Macedonian Question Research Articles

The Macedonian Question

The Macedonian Question

Majority rule, minority issues: The Macedonian question in the Dekemvriana

ABSTRACTThis article examines the role of the Macedonian Question in the 1944 December Uprising (Dekemvriana) in Greece. While the Dekemvriana is commonly portrayed in right–left terminology in the historiography, this article argues that part of the reason for the left’s failure was their inability to manage the Macedonian ethnic component of the struggle, either within their armed forces or in their relationship with Yugoslavia. As such, this article integrates the early phases of the Greek Civil War into the broader literature on minorities in civil conflict, while simultaneously exposing some of the myths about Macedonian involvement that result from its contemporary political ramifications.

A view of Serbian-Bulgarian relations at the end of the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th century

The roots of Serbo-Bulgarian relations date back from the medieval period. The political relations between Serbs and Bulgarians were interrupted after the Turkish conquest of a part of South-East Europe. The beginning of a new kind of relations intensifies during the 19th century. The Serbo-Bulgarian relations in the 19th and at the turn of the 20th century range from mutual support in the fight for the national recognition and independence of the two nations which was manifested in the diplomatic, economical, cultural and educational field, to intensity, political conflicts, war propaganda and direct armed conflicts. This study deals with the analysis of the Serbo-Bulgarian relations from the Great Eastern Crisis (1875-1878), through the Serbo-Bulgarian War in 1885 and solving the problems related to solving the Macedonian Question, until the end of World War I and the signing of the peace treaty by The Kingdom of SHS and the Kingdom of Bulgaria in the Paris suburb Neuillysur-Seine. Analyzing certain important political and geopolitical questions of Belgrade and Sofia which appeared in the bilateral relations between the two countries in the aforementioned period it was tried to point out all the complexity of the Serbo-Bulgarian relations on which the safety and stability of Balkan peninsula depended to a great extent.

The Aromanian-Romanian national movement (1859-1905): an analytical model

At the turn of the 20th century, Macedonia was a region still controlled by the waning Ottoman Empire, though intensely coveted by the neighbouring Balkan states, which deployed national propaganda movements in Macedonia, in preparation for future territorial annexations. It is this author’s contention that the “Macedonian question” thus engendered gives rise to several overlapping triadic configurations of interlocking, interacting and mutually monitoring nationalisms, as per the analytical model put forth by Rogers Brubaker. Working on this premise, and after adjusting Brubaker’s model to account for the specific relational settings of the Macedonian question, this author proceeds to draft a case study of a specific triadic configuration, among several operating in fin-de-siècle Macedonia: namely, the one arisen out of the mutual monitoring and interaction of a Romanian nationalizing nationalism, a Greek nationalizing nationalism, and two Aromanian (or Vlach) minority nationalisms.

The Position of Bulgaria with Regard to the Albanian Factor in Macedonia During the London Conference of Ambassadors

At the beginning of the 20th century, Bulgaria's principal goal, and the national ideal of the state and the Bulgarian people was the liberation to all Bulgarians under the Ottoman Empire and the creation of a united Bulgaria. Most important for Bulgaria was the Macedonian question and unification of Bulgarians in these lands with the Bulgarian state. To realize this goal, the institutions in Sofia always took into consideration the ethnic structure in Macedonia particularly in its western parts. Because of that focus there is much Bulgarian evidence and many documents which detail the political, economic, and social situation in the western lands of Macedonia. Bulgarian information concerning Albanians at the beginning of the 20th century comes from many sources including:

Biondich, Mark. The Balkans: Revolution, War, and Political Violence since 1878 (review)

