karev, the mayor of Krushevo during the Bulgarian occupation and brother of Ilinden revolutionary Nikola Karev and Sterio Guli, son of Pitu Guli.[22]

RE: First of all Sterio Guli shot himself in 1944, he was not persecuted in the post-WWII period.(see what his son says, or stepson, dunno: HERE)
Second, well Im sorry kids but thats life, whoever supported the fascist occupator no matter for what motives, normally, was more or less sanctioned, whether in France, USSR, Yugoslavia, Norway, China and you name it (only not in Greece where fascist collaborators such as Poulos Verband etc., received pensions after the war). Why you tend to present these cases as a sort of example of "yugo-communist oppression of innocent victims"? You expect people to cry now? The guy was a mayor of bulgarian fascist occuied Krushevo in WWII, another guy (Spiro Kitinchev) was also a mayor, of Skopje, DECORATED WITH A MEDAL BY THE GERMANS, one of the organisers of those Action Comitees in 1941, what do you expect guys? Chocolate cakes for them? Holidays in Hawaii? Flowers? You suprise me with your naivity really. There have been lynches after every revolution, justified or unjustified, people were killed on a guillotine after French Revolution, people have been killed after the Russian Reviolution etc..This time fascism was defeated so normally ppl who had supported it were sanctioned.
OF COURSE I absolutely do admitt there were many cases of completely inoccent people who were just "eaten" by the whole that post-war euphoria and "revolutionary justice", lynched by angry mobs etc. but I wouldnt call people who openly and voluntarilly supported the fascists -innocent, they've bloody knew very well what they are doing. On one side were the Allies, on other Hitler.
And aslo I must comment your ridiculuous attempt to justify the cooperation with the nazis, like "well...yeah they did cooperate, but ermm.. u know errm..they were no fascists or they didnt kill jews", come on people, you try to convince me that they "selectively" cooperated to certain extent? LIke "well, for killing partisans we'll join- OK, but for hunting jews- no, we r busy". Come on, this sounds so unconvincing.
BTW, nothing "academic" but related to the subject, the poet Petar. T. Boshkovski (recently passed away) who was from village of Ostrilci (where Lyubomir Vesov was kiled by the serbian occupators in the interwar period) told me that he witnessed Steryo Guli or Gulev (bulgarized form) as a quisling during the Bulgarian occupation killing an innocent unarmed villager torturing him to say who betrayed Vesov. Undoubtely Nikola Karev and Pitu Guli were and are extremely popular among the people, but their relatives are another story, so not sure if you can say they are "notable" figures in the history

Also I never agreed that "Mihajlov REFUSED to form a pro-german puppet state", that's what YOU say. What sources claim here (like Jovan Pavlovski) is: Mihailov WANTED to do it, he was A FRIEND WITH THE NAZIS, but he COULDN'T. Who would want to join him? he arrives in Skopje in autumn 1944 after fascism in Bulgaria collapsed and Bulkgaria went on the side of the Allies, after the ASNOM and the forming of the Macedonian state and all that. He and is ideas were highly unpopular without any support at that moment. Fact is that ASNOM was popular among the masses and recognized by the Allies, I mean we already said that ppl such as the gemidzhi Shatev, Vlahov and others took part in it, what do u want more?

it starts to be very sarcastic that whenever I say something: people imediatly jump on me saying "aha! you dont provide any sources! where are the refferences? ur sourced are partisan! aha!" etc..ect.." on the other hand I see quadrilion of articles that quietly exist on wikipedia that dont have any reference or citation or source, nothing (especially such related to Macedonia).

Anyway, its pointless, this is article is private webpage of two persons. --Vbb-sk-mk 13:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Shatev did send this letter - this is a fact. Yes, Dimitrov was pursuing that policy at the time. The contradiction is only in your head since you look at history in a particular way - good communists and bad fascists, good Yugoslav Macedonians and bad vrhovists. Put two and two together and you will figure out how the Yugoslavs learned about the petition. Obviously Dimitrov informed them. As far as Shatev is concerned he was hoping he could get help from someone with authority like Dimitrov and oppose wat the pro-Belgrade guys were doing. He had miscalculated obviously.

About Mihailov refusing - that is what I have read in memories of IMRO veterans (Pando Mladenov, Hristo Ognjanov - who was Mihailov's interpreter at the talks, etc.), this is what Mihailov himself claimed (naturally) but this is also what neutral Palmer and King (who are not in love with Mihailov at all) claim. I have referenced them as a source. No doubt Mihailov would have wanted an independent Macedonia and he would have agreed to set it up in 1941, given the chance. But in 1944 he told the German general - the war is lost, it is too late. The Germans got kind of angry with him and tried to arrest him in Zagreb a few days later but he went into hiding.

Do yourself a favour, mate, and read Palmer and King. I do not know why Jovan Pavlovski is cited as an authority. Gane Todorovski is OK but he is partisan and he is not even a historian. He is a writer. And also, even in the linked interview he does not say the Rila congress sentenced Garvanov to death. The "sentence" was in 1907 and was only by the Sjar district committee, dominated by Sandanski.

About Guli - yes, he shot himself as soon as the partisants entered town. His last words reportedly were: "Are we going again under the Serbian boot?"

About all IMRO members whe were killed by the Yugoslavs during and after 1944: I am not sure you notice but the article does not take sides. It just states facts. Sure the communists were willing to kill them. Sure they portrayed them as fascists and what not. They were heroes to some Macedonians but villains to others. I think the story of the villager and Karev trying to find Vessov's traitor not at all unbelievable. But the article just states the facts, it does not claim those people to be either martyrs or criminals. These views are partisan. We are just stating facts. They were persecuted, some were killed. The article is not passing a judgement.

I do not know what is naive about what I wrote and why you think I should have expected something else from the communist Serboman partisans.

Also, this is not an article about the history of Macedonia as a whole. The partisans are important, ASNOM also is very significant. But we are writing about the Internal organisation. That is what happened, whether you think it is good or bad. (VMRO 15:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC))

More entertaining stuff

QUOTE: Shatev did send this letter - this is a fact. Yes, Dimitrov was pursuing that policy at the time. The contradiction is only in your head since you look at history in a particular way - good communists and bad fascists, good Yugoslav Macedonians and bad vrhovists. Put two and two together and you will figure out how the Yugoslavs learned about the petition. Obviously Dimitrov informed them. As far as Shatev is concerned he was hoping he could get help from someone with authority like Dimitrov and oppose wat the pro-Belgrade guys were doing. He had miscalculated obviously.

RE: Your statements seem to be a complete insult to logical thinking.
If Dimitrov informed the Yugoslav authorities about this, how come Shatev was not persecuted because of that THEN, at that moment??
QUOTE: Катарджиев се позовава по-нататък на направената от Павел Шатев в двора на българската легация в Белград жалба от есента на 1946 г.: той заявил, че македонският език «се сърбизирал», прогонвал се българският език и помолил Георги Димитров да се намеси

Now according to ur ridiculuous logic seems that Tito was quite democratic, Shatev could freely send letters, critise the official policy, this and that...(??!) Shatev of course was ousted, but that was in 1949 (thats three years after what u mention!) . HOW COME HE WAS TOLERATED FOR THIS "SIN" FOR THREE WHOLE YEARS??? Chento was already nicked in 1946!
In that year of Shatev's imprisonment - 1949, People's Republic of Bulgaria as a Cominform country was AGAINST Yugoslavia and that year Dimitrov dies in Moscow. Why, tell me please why would a leader of a Cominform country cooperate with Titoist Yugoslavia on Shatev? why would Cominform Dimitrov betray Shatev to Tito after the Tito-Stalin split in 1948??! (ur statement sounds like this: Stalinist Bulgaria betrays Shatev to titoist Yugoslavia). Why trhe hell such opposing countries would cooperate?? Or maybe Dimitorv's letter to Belgrade was sent in 1946 but was late for several years perhaps??
Maybe it was because of the weather...

I never claimed Shatev was ousted because of the letter!!! The instance of the letter was reported by a Macedonian historian, Katardjiev. Don't argue with me about its factual accuracy. Shatev was indeed purged for his Russian and not Bulgarian connections. It is a wild guess here, but perhaps if Tito learned of Shatev's letter from the Bulgarians prior to 1948, he might not have wanted to touch somebody who was essentially a Russian spy. (VMRO 04:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

BTW Your beloved Dobrin Michev mentions Shatev as a pro-macedonist, check that below.

QUOTE:Now why Jovan Pavlovski is cited as an authority..

RE: and Why Dobrin Michev is cited as authority? he means nothing to me as an "unbiased academic authority" and most probably means nothing to the rest of the Solar system except Bulgaria. Sounds like taxi driver to me. Normally I tried to google for him and his works and I was not suprised to find typical stuff such as as:

I AM SAYING THIS FOR THE LAST TIME. I ALREADY SAID IT 5 TIMES SO PLEASE STOP REPEATING THE SAME STUFF AS IF YOU DID NOT UNDERSTAND ME. IT IS VERY ANNOYING AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. Michev is referenced here because the claim that VMRO organised armed forces in Aegean Macedonia must be referenced. This is not a contentious statement and is agreed upon by Macedonian, Bulgarian and Greek historians. It does not contain any value judgements as to whether those bands were "good" or "bad". Unfortunately, I do not know of a non-partisan source who has written on the subject. I would be just as happy to replace the Michev reference with one from Kolliopoulos or from Mamurovski.

Проф. Добрин Мичев. Антибългарската пропаганда на Скопие - 1995 година (english: The Antibulgarian propagandha of Skopje), then statements like:
Под ръководството на злостния българомразец М. Зафировски - сътрудник в югославската легация в София - тази група започна решителна борба против Хр. Калайджиев и останалите членове на ръководството. Те ги обвиниха, че били “великобългарски шовинисти”; че пречели да се разгърне широка дейност сред бежанците и т.н., и водеха против тях яростна фракционна борба. Постепенно Националният комитет на македонските братства се превърна в център за борба против БРП (к) и България, което криеше сериозни опасности. SOURCE HERE, DONT WORRY ITS A BULGARIAN SOURCE ( english: Under the leadership of the EVIL BULGAROHATER M. Zafirovski - cooperator of the Yugoslav diplomatic mission in Sofia.... etc..etc...)
And you expect me to take this guy seriously.

