The Internal Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization and the Idea for Autonomy for Macedonia and Adrianople Thrace

CEU eTD Collection

Revolutionary Organization and the Idea for Autonomy for Macedonia Autonomy Adri and for The Internal Macedonian In partial fulfilment of the of fulfilment partial In Second Reader: Prof. Roumen Daskalov Thrace, 1893- Supervisor: Central European University European Central Department of History of Department

Budapest requirements for the degree of Master for of degree of Arts Master the requirements Martin Valkov Martin Submitted to Submitted

Prof 2010 By By , Hungary,

Tolga Esmer Tolga

1912

- Adrianople Adrianople

nople anople

CEU eTD Collection

Author. the of permission written the without made be not may instructions s with in accordance made copies Further made. copies such of any apart form must This page librarian. from the obtained bemay Details Library. European in Central the par or “ Copyright in the text of this thesis rests with the Author. Copies by any process, either in full full in either process, any by Copies Author. the with rests thesis this of text the in Copyright t,

may by and be Author lodged made the onlygiven instructions inwith the accordance ii

”

uch uch CEU eTD Collection Great European Powers and states small Balkan Powers European Great w option national anational cons takes often Balkan historiography alltoo that show to comes This Federation. aBalkan towards step first as they a viewed autonomy live inFurthermore, harmony. should communities the different Organization Rumelia. Eastern of example the on based Bulgaria with unification future towards phase transitional part of IM greater the for and period of the most white inter visi competing the were conflict communal the hatreds” “ancient being for the OttomanEmpire. Organization autonomywithin political its demand and Macedonian Internal the of history namely the Europe, - imperial rivalries imperial - di the among of nationalization processes ongoing ofa result the washed later on into the clean narratives of nationalism and rebirth and of nationalism narratives cleaninto the on later washed meanings various covering concept multidimensional a autonomy was that argue I T he current he current within the faction the within leftist The strong voices. alternative were there However, advocated advocated as bynomeansas inevitable ons of their national projects. These conflicts were greatly were These conflicts national projects. of their ons thesis thesis

on the Balkans and the combination the and of Balkans the on autonomy autonomy narrates that the the ciousness the Ottoman during for period and granted that

for thes for an important episode of the history of South Eastern Eastern South history of the of episode important an Abstract . etwo regions iii

of s

that inemerged this period inthat Macedonia the Ottoman domestic affairs. domestic Ottoman the

ARO activists autonomy was seen as a a as seen was autonomy ARO activists

within the Ottoman Empire where where Empire Ottoman the within increasing interference of the of the interference increasing - Adrianople Rev Adrianople fferent fferent . Indeed, f Indeed, . communities and

influenced by

olutionary olutionary Far Far

or the the or from from CEU eTD Collection

and the Young Turks, 1908- III. The Split within 1904- the Organization, t Disillusionment: and Hopes II. Approaches Review and Theoretical Literature II. Introduction Conclusion Bibliography IV. IV. The Question Autonomy of the Hurriyet during IV.3. The Left Wing: t Wing: Left The IV.3. t Wing: Right The IV.2. MacedonianIV.1. Autonomy and the Young Split Final The III.3. III.2.Two Trends: Autonomy,III.1. Reforms Struggle and the Great for Macedonia Idea an of Failure and Evolution The II.4. Whom? for Autonomy II.3. WhyII.2. Autonomy? General Background II.1. Approaches 2. Theoretical II. Review Literature II.1. IV.4. IMARO Restored Party Federative People’s

...... t he Emergence of t :

...... he Macedonian Congress Kyustendil he

...... 7 :

he Union of the Bulgarian Constitutional Clubs Constitutional Bulgarian the of Union he t

...... he Road he Warto Road ………………………………………………………………….. 1912

......

...... he First Ten Years, 1893 he Ten Years, First

...... Table of Contents - he he Adrianop Left and Right Wing Right and Left

...... 1908 iv Turks

......

...... le Revolutionary Organization and Organization le Revolutionary

IMARO IMARO Freedom): of Time (The Donemi

......