SEER, 92, 3, JULY 2014 564 Biondich, Mark. The Balkans: Revolution, War, and Political Violence since 1878. Zones of Violence. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, 2011. xv + 384 pp. Maps. Tables. Chronology. Notes. Bibliography. Index.£65.00. Since the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s scholars have dedicated a considerable amount of effort in countering the common perceptions of a certain Balkan exceptionalism and a particular predisposition to violence. Theories and methods from a range of disciplines have been utilized both to deconstruct the othering discourses that inform such myths — Maria Todorova’s Imagining the Balkans (Oxford, 1997) remains the classic text in this field — and to offer alterative explanations as to the causes of violence in the region. It is within this tradition that Mark Biondich’s book falls. It approaches the task with the historian’s tools, producing a serious survey of the most violent chapters of modern Balkan history. In less than three hundred pages the book covers an impressive amount of data, offering quick summaries of long tracts of Balkan history that will be very helpful to the non-specialists, along with focused studies of key violent episodes of Balkan history. It is all informed by an impressive bibliography that is remarkably diverse, relevant and up to date. Biondich has produced the new essential reference work on the history of violence in the Balkans. As with all stereotypes, the image of the violent Balkans relies on vagueness and elusiveness as to the origins, aims and forms of violence, but Biondich does not tackle this methodological challenge head on. ‘Revolution, war and political violence’ could mean many things. Soon, however, it becomes clear that the author is really focused on the link between violence and nationalism, on which he puts all his analytical attention. And in this he is excellent: detailed and balanced, offering long passages of creative synthesis, avoiding any sort of deterministic linearities, looking persistently for explanations that are time and space specific, and always in dialogue with his extensive bibliography. The most original sections of the book are on this nationalist-related theme: on the Macedonian Question at the turn of the twentieth century (pp. 63– 75), the treatment of minorities and the rise of the fascist ‘New Right’ in the interwar (pp. 98–130), the civil war in Yugoslavia during the Second World War (pp. 130–49), the minority policies of the Cold War Communist states (pp. 159–80) and the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s. It is on the latter that the author offers his most elaborate analysis on the forms and motives of violence (pp. 215–37). Balkan modernities — their roots, adaptations and effects — are an old scholarly preoccupation. At least since John Allcock’s Explaining Yugoslavia (London,2000)modernityhasbeenalsocentralinthemorefocuseddiscussions on the origins and particularities of violence in the region. It is in the same REVIEWS 565 pool where Biondich looks for his overarching argument. His model focuses on the long, and frequently ‘abortive’, modernization process undergone by the region, starting from the early national independence wars of the nineteenth century and going all the way to the recent crises in Yugoslavia. Seen through this overstretched, but not unappealing, explanatory framework, the wars of the 1990s were ‘in actual fact the culmination of a process of state-building that had been initiated in the nineteenth century’ (p. 195). The key link here is the slightly vague concept of the ‘modernizing’, ‘nationalizing state’ (pp. vi) and its elites, which opt for violence always as a calculated choice in order to establish and affirm their authority. The book charts how again and again, in conflict after conflict, local actors made specific choices that led to specific forms and acts of violence. Despite its relativizing tendencies, Biondich’s argument leaves Balkan exceptionalism without any oxygen on which to breathe, political choice being the author’s answer to the stereotype of primordial instincts. Although the nebulous spectre of ‘Europe’ is never far away (see p. 156), nonBalkan players have a secondary role in this story. They are present mainly diplomatically, while the foreign occupation regimes of the two World Wars receiveonlyabriefmention.Butthisisanoddomission.Balkanexceptionalism cannot be understood outside the European comparative framework on which it...

Makedonya Sorunu ve Avrupa Müdahalesi (1902-1905)

Makedonya Sorunu ve Avrupa Müdahalesi (1902-1905)

The Macedonian Question in the Light of the Documents of the Serbian Diplomacy 1903–1914