On the other hand, to make things even more insane, Michev mentions things that are opposing your claims that Shatev was against the "macedonism"! Quote:
След 9 септември 1944 г. по инициатива на БРП (к) бяха положени много усилия за организирането и превъзпитанието на македонските бежански маси в България. Така още на 17 септември 1944 г. група дейци в София се събраха на конференция. Хр. Калайджиев - член на БРП (к) и дългогодишен деец на македонското освободително движение - говори за необходимостта от приобщаването на бежанските организации към политиката на партията и правителството по македонския въпрос, както и към федералната македонска държава. В този дух се изказаха и П. Шатев, П. Шанданов, А. Динев и Ст. Аврамов, като Шатев предложи да се създаде Временен народоосвободителен комитет. Това предложение беше отхвърлено като неотговарящо на традициите и се реши да се създаде временен комитет на македонската емиграция в България.

На 4 и 5 февруари 1945 г. в София се състоя Първият конгрес на македонските бежанци в България. На него присъствуваха 185 делегати от 55 братства, както и делегация от Скопие, ръководена от П. Шатев. Работата на конгреса премина в духа на неправилните постановки на БРП (к) по македонския въпрос - признаване на „македонската нация” и на „македонския език”, прогресивния характер на създаването на HP Македония, възхвала на националната политика на Тито при решаването на македонския въпрос във ФНРЮ и пр. На конгреса Временното представителство направи опит да овладее ръководството на бежанските организации. В него то обаче успя да включи само група, съставена от Ан. Динев, В. Ивановски, Ст. Нанов и Г. Абаджиев. За председател на новото ръководство беше избран Хр. Калайджиев, а за секретар Г. Абаджиев.
So Shatev came to Sofia from Skopje to support the "macedonisation" of the Macedonian population incl. the refugees. So how come he sents those mysterious letters to Dimitrov???

Again, let's not be so narrow-minded. It seems clear to me that there were many brands and versions of Macedonism and Shatev seems to have been from the Bulgarian Communist one. Which lost out to the Yugoslav Communist version. And I doubt he sent the letter to Bulgaria because he really preferred to have standard Bulgarian returned as an official language to Macedonia. As the quote from Katardjiev suggests (and is echoed by Palmer and King) non-YCP "Bulgarian" Macedonists had quite a different view of what the Macedonian language should be. Indeed the early concept of a Macedonian nation formulated by historians like Dinev and Ivanovski is markedly different from the subsequent ethnicisation that occurred in Yugoslav Macedonia. (VMRO 04:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

Ah, and yes, lets not forget Nikola Petrov, ah that "glorius authority", "Who were the partisans" (what a sensationalistic title) and before u even open the book u already know everything: Partisans were an evil serbo-communist organisation invented by the croat Tito (and all that well known rhetorics).

AGAIN, PLEASE STOP REPEATING YOURSELF. Nikola Petrov will go. He will be replaced by primary sources. I have said that several times. (VMRO 04:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

QUOTE: Gane Todorovski is OK but he is partisan and he is not even a historian. He is a writer.

RE: Ok, u may not like him (as u dislike everything that doesn't suit ur political agenda) but he is among other things a historian too. Quote from a BULGARIAN WEBSITE: Гане Тодоровски, Поет, преводач, есеист, литературен критик и историк, публицист. Роден е на 11 май 1929 г. в гр. Скопие. Завършил е Философския факултет на Скопския университет “Св.Св. Кирил и Методий”, където е дългогодишен професор във Фолологическия факултат по Хърватска и македонска литератури. Академик. Автор е на книгите: „В утрините“, „Тревожни звуци“, „Спокойна стъпка“, „Дъга“, „Апотеоз на делника“, „Непремълчани горчиви глътки“, „Скопяни“, „Неволи, безвери, безсъници“, „Непостижима“, „Самотен пътник“ (на английски език) и много други – поезия; „Предходниците на Мисирков“, „Трактати за слънцелюбците“, „Веда Словена“ и „Омагьосан мегдан“ ( литературни анализи), „По-далеко от въодушевлението, по-близо да болката“, „Разговор за словото“, „Поход към „Хеликон“, „Неотложно любопитство“, „Драски и шарка“ – есета, студии, критики, анализи, записки, публицистични текстове… Съставител на антологии… Бивш посланник на Република Македония в Русия.(SOURCE HERE)
От Македония идва акад. Гане Тодоровски, известен поет, литературен критик, историк и преводач.(SOURCE HERE)
After all here in my hands is the book Pavel Shatev "The Solun attentates and the priosners of Fezan" for which Gane wrote the introduction. As for his "partisanship" he is partisan as much as every bulgarian historian is partisan.

He is a literary historian, not a historian. But I agree that his partisanship as as good as that of any current Bulgarian historian or writer for that matter. And again, I rely on a Bulgarian POV only ones (Petrov) and that will go away. End of discussion. (VMRO 04:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

QUOTE: And also, even in the linked interview he does not say the Rila congress sentenced Garvanov to death. The "sentence" was in 1907 and was only by the Sjar district committee, dominated by Sandanski

RE: I dont know about Rila Congress, I just said that Gane says the Organization issued a death sentence to Sarafov and Garvanov. You see he says so, just like Zoran Todorovski SPECULATES and SPECULATES freely in the article.

The death sentence was from the Sjar committee under Sandanski. End of discussion. (VMRO 04:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

QUOTE: About Guli - yes, he shot himself as soon as the partisants entered town. His last words reportedly were: "Are we going again under the Serbian boot?"

RE: In that case why u still keep him as an example of post-war persecutions in the article?? He shot himself, he was not among the persecuted, he couldnt be, HE WAS DEAD. HE WAS DEAD AS A DODO. See this quote: On the other hand, former Mihailovists were also persecuted by the Belgrade-controlled authorities on accusations of collaboration with the Bulgarian occupation, Bulgarian nationalism, anti-communist and anti-Yugoslav activities, etc. Notable victims included Georgi Karev, the mayor of Krushevo during the Bulgarian occupation and brother of Ilinden revolutionary Nikola Karev and Sterio Guli, son of Pitu Guli

Removed. (VMRO 04:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

QUOTE: I think the story of the villager and Karev trying to find Vessov's traitor not at all unbelievable.

RE: Guli...Guli...

My bad.

QUOTE: you look at history in a particular way - good communists and bad fascists

RE: what should I say? Good fascists?, well that would be an oxymoron

In most other post-communist countries, the Communist interpretation of all anti-communists as fascists has been seriously challenged and discredited. It is interesting to see that you still cling to it. IMRO people were neither good, nor bad fascists. They simply were not fascists. (VMRO 04:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

QUOTE: I do not know what is naive about what I wrote and why you think I should have expected something else from the communist Serboman partisans.
and:
Tempo's partizans, who were mostly Serbian, Albanian and Macedonian with Serbian leanings

RE: yeah, ah that SERBOman CROAT-Slovene Tito who shot the serbian chetnik leader Draza Mihajlovic and partitioned Serbia into three
BTW were Stiv Naumov, Mite Bogoevski, Mirche Acev, Cvetan Dimov, Vasil Antevski- Dren etc also serboman communist partisans?! General Apostolski entered Aegean Macedonia with his partisan army to spread SERBO-communist Yugoslavia led by the CROAT Tito or what??

QUOTE: As the Yugoslav regime suppressed all non-communist activities and didn't tolerate existence of any possibly competitive movement, soon most of the left-wing IMRO government officials, including Pavel Shatev and Panko Brashnarov

RE: Brashnarov was actually a member of the Yugoslav Communist Party since it's very beginning (1919) and a HARD LINE COMMUNIST, the statement in the article is somewhat a contradiction.
how come he was suppressed as a non-communist by the communist authorities when he was a hard core communist?????!!!! His BIOGRAPHY HERE (on the offical website of his hometown Veles)
He was ousted 'PURELY for his support of Cominform after Tito-Stalin split in 1948 and his case is not related to any "pro-bulgarian bias blabla". Brashnarov openly accepted the Resolution of Informbiro.
Similar with Shatev. Shatev was communist, after all IMRO (United) was pro-communist. He was ousted in 1949 after the Cominform, until then he was on high positions. i see no trace of "pro-bulgarian leanings"
i gave u examples from ur beloved Dobrin Michev (you like him, he is a non-partisan neutral 100% pro-bulgarian source). According to him Shatev not only supported the macedonism but he was in the delegations from yugoslavia to Dimitrov's Bulgaria to spread that same MACEDONISM --Vbb-sk-mk 18:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Vbb-sk-mk, may I beg you for three things? First, try to write more coherently and define your theses clearly. Second, please, don't open separate new discussion every time you answer to someone, in fact most of your "new discussions" belong to one and the same circle of problems. Third, you have to understand at last that this concrete article concerns the revolutionary stream, named MRO/BMARC/SMARO/IMARO/IMRO, but not the whole history of Macedonia. Best wishes from me! - Jackanapes 16:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

P. s. I think it will be more usefully to integrate all your similar debates in one big topic. What would you say about this idea? - Jackanapes 17:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Vbb-sk-mk, I will answer you towards the end of the week when I have more time. You raise a couple of valid points but the rest is really not so constructive in my view. Perhaps we should try the step-by-step apporach suggested above. We should open new sections devoted to particular issues, not for a long mix of complaints. We kind of had a nice long discussion about Todor Alexandrov for example. Let's keep section thematically organised.