- 1903

......

t he he

36 65 45 30 27 23 16 70 58 50 79 23 45 65 83 87 74 1 7

CEU eTD Collection

Oxford University Press, 1997 3 ): 3-16. 1993): Introduction explanation. explanation. imperviou phenomenon a as case, extreme an as seen is nationalism Balkan 3 2 1 result of the ongoing processes ofnationalization among the the and different communities conflict communal the hatreds” “ancient being from far Organizationits and demandfor political autonomy within the Ott Macedonian Internal the of history namely the Europe, sociologists, and social sci attracted theinterest of not only politicians and diplomats but also historians, anthropologists, again once and 1944 1878 between mainfor conflicts the inthe cause Balkans, the of discord” Maced of region historical and geographical the of history in interest the the revived Greece neighboring withname still dispute subsequent and ongoing Europe. in Eastern nationalisms exclusive and ethic irrational, and the Europe Western in nationalisms inclus and civic liberal, between the differentiate to nowadays isIt acommonplace alive. still are hatreds” “ancient and entrenched firmly is nationalism where Europe of region map political the James James dedicated to the political situation in post-Yugoslav Macedonia International Peace, The Other Balkan Wars: A 1913 Carnegie Endowment Inquir

See See See See Historical allusions are abundant even in serious scholarly production. For example acollection of articles Liah Greenfeld Liah Kennan, George,Kennan, 1993. “ Pettifer, In the current thesis I will address an important episode of the history of South Eastern Eastern South of history of the episode important an address will I thesis current In the and state the asindependent an of Macedonia Republic of the The emergence changed completely in Yugoslavia war the and Balkans the in communism of fall The 2

But what is more important is that even among the Eastern European category category European Eastern the among is even that important is more what But

Todorova, Maria. ImaginingBalkans the For criticism Maria. of thisapproach see Todorova, and Reflections The

New Macedonian

, of the peninsula and re Nationalism:

on the Introduction entists in general. in entists -21.

Five Roads

Question Present Present - The Balkan Crises: 1913and 1993 by

(Basingstoke London and to Modernity Introduction -

established the image of the Balkans as a backwater as abackwater Balkans image of the the established George George 3

F .

(Cambridge: Kennan

is referred to as “the new Macedonian question.” question.” Macedonian new “the as to referred is s

onia as a whole. The famous “apple “apple famous The awhole. as onia were in Macedonia emerged that (Washington, DC:Carnegie Endowment :

Macmillan Press Macmillan Harvard University Press - Adrianople Revolutionary Revolutionary Adrianople I argue that that argue I Empire. oman ,”

in y i

Carnegie Endowment for n Retrospect with

(New Oxford: and York ), 1 999. s to rational

, 1992.),

a New

ive ive a 1 ,

CEU eTD Collection I hope it will contribute for a better abetter for it willcontribute hope I separately. treated unfortunately yet tradition, Ottoman inserious gap rebirth. and nationalism of narratives clean the into on later washed milieu cultural and granted. historiography often alltoo a national takes consciousness during for the Ottomanperiod programs soci the Balkan of influenced by and the in to similar away aBalkanFederation step first towards as a autonomy harmony. in live should communities different the Empire where Organization advocated within the was nationalism Bulgarian andvoices alternative were there However, Rumelia. Eastern exampleof the to phase as atransitional was seen autonomy a was It Autonomy here. be presented for M thesis. this in on focus I movement, attempt attempt is affairs. domestic within Ottoman the and states smallBalkan Powers inter competing visi precisely - imperial rivalry on the Balkans and the increasing interference of the Great European European Great of the interference increasing the and Balkans the on imperial rivalry - white phenomena complicated more much are Balkans the in movements National f Indeed, are unilineraity and Homogeneity

multidimensional

There were many activists still very much engaged with the Ottoman political system system political Ottoman the with engaged much very still manyactivists were There to History, which are are which History,

connect what is not true even with respect even true is not what

historical knowledge ons of their national projects. Thes projects. national their of ons or the most of the period and for the greater part of IMARO activists activists of part IMARO greater the for and period of the most the or by nomeans , which means that the national option w option national the that means which ,