In the early 20th century Macedonia became the focus of the political activity of the Balkan states, interested in partitioning this Turkish territory. From the Serbian perspective, Bulgaria emerged as the main rival of Serbia, its aspirations to the Macedonian territory rooted in Bulgarian national mythology. Hence the Bulgarian government’s actions and activities were closely watched by Serbian diplomats. They viewed Bulgarian politics as a complex, ambiguous game. The Bulgarians simultaneously made preparations for a war with Turkey and tried to keep the appearances of friendly relations with Turkey and Bulgaria’s neighbors: Serbia and Greece. Initially, Bulgaria intended to incorporate the whole of Macedonia but soon realized its own weakness and the determination of its neighbors. Thus, the Bulgarian prime minister made an offer to Serbia, proposing an alliance and participation in the partition of Macedonia of whose territory Bulgaria would get a bigger share. Serbia did not want to accept this offer but at the same time it was afraid of the hostile reaction of Austro‑Hungary to its own aspirations, involving even Austro‑Hungary entering into some secret alliance with Bulgaria. Consequently, Serbian politicians decided to seek a compromise. An analysis of Serbian diplomatic documents has shown that from 1911 a slow process continued of Bulgaria and Serbia coming to the conclusion that a consent concerning the future of Macedonia had to be reached but there was no agreement as how to divide up the Macedonian territory between the two sides. Arguments continued on how to define the Serbian and Bulgarian zones, the demarcation line, etc. Each side formulated its boundary conditions and there was little progress in negotiations. In the end, the prospective Serbian and Bulgarian zones were defined and also the so‑called “disputed territory” whose status would be decided through arbitration by the Tsar of Russia. However, Bulgaria and Serbia remained deeply distrustful of one another and the course of the first Balkan War in 1912 would soon demonstrate that Bulgaria, Serbia, and also Greece had each an intention to incorporate the largest possible part of Macedonian territory with no regard for any earlier treaties.

The Bulgarian-Yugoslav dispute over the Macedonian question as a reflection of the Soviet-Yugoslav controversy (1968-1980)

During the Cold War, relations between Bulgaria and Yugoslavia were marred by the Macedonian Question. Bulgaria challenged the historical roots of the Macedonian nation, whereas Yugoslavia insisted that Bulgaria should recognize the rights of the Macedonian minority within her borders. The Soviet Union capitalized on its influence over Bulgaria to impair Yugoslavia?s international position. Bulgaria launched an anti-Yugoslav campaign questioning not only the Yugoslav approach to Socialism, but also the Yugoslav solution of the Macedonian Question. This antipathy became evident in 1968, in the wake of the events in Czechoslovakia. In the years 1978/9 the developments in Indochina gave a new impetus to the old Bulgarian-Yugoslav conflict.

Professional characteristics of the Jewish guild in the Muslim world: Thessaloniki dockers at the end of the Ottoman era

This article focuses upon the Jewish dockers of Ottoman Thessaloniki. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the loading and unloading of merchandise between ships and docks in the port of Thessaloniki was dominated by Jewish manpower. This dominance should be considered, first of all, in relation to the pre-industrial regulations of the Ottoman labour market. Work on the Thessaloniki docks was operated by veteran guilds of Jewish labourers (registered according to ethnic or family affinity) who managed to distribute all the specific spheres of work among themselves (the gedik principle). They demonstrated a high standard of professionalism (the hisba value) and created a well-organized welfare system. These outdated regulations still maintained their validity in spite of the legal abolition of the guild system (1860), and the emergence of the industrial labour market. The second reason for Jewish prosperity derived from the political turmoil of that period. Against the background of the Macedonian Question and the Western semi-colonization of Macedonia, the Jewish dockers should be seen as part of an ethnic group which clearly defined itself as supporting the preservation of the Ottoman regime in the Southern Balkans. As such, the Ottoman regime counted them as a loyal and useful element in maintaining its interests in the docks, and in exchange came to their aid when modernization of the infrastructures might have thrown many of them out of work in the port.