P.S. Why don't you take a crack at an article devoted to НОБ or whatever you want to call it? Complete with NPOV references, etc. A lot of the things we discuss belong there and not in "IMRO". (VMRO 23:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

VMRO, thank you for your efforts to make this article as much NPOV as it can be. We share conflicting POVs about the same organization, and I still think that this article heavily reflects a Bulgarian bias, but, however, I hope that we will work out something more neutral. So, if everything is OK with the opening paragraph, I suggest that we move to the Origins and goals subsection. --FlavrSavr 02:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, FlavrSavr, the Organisation is what it is, I am sorry it does not fit into the modern Macedonian (or Bulgarian for that matter) concept of nationalism. I have not had a chance to answer Mr. Vbb-sk-mk's comments yet even. Беф мошне зафатен со други работи. Сепак Уикипедиата не ми е професия. But anyway, let us know what you disagree with in section one and please also let us know what sources you have in mind. Perhaps a section for each point is warranted in the discussion. (VMRO 06:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC))

Origins and goals section

OK, first of all, I believe that this section should put more emphasis on the fact that there is a major dispute about both the origins (name, first statute, etc.) and the goals of the organization between the Republic of Macedonia and Bulgaria. If there's an international view on this matter, that's probably best described by Britannica (a neutral and reliable source) which regards the organization as secret revolutionary society that operated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to make Macedonia an autonomous state but that later became an agent serving Bulgarian interests in Balkan politics. ... IMRO adopted the slogan “Macedonia for the Macedonians“... [5] --FlavrSavr 02:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

More from the same article, the full edition: Having swiftly gained widespread support among the Christian Slav populations of Macedonia, IMRO began violent anti-Turkish activities in 1897 and in 1903 staged a major but unsuccessful rebellion that was also supported by a parallel, pro-Bulgarian organization, Vzhovists.... By the end of World War I, however, IMRO's indiscriminate and unprincipled use of terror had alienated both its Macedonian and Bulgarian supporters. --FlavrSavr 02:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, note that Britannica primarily consders that IMRO was an organization of Macedonians (moreover, this is not the "regional meaning of the word), but later became an agent serving Bulgarian interests. Note also that nowhere does Britannica label its revolutionaries as "Bulgarians" - why so? This is a general remark, I will propose more tangible changes in the following period. --FlavrSavr 02:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Macedonians as ethnic group in the 19th century? Yeah right. Also Christian Slav population = Bulgarian. Revolutionaries are Bulgarian because 1. Most of them were in BMARC 2. Most of them identified as Bulgarian.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Britannica is detailed enought to capture the nuances. True - the original IMRO fought for an autonomous Macedonia but not because they did not consider the Slavs of Macedonia Bulgarian. In fact, serious Western accounts (Banac, Mazower, etc.) agree with the Bulgarian identity of the IMRO founders. Take Duncan Perry, he is the best authority on the 1893-1903 IMRO. He agrees with the Bulgarian stance on the naming (BMORK, etc.), mentions Goce Delchev regarding himself as Bulgarian, etc. Recently you can read Mazower's Salonika, Nadine Lange-Akhund's book, Aarbakke's book, Keith Brown's book, etc. These are detailed works by impartial scholars.

Another point - main Macedonian historians today (Katardjiev and Ristovski) as well as in the past (Dinev, etc.) acknowledge the Bulgarian ethnic identity of the IMRO founders. And the founders themselves have left letters, articles, etc. identifying as Bulgarians.

Was VMRO later an agent of the Bulgarian government? This is a politically biased view. I would say that at times the Bulgarian government was an agent of IMRO. The relationship was complex but IMRO was never (except in 1915-1918) annexationist. Always for an autonomous and later an independent Macedonia.

What VMRO was NOT - an openly Bulgarian nationalistic organisation. Some members may have been nationalist but it was never the organisation's policy.

It is Friday night, I am going out. Bye for now! (VMRO 02:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

It's good to know that we have a life outside Wikipedia, no? :) Now, now, my point was not to emphasise that IMRO founders had an ethnic Macedonian identity. The main issue is that labeling IMRO revolutionaries as Bulgarian and Macedonian is endorsing a POV - we should leave their work speak for itself. They identified as both Bulgarian and Macedonian, and they really belong to the both countries' history. Bulgarians easily dismiss the Macedonian patriotism as a mere regionalism, but from a historical perspective, there's more to it than a "regional" identity if things are put in relation to the emerging appearances of a distinct Macedonian ethnic identity (Pulevski, the Kresna Uprising). Most modern historians are especially cautious when speaking about the ethnic affiliation of the IMRO members, and they usually use a complex interdisciplinary approach when it comes to determining national/regional/ethnic identity. --FlavrSavr 09:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I really do not think you can put Pulevski and the IMRO guys in the same group. His concept of Macedonianness is an ethnic one. Theirs was not. It is not regionalism - regionalism would be some less forceful (than a nationalism) manifestation of Macedonian Slav ethnic peculiarities. This is not the case with Macedonian revolutionaries of the IMRO. Their Macedonian patriotism is supranational and aims to encompass the Bulgarians, Greeks, Albanians, Vlachs and Turks of Macedonia. Also, while a quasi-ethnic regionalism can be detected among people like Shapkarev, Dimitar Makedonski, this does not seem to have been a question for the IMRO guys, who come from a generation already raised in a "standard Bulgarian" cultural millieu. Their letters are in Bulgarian, their publications and documets are as well and what is more they refer to Slav Macedonians as Bulgarians. They also are quite happy to teach standard Bulgarian in Exarchist schools. So yes, they did identify as both Bulgarian and Macedonian but these are not both ethinc terms for them. (VMRO 16:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

I do think that there is some sort of a process of ethnicisation of this Macedonian patriotism but it will not crystallise until the 20's and 30's even. I want to send you a good article to read if you give me your e-mail. (VMRO 16:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

It's interesting that you mention Perry, because he seems to have said this [6]:

Macedonia had been the focus of the irredentist aspirations of neighboring countries for more than a century and Macedonian national consciousness was suppressed in the 19th century and for roughly the first half of the 20thcentury. It was only with the creation of the second Yugoslavia that Macedonians could claim their history, language, and culture. When this occurred, IMRO and Ilinden stood out as rallying points for Macedonians seeking to affirm their national identity.

I actually was at the conference where the speeches referred to on this website were given (it was at Columbia University). I do agree that Perry seemed far more "Macedonist" then than in his book. Not sure if he mentioned suppression of Macedonian national consciousness however. This summary is not his own abstract. In an case, the conference was co-organised by the Macedonian consulate and was not an academic conference but one to commemorate the beginning of Macedonian statehood. Other speakers were Ristovski and Gligorov. It is natural to try to please the hosts, isn't it? (VMRO 16:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

You are wrong to say that Katardjiev and Ristovski acknowledge the Bulgarian ethnic identity of IMARO activists - they regard the "Bulgarian" identification as a natural result of the educational monopoly of the Bulgarian Exarchate. To put it simple, nothing is simple. I can bring out more sources and arguments, however, I believe that when it comes to the ethnic identity of the IMRO members, oversimplification ("Bulgarian revolutionaries") is equal with POV pushing. --FlavrSavr 09:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is true but it is Bulgarian nonetheless. The Bulgarian identity in the Principality of Bulgaria was also very much a result of the educational monopoly of the Bulgarian state. National identities are constructed, no doubt. But it is not the case that there is some genuine Bulgarian identity in Moesia and Thrace and that the Bulgarian identity in Macedonia is somehow artificial. (VMRO 16:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

I do not like the term "Bulgarian revolutionaries" either. These guys were ethnically Bulgarian according to their own words but they were not doing a revolution in Bulgaria. That one had happened some time ago. It is definitely the case that they considered themselves heirs of the Bulgarian revolutionary tradition: the organisation they formed was modelled after earlier Bulgarian organisations, the patriotic songs and poems they circulated were those of Botev, Stambolov and Chintulov, etc. But I am sure they saw themselves as Macedonian revolutionaries. Macedonian in a supranational and non-ethnic sense. (VMRO 16:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Dear VMRO, I'm afraid you make a step beyond the sense of majority of the historical records like d-r Tatarchev's memoirs and documents like this:

Писмо на Главниот штаб на Вториот македонско-одрински револуционерен округ до Бугарската влада во врска со положбата на востанатото население и барање на помош од страна на Бугарија – 9 септември 1903 година

До

Почитуваната Влада

на Кнежеството Бугарија

Со оглед на критичката и ужасна положба, во која се најде бугарското население од Битолскиот вилает по извршените опустошувања и ѕверства од турската војска и башибозук, со оглед на тоа, дека тие опустошувања и ѕверства на систематски начин продолжуваат и не може да се предвиди до каде ќе отидат; со оглед и на тоа, дека тука сe бугарско ризикува да изгине и се затре без спомен од насилства, глад и настапувачката мизерија. Главниот штаб смета за свој долг да му обрне внимание на Почитуваната Бугарска Влада на катастрофалните последици за бугарската нација, ако таа не си го исполни својот долг спрема своите еднородни браќа тука на еден впечатлив и активен начин, како што се налага од силата на околностите и опасноста, која што ја загрозува бугарската татковина денес.

Верувајќи, дека Почитуваната Влада е доволно запозната со конечното опустошување на вилаетот, ние сметаме за излишно тука да ги повторуваме фактите со нивните подробности, а ќе се ограничиме само да ја резимираме во неколку точки создадената положба на нашиот народ и грозните последици од него.

1. Како во изгорените или напуштените, така и во останатите бугарски села, со мали исклучоци неизгорениот дел од реколтата остана неприбрана, затоа што секоја жена или маж, кои би се појавиле пред очите на заталканиот аскер и башибозук, бидува убиен – храната се прибира постојано од од турското население под заштита на турската власт. Голем дел од неа, како и од грабнатиот добиток, се употребува за издршка на војската.

2. Сите материјали, орудија и рогат добиток, со кои се обработуваше земјата, изгореа во запалените села, а во останатите беа грабнати од војската и башибозукот...

Please, translate this passage to our non-Balkan friends (link). Some leaders of Ilinden uprising defended the idea for insurrection in this moment with suggestions for expected and desired (even allegedly unofficially promised!) intervention of the Bulgarian army, obviously not in the name of any separation from Bulgaria, according to Memoirs of Dame Gruev:

На конгресот ја прикажав положбата онаква каква што е: сметав за безумно да се премолчува дека некои реони воопшто не се подготвени, и дека нема да земат учество. Со Сарафов се сретнав за првпат во Смилево дома кај мене. На конгресот Сарафов беше категорички за акции. Имаше мислење порано да се започне со востанието. Не верувавме дека Турците ќе се решат да прибегнат до толкава жестокост, сосем да го сотираат населението. Сарафов во доверба кажуваше дека некој министер рекол оти ако бидеме во состојба да задржиме 60.000 турска војска, Бугарија ќе се смешала. И јас најпосле допуштив дека може да дојде до тоа.

English translation: "At the congress I described the situation such as it is: I considered it is a lunacy to be passed over in silence that some regions aren't prepared at all and they will not participate. I first met Sarafov in Smilevo in my home. At the congress Sarafov was categorically for actions. There was thinking the insurrection should begin earlier. We didn't believe that Turks will decide to resort to such violence, to exterminate the population totally. Sarafov confidentially said that some cabinet minister told if we are able to stem 60 000 Turkish army, Bulgaria will intervene. In the end I supposed that it could come to that." - Jackanapes 23:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you overemphasize supranational and non-ethnic elements in the conceptions of early "IMRO guys", especially these of some radical socialist and anarchist groups. The autonomy was first tactical aim, but nevertheless the unification with Bulgaria was the final widespread wish (with Ser region as an exception to the rule). The period 1915-1918 was perceived as realization of the aims of previous revolutionary struggle, wasn't it?