two two concept covering various andvarious different covering concept academic disciplines academic inextri al democraticcircles. unanimous ,

acedonia and Adrianople Thrace was not a coherent idea. idea. acoherent not was Thrace Adrianople and acedonia

cably bound by by a bound cably and w and I will elaborate on that later but the main findings could could findings main the but later that on elaborate will I auto the basic myth basic the nomy nomy I aim to aim I thesis current the ith

within IMAROwithin The ranks. strong leftist faction wardsfuture unification Bulgaria with based on 2

for these two regions two these for

– to thetiny intellectu e conflicts Bulgarian

common s This comes to show that Balkan that show to comes This

of of as by no no by as nations and nationalism and nations

/ were hugely were Balkan National History and

cultural,social and political meanings. Furthermore means

In this respect there is a is a there respect In this

al elite of a national national a of elite al bridge within the Ottoman Ottoman the within

inevitable

influenced by the the by influenced

I will will I this gap. , they , , .

and this and this viewed viewed

CEU eTD Collection the on elaborate will chapter The principle. guiding its idea as this adopted IMARO why answering and Berlin of Congress the after development its attention to special paying Ottoman Empire, nineteenth century nationsin the Balkan the general. in nationalism European to compared similarities and its specificities were what emerge, in particular d the analyze freedom.” for I will “struggles and “national inawakening” history of present the terms B different the views of narrow the challenge theoretical the sets and andPowers. Great the states, neighboring the authorities, Ottoman the o examination simultaneous for a helps also approach chronological The policy. inshifts IMARO’s which causedperiod Ba at stop the logical itto much is years more four subsequent the of characteristic different the despite that justified and not is this approach that think I However, in power. were Turks Young the when years four next the to attention special pay not infinishing 1908and do period, Hamidian the only examine usually subject the treated have who scholars the of Organizationin Ottomanin the of 1893to outbreak Salonika Wars the Balkanin Most 1912. nationalism. Balkan and Empire Ottoman late understanding lkan wars which ended the Ottoman rule of this land. this of rule Ottoman the ended which wars lkan In the second chapter I will trace back will I trace chapter second In the literature existing the discusses chapter first The chapters. four into is divided The text this in events political major to relation in chronologically organized is thesis The origin the down willtrace I ifferent views of scholars on how nationalism in general and Balkan nationalism nationalism Balkan and general in nationalism how on scholars of views ifferent first first of the history of Macedonia and second, for a better understanding of the the of understanding better a for second, and Macedonia of history the of

framework within which the thesis is situated. My purpose is Myis situated. to purpose within thesis framework which the f all political factors involved – involved factors political f all s of the demand for autonomy from the foundation of the the of foundation the from autonomy for demand the of s

the emergence of the au the of emergence the 3

alkan national historiographies’ tendency tendency historiographies’ national alkan

development of IMARO to the Ilinden

the revolutionaries themselves, themselves, revolutionaries the

tonomy concept tonomy

among to to

CEU eTD Collection some of them in English. These documents are d are documents These English. in them of some in published been have that documents of collections numerous the on mostly concentrated I main groups. into three divided be can used I that sources Balkan War. played IMARO role the analyze also will I policy. new its and the age different can found that be period the of press in Bulgarian the and Balkan states. the Powers Great of the agents diplomatic official of the protocols, reports are Another declarations,the etc. group sources of publish primary ed leadership organs and executive IMARO of the documentation they that parties two of the programs the examine revolutionaries, Adrianople Macedonian and the Turks between the Young relations the of questions willI the address wh Wars, Balkan of the outbreak not. did they what and achieved they Vienna the namely projects, reform two the examine O vilayets European the in movements national different between the conflicts bitter saw which time a was This Revolution. failed. ultimately it why and rebels uprising this led to that factors discuss will Uprising I 1903. of rganization in rganization Young Turk regime. I will trace the restoration of the Organization in the years 1910 in the Organization of the restoration the willtrace I regime. Turk Young The thesis is based both on primary sources and secondary literature. The primary The primary literature. secondary and sources primary on both based is The thesis A second group of sources that I use are the different articles, polemics and interviews interviews and polemics articles, different the are use I that sources of group second A Revolutionthe fromthe Young Turk deals to fourth period chapter The the with dealsThethe of 1903to outbreak third after the the with period Young chapter Turk