The Macedonian Question: Britain and the Southern Balkans, 1939–1949, by Dimitris Livanios

Given the nationalist hysteria in contemporary Greece that surrounds the Macedonian Question, one in which a large part of the Greek intellectual class is complicit, it is refreshing to read a historical monograph about the subject written by a Greek historian based at a university in Greece—in Thessaloniki, the principal city of Greek Macedonia, no less—that is not only erudite and thoughtful but scrupulously dispassionate. Based primarily on research conducted in British archives, Dimitris Livanios’ masterful study of Britain and the Macedonian Question, centring on the decade ending in 1949, is a delight to read. More for better than for worse, the book extends considerably beyond the topic of its title, meandering to focus alternately on local conditions in Macedonia, regional Balkan politics and British views regarding both the Macedonian Question and the Balkans. The somewhat imprecise focus may have been dictated by the book’s particular reliance on British Foreign Office documents: the region is necessarily perceived through British lenses, but the author allows Britain (and, indeed, the Macedonian Question itself) to drop out of the picture when his narrative, his interest or his sources take him elsewhere. This is a minor criticism, for the reader can only finish the book with a better understanding of all its principal topics.

Greece and the Macedonian Question: an assessment of recent claims and criticisms

This review essay evaluates Greece's role in certain central aspects of the Macedonian Question based on a sustained engagement with key claims recently made by Andrew Rossos in his significant, comprehensive and trenchant critique of Hellenism. Rossos makes the case for the non‐Greek ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians, a necessary first step for the propagation of a Greater Macedonia position, according to which all of geographic Macedonia should exclude Greece and belong to its purported Slavic ‘Macedonian’ majority. After the presentation of the available surveys and information, it is concluded that the Greater Macedonia theoretical edifice is ultimately unsustainable and thus cannot delegitimize the Greek presence and actions in the region. Next, the argument that a huge ‘Macedonian’ minority, possibly numbering in the hundreds of thousands, resides in contemporary Greece is assessed by focusing primarily on Greek electoral politics and results. Finally, after the scrutiny of the relevant documents and other evidence, Rossos' suggestion that Greece conspired with Milosevic's Serbia to partition the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is evaluated. The essay concludes by emphasizing that nationalist historiographies should not be used to impede the necessary path of all the Western Balkan states towards Euro‐Atlantic integration.

Claiming Macedonia: The Struggle for the Heritage, Territory and Name of the Historic Hellenic Land, 1862–2004 (review)

Reviewed by: Claiming Macedonia: The Struggle for the Heritage, Territory and Name of the Historic Hellenic Land, 1862–2004 Iakovos D. Michailidis George C. Papavizas . Claiming Macedonia: The Struggle for the Heritage, Territory and Name of the Historic Hellenic Land, 1862–2004. Jefferson, NC and London: McFarland and Company. 2006. Pp. 302. Paperback $45.00. A spectacular growth in the literature on the Macedonian question has taken place over the past 20 years. With the break-up of Yugoslavia and the conversion of its republics into sovereign states, one of which is the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (FYROM), old hatreds that were previously masked by the reliable umbrella of the Yugoslav Federation reappeared as new animosities emerged. George C. Papavizas's book, Claiming Macedonia. The Struggle for the Heritage, Territory and Name of the Historic Hellenic Land, 1862–2004, joins an abundant bibliography that includes works by historians, political scientists, social anthropologists, and others, as well as popular books written by people who want to bring their views to a wider public. Papavizas himself is originally from western Greek Macedonia. He is a specialist in plant pathology, but has devoted much leisure time to studying and writing about the history of Macedonia and the ensuing dispute. He claims that he was prompted to write about the attempt to "hijack" the Greek Macedonian heritage by his personal experiences, the recollections of his grandfather, Konstantinos, a Μακεδονομάχος (Macedonian Fighter), and his own bafflement over his grandson's doubts about the geographical borders of Macedonia. As he says in his Preface, "'Here, Papou [grandfather]; I know where Macedonia is, where you were born.' Suddenly, he looked at me again and said, disappointed, 'But you told me you were born in Macedonia, Greece'" (p. 2). This little boy's confusion encapsulates one of the most complex elements of the Macedonian question today. For most people who do not live in Greece, FYROM and the name [End Page 205] "Macedonia" are now synonymous. This development, however, has put Greek Macedonians, especially those of the diaspora, in the awkward position of having to explain, time and time again, why they consider themselves Macedonians when they come from Greece and are Greek. Indeed, all those who hail from the geographical region of Greater Macedonia, a region now divided among four distinct states—Greece, FYROM, Bulgaria, and Albania—experience this real identity conflict. Papavizas's motive for writing this volume springs from a laudable desire to produce a book that differs from ones that have already been published and is written in a style that is accessible to the English-speaking layman. "It is not my intent to add another historical book on Macedonia," he writes. "It is to add a different book, one with a uniquely interpreted approach, easily read and understood by the common English-speaking people interested in the Macedonian issue and in the long political, diplomatic and military struggle for the heritage, the territory and the name of the Hellenic land" (p. 4). Papavizas sees himself as an amateur historian, making it clear at the outset of his book that he has no intention of rivaling the top professional writers. "Inevitably this work, done by an amateur historian, will be compared, for better or worse, with the work of accomplished scholars. I do not intend to compete with them" (p. 5). These admissions constitute the framework within which Papavizas operates: on the one hand, his book should be taken seriously and thoughtfully, while, on the other, too high a value should not be placed on a study which is admittedly built on amateur methodology and analysis. Papavizas has no doubt studied and grasped the meaning of a large part of the contemporary Greek-language literature on the Macedonian question. His study is chronological, beginning in the mid-nineteenth century with the founding of the Bulgarian Exarchate. In his opinion, the Macedonian question essentially begins here. Then he takes us—via the Macedonian Struggle, the Balkan Wars, World War I, the interwar years, the Occupation, the Greek Civil War, and the Cold War period—to the present day, to the birth of FYROM, and to the new state's dispute with Greece over its name...