By the way, where is the place of the Adrianople revolutionaries in this dispute? ;-) - Jackanapes 22:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

We really cannot say say what the "final wish" was. This is an "exercise in hermeneutics" that is typical of nationalist hitoriography. Bulgarian historians really want to see the autonomism as a mere tactics and a step to unification. Macedonian historians really want to see it as some sort of manfestation of ethnic separateness, even though in their view those guys were not yet conscious Macedonians. Both I think are wrong. All IMRO people, left and right, have left substantial evidence that does not allow us to question their Bulgarian national affiliation. But even the right wing has always officially paid homage to the idea that the organisation must be separate from Bulgaria. So let's not try to guess their intimate thoughts and motivations. (VMRO 23:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Dear VMRO, excuse me, but... your arguments are of pure abstract nature, spiced with horrible word nationalism. By the way, I don't think my position is similar to the nationalist part of Bulgarian historiography. I offer you concrete documents, which could not allow me to accept the idea that the widespread wishes and expectations among the revolutionary movement and especially its leaders weren't connected with Bulgaria at all. I could add more texts with such meaning. There were different views, for example in these times there was even some kind of "deification" of Bulgarian state among some Macedonians, recorded and stimulated from the same MRO/BMARC/SMARO/IMARO/IMRO revolutionaries. Nevertheless, the process of estrangement to Bulgaria and Bulgarianness was fact and some elements of Macedonian patriotism seemed like inceptive ethnicisation, but it was sensibly stronger in the later periods. We have to be more complete in our efforts, let's try to portray the overall picture. It sounds strange, but I suppose for many early IMARO activists "paying homage to the idea that the organisation must be separate from Bulgaria" could be preformulated as "paying homage to the idea that the organisation must be separate from Bulgaria until unification". Otherwise how could we be able to explain why IMARO was annexationist in 1915-1918 for example. Jackanapes 00:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, as Bazhdarov points out in his memoirs, everybody was happy with annexation as long as the war was going on. Even the leftists like Vlahov got cushy government jobs. But I cannot take this as proof that EVERYBODY in IM(O)RO, given the choice, would have opted for unification with Bulgaria had a Macedonian autonomy been established. Looking at people like G. Petrov, Sandanski and Hadjidimov, I would have said that they opposed unification on political grounds, not on ethnic grounds. They were anarchists, socialists, whatever. I think Alexo Martulkov reports in his memoirs that after the capture of Salonica Sandanski drank a toast to the new "Autonomous Macedonia" and was almost beaten up by the Bulgarian officers around. Yet, two years afterwards we see him as Ferdinand's secret envoy to Albania. On the other hand, the right wing guys were probably, and I emphasise probably, much more likely to see unification with Bulgaria as a natural final outcome of Macedonian autonomy. Again exceptions might have existed in both camps. (VMRO 05:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC))

Let's not to try to guess their intimate thoughts and motivations - hm, dear VMRO, it seems that you suggest this simply because there are conceptions different from these shared from you, let's remind what you have written above: "But I am sure they saw themselves..." The same sin with different substance. Best wishes from me! - Jackanapes 00:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you have a point here. I was wrong to say that. It is just my own subjective impression from reading a lot of documents, books, etc. that there was definitely a quite natural process going on of differentiation of Macedonians from the rest of the Bulgarians. Not a conscious ethnic one at first but later got ethnicised for various reasons and under various influences. The thrid Union campaign in the 1870's, the Lozars, etc. No doubt some Serbian and Greek encouragement here and there but there was a local basis for separatism. Even within IMRO you have people like Poparsov whose devotion to the Bulgarian state is hardly existent. Things are not black and white. (VMRO 05:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC))

Send me an e-mail. I want to send you an article that in many ways coincides with my views. Same goes for FlavrSvr and Vbb=sk-mk. (VMRO 01:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

I'm glad to see my position proved by you, dear VMRO: "I think Alexo Martulkov reports in his memoirs that after the capture of Salonica Sandanski drank a toast to the new "Autonomous Macedonia" and was almost beaten up by the Bulgarian officers around. Yet, two years afterwards we see him as Ferdinand's secret envoy to Albania. On the other hand, the right wing guys were probably, and I emphasise probably, much more likely to see unification with Bulgaria as a natural final outcome of Macedonian autonomy." As I already said, the idea of autonomy wasn't rectilinear and often was accepted quite ambiguously. I suppose the perspective for unification with Bulgaria seemed as natural development not only for the right wing, but also for many leftists (cases like Hristo Chernopeev, Delchev's words "Разбира се, друго е, ако бихме имали една нова гръцко-турска или някоя сръбско-турска, или най-после българо-турска война; обаче лошо бихме отплатили на България за многобройните нейни жертви подир нас, ако искаме да я вкараме боса в огъня.", etc.). So I can't accept overemphasization on supranational elements in IMARO movement and the idea that unification with Bulgaria was really impossible and seemed undesirable for the dominant part of IMARO activists - we should compare Sandanski's behaviour with universal annexationism during the First World War. I'm afraid present variant isn't balanced in the desired degree, there are symptoms of selective treatment. End of the dispute, as user VMRO likes to say. :-) - Jackanapes 08:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

VMRO, Bulgarian Exarchate Macedonians seem like a reasonable compromise, because after all, the organization was mostly run by teachers of the Bulgarian Exarchate, and moreover "Bulgarian" also indicated a religious affiliation. I'll make this minor change. However, it should be noted that not all IMRO founders looked so favorably on the Exarchate. For example, let's see what Petar Pop-Arsov has to say:

...Take away a man's field of action - he's already dead: that's how our "kind" Exarchate with it's two divisions, wanting to take away the noble field of work of our municipalities by the ways of its authority, wants to mortify them, to kill them!... Help us, all you honourable Macedonians! Let's save the dying municipalities in Macedonia, with whom they want us to transform to a dead corpse to play with us, like our alleged brothers want to!...

The Exarchate entrusts the highest posts to Bulgarians: suffragans, archimandrites, directors, inspectors, teachers, accountants, editors etc. etc. and from the posts it removes the conscious Macedonians against whom all legal and illegal means are used to be removed from their fatherland... - The Stamobovism in Macedonia and its representatives, Vienna, 1894 --FlavrSavr 02:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I saw that you've already done the changes. It's better. --FlavrSavr 02:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You are taking Poparsov a bit out of context here. He uses "Macedonian Bulgarians" and "Bulgaro-Macedonians" in the same document you cite (it is not from Vienna at any rate, in reality it was published in Sofia). But he is critical of the Exarchate's policies as was Gjorche Petrov for example. Nevertheless, they remained exarchist. Seems to me that their opposition was to the Exarchate's authoritarian and anti-revolutionary ways, rather than its polic of education and church service in the Bulgarian language. Although Poparsov does decry the "manufacturing of Bulgarians". Read the stuff I sent you.

The claim that Bulgarian is a religious affiliation is also a bit of a stretch. I doubt people switched from the Patriarchate to the Exarchate for religious reasons. Some Vlachs were Exarchate members but they were not considered Bulgarians for example. It is just that a Romanian church was established relative late in Macedonian and the Exarchate offered them the opportunity of a Romanian church service. (VMRO 02:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

But at any rate I agree that Poparsov is a very "problematic" Bulgarian. He was educated in Belgrade on a Serbian stipend, he must have been exposed to the Serbian ideas of Novkovich. Just like Gruev, by the way, who remained a "Bulgarian nationalist" and a leader of the "right wing". Poparsov did not participate in Ilinden, we later see him collaborating with Misirkov in 1910 and Chupovski in 1914, two people that were not at all dear to the IMORO. Ristovski claims that IMORO centralists harassed Misirkov for example. (VMRO 03:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

First citation

I think we should replace the first citation with Hadzinikolov' five basic principles of the organization:

1. The revolutionary organization should be established within Macedonia and should act there, so that the Greeks and Serbs couldn't label it as a tool of the Bulgarian government.
2. Its founders should be locals and living in Macedonia.
3. The political motto of the organization should be the autonomy of Macedonia.
4. The organization should be secret and independent, without any links with the governments of the liberated neighborly states, and
5. From the Macedonian emigration in Bulgaria and the Bulgarian society, only moral and material help for the struggle of the Macedonian revolutionaries should be required.

There are two basic reasons for this. Hadzinikolov's principles are simple, understandable, and visually plausible, as well. Moreover, they do not contradict with any of the founders and revolutionaries' actions and beliefs. No one except Tatarchev mentions the possibility of Bulgarian annexation. I doubt that Poparsov wanted union with Bulgaria after writing "Stambolovism", and according to Joseph Swire, Gruev was against Bulgarian annexation, as well, "knowing Bulgarian domination would never appeal to non-Slav Macedonians, nor many Slavs themselves". According to Chavdar Marinov, the idea of Macedonia being part of the Bulgaria, was not only impossible, but undesirable, as well. How else should Sandanski's behaviour be understood? --FlavrSavr 12:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal rejected. We could add Hadzhinikolov's conception (although, I'm afraid, the same ideas are already explained more than well in the article), but we can't deny that Tatarchev's words undoubtedly are the first program of MRO/BMARC/... and it was centered around dominance of Bulgarian element in Macedonia and unification with Bulgaria as major goals. - Jackanapes 09:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that you seem to think that this article is your personal belonging. Such arrogant behaviour will get you nowhere. If we accept Britannica as mainstream, that means that the general view is that IMRO generally had supranational characteristics. I've cited Britannica, Swire, Marinov (a Bulgarian), and from original sources you can check Sandanski, Karev, Poparsov... Your position that we can't deny that Tatarchev's words undoubtedly are the first program of MRO/BMARC/ is quite frail... I can also say that we can't deny that Poparsov's words undoubtedly are the first program of ..., and more importantly I can say that Britannnica never mentions that the goal was unification with Bulgaria. Dismissing reliable sources as a "speculation" is generally a bad move. Now, I can conclude that the paragraph as it is, is creating an undue weight, is generally based on original research in order of emphasizing a certain user's POV. --FlavrSavr 12:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I really have no time to deal with this until the weekend but I think the cited text (Hadzhinikolov) should stay. In fact, I think it would complement Tatarchev and other founders' memoirs rather than contradict it. It is best to include as many of those as possible provided they are translated intelligently and sourced well. (VMRO 12:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC))

By the way, here is a larger excerpt of Hadzhinikolov's memoirs: (VMRO 12:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC))

“...From 1888 the Serbian propaganda in Macedonia became very active and began to attack even the Solun high school. With many and big words the Serbian agitators succeeded in misleading about forty students from the high school and sent them to Belgrade but after a year’s stay they ran away to Sofia. the same propaganda spends hoards of money to open Serbian schools all over Macedonia, bribing a few people in each settlement. The Turkish government and the Constantinople Patriarchate were at their service. Knowing that there are no Serbs in Macedonia I became very indignant at these activities of the Serbian agitators. In my attempt at finding a way to counteract this propaganda I came to the conclusion that only an underground revolutionary organisation could neutralise the foreign propaganda in Macedonia and it would be the strongest and most reliable factor for the preservation of Bulgarianism in Macedonia and would help the moral and economic consolidation of the population. In my speculations on the formation of a revolutionary organisation I foresaw that I will encounter difficulties on the part of the Exarchate, which led authoritarian policy in the church and in the schools: it appointed and dismissed the school teachers and the vicars. That is why I began to look for followers among the citizens who held views if decentralisation in religious and educational matters. I found supporters in the person of Petar Poparsov and Dimitar Tsonev and later in Dr. Hristo Tatarchev, a school doctor. I did not rely on other colleagues from Macedonia as I knew their views and character.