ndas, ndas, to

and and two factions with with factions two overtures of of overtures the rejected revolutionaries the subsequently why analyze ich practically was the end of the Ottoman Empire in Europe. Europe. in Empire Ottoman the of end the was practically ich

of the E the of

very different very mpire. I will address theissues address will I of thempire. splitin the 4

include and in character iverse

agendas and views on a on views and agendas and the Mu the and

in the “St. St. Cyril and Methodius Methodius and Cyril St. “St. the in , what were the agendas of the the of agendas the were what , rztsteg plans, analyzing what rztsteg Bulgarian, Macedonian, and and Macedonian, Bulgarian, in

the outbreak of outbreak the -

statutes, regulations, regulations, statutes, utonomy. I will will I utonomy. founded the official official the

the First , their their , - 1911 1911 -

CEU eTD Collection 4 Macedonian Internal Macedonian Secret changed was name the 1902 In (BMARC). Committees Revolutionary Adrianople 1902 the From nameRevolutionaryitMacedonian took Committee. 1896to Bulgarian Macedonian or Organization Revolutionary Macedonian called it was founders ofsome the English. in unfortunatel perspectives conflicting the For other Bulgarian. and in Macedonian both literature the i of apoint was Macedonia separately. printed amagazine were or and innewspaper included a Iad can also group this To press. the in in polemics the or documentation official in the missing is often that information valuable offer because essential are but very be critically treated haveThese to opinions. their changed often very and justified used, they methods the about argued goals, explain their to tried revolutionaries Macedonian the press In the in Sofia. Library” National the first years first 1893 the pe bot argued thatsuch was the chronological order of Preobrazhenie Uprising] Ilindensko VMORO predi Universitetsko izdatelstvo “ Minutes, Letters, Circular Declarations, Memoranda, Regulations, Adrianople Revolutionary Organization (1983-1919). Documents of Central the Executive Organs (Statutes, pravilnitzi, memoari, deklaratzii, okraz Odrinska Revolyutzionna Organizatziya (1983-1919). Dokumenti na tzentralnite rakovodni organi (ustavi, 1896 later on the problem seemsbe to solved. Tzocho Bilyarski, “Introduction” Vatreshnata in Makedono-

The The riodization in 1969. On the basis were SMARO statutes BMARC the and h enormous periodization In the period under study the revolutionary organization had a number of names. of number a had organization revolutionary the study under period the In is chapter infirst enormous. the whichbe discussed will literature The secondary of group Another primary source y I had to rely almost entirely on the scholarly production that has been published published been has that production scholarly the on entirely almost rely to had y I

interest on the topic. I includetriedmuch to as possible as the existing of

of the Internal of the d the different, tracts, pamphlets, brochures, etc. which were too large to be large to which too etc. were brochures, pamphlets, tracts, d different, the - Adrianople Revolutionary Organization (SMARO) and in 1905 finally to finally1905 in to AdrianopleOrganization (SMARO) and Revolutionary - 1896 nodocuments hadbeenfound According yet. to - Isricheski pregled (1)1969, 68-80. With the finding of BMARC a regulat Adrianople Revolutionary Organization (IMARO). For facility’s sake sake facility’s For (IMARO). Organization Revolutionary Adrianople -Peobrazhenskoto vastanie” [IMARO and Statutes Regulations before the Ilinden Sv. KlimentSv. Ohridski ntersection for many conflicting interests and this fact can explain explain can fact this and interests many conflicting for ntersection

Organization’s names used to be a matter of debate. The problem was that that was problem The of debate. matter be a to used names Organization’s of of a hni, protokoli, neredbi, rezolyutzii, pisma) critical examination and contextualization of sources, he convincingly convincingly he of sources, contextualization and examination critical , not dated. Konstantin Pandevwas the first to introduce this s ar ” 2007” )

the documents. Pandev, Konstantin. “Ustavi ipravilnizti na and activists. activists. leaders and of IMARO memoirs e the 5 , 9. ,