Macedonia and the Macedonians: a history

This detailed volume surveys the history of Macedonia from 600 BC to the present day, with an emphasis on the past two centuries. It reveals how the so-called Macedonian question has long dominated Balkan politics, and how for well over a century and a half, it was the central issue dividing Balkan peoples, as neighboring Bulgaria, Greece, and Serbia struggled for possession of Macedonia-and denied any distinct Macedonian identity.

In the shadow of the Macedonian issue international realignments and Balkan repercussions: From the Greek-Yugoslav agreements of 18 june 1959 to the 1960 crisis in relations between Athens and Belgrade

The 1960s were a decade of important developments in the Balkans. Skopje?s stirring up of the issue of the supposed "Macedonian" minority led to a series of diplomatic clashes between Greece and Yugoslavia, culminating in the 1960-1962 crisis. A major role in developments in the Balkans was played by the Soviet Union, which, directly or indirectly, greatly influenced the shaping of Yugoslav foreign policy. The crisis began in August 1960 when for the first time since 1950, the Yugoslavia Foreign Ministry publicly raised the question of protecting the rights of the "Macedonian minority". While the Athens-Belgrade crisis was not serious enough to lead them to break off diplomatic relations, it did have a catalytic effect on the shaping of Bulgarian policy with regard to the Macedonian question. After the restoration of democracy in Greece (1974), and despite her need for support from Yugoslavia on the Cyprus issue, the Karamanlis government did not repeat the "mistakes" of 1959. Belgrade, having secured in 1975 a renewal of the agreement on the free zone in the Port of Thessaloniki, did not insist on signing a border agreement. The Macedonian question had become of no more than academic interest in the discussions of politicians on both sides of the border, and the crisis of 1960-62 merely a forgotten flareup.

Fighting Philip with Decrees: Demosthenes and the Syndrome of Symbolic Action

Demosthenes' Philippic cycle conveys a satirical picture of Athenians trapped in a spiral of symbolic activity: to a demos nostalgic for great-power status but loath to energetic intervention, high-sounding resolutions substitute for low-level responses and by their character as official enactments create the illusion of meaningful engagement. This "syndrome" is a rhetorical scare-image subserving a political agenda. At a time when his influence was still limited, Demosthenes found it expedient to exaggerate the cautious approach of the "peace party" into a "knowing-doing gap" in order to move the audience to accept his own hard line on the Macedonian question.

