The Internal Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization and the Idea for Autonomy for Macedonia and Adrianople Thrace
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Internal Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization and the Idea for Autonomy for Macedonia and Adrianople Thrace, 1893-1912 By Martin Valkov Submitted to Central European University Department of History In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Supervisor: Prof. Tolga Esmer Second Reader: Prof. Roumen Daskalov CEU eTD Collection Budapest, Hungary 2010 “Copyright in the text of this thesis rests with the Author. Copies by any process, either in full or part, may be made only in accordance with the instructions given by the Author and lodged in the Central European Library. Details may be obtained from the librarian. This page must form a part of any such copies made. Further copies made in accordance with such instructions may not be made without the written permission of the Author.” CEU eTD Collection ii Abstract The current thesis narrates an important episode of the history of South Eastern Europe, namely the history of the Internal Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization and its demand for political autonomy within the Ottoman Empire. Far from being “ancient hatreds” the communal conflicts that emerged in Macedonia in this period were a result of the ongoing processes of nationalization among the different communities and the competing visions of their national projects. These conflicts were greatly influenced by inter-imperial rivalries on the Balkans and the combination of increasing interference of the Great European Powers and small Balkan states of the Ottoman domestic affairs. I argue that autonomy was a multidimensional concept covering various meanings white-washed later on into the clean narratives of nationalism and rebirth. Indeed, for the most of the period and for the greater part of IMARO activists autonomy was seen as a transitional phase towards future unification with Bulgaria based on the example of Eastern Rumelia. However, there were alternative voices. The strong leftist faction within the Organization advocated autonomy for these two regions within the Ottoman Empire where the different communities should live in harmony. Furthermore, they viewed autonomy as a first step towards a Balkan Federation. This comes to show that Balkan historiography all too often takes a national consciousness during the Ottoman period for granted and that the national option was by no means inevitable. CEU eTD Collection iii Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 II. Literature Review and Theoretical Approaches .................................................................. 7 II.1. Literature Review ........................................................................................................7 II. 2. Theoretical Approaches ............................................................................................ 16 II. Hopes and Disillusionment: the First Ten Years, 1893-1903 ............................................ 23 II.1. General Background .................................................................................................. 23 II.2. Why Autonomy? ....................................................................................................... 27 II.3. Autonomy for Whom? ............................................................................................... 30 II.4. The Evolution and Failure of an Idea ......................................................................... 36 III. The Split within the Organization, 1904-1908 ................................................................. 45 III.1. Autonomy, Reforms and the Great Struggle for Macedonia ...................................... 45 III.2. Two Trends: the Emergence of the Left and Right Wing .......................................... 50 III.3. The Final Split: the Kyustendil Congress ................................................................. 58 IV. The Question of Autonomy during the Hurriyet Donemi (The Time of Freedom): IMARO and the Young Turks, 1908-1912 .......................................................................................... 65 IV.1. Macedonian Autonomy and the Young Turks .......................................................... 65 IV.2. The Right Wing: the Union of the Bulgarian Constitutional Clubs .......................... 70 IV.3. The Left Wing: the Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization and the People’s Federative Party…………………………………………………………………..74 IV.4. IMARO Restored: the Road to War ......................................................................... 79 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 83 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 87 CEU eTD Collection iv Introduction The fall of communism in the Balkans and the war in Yugoslavia completely changed the political map of the peninsula and re-established the image of the Balkans as a backwater region of Europe where nationalism is firmly entrenched and “ancient hatreds” are still alive.1 It is a commonplace nowadays to differentiate between the liberal, civic and inclusive nationalisms in Western Europe and the irrational, ethic and exclusive nationalisms in Eastern Europe.2 But what is more important is that even among the Eastern European category Balkan nationalism is seen as an extreme case, as a phenomenon impervious to rational explanation. The emergence of the Republic of Macedonia as an independent state and the subsequent and still ongoing name dispute with neighboring Greece revived the interest in the history of the geographical and historical region of Macedonia as a whole. The famous “apple of discord” in the Balkans, the main cause for the conflicts between 1878 and 1944 once again attracted the interest of not only politicians and diplomats but also historians, anthropologists, sociologists, and social scientists in general. 3 In the current thesis I will address an important episode of the history of South Eastern Europe, namely the history of the Internal Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization and its demand for political autonomy within the Ottoman Empire. I argue that far from being “ancient hatreds” the communal conflicts that emerged in Macedonia were a result of the ongoing processes of nationalization among the different communities and the CEU eTD Collection 1 See Kennan, George, 1993. “Introduction - The Balkan Crises: 1913 and 1993,” in Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Other Balkan Wars: A 1913 Carnegie Endowment Inquiry in Retrospect with a New Introduction and Reflections on the Present by George F. Kennan (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment, 1993): 3-16. For criticism of this approach see Todorova, Maria. Imagining the Balkans (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997): 3-21. 2 See Liah Greenfeld, Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity (Cambridge: Harvard University Press), 1992. 3 Historical allusions are abundant even in serious scholarly production. For example a collection of articles dedicated to the political situation in post-Yugoslav Macedonia is referred to as “the new Macedonian question.” James Pettifer, The New Macedonian Question (Basingstoke and London: Macmillan Press), 1999. 1 competing visions of their national projects. These conflicts were hugely influenced by the inter-imperial rivalry on the Balkans and the increasing interference of the Great European Powers and small Balkan states within the Ottoman domestic affairs. Homogeneity and unilineraity are the basic myths of nations and nationalism, and this is precisely what is not true even with respect to the tiny intellectual elite of a national movement, I focus on in this thesis. I will elaborate on that later but the main findings could be presented here. Autonomy for Macedonia and Adrianople Thrace was not a coherent idea. It was a multidimensional concept covering various and different meanings. Indeed, for the most of the period and for the greater part of IMARO activists autonomy was seen as a transitional phase towards future unification with Bulgaria based on the example of Eastern Rumelia. However, there were alternative voices and Bulgarian nationalism was by no means unanimous within IMARO ranks. The strong leftist faction within the Organization advocated autonomy for these two regions within the Ottoman Empire where the different communities should live in harmony. Furthermore, they viewed autonomy as a first step towards a Balkan Federation in a way similar to and influenced by the programs of the Balkan social democratic circles. This comes to show that Balkan historiography all too often takes a national consciousness during the Ottoman period for granted. There were many activists still very much engaged with the Ottoman political system and cultural milieu, which means that the national option was by no means inevitable. National movements in the Balkans are much more complicated phenomena white- washed later on into the clean narratives of nationalism and rebirth. In this respect there is a CEU eTD Collection serious gap in historical knowledge, and with the current thesis I aim to bridge this gap. I will attempt to connect two academic disciplines – Bulgarian/Balkan National History and Ottoman History, which are inextricably bound by a common cultural, social and political tradition, yet