Greek Lie: "Macedonia was liberated in 1912, 1913" by Risto Stefov

[NOTE: Our apologies to the Greek people if they find these articles offensive. Our objective here is NOT to create tension between the Macedonian and Greek people but rather to highlight the problem that exists within the Greek State and its institutions. As long as the Greek State denies our existence as Macedonians with rights and privileges, we will continue to publish these types of articles.]

"If the Greek State truly valued the thinking and methods of Socrates they would question themselves and their actions" Dedo Kire

Close to a century ago in 1912 under the guise of liberation, Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria invaded Macedonia and with the help of the Macedonian people, evicted the Turks. But instead of helping the Macedonian people create their own independent State, Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria occupied Macedonian territories and fought one another each to gain more land for themselves. Then in 1913 they partitioned Macedonia into three pieces under the 1913 Treaty of Bucharest. After placing artificial borders where such borders never existed before, each State treated its newly acquired territory as its own and began to colonize it. Those inhabitants who refused to recognize their new overlords were exterminated or evicted; those who remained passive were assimilated. This process was halted due to World War I but was resumed after the 1919 Treaty of Versailles when the Great Powers with minor changes sanctioned the 1913 Treaty of Bucharest making the partition permanent.

These are historic facts that cannot be denied. One only needs to examine events during the signing of the 1913 Treaty of Bucharest to understand the conditions under which Macedonia was partitioned.

Some Greeks today, ignoring historical evidence, insist that the 1912, 1913 Balkan conflict was about liberating ancient territories that belonged to Greece some 2, 400 years ago.

If that were true then;

1. Why did Greece agreed to sign the 1913 Treaty of Bucharest allowing Serbia to gain some 38% of Macedonia's territory and Bulgaria 11%? Why did Greece NOT demand, at least for the record, historical rights while signing the Treaty?

2. On what basis are these claims made? By now it should be well known to every Greek that there was no "Ancient Greece" or "Ancient Hellas". If you don't believe me then try and find an ancient source that speaks of "Greece" or "Hellas". How can Macedonian territories belong to "Ancient Greece" when such a name never existed?

3. If the word "Greece" or "Hellas" did not exist 2,400 years ago, how then can modern Greeks claim that "Macedonia was Greek"?

Was it not the Macedonians, Philip II and his son Alexander III who conquered the City States during the Battle of Chaeronea in 336 BC? Or do some Greeks still believe Philip II and Alexander III united the Ancient City States?

Here is a quote to refresh their memories:

"On his return trip home from a battle with the Scythians Philip's convoy was attacked and his booty was lost to Thracian Triballians. During the skirmish, Philip suffered a severe leg injury, which left him lame for life. After returning home he spent several months recovering.

While Philip was recovering, the City States to the south were making alliances and amassing a great army to invade Macedonia. On hearing this, Philip decided it was time to meet this aggression head on and end the treachery once and for all. On August 2nd, 338 BC, in the shallow Cephisus River valley near the village of Chaeronea on the road to Thebes, the two opposing armies met face to face. On the north side stood Philip's Macedonians with 30,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry, the largest Macedonian army ever assembled. Among Philip's commanding generals was his 18 year-old son, Alexander, in charge of the cavalry. On the south side, stood the allied Athenians, Thebans and Achaeans who assembled 35,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry, the largest army ever assembled since the Persian invasion.

Closely matched, the armies clashed and while the battle ensued the Macedonian right flank fell back and began to retreat. Seeing the Macedonians weakening, the allied City State general gave orders to push on and drive the Macedonians back to Macedonia. As the Macedonians retreated, the allied flanks broke rank and began the pursuit. Not realizing it was a trick, the allies found themselves surrounded and slaughtered by Alexander's cavalry. When it was over, the majority of the allied army, including the elite Theban Sacred Band lay dead in the fields of Chaeronea. Philip erected a statue of a lion to commemorate the sacrifice of the Theban Sacred Band who upheld their tradition and fought to the last man.

Ancient City State and Roman historians consider the battle of Chaeronea as the end of City State liberty, history and civilization." (1)

After reading the above, do you still believe Philip and Alexander united the Ancient City States? Would it not be more correct to say "the Macedonians by way of war conquered and enslaved the Ancient City States thus making them the property of Macedonia"?

