Exposing Bulgarian Myths and Lies

[Onur]

Originally Posted by Makedonetz

What did Bulgaria represent for Macedonia, 1913!

September 5, 1913

......
Is not Bulgaria to be blamed for the partition of Macedonia, hiding the real aim of the war from the representatives of the Macedonian people, which it had to reckon with. On the contrary, starting the war, it declared to the Macedonians that it was fighting against Turkey alongside the allies for their liberation. Allowing the Macedonians to organize themselves into military units, Bulgaria committed a hunderdfold crime, because it did not allow them to fight against Turkey in their native land, but directed them to Thrace, towards the shore of the Sea of Marmara, under the walls of Adrianople and the trenches of Chataldzha, which weren’t needed, except for a bunch of Bulgarian glory-hunters; and the happened at the same time when the allied Bulgarians, Serbs and Greeks were conquering Macedonia. How can we explain this criminal act of the Bulgarians towards the Macedonians, if not by the fear that those same Macedonians with arms in their hands would defend their homeland equally from any encroachments upon its independence?
.........

Taken from Dimitrija Chupovski, Makednoskii Golos, pages 130-133

I cant understand one thing about Macedonian frustration for Balkan war. Especially after ~1895, i saw 10s of newspaper articles, government archive reports about Bulgar and Greek aims for Macedonia. All the Turkish articles from that era basically says same sentence;

"Greeks with the help of Brits and Bulgars-Serbs with the help of Russians desires to occupy Macedonia and erase it from the map by sharing it`s territories among themselves".

While everything was so obvious for Turkish authorities and community since 1895s, how come Macedonians couldn't realize this? I mean, if they would already accepted partition of Macedonia, then why there are articles like that in 1913? Probably you guys read a lot of documents from that era and you can comment on this.


Btw, i didn't know that Bulgars from Sofia organized Macedonian troops and sent them to Edirne/Adrianople. Then this means, Bulgars used and abused Macedonians like the British did to Australians by sending them to Canakkale/Gallipoli to fight vs Turks at 1915. In the Balkan war, Turkish troops pretty much only fought at eastern Thrace, Edirne. Russians ordered Bulgars to proceed towards eastern Thrace right at the beginning of Balkan wars, hoping they could reach Istanbul with this way. This was their only aim cuz eastern Thrace was never a place populated by Bulgars. I think there was only 100-150 pomaks in there who speaks Bulgarian, that was all. Because of that imminent threat, Ottoman government feared that Istanbul`s security could be in danger and they immediately called all the Turkish troops in Macedonia to retreat back to eastern Thrace. So, all the Aegean Macedonia and current ROM has been abandoned by Turkish troops without involving any fight. Turks only fought in eastern Thrace to throw Bulgarian army out of there.

[El Bre]

"Greeks with the help of Brits and Bulgars-Serbs with the help of Russians desires to occupy Macedonia and erase it from the map by sharing it`s territories among themselves".

While everything was so obvious for Turkish authorities and community since 1895s, how come Macedonians couldn't realize this? I mean, if they would already accepted partition of Macedonia, then why there are articles like that in 1913? Probably you guys read a lot of documents from that era and you can comment on this.

The answer to your question is actually quite simple. The power brokers of the time had no interest in creating a free and independent Macedonia and devoted a great deal of effort to make sure that it didn't happen.

The Macedonian cause had no "big brother" which is something that the others in the area benefitted from greatly. We had no patron state to supply arms and training and therefore, any form of uprising was doomed from the start. As a result we were forced to hitch our wagons to one of the three competing factions. This was the beginning of the deep divisions in the Macedonian population which continue to plague our community and dilute our numbers.

[George S.]

That's agood point el bre.In regards to onur's question i know for a fact that the british seeing the role that they played in the balkan wars allowing macedonia to be partiotioned etc.Apparently there are documents embargoed in the british archives??I don't know how to access that & there is a wealth of information what the brits have written about the macedonians.

[TrueMacedonian]

Originally Posted by El Bre

The answer to your question is actually quite simple. The power brokers of the time had no interest in creating a free and independent Macedonia and devoted a great deal of effort to make sure that it didn't happen.

The Macedonian cause had no "big brother" which is something that the others in the area benefitted from greatly. We had no patron state to supply arms and training and therefore, any form of uprising was doomed from the start. As a result we were forced to hitch our wagons to one of the three competing factions. This was the beginning of the deep divisions in the Macedonian population which continue to plague our community and dilute our numbers.

How very true.

[TrueMacedonian]

The Bogomils by Dmitry Obolensky

How funny is this. Bulgarian "scholars" finding communists in medieval times lol.