Orders, Resolutio

[The Internal Macedonian Internal [The ns, Letters)] ns, the memoirs of of memoirs the ion dated dated ion

to to

(Sofia: 4

For For the the - - - CEU eTD Collection . A kazas of consist turn in they division administrative Thessalon languageEnglish that time. at preferred Salonika ThusI of Selanik, (instead Solun or English, into translated sources cite casesI when mine. other In all are source aBulgarian which cite amemberfor Bulgarian of the term general chetnik correspond Empire which provided. are explanations further necessary, Wherever known Organization. today or Internal simp the as ly through Since most of the sources I use are in Bulgarian language, the translated excerpts excerpts translated the language, Bulgarian in use are I sources of the most Since Throughout use other to tried I out is I use the official use the translation I

iki), Adrianople (instead of Edirne, Odrin) and Monastir (instead of Bitola). (instead and Monastir Odrin) of Edirne, (instead Adrianople iki), a member o member a

the whole thesis I will refer to it with its with it to refer will I thesis whole the

- the non text several f such a band. Andartes band. a f such

in this period in this s

the to a province. A aprovince. to vilayet

names

cheta .

of towns and cities cities and towns of a

refers to a Bulgarian or Serbian armed band and band Serbian armed or a Bulgarian to refers vilayet English terms English revolutionary revolutionary

are the members of Greek bands. K bands. ofmembers Greek the are 6

is the biggest administrative unit within the

consists of smaller units or sancaks or units smaller of consists

final name final

are used are committees. committees. in the way they were referred to in in to referred were they in way the .

by whic Accordingto the

h it is most is it h omita

Ottoman Ottoman

widely jis ,

and and is a a is

CEU eTD Collection general. in nationalism an Europe to compared and similarities specificities emerge particular in nationalism Balkan and in general nationalism how on will I states. nation Balkan of the projects national freedom.” for “struggles course of more years. course hundred one has caus It history. Balkan Modern field of in the topic controversial and debated highly time same the at but fascinating nationalistic 5 many written not are there order, existing the overthrowing at aimed which conspiracy rebel Organization since its foundation in 1893 now. until In years,the first quite naturally for a century one over beginning. fashion similar R Socaliast t a the Question: Culture, Historiography, Politics Sword: Reviewing the Historiographyof the Macedonian Question” in

he history of the region. The situation was further complicat further was The situation he region. of the history - For general overviewof the historiography see Vassilis Gounaris and Iakovos Mihailidis “The Pen and the vis Macedonia necessarily sparked a fury of teleological and anachronistic discourses about about discourses anachronistic and of teleological fury a sparked necessarily Macedonia vis

for for framework theoretical Ottoman Macedonia at end 19 of the at Macedonia Ottoman Due to all these obstacles facing the historian it is better to start from the very very from the start to better isit historian the facing all obstacles these to Due this In There is a hugeis corp a There epublic of Macedonia within Yugoslavia at wher WWII endthe of at Yugoslavia within epublic Macedonia of

views views

chapter chapter nation building. and nation state of Macedonian process legitimizethe was to used - which which long historylong Adr the Internal of Macedonian II. Literature Review and Theoretical Approaches Theoretical and Review Literature II. I discussI on the respective respective the on based largely were interpretations these that argue I present ed different and as a rule mutually exclusive interpretations in the in the interpretations exclusive mutually and as arule different ed

s of published documentation and secondary literature for the the for literature secondary and documentation us of published

my my dedicated to IMARO to dedicated literature existing the Macedonian Macedonian 5 II.1. Literature Review Literature II.1.