The question still remains; if not by historical rights then by what right does 51% of the present Macedonian territory belong to Greece?

I can understand if a successor of the Roman Empire such as Italy, which held Macedonia for two centuries makes claims that Macedonia is Italian based on the fact that Macedonia once belonged to the Roman Empire or that Macedonia is Turkish based on the fact that Macedonia for five centuries belonged to the Ottoman Empire, but as God is my witness, I cannot fathom this Greek logic on how Macedonia could possibly be Greek?

"One can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time"

I am not the only one looking at this "Greek Logic" as a bit unusual:

In Plutarch "The Age of Alexander" on page 212 we read: "While Demosthenes was still in exile, Alexander died in Babylon, and the Greek states combined yet again to form a league against Macedon. Demosthenes attached himself to the Athenian convoys, and threw all his energies into helping them incite the various states to attack the Macedonians and drive them out of Greece.". Why didn't Plutarch include Macedonia as part of Greece if Macedonia was Greek?

In M. Cary's book "The Geographic background of Greek and Roman History" (ISBN 0-313-23187-7) we find the following constituent parts of Greece: Epirus, Acarnania, The Ionian Isles, Aetolia, Thessaly, The Spercheu Valley, Locris, Phocis, Boeotia, Euboea, Attica, Aegina, Corinth, Achaea, Elis, Arcadia, Argolis, Laconia, Messenia, The Greek Archipelago, Crete, The Outer Isles, The Northern Aegean, The East Aegean, Rhodes. It makes one wonder why M. Cary omitted Macedonia from the general description of Greece? Perhaps for the same reason the German classical scholar Bursian failed to include Macedonia in his otherwise comprehensive geographical survey of Greece "Geographie von Griechenland". (2)

On page 91 in "Hellenistic World" by F.W.Walbank we find: "It is necessary, in any assessment of the role of Macedonia in the Hellenistic world to bear in mind that although our sources naturally, being Greek or based on Greek writers, lay their emphasis on Macedonian policy towards Greece, Macedonia was in fact equally a Balkan power for which the northern, western and north-eastern frontiers were always vital and for which strong defenses and periodic punitive expeditions over the border were fundamental policy." (2)

In N.G.L.Hammond's book "The Macedonian State" on page 141 we read: "Philip and Alexander attracted many able foreigners, especially Greeks, to their service, and many of these were made Companions." (2) If Macedonians were Greeks why did Hammond call them foreigners?

In Eugene Borza's "Makedonika" on page 164 we read: "Alexander seems to have imported troupes of performers from Greece." (2) How does one import Greeks from Greece into Greece?

In Plutarch's "The Age of Alexander" on page 264 we find: "Thebans countered by demanding the surrender of Philotas and Antipater and appealing to all who wished to liberate Greece to range themselves on their side, and at this Alexander ordered his troops to prepare for battle." (2) Were they also going to liberate Macedonia, i.e. Alexander's homeland, because according to modern Greek logic "Macedonia is Greek"?

In Quintus Rufus's "The History of Alexander" on page 50-1 Alexander, in a letter, responds to Darius: "His Majesty Alexander to Darius: Greetings. The Darius whose name you have assumed wrought utter destruction upon the Greek inhabitants of the Hellespontine coast and upon the Greek colonies of Ionia, and then crossed the sea with a mighty army, bringing the war to Macedonia and Greece." (2) Shouldn't Alexander have said "Greece and Greece"?

In Arrian's "The Campaigns of Alexander" on page 292 Alexander speaking to his officers: "...But let me remind you: Through your courage and endurance you have gained possession of Ionia, the Hellespont, both Phrygias, Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, Lydia, Caria, Lycia, Pamphylia, Phoenicia and Egypt; the Greek part of Libya is now yours, together with much of Arabia, lowland Syria, Mesopotamia, Babylon, and Susia;..." Point of interest: "The Greek part of Libya is now yours?" How can the Greek part of Libya become Greek again, if it already was in Greek hands to begin with? (2)

["Only in Thessaly and Boetia, and outside Greece, in Macedonia, was there cavalry worthy of the name."