In May 1892 the chairman of the Bulgarian Solun municipality the rev. Ivan Madjarov met me in the street and said to me: “I am coming from the municipality. I went to ask the vali again to order the opening of the church in the village of Novo Selo (district of Solun) where exarchists and patriarchists could go to church even though the village consisted of two houses. That is what he answered me: “Damn your schools and churches! Listen to me priest! We shall put up with you one or two years more. After two years we shall leave you come to grips with the Serbs and the Greeks and shall watch the show.”” The cynical words of the vali Zehni Pasha made my blood boil and I decided to start organising the underground movement as soon as possible. I had already four adherents at my disposal: P. Poparsov, Dr. Hristo Tatarchev, Dimitar Tsonev and Hristo Batandjiev. But I thought we were very few. Besides, I wanted to have someone among us with greater authority and more experienced in conspiratiorial work. I did not find such a person among the intellectuals in Solun, neither in Macedonia in general. That is why I decided to go to Sofia during the holidays and find such a man among the emigration.

In June 1892 I left for Sofia. There I met K. Shahov and disclosed my plans to him and he recommended Gotse Delchev, still a cadet, as a suitable and authoritative man. Shahov made an appointment with him for the following Sunday when cadets could leave the school. When we met I described the development of the national cause in Macedonia, told them about the threat of the vali and about the results of the Serbian propaganda and put one queston to them: “Isn’t it time we founded a revolutionary organisation in Macedonia?” Both answered affirmatively. But they wanted me to describe to them what, in my opinion, the principles of the secret organisation should be. I gave them the following answer:

1. The revolutionary organisation should be founded in Macedonia and be active there so that the Greeks and the Serbians should not consider it a weapon of the Bulgarian government.

2. Its founders should be native citizens living in Macedonia.

3. The political slogan of the organisation should be “Autonomy for Macedonia”.

4. The organisation should be secret and independent and should not establish contacts with the governments of neighbouring countries.

5. It should ask the Macedonians in Bulgaria and the whole Bulgarian people only for moral and material support for the struggle of the Macedonian revolutionaries.

We discussed the five basic principles and agreed fully on all scores. As far as the authoritative person was concerned, after exchanging opinions with Shahov and me, Gotse said: “Look here, Mr. Hadjinikolov, so much time has passed, let another year go by. I am graduating from the military school next year and I do not intend to remain an officer in the Bulgarian army. I’ll return to Macedonia, then I’ll come to Solun and we shall talk it over again and if there are opportunities, we will form the organization.” I parted with Gotse and expressed my hope to see him in Solun next summer."

“Iljustratsija Ilinden”, Sofija, 1936, book I, pp. 4-5; the original in Bulgarian

And this is Dame Gruev: (VMRO 13:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC))

"After the assassination of minister Belchev in Sofia I became for the first time aware of my desire to work for the Macedonian cause. THree or four months before that we, the Macedonian students at the University decided to organise in the name of self-education and mutual influence. The purpose of this was, after completing our education, to return to Macedonia, which stood in great need of intellectual power. In this narrow intimate circle of ours was born the idea of creating a revolutionary organisation in Macedonia. As the Serbian propaganda had already begun its activity, we were shocked and thought that we had to hasten and put on the agenda the idea of the liberation of Macedonia before the Serbian propaganda gained momentum and managed to divide the people. We had experienced the the activities of this propaganda. It had agititators both in Skopje and Solun. They promised and gave us scholarships. It was then when I and several other Macedonians went to Belgrade. THere we were able to perceiove the intentions of the Serbs by the repeated efforts to impress on us the Serbian idea and to impose the Serbian language on us, which irritatd us still more.

...In Sofia the chief members of our "society" were Hr. pop Kotsev, D. Mirchev, N. Dejkov (secretary to an esquire, born in Prilep, at present a lawyer in Lukovit), pop Arsov. We intended mainly to insist on the application of the Berlin Treaty. We wanted to create an organisation after the model of the organisation in Bulgaria before the Liberation, following the example of Botev, Levski, Benkovski. etc. We studied the hgistory and structure of that organisation. We were influenced by the "Notes" of Zahary Stojanov and other Bulgarian revolutionary publications of the time. We had also studied the history of the Serbian movements.

...I spent the following year in Solun in the printing shop of Semerdjiev. There I met someold comrades: pop Arsov, Andon Dimitrov (born in the vilage of Ajvatovo near Solun, member of the Bitolja district court at that time), Dr. Hristo Tatarchev, Hadjinikolov (from Kukush), Hristo Batandjiev (from Gjumendje, secretary of the Solun municipality). We renewed our old intentions. We grouped together and jointly worked out a statute. It was based on the same principles: demand for the implementation of the Berlin Treaty. The statute was worked out after the model of the Bulgarian revolutionary organisation before the Liberation. Our motto was "Implementaton of the resolutions of the Berlin Treaty". We established a "Central Committee" with branches, membership fees , etc. Swearing in for each member was also envisaged. In the regulations there was nothing concerning the Serbian propaganda but we intended to counteract it by enlightening the people. This was during the academic year of 1893 - 1894.

Materials about the History of the Macedonian Liberation Movement, Book 5, Memoirs of Damjan Gruev, Boris Sarafov and Ivan Garvanov, Sofia 1927, pp. 8 - 11; the original in Bulgarian.

I agree with VMRO - the addition of new information is much better than the replacement of already quoted texts. - Jackanapes 14:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Name

OK, after a break, I'm back again. The name of the organization is the issue. As I've shown on the Goce Delchev's talk page, it is impossible that the name of the organization was BMARC as late as 1902. There are also some logical considerations, such as the impossibility of including large numbers of Vlachs in that period, if you have a statute made exclusively for "Bulgarians". We might present the views that exist in RoM and Bulgaria. I believe that Bulgarian historians are definitely wrong when it comes to BMARC as late as 1902 - the evidence against is quite strong. See the letters. Changes should be made in the text. --FlavrSavr 22:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have source for this impossibility, or does it exist only in your head?   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have a short memory, I guess. Let me remind you of our conversation. Voilà! --FlavrSavr 00:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources that GD was a member of SMARO in 1898

Here are my sources (to be honest, I didn't expect to find such an explicit statement that GD was the leader of SMARO, not BMARC in 1898)

• A letter from Goce Delchev to the Archibishop Menini

11 july 1898

Foreign representation of SMARO Sofia

To His Excellency The Archibishop of Plovdiv Mr. Mennini

... Our SMARO is nowadays labeled a terrorist organisation from many representatives of the Christian states, firstly because of the ignorance of our struggle, and secondly because of the personal interests of their states...

The letter is signed by Gjorgji (Goce) Delchev. There is also a similar letter to the same person (Archibishop Menini, send on 3 July 1898, in which again he is a member of SMARO. I'm too lazy at the moment to translate the SMARO parts of that letter).

As per: Archivio della S. Congregazione de Propaganda Fide - Indice della Ponenza di Luglio 1898, Somm. II, 8, f. 4 - 18 - Разгледи, XIII/9-10 (1971), 978-980.

--FlavrSavr 02:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• A letter from Archibishop Menini to the Holy Congregation for the Propaganda of the Faith

12 july 1898

Plovdiv Holy Archibishopry no. 398 12 july 1898 Plovdiv

To the Holy Congregation for the Propaganda of the Faith Rome

Your Eminency, Enclosed to this letter are the two letters which I have received from the representative of the Secret Macedonian-Adrianople Organisation Gjorgji Delchev related to the given favors to some Macedonian revolutionaries...

As per: Archivio della S. Congregazione de Propaganda Fide - Indice della Ponenza di Luglio 1898, Somm. II, 8, f. 4 - 18 - Разгледи, XIII/9-10 (1971), 980-982.

Several instances of "SMARO" appear throughout the letter, and it is pretty clear that: "the Secret organisations, that carries the name SMARO is the biggest enemy of the peace in this part of the world", that is, SMARO is IMARO.