The December revolt in Athens British intervention and Yugoslav reaction: December 1944 - January 1945

The revolt that members and supporters of the leftist movement EAM-ELAS staged in Athens in early December 1944 against the Greek royal and British forces ushered into the second "round" of the civil war in Greece. The developments in the neighborhood draw much attention in Yugoslavia, where the war of liberation was in its final phases in parallel with the elimination of political rivals to the new government in which communists played a central role. This attention was not only a result of ideological solidarity, it also had to do with the "Macedonian Question", i.e. the position of Slavic Macedonian minority in northern Greece, an issue that had aroused a debate between Greek and Yugoslav communists in 1944. Difficulties in relations between the Yugoslav partisan leadership and the British, pressure from London, the passivity of the Soviet Union as regards the developments in Athens, a stalemate on the Srem Front, fights with the remaining collaborationist forces, compelled Yugoslavia to take a reserved position and avoid direct involvement in Greece. Appeals of Greek communists for aid in military supplies, promised on the eve of the revolt, failed to provoke a tangible response of the Yugoslav leadership. Once the revolt was crushed by the British and a truce between the EAM-ELAS and the royal government signed a wave of migration to Yugoslavia ensued of the borderland civilian Slavic Macedonian population but also of several thousand radical Greek leftists unwilling to accept the Varkiza agreement.

The New Macedonian Question. Edited by James Pettifer. New York: Palgrave, 1999, 2001. xliii, 311 pp. $79.95 (cloth); $26.95 (paper).

The New Macedonian Question. Edited by James Pettifer. New York: Palgrave, 1999, 2001. xliii, 311 pp. $79.95 (cloth); $26.95 (paper).

Yugoslavia and Its Historians: Understanding the Balkan Wars of the 1990s by Norman M. s> Naimark Holly Case Reflections on the Balkan Wars: Ten Years after The Break-Up of Yugoslavia by J. S. Morton R. C. Nation P. C. Forage S. Bianchini (review)