[TrueMacedonian]

Ever wondered when the term "Old Church Bulgarian" was invented? Ever wondered who invented such a term? Here's the German inventors of "Old Church Bulgarian";







I guess the Bulgarians have to thank the Russians for a country and the Germans for erroneous terminologies.

[Onur]

Originally Posted by TrueMacedonian

I guess the Bulgarians have to thank the Russians for a country and the Germans for erroneous terminologies.

I read in several sources that after 1878, when Russians took control of Bulgaria, they literally changed everything in Bulgaria, including their language, education system and even their historical concept. I even heard that their history and archival documents has been rewritten.

Anyone knows any article or a document of what kind of things changes occurred in Bulgaria after they "liberated"!?

[TrueMacedonian]

Onur that is something I would like to look into more. The historian R.W. Seton-Watson has stated that a very common thing in the 19th century Balkans was the destruction of documents and artifacts and the forging of the same all in the name of creating a history.

In 1825, Ilarion, the Greek Metropolitan of Trnovo, made a bonfire of the old library of the Bulgarian Patriarchate, which till then had survived all the vicissitudes of the Turkish era. It is perhaps only fair to add that these habits of destruction and the kindred practice of forging historical documents or monuments have been adopted by every race in the peninsula at one time or another. Only the Turks were either too lazy or too contemptuous to indulge in such competition.

The rise of nationality in the Balkans, R.W. Seton-Watson page 81

[TrueMacedonian]

Originally Posted by Onur

I read in several sources that after 1878, when Russians took control of Bulgaria, they literally changed everything in Bulgaria, including their language, education system and even their historical concept. I even heard that their history and archival documents has been rewritten.

Anyone knows any article or a document of what kind of things changes occurred in Bulgaria after they "liberated"!?

Onur I think you would be interested in researching what some have called a forgery - The Chronicle of Metodi Draginov. I will post some info on this soon.

[Bill77]

Originally Posted by Onur

I read in several sources that after 1878, when Russians took control of Bulgaria, they literally changed everything in Bulgaria, including their language, education system and even their historical concept. I even heard that their history and archival documents has been rewritten.

Anyone knows any article or a document of what kind of things changes occurred in Bulgaria after they "liberated"!?

Onur i have something i picked up and saved from one of the threads here on MTO. Not sure who posted it though. here it is.

"American missionaries working in Bulgaria in the 1850s created the first standardized Bulgarian script, choosing to base the national language on the dialect of Thrace and eastern Macedonia rather than on that spoken in the regions of northern Bulgaria. Until the work of such American missionaries, memories of an ecclesiastical past in Bulgaria had been preserved in large part only by Slavonic monks. The American Board of Missionaries, with their network of locally posted missionaries, intentionally or not assisted nascent Bulgarian national elites to forge a different picture of the past.

Dr. Elias Riggs, for example, crossed "European Turkey" in the late 1840s and in 1847 compiled a Bulgarian grammar primer. According to Tsanoff (1919:ix), it had been the American missionaries who had discovered (or, we might say, helped to invent) the Bulgarian nation. They published some of the first books in Bulgarian, and in 1864 began putting out the first monthly magazine in the region written in Bulgarian."

and this,

Macedonian shares peculiar relationships with a number of Slavic languages, with Bulgarian and Serbian being closest. It is logical to consider that significant parts of the languages and dialects, to a degree, will be very similar and therefore mutually intelligible. The definitive suffix that is unique to Macedonian and Bulgarian indicates a certain commonality (at least for a period of time) that has not been shared with Serbian, which can give Bulgarian a more Macedonian 'sound' than Serbian can.
Quote:

The American Missionaries printed a dictionary using a Macedonian dialect and called it "Bulgarian" which was eventually chosen to be the national language of modern Bulgaria.
The missionaries used an eastern Macedonian dialect if I recall correctly, because it was in between Macedonia and Bulgaria and "could" serve as a compromise medium that would be generally understood by most, I am not 100% certain, but they way I remember it, Bulgarians eventually rejected this dialect, as they did with the attempted literary 'language' used by the Miladinov brothers, which is essentially Macedonian in any case. When Bulgaria was created by Russia, the dialects of the north-east of Moesia were used to form the core of the new Bulgarian literary language, a far distance from the capital established by the Russians in Sofia, which is near Macedonia. So, in the haste of birth, Bulgaria's capital was on one side of the new entity and the official language was on the other.

Furthermore, even today, literary Macedonian and Macedonian dialects in general are still closer to the Bogatsko dialect of the 16th century than they are to the Bulgarian literary

This place shits all over Wiki