Given the above said, I'm uploading the SMARO statute as parallel to the BMARC statute, and I'm expecting that you will provide the sources above. --FlavrSavr 02:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And your memory is even shorter, or you've gotten lamer since last time. The sources for BMARC are on the Petar Pop-Arsov's page and several other Bulgarian revolutionaries.   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, is that Fikret Adanir, of which you never gave me the actual quote? And how it is possible that the SMARO statute was introduced in 1902, while surprisingly, Goce Delchev uses it in 1898? Oh, I forgot, he used it unofficially. The real and official name was BMARC, which, again surprisingly, does not appear to be on any document signed by any actual revolutionaries. Lame? --FlavrSavr 00:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Buy the book and read it. There are other sources as well, Pouton, Perry. Yes, lame, because at some point you agreed that both things might have coexisted. And yes, you've made some progress, amazing as it is, away from lameness. Remember those wonderful times.   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Co-existed? Hardly, but not problable since it's absurd to have conflicting constitutions, one alowing entrance exclusively to "Bulgarians" while other to "Macedonians". --FlavrSavr 00:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

And who are you to tell whats absurd and what not? What are your credentials? It did not allow only Macedonians, remember, the "A" stands for Adrianopolitans. Macedonians largely includes Bulgarians, as well as Adrianopolitans largely includes Bulgarians. Are you going to make fun of yourself and claim Adrianopolitans form a separate ethnic group?   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My credentials are common sense and logic. Your interpretation is as valid, as Pitu Guli is Bulgarian (!). No matter what authority tells me that 2 + 2 = 5, that will always be absurd. 1898 is 1898. VMRO, please enter this discussion. It's getting absurd for me to talk to a wall. I have better things to do. --FlavrSavr 00:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

People are whatever they choose to declare. Take Lyubcho Georgievski, he obviously declared Bulgarian, although in your mind there's probably no doubt he is as ethnic as you are. How do you know Pitu Guli's parents was not originally Vlach but some other ethnicity. The wall by the way is you youself my frined, I'm simply turning around your arguments.   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Vatican sources

I am not familiar with these letters and the naming dispute as a whole. I see they have been published in 1971 but from the translation it is not clear whether they talk about the Secret Macedono-Adrianople Revolutionary Organisation or a secret Macedonian organisation. Certainly, it seems strange to me that these Vatican guys are so clued in as of 1898 whereas no western source of the time that I have seen or read (but I am not an expert) calls the organisation by any of its statutory names. I have seen the Macedonian committee, the Bulgarian committee, etc. This was precisely because before 1903 the organisation's existence was meant to be a secret so people had no clue who was behind it, whether it was the Sofia committee or somebody else. I think by 1902 the foreign consuls are already sensing the situation but in 1898!!! It is quite unusual that Goce Delchev will be revealing the existence of the organisation. That was the year the first cheta is sent to Macedonia. This is the time of the Vinitsa affair, when nobody is supposed to know. Very, very strange. (VMRO 02:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

Our SMARO is nowadays labeled a terrorist organisation from many representatives of the Christian states, firstly because of the ignorance of our struggle, and secondly because of the personal interests of their states...

In 1898 the Christian states (or anyone else for that matter) really do not know anything about the existence of an internal organisation. Neither has it committed any terrorist acts!!! I am really, really sensing the creative hand of Mr. Dimevski here. (VMRO 05:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

Anyway, whatever those letters are (and they are published in 1971), I have changed the text of the article to reflect both viewpoints. The Macedonian one is only accepted in Macedonian historiography. The few Western historians who deal with the period (Perry, Lange-Akhund) have accepted Pandev's view. And these guys are hardly pro-Bulgarian. (VMRO 02:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

Some fod for thought: who was the guys who most likely found those letters in the Vatican? My guess is that this was Mr. Slavko Dimevski. I think in the 60's and 70's he was on a quest to find sources to counter the Bulgarian arguments. Remember, the historians' wars only started in the 1960's. So check out this little piece from MPO "Luben Dimitroff" in Toronto:

Архивите на ВАТИКАНЪ отворени за Македония

Подъ това заглавие въ www.dnevnik.com.mk № 2703 отъ 09.03.2005 g., има исказвание на Илинка Митрева, външната министерка на днешната Югославска република Македония. Митрева прави исказвание, че тя е уговорила съ Ватикана да се отворятъ архивите за сръбското МАНУ въ Скопие, за да можело да изследва историята на Македония. Ще трябва да направимъ пояснение на тази тѣма. Архивите на Ватикана не сѫ били затворени за Македония или някоя друга страна по свѣта.

Презъ шестдесетте години на миналия вѣкъ Македония бе изпратила, СЛАВКО ДИМЕВСКИ да прави изследвания въ Ватикана. Той бе воденъ по архивите отъ Петъръ Петровъ ( Асенъ Аврамовъ членъ на Ц.К. на В.М.Р.О.) Славко Димевски често вечеряше и съ Иванъ Михайловъ. На края на своя животъ Димевски се оплакваше, че навсякѫде кѫдето се е бъркалъ по архивите въ Ватикана, винаги е намиралъ “българи”. Иванъ Михайловъ публикува и фото копие отъ картичката на Димевски въ която се оплакваше, че навсякѫде по архивите въвъ Ватикана ние”македонцитѣ” се таксувани като българи.

Въ Скопие никѫде не публикуваха фото копие отъ тези архивни материали понеже сме били българи, а не сърбо-македонци отъ югословенски произходъ. Това, че Митрeва е уредила отварянето на архивите днесъ, е една сърбо-македонска измислица за да се кичи другарката съ постижение които няма.

Преди години една група сърбо-македонски даскалчета ходиха по Анкара въ Турция и вземаха около 90 документа. Отъ тѣзи документи не излезе нищо. Само за единъ документъ се спомена, кѫдето пишело, че измислените отъ сърбитѣ сърбо-македонци били българи.

Единъ гражданинъ на БИТОЛЯ по това време набра сили да пита членоветѣ на сръбското МАНУ, защо не публикува документите които сѫ вземали отъ ТУРЦИЯ? Така стана съ документите отъ Турция. Допускаме, че сѫдбата на документите отъ ВАТИКАНА нѣма да бѫде различна. На читателя ще трябва да обясним, че униатитѣ отъ Македония нямат представителъ въ ВАТИКАНА. Последниятъ представителъ на Униатите българи въ Македония бе; Епископъ Младеновъ, които се помина въ миналия вѣкъ. Следъ това ВАТИКАНА не пожела да прави скандали по БАЛКАНИТѢ и определя гражданитѣ на Македония като българи. Сѣга този столъ въвъ ВАТИКАНА Е ПРАЗЕНЪ . Онези отъ сръбското МАНУ които ще отидътъ да се поразходятъ до РИМЪ ще трябва да прочетътъ папката на МОНСИНИОРЪ Младеновъ.

Отъ редакцията 09.03.2005 г. Торонто

So here is what I think. Dimevski dug up plenty of stuff in the Vatican. He is on record complaining to Mihailoff and Atseff that he sees Bulgarians all over those documents. Anyway, this is besides the point. What we know about Dimevski is that he likes to be "creative" with historical documents. He certainly falsified Slavejkov's letters to the Bulgarian Exarch from 1974. We are also 99% certain he concocted the infamous "rules" of the Kresna Uprising. I do not know how controversial the text of those letters published in Разгледи is but seems to me Dimevski made a bit of a mistake. In 1971 the dispute about the name and the dates had not gained prominence yes. So what I think happened is that Dimevski in his "editing" activity naturally put SMARO because that was the official name in Yugoslav historipgraphy. Clearly he must not have been aware of Pandev's arguments or even if he was, he would have defended the Yugoslav view. (160.39.58.139 02:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)) (VMRO 18:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

To anon: You can check how much Dimevski "falsified" from the original pages of an article which is to be found here. --FlavrSavr 17:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Anon was me, just forgot to sign it. Thought it was obvious. I was not talking about this. This article has nothing to do with Dimevski. If you look on the discussion page, I put an end to the dispute of its accuracy by having a friend check the scans against the originals in a library in Bulgaria. They were identical. However, I was talking about this and this. Two letters were concocted from the original five with lots of new bits added in. I am working together with the Macedonian guy who put those up initially to post the originals as well. Also, this is most certainly a fake but here I am not 100% sure as in the previous case, only 99% sure. (VMRO 18:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

VMRO, first of all, I'd like to stress that here we are dealing not much with subtle ethnic/national/regional differences which are subject to various interdisciplinary analysis, but to crude factual subjects. Second, I hope that you are aware of the seriousness of your accusations. Now, I respect that you have reservations when it comes to the reliability of Dimevski's translation, however, I do remind you that the letters obviously do exist, and the date on them is 1898. Unfortunately, I do not have the originals. Someone in Rome might check them up, I really don't know what else to say. However, I do have other questions. Namely, the first SMARO constitution exists in the archives of the British Foreign Office, and the date on it is 1898. I really have to go out now, I'll give you the exact source later. --FlavrSavr 17:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would be nice if someone in Rome checked them out but it is not all that easy to go into the Vatican's archives. Dimevski was lucky to have the support of Ivan Mihailov and Asen Avramov, who were obviously close to the Vatican. I am very well aware of the seriousness of my accusations of Dimevski. However, I am not saying that this is necessarily the case with these letters. If he falsified one or two things, it does not mean he falsified everything he got his hands on. Plus Dimevski does not completely make stuff up - he just creatively combines existent stuff and "adds" a bit from himself. So these letters (it would be nice to at least see the full texts as it apprears in Разгледи) could be authentic. In any case, I do not doubt such letters exist but only that the text is given correctly. In any case, the specific excerpts quoted sound really strange (terrorists in 1898???). That is all. Regarding the 1898 date of the SMARO statute in London - I hear this for the first time but again, I am no expert on the whole naming dispute. In any case, we changed the text to reflect both viewpoints. And again, I agree with you that this is not about ethnic/national differences, it is about a fact. I am not saying that Dimevski is trying to prove something about ethnicity with these documents although I must see the complete text and commentary in Разгледи. (VMRO 18:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

Obligations never end, even during the weekend! :-( Ah, nevermind. Anyways, if Vatican is sealed, then London's Public Record Office is not. Here's the source for the SMARO constitution - Public Record Office - Foreign Office 78/4951 Turkey (Bulgaria). From Elliot. 1898; УСТАВ НА ТМОРО. S. 1. Also, bear in mind that Macedonian historians argue that the date of its inception was 1896 (the Thessaloniki Conference), and not 1898. Katardzhiev supports this claim, and he only recognizes that BMARC was used in a very, very short period of about one, or two years before 1896, AFAIK. There aren't any documents that have the BMARC signature on it, so it is only assumed by some authors that it existed from 1896 to 1902. --FlavrSavr 15:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I thought the dispute was 1896 vs. 1902 and not 1898 vs. 1902 but you kept mentioning 1898 so that is what I put in the text. I will change that. Otherwise, of what you said about BMORK and the existence of documents, same can be said for TMORO. It is all conjectures and deductions what the exact dates where, I just thought Pandev's version was the established one. These London archives are news to me as I said before, is there a Macedonian publication (Катарџиев, Пандевски?) that references them? I would like to put it as a citation.(VMRO 20:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC))