REVIEWS 78I the all-pervasive conspiracy directed against Russia is called 'Jewish', 'Yid' [Zhidovskii], 'Zionist',or 'Khazarian'.To the outside observer,it appearsto be old wine in old bottles. Nonetheless, in the era of conspiracytheories,Eastand West, Shnirelman's text providesa usefuland eruditeguide to the uses to which the Khazar myth have been put. Department ofHebrew andJewishStudies JOHN D. KLIER University College London Naimark, Norman M. and Case, Holly (eds). rugoslaviaand Its Historians: Understanding theBalkan Warsof the 9ggos. Stanford University Press, Stanford,CA, 2003. xix + 275 pp. Map. Notes. Index. C46.95. Morton, J. S., Nation, R. C., Forage,P. C. and Bianchini, S. (eds).Reflections on theBalkan Wars. TenrearsAfterTheBreak-Upof rugoslavia. Palgrave Macmillan,New Yorkand Basingstoke,2004. xv + 26o pp. Notes. Index. ?4?.?? YUGOSLAV historianshave been unwilling to debate the catastrophethat has overtakenYugoslaviasince the late I98os. This collection edited by Naimark and Case is a welcome exception in which leading practitioners explore 'images of the past' as well as key factors in the unsuccessful struggle of Yugoslaviato exist and renew itselfunderdifferentsocial systems. In the I98os most had no inklingthatYugoslaviawas going to fallapartjust as in West Germany virtuallyno historiansassumedthat unificationwith the East might be just around the corner. For an explanation, the influence of modernizationtheoriesin the socialscienceswhichpredictedthataccelerating development would create common identities is cited by Dusan Djordjevich in a well-handled opening essay that surveys the emphasis of historical researchover an extended period. The recent Yugoslav conflagration might be viewed as a disguised urban versus rural struggle in which rural and provincial South Slavs, and indeed Albanians,imposed theiratavisticand uncivilways on the cities. Butthe study of ruralpatterns of life has been neglected as indeed has urban civil society. But some amends are made here in the shape of three substantialchapters early in the book, an exploration of the ambiguous role of the Hajduk, or Bandit, in Balkan politics and culture, by Wendy Bracewell, the fading of transhumance as witnessed and indeed experienced by Wayne S. Vucinich, and the significance of Old Ragusa's tradition of civic peace and public spiritednessfor the modern Balkans,by BarisaKrekic . Interest in self-management has been replaced by an absorption with nations and nationalism which fits in with the general preoccupation 'with cultural explanations of virtually every phenomenon' (Djordjevich). He reckonsthatboth Serbiaand Croatiahave receivedverylittlerecent attention from historiansbecause of the centralityof the Bosnian conflict. The quality of a lot of the published scholarship on both countries is disappointing and Djordjevichdecriesthe influence ofjournalistic interpretations. 782 SEER, 83, 4, 2005 Macedonia has 'been the subject of some of the richest scholarship to emerge from the ruins of Yugoslavia'. This is appropriate as its history provoked large and deep controversies extending over a century. Andrew Rossos delineates the contours of the Macedonian question and describesthe rise of a Macedonian consciousness. He warns that the peace of South-East Europe lies injeopardy unless Macedonia's neighbours accept its identity as both a nation and a state (a contribution that appears to have been written before the 2001 internal conflict which has led to the state's official identity being throwninto the melting-pot). In a richly-detailedchapter CharlesJelavich dwells on education, another neglected branch of Balkanhistory, in order to try to better comprehend the weak momentum behind South Slav unity. He takes as his starting-pointa 1948 encounter with the Serbian historian Slobodan Jovanovic who argued thatpeace andprosperitywouldflowfroman educationsystemthatinculcated a respect for the historical background and traditions of all of Yugoslavia's inhabitants.Jelavich shows how teachers in inter-war Yugoslavialooked at education from their differing regional perspectives with education being a cinderella ministry in which a long-term view was absent. Then in a magisterialchapter,Alfred Suppan examines the differenthistoricalstagesin which Yugoslavismvied with national projects. Thomas Emmert is gloomy about Serbia'sfuture given the prevalence of politicians ready to narrowthe gulfbetween stateand society throughthe manipulationof nationalismjust as in earlierphases of history. To make his point he chartshow the intellectual powerbrokerDobrica Cosic abandoned Yugoslavismto provide much of the context and imageryof the Serbiannationalistrevivalof the I98os. Despite enforced population movements and segregationistschools, John Fine believes a Third Yugoslaviais possible. He laments the disappearanceof 'a beautiful society' that flourished 'under Tito's tolerant guidance'. He defends the reputation of the army in...

The Young Turk Revolution and the Negotiations for the Solution of the Macedonian Question

Cet article traite des relations et des negociations des Jeunes-Turcs avec les organisations politiques et revolutionnaires des Bulgares-Macedoniens, des Grecs, des Serbes et des autres groupes ethniques de Macedoine, entre 1906 et 1908. Le comite des Jeunes-Turcs de Macedoine a essaye d'obtenir le soutien de ces organisations pour creer un programme politique commun, avant et au cours de la Revolution de 1908. Mais ces organisations ont evalue le mouvement des Jeunes-Turcs en fonction de leurs propres strategies et ont reagi differemment a la revolution jeune-turque. Les negociations les plus decisives ont eu lieu en juillet 1908 au cours de la revolution et jusqu'a la periode des elections generales en octobre et novembre 1908. Il y avait des divergences insurmontables entre les demandes des organisations politiques macedoniennes et le programme politique du Comite Union et Progres. En consequence, une plate-forme politique commune pour resoudre la question macedonienne n'a pu etre creee et le combat des nationalites s'est poursuivi.