"The Peloponnesian War was a fratricidal war among the Greeks, a fact that was not altered by the intervention of foreign powers, Macedonia, for instance and later the Persian Empire."] (Excerpts taken from The Greeks and Persians, from the sixth to the fourth centuries; edited by Hermann Bengston; published by Delacorte Press, New York.) (2)

In Agnes Savil's book "Alexander the Great and his Time" on page 180 we find: "For a time Hellenism revived when Demetrius of Bactria, half Macedonian, half Greek, tried in 187 B.C. to reclaim the Indian empire of Alexander." Should we assume that there is such a person who is half Greek and half Greek? (2)

In Quintus Rufus's "The History of Alexander" on page 188 we find: "Accordingly, one festive day, Alexander had a sumptuous banquet organized so that he could invite not only his principle friends among the Macedonians and Greeks but also the enemy nobility." "Macedonians and Greeks"? Not Greeks and Greeks? (2)

In Arrian's "The Campaigns of Alexander" on page 294 we read: "Gentlemen of Macedon, and you my friends and allies [Greeks], this must not be. Stand firm; for well you know that hardship and danger are the price of glory, and that sweet is the savor of a life of courage and of deathless renown beyond the grave." (2)

In Quintus Curtius Rufus's "The History of Alexander" on page 195 regarding the trial of Hermolaus we find: "As for you Callisthenes, the only person to think you a man (because you are an assassin), I know why you want him brought forward. It is so that the insult which sometimes uttered against me and sometimes heard from him can be repeated by his lips before this gathering. Were he a Macedonian I would have introduced him here along with you - a teacher truly worth of his pupil. As it is, he is an Olynthian [Greek] and does not enjoy the same rights." (2)

In Robert A. Hudley's paper "Diodoros 18.60.1-3: "A Case of Remodeled Source Materials" dissects "Eumenes": "We then come upon Eumenes' second observation that, being a foreigner, he has no right to exercise command over Macedonians. At no point, however, in Diodoros' prior narrative does Eumenes' Greek origin excite animosity among the Macedonians. More important, Eumenes does not see his foreign origin as an impediment to accepting the dynasty' offer of a supreme command in 18.58.4 and he proceeds to exercise that authority in 19.13.7 and 15.5 without any qualms on his part that he is not a Macedonian. Eumenes' foreign origin does become an issue at one point among the commanders of the Silver Shields." (2)

If the Ancient Macedonians themselves did not consider themselves to be kin to the people of the Ancient City States why should we?

Again the question still remains; if not by historical rights then by what right does 51% of the present Macedonian territory belongs to Greece?

Allow me to summarize:

1. The name "Greece" or "Hellas" did not exist in ancient times 2. The Ancient Macedonians did not consider themselves in any way, shape or form to be akin to the people from the Ancient City States 3. The Ancient City States were conquered and enslaved by the Macedonians; not united 4. The Ancient City States belonged to the Macedonians for nearly two centuries and not the other way around 5. No "Greek" or "Hellenic" State ever existed before 1829

So, how can Macedonian territories in 1912, 1913 be liberated by Greece when those lands NEVER belonged to Greece?

THE TRUTH:

The truth is Macedonia NEVER belonged to Greece. The 1912, 1913 conflict was simply a land grab perpetrated by Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria and sanctioned by the Great Powers to feed the imperial appetites of those three States. The so called "historical" claims were an afterthought designed to keep the innocent and uninformed tangled in a web of BIG Greek Lies.

NO! Macedonia is NOT and NEVER was Greek. Macedonia BELONGS to the Macedonians! In the words of William Gladstone "MACEDONIA FOR THE MACEDONIANS"!

The End

This is the last BIG Greek Lie. Look for the "Little Book of BIG Greek Lies" to be published in 2007.

References:

1. Stefou, Chris. History of the Macedonian People from Ancient times to the Present. Toronto: Risto Stefov Publications, 2005, P 67.

2. Quotes provided by Dedo Kire.

NOTE: I just want to mention here that the unknown author mentioned in Greek Lie # 19 is our own Soldier of Macedon (SoM) from the Maknews.com forum. Thank you SoM for your contribution.

----------
You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com