Public Record Office - Foreign Office 78/4951 Turkey (Bulgaria). From Elliot. 1898; УСТАВ НА ТМОРО. S. 1. in Документи за борбата на македонскиот народ за самостојност и за национална држава, Скопје, Универзитет "Кирил и Методиј":Факултет за филозофско-историски науки, 1981, page 331 - 333. It is compiled by Hristo Andonov-Poljanski. Maybe we can reference Krste Bitovski, he has some good points about why it is not probable that the organization had the name BMARC as late as 1902. --FlavrSavr 21:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as Dimevski is concerned, I am not an expert, as well. I have this collection of Macedonian documents, (I have a Bulgarian as well), and it appeared there. I really don't know whether Dimevski actually participated in this translation. I can translate the whole correspondence, but unfortunately, I don't have the original Разгледи, although I might get my hand on it next week. As far as the other accusations of Dimevski, please bring out your evidence on the appropriate talk pages. AFAIK, so far, no one has questioned the authenticity of the Kresna Uprising's rules. --FlavrSavr 15:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually there were two Bulgarian publications (one in 1981 by Църнушанов in Военноисторически сборник and one in 1983 or 1984 by Христов in Исторически преглед) which cast serious doubt on Dimevski's "Kresna Rules". To my knowledge, no foreign historian has dealt with the subject and ruled one way or another. It is a long-term project of mine to get hold of those articles and summarise their arguments (plus a few others) on Wikisource. (VMRO 20:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC))

As for Dimevski's rendering of Slavejkov's 1874 letters, Blazhe Ristovski himself says: "Objavenite od d-r Slavko Dimevski "Dve pisma na Petko Rachev Slavejkov za makedonizmot" ("Razgledi", XIV, 5, Skopje, 1972, 557-566) se preneseni krajno nekorektno i ne se za nauchna upotreba." footnote 46 on p. 35 in Portreti i procesi od makedonskata literaturna i nacionalna istorija, vol. 3, Skopje: Kultura, 1990. In his later works he always quotes the article by Paskov and Biljarski in Векове from 1989, which published the original texts. I have it scanned, we are in the process of translating it (just the letters' texts) into English and Macedonian. (VMRO 20:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC))

Ha! I just saw that we supposedly have Разгледи in our library here (but some issues are reported missing). So I will try to have a look one of these days. (VMRO 21:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC))

Great. As we say here (well maybe in Bulgaria, as well): Лагата има кратки нозе. "The lie is shortlegged". Anyways, are you sure that Dimevski actually translated that Goce Delchev - Vatican correspondence? --FlavrSavr 21:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That is what we say as well. I am not 100% sure Dimevski published the Delchev letters but the weirdness of the text, the time (1971) and the publications led me to suspect that. We'll find out when I have a look at those фамозни Разгледи'. (VMRO 02:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC))

P.S. Have a look at this site: http://www.makedonskaistorija.com/item/5/catid/3 There is a good discussion of the naming issue. The conclusion is that there is probably no conclusive evidence. I think that site is maintained by one of Wikipedia's editors. (VMRO 03:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC))

-------

I checked the 1971 publication of the letters and photocopied it. I can scan it if you guys would prefer that. Just as I expected the guy who published them is Mr. Dimevski! And, no doubt, the organisation is called TMORO everywhere by its supposedly official name. BTW, I just remembered that Pandev's article on the statutes and names of IMORO was published just before 1971, in 1970 or 1969 I think. However, nothing in Dimevski's commentary or introduction to the letters alludes to an attempt to answer the Bulgarian claims. Seems like the name "TMORO", if indeed inserted there by Dimevski, was put there automatically. Perhaps he was trying to make everything conform to the Yugoslav point of view. Also, a lot of the comments of the catholic archbishop addressed to his superiors in Rome look like they could have been written by a modern-day Yugoslav or even Bulgarian historian: For several years now a revolutionary organisation has been active in Macedonia, comprising the three Turkish vilayets (Salonika, Bitola and most of Kosovo), which has adopted as its aim the attainment through revolution (insurrection) the freedom of its Fatherland by relying on its own forces.

We can never know what was in the original until we see the original Italian documents. If indeed it turns out that the name TMORO is being used, then this would be serious proof that the first systematic statutes of the Organisation worked out in 1986 or 1897 by G. Petrov are with the name TMORO and not BMORK. (VMRO 03:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC))

As for Dimevski's falsification of the Kresna Rules, I scanned Hristo Hristov's "Po sledite na edna istoriko-dokumentalna falshifikacija" in Istoricheski pregled, 1983, issue 4, pp. 100-106. Sending it by e-mail to interested parties. Too bad I could not get hold of Curnushanov's article, which is reportedly much more thorough and better written, but we do not have that publication in our library. (VMRO 03:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC))

My verdict based on the cases of Slavejkov's letters and the Kresna rules is that Dimevski is a liar. This is not about using historical documents selectively or giving them weird interpretations (which most BG and YU/MK historians did and still do). This is about lying. So it is hard for me to take any other of his publications of authentic documents without reservations. I seriously doubt, however, that if the originals were saying BMORK and not TMORO, Mr. Dimevski would have left that unchanged. My personal suspicion is that the organisation is not being called anywhere by name and Delchev is probably writing on behalf of "the liberation movement", "the revolutionary organisation" or some similar generalised notion. Just a guess. As I said, must check the originals. (VMRO 03:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC))

---

I'm not completely satisfied with how is the naming issue is dealt with. We both know that both sides lack evidence (well the Macedonian historians have that PRO FO document, and some possibly falsified GD letters but I guess that's not sufficient), so we must address that it's an assumption. Here's my proposal:

It is assumed by Bulgarian and Western historians^[7][8] that, in 1896 this first and probably "unofficial" name was changed to Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Committees (BMARC) ^{[9] [10]}; and the organisation existed under this name until 1902 when it changed its name to Secret Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization. While some Macedonian historians^[11] acknowledge the existence of the name "ВMARC", in the Republic of Macedonia it is generally assumed that in the 1896 - 1902 period the name of the organization was "SMARO". Both sides lack documentary evidence, as neither of these names does not appear in the IMRO documents. The "BMARC" constitution has no date on it, while an example of the "SMARO" statute is kept in London under the year of 1898.^[12]) The organization changed its name to Internal Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization in 1905. After disbanding itself during the Bulgarian occupation of Macedonia (1915-1918), the organization was revived in 1920 under the name Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization, under which it is generally known today. --FlavrSavr 01:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The Assassination of the Yugoslavian king Alexander in 1934

I hope these films aren't forbidden in the Discussion pages.

• Documentary film The Assassination of the Yugoslavian king Alexander in 1934 (in English)
• Documentary film The Assassination and the Funeral of the Yugoslavian king Alexander in 1934 (in Bulgarian)

Best wishes, Jackanapes 00:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

IMRO and ITRO

IMRO and ITRO weren't branches of one and the same organisation. In 1919 the Macedonian stream of former IMARO created Macedonian organisation, which didn't include Thracian territory, structures and activities. This situation was constituted by a circular letter No9, cited in a collective research of the Macedonian Scientific Instutute, "Освободителните борби на Македония", part 4, Sofia, 2002:

"Поради изменилите се условия в Македония и Тракия от Балканските войни насам, организацията се преименува от ВМОРО на ВМРО, като нейната цел си остава извоюване на автономия и обединение на разпокъсаните части на Македония."

The main goal of the revived Macedonian part of the pre-war organization after 1919 was connected only with Macedonia, but not with Thrace. In 1919 IMARO split into two separate organisations with separate territories, goals, structures, leaderships, statutes, activities, etc. I hope Jingiby will stop his speculative editings, which lead to mixing of ITRO and IMRO. Greetings, GriefForTheSouth 13:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Old cut-n-paste move fixed

I have performed a history merge to fix an old cut-n-paste move from November 2005. One user moved this page first from Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization to Internal Macedono-Odrinian Revolutionary Organization, and then to IMORO ([13], [14]; then User:VMORO copy-and-pasted the contents here [15]. Now merged the old revisions from before Nov 2005 back to Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization from IMORO ([16]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

IMRO was a terrorist - not political revolutionary organization

It is apparent that this organization was ever legaized as a political organization nor it was acting as political organization - especially in Yugoslavia an Greece. Running attacks against Yugoslavia with the unofficial support of the right-wing Bulgarian government and later Fascist Italy does not make that organization nether political nor revolutionary. Moreover, the very article confirms its terrorist nature :

IMRO began sending armed bands called cheti into Greek and Yugoslav Macedonia and Thrace to assassinate officials and stir up the spirit of the oppressed population. In 1923 IMRO agents assassinated Bulgarian Prime Minister Aleksandar Stamboliyski, who favoured a detente with Greece and Yugoslavia, so that Bulgaria could concentrate on its internal problems. IMRO had de facto full control of Pirin Macedonia (the Petrich District of the time) and acted as a "state within a state", which it used as a base for hit and run attacks against Yugoslavia with the unofficial support of the right-wing Bulgarian government and later Fascist Italy. Because of this, contemporary observers described the Yugoslav-Bulgarian frontier as the most fortified in Europe.

In 1923 and 1924 during the apogee of interwar military activity according to IMRO statistics in the region of Yugoslav (Vardar) Macedonia operated 53 chetas (armed bands), 36 of which penetrated from Bulgaria, 12 were local and 5 entered from Albania. The aggregate membership of the bands was 3245 komitas (guerilla rebels) led by 79 voivodas (commanders), 54 subcommanders, 41 secretaries and 193 couriers. 119 fights and 73 terroristic acts were documented. Serbian casualties were 304 army and gendarmery officers, soldiers and paramilitary fighters, more than 1300 were wounded. IMRO lost 68 voivodas and komitas, hundreds were wounded. In the region of Greek (Aegean) Macedonia 24 chetas and 10 local reconnaissance detachments were active. The aggregate membership of the bands was 380 komitas led by 18 voivodas, 22 subcommanders, 11 secretaries and 25 couriers. 42 battles and 27 terrorist acts were performed. Greek casualties were 83 army officers, soldiers and paramilitary fighters, over 230 were wounded. IMRO lost 22 voivodas and komitas, 48 were wounded. Thousands of locals were repressed by the Yugoslav and Greek authorities on suspicions of contacts with the revolutionary movement.[28] The population in Pirin Macedonia was organized in a mass people's home guard. This militia was the only force, which resisted to the Greek army when general Pangalos launched a military campaign against Petrich District in 1925, speculatively called the War of the Stray Dog. In 1934 the Bulgarian army confiscated 10,938 rifles, 637 pistols, 47 machine-guns, 7 mortars and 701,388 cartridges only in the Petrich and Kyustendil Districts.[29]

--Standshown (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources, sources, sources. Yes, it has such elements, but do you have a reliable source? It smells like original research to me. I'll remove the tag only because of your intentions for putting it. --Laveol ^T 01:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• The quoted text comes from this very article (IMRO) - so it is furnished with a number of references. You are supposed to be familiar with this article and read carefully my note - which you obviously missed to do. Also - do not remove tag - it is not for you alone, it's for any editor that might spot it and constructively enter into discussion. Additional references:
• A History of Fascism, 1914-1945 by Stanley G. Payne, Routledge 1996, page 406

Pavelic and his followers eventually decided to strike down the head of state. In collusion with IMRO, the Macedonian terrorist organization, three Ustashi agents were the direct accomplices of the IMRO assassins who murdered King Alexander and the French foreign minister in Marseilles in October 1934.

• Mediterranean Politics by Richard Gillespie, Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press 1994, page 94

In November 1990 the first free elections were held in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). The undisputed winner was the extremist nationalist IMRO-DPMNU (Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization - Democratic Party of Macedonian National Unity). Both its name and its manifesto refer directly to the organization of the same name that was active at the end of the ninetheenth century. Nor is it a coincidence that a report published by the US Department of State in 1991 describes IMRO-DPMNU as a terrorist organization modelling itself on the old IMRO.

• Kosovo: Perceptions of War and Its Aftermath, by Sally N. Cummings, Continuum International Publishing Group 2001, page 31

Indeed, the Kosove Committee signed an agreement on co-operation with the Bulgarian terrorist organization IMRO in 1920, on joint actions against the young South Slav state

• No End to War: Terrorism in the Twenty-First by Walter Laqueur, Continuum International Publishing Group 2004, page 202

Hovever, the Balkans have a long tradition of terrorism in which the Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) played a leading role as well as Croat Ustasha.

• History of the Balkans by Barbara Jelavich, Cambridge University Press 1983, page 208:

With the assistance of the army and the moderate wing of IMRO, the government was able to disband the terrorist organization; its leader, Ivan Mihailov fled.

• Decades of Crisis: Central and Eastern Europe Before World War II by Tibor Iván Berend, University of California Press, 1998 - - Page 329

Ideological similarities and the goal of destroying Yugoslavia provided basis for co-operation between Pavelic's party and the IMRO (Inner Macedonian Revolutionary Organization), a Bulgarian right-wing terrorist organization.

• Collier's Encyclopedia, with Bibliography and Index by William Darrach Halsey, Emanuel Friedman P.F. Collier 1986 page 725

Operatives of the Macedonian terrorist organization IMRO assassinated Stamboliski's close adviser Alexander Dimitrov.

• Nationalism, Globalization, and Orthodoxy: The Social Origins of Ethnic Conflict in the Balkans by Victor Roudometof, contributor Roland Robertson, Praeger/Greenwood 2001 - page 89

In 1903 the IMRO (a terrorist organization founded in Thessaloniki in 1893) orchestrated the 1903 Ilinden uprising (for details, see Chapter 5).

--Standshown (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll say this (or rather write this) only once - the fact that you think of IMRO as a terrorist organization is based on your own belief. You cannot simply label it like this and that cause for some people (Bulgarians and ethnic Macedonians) it is a liberation movement and for other people (Serbs and Turks) it was a terrorist organization cause it operated against their own authorities. By saying "This is a terrorist organization" you want every single person reading the article to think as you do. And this is not wikipedia aims at (as I'm sure you do not, or rather do not wish to know). Your work as an editor is to lay down the facts and nothing else (that means no personal opinion) and let every person judge it for him/herself. And furthermore most of the non-Serb authors toy speak about name the organization both liberation and a terrorist (which are probably both true) - and this is something you missed (unintentionally ;) ) to mention. Oh, and do not try reverting as an (not-so)anonymous IP - it's not helping you. --Laveol ^T 14:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• • You asked for references - and got them. The references are not written based on or following my presonal belief. If something is missed - is your ability to carry this discussion on an academic level and following the Wikipedia's code of conduct. More references confirming the true nature of this organization:
  • One Europe, Many Nations: A Historical Dictionary of European National by James Minahan Greenwood Press 2000 page 440

The IMRO, supported by the Bulgarians, remained an active terrorist organization in southern Yugoslavia.

• • The Turning Point: The Assassination of Louis Barthou and King Alexander I of Yugoslavia by Allen Roberts, St. Martin's Press 1970 page 35

Pavelich had had many conferences with the leaders of the IMRO, a Macedonian terrorist organization also subsidized by Italy. IMRO bands staged many raids ...

• • Parachutes, Patriots and Partisans by Heather Williams, Hurst 2003 page 18

Macedonia also posed problems, for there IMRO, the right-wing terrorist organization had split into two murderous opposing factions; one wanted the ...

• • The Rights of Nations By Czeslaw Poznanski, Roy publishers 1945 page 64

The IMRO, the Macedonian terrorist organization, did a lot of shooting and murdering in Yugoslavia.

--Standshown (talk) 01:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Diglossia

I've noticed a lot of official documents were written in standard Bulgarian and not Macedonian. The Bulgarian side does not dispute the existence of Macedonian dialects ("Western Bulgarian" or whatever). Does this then, from a purely linguistic point of view, suggest a diglossic situation in Macedonia during the Ottoman period? Perhaps because of the influence of the Bulgarian Exarchate on local schools? --AimLook (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're asking for purely what the Bulgarian side thinks - if we take only the Bulgarian view there is no such thing. I'm not too sure where the line between a Diglossia case and a dialect is drawn, but at all accounts linguists in Bulgaria have Macedonian as a dialect of Bulgarian as there are other dialects as well. It would be interesting to see what would've happened if the official Bulgarian language had turned to the Macedonian dialects instead of the Eastern. --Laveol ^T 15:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that they used standard Bulgarian and not their vernacular (which was noticeably different even back then). To me, this suggests that the written form of Sofia was a sort-of prestige dialect (used by teachers, i.e., Goce Delchev), while the common man essentially spoke modern Macedonian. The Bulgarian position isn't relevant, it's purely political not linguistic. --AimLook (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The common man spoke neither modern Macedonian nor a single dialect but a variety of dialects; and the 'written form of Sofia' was not a dialect (prestigious or not) but a literary norm, one of the two that Bulgarian language used to have at that time (the other one being that of Banat Bulgarians). Apcbg (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You need two separate languages for diglossia, don't you? Well, a 100 years ago the differences that exist now between literary Bulgarian and literary Macedonian did not exist.

The Bulgarian position isn't relevant, it's purely political not linguistic. And you're saying that because..? Perhaps because it doesn't conform to your views or something?

Only one VMRO today

Today I think there is only one party namce VMRO and it is Bulgarian based in Sofia; the one based in Skopje is called VMRO-DPMNE and there are other parties that also include the name VMRO in a composite acronym. Politis (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

I do not understand how many time it is necessary to stay the label "The neutrality of this article is disputed." As I see, the dispute is stalled?--AKeckarov (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This article has not been edited for a while. I suggest you do what you think is most appropriate. Politis (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Germanokratomeni MK.jpg

The image Image:Germanokratomeni MK.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:VMRO-DPMNElogo.png
• Image:Ivan Mihailov.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The Truth always rises to the top

This blatantly pro-Bulgarian Wiki entry is simply an elaborate attempt to manufacture a ‘reasonable story that fits the facts”. Unfortunately for the authors, it is simply not reasonable.

The undisputed facts are that IRMO’s purpose was the liberation of the Macedonian people from Ottoman rule with the consequent creation of an independent Macedonian State, using Bulgarian resources, when required,to achieve this goal. This is formally stated by Ivan Hadzhinikolov in his memoirs, who underlines the five basic principles of the MRO's foundation:

1. The revolutionary organization should be established within Macedonia and should act there, so that the Greeks and Serbs couldn't label it as a tool of the Bulgarian government. 2. Its founders should be locals and living in Macedonia. 3. The political motto of the organization should be the autonomy of Macedonia. 4. The organization should be secret and independent, without any links with the governments of the liberated neighborly states, and 5. From the Macedonian emigration in Bulgaria and the Bulgarian society, only moral and material help for the struggle of the Macedonian revolutionaries should be required.

In clear contradiction to these founding principles, the Wiki states the aim of IRMO was to create an independent Macedonian state with the view to re-unification with Bulgaria at some indeterminate point in the future. This is the first great fallacy of the Wiki article. This pro-Bulgarian stance raises further important questions that are dealt with fleetingly: Why liberate Macedonia as a State independent of Bulgaria only to claim it for Bulgaria later? Why would the timing of re-unifying with Bulgaria matter to the view of the Great Powers and how would that create an unfavourable position for IRMO? The questions are not easily answered because they arise from the false premise that IRMO aimed for the re-unification of the Macedonian State with Bulgaria. On the other hand, IRMO’s stated objectives and end results are totally consistent with, and raise no further questions, with the premise that IRMO’s aim was the liberation and subsequent creation of an independent Macedonian State free from Bulgarian influence.

The Wiki also claims that the revolutionaries within IRMO are Bulgarian nationals. Revolutionaries are driven to their cause by an overwhelming will to liberate themselves, the people they identify with, and the territory they consider their homeland, from oppression. Underlying this is a passionate sense of patriotism. The greatest moment in a revolutionary’s existence occurs when the oppressor is defeated and the revolutionary’s homeland takes on its rightful name with the support of the native inhabitants. In this context it makes no sense that if the revolutionaries and natives within liberated Macedonia were Bulgarian that they would not seek to claim the liberated territory in the name of Bulgaria, but Macedonia. The Wiki undertakes an elaborate and labyrinthine coarse in an attempt to explain this gross inconsistency. On the other hand, there are no such inconsistencies, no elaborate explanations required, if the revolutionaries such as Goce Delchev and Dame Gruev are regarded as Macedonian, fighting for the Macedonian cause with the support of native Macedonians, independent of Bulgaria.

The Truth always rises to the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefcep (talk • contribs) 01:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Read again, please. Jingby (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The last added two images

Please, remove them. There are nor specific, or so important. It is lack of more place in the article. If we all try to push here all the galleries with images from IMRO activity, then what? Thank you! Jingby (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)