, research. The

Boulder: East European Monographs European East (Boulder:

irredentist goals of Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia Serbia and Greece Bulgaria, of goals irredentist

My purpose is challenge purpose the anachronisticMy to 7 th history in terms of of terms in history

and the beginningand the of the 20 also also analyze the different views of scholars scholars of views different analyze the

Roudometof, Victor ed. Victor Roudometof, ed with the establishment the with ed a “national awakening” and and awakening” “national , 2000), 99-142. ianople

’s , what were its its were what d,

- history and set th e history in a a in history e Revolutionary Revolutionary The Macedonian

century century

of a a of is vis

a -

CEU eTD Collection “Fundamentals”)] (Sofia, 1904); Idem, “Osnovite”) Macedonia] (Skopje, 1917), (Sofia, 1918). 11 10 9 8 7 6 Wars. before Balkan the recorded pu started Miletich at end WWI.the of the appeared it inits thoroughness which treated movement IMARO farhad been and re questioned strategy, so structure, and the policypursued ideas amongBulgarian societyand abroad. how usefulfor their cause propagate their publish punewspapersstartedblicity to to and was French.inand Bulgarian in 1904 the uprising after activities. and goals their two betweenorganizations, the conflict the which treated period from this press inBulgarian articles the numerous are There occurred. Committee Adrianople Sofia the with clashes first the mentio started newspapers Contemporary sources. Revolutionary Organization] (Sofia, 1905); Idem, Vastanishki deystviya [Rebel Activities], (Sofia, 19 1905); Idem., Za upravlenieto naVatreshnata revolyutzionna organizatziya 1899 Reformi: Organ 1903; 1903; organizatziya Odrisnka Adrianople Region, 1893-1903. With Two A Maps. Memoir o f Internal Organization], the 1904. Frenchin – MNI, 1929); Materiali za istoriyata namakedonskoto osvoboditelno dvizhenie saobshtavakn, XI Boyan Mirchev [Materials for the History of the Macedon 1925-1928); I books, Movement, Liberation Macedonian the of History the for Newspaper: Internal Macedonian 1909; Revolyutzionen1909; organizatziya 1904. Macedoine et le vilayet d’Adrianople (1983-1903). Avex deux cartes. Memoire de l’Organisation interieure Makedoniya Odrinsko i (1893 karti.-1903). Sdve Memoar naVatreshnata organizatziya The most important being the official organ of the Supreme Macedonian

Someof the more important are: Avtonomiya (L’Autonomie): Zadgranichen list naVatre Hristo Materiali zaMateriali istoriyata na makedonskoto osvoboditelno dvizhenie Angel

–

1905. Ilinden After WWI After the Internalinfound Organization published information theMuch Memoir of be can Tomov and Georgi Bazhdarov, Bazhdarov, Georgi and Tomov Matov, Matov, ’s

[Fundamentals of the Internal Revolutionary Organization (An Attempt to Select Formulate and the

leaders Hristo Matov wrote several tracts. Matov wrote leaders Hristo , X saobshtava St. Avramov Avramov St. Materiali za istoriyata namakedonskoto osvoboditelno saobshtava X dvizhenie , kn [Constitutional Dawn: Orga , 1907– , [Reforms na Varhovniya Makedonski komitet [Reforms Osnovi naVatreshnata revolyutzionna organizatziya (opit za podbirane formulirane i na blishing a series of memoirs of IMARO activists many of which were were which of many activists IMARO of memoirs of series a blishing

[Autonomy: Foreign Newspaper of the Internal Macedonian Internal of the Newspaper Foreign [Autonomy: the Bulgarian linguist and ethnographer from Macedonia Macedonia from ethnographer and linguist Bulgarian the list: Vatreshna Makedono-Odrisnkarevolyutzionna organizatziya 1908; Adrianople Revolutionary Organization], 1904 Organization], Revolutionary -Adrianople Konstitutzionna zarya: Organ naMakedono-Odrinskata revolyutzionna

- basedand already Macedonian widely known Supreme Shto byahmeShto – Revolyutzionnata borba Makedoniya v

n of the Macedonian of the n ian Liberation Movement, kn. X, reported by St. Avramov] (Sofia: 11

Materials concerning the Adrianople region were were region Adrianople the concerning Materials 8

8 In theIn post

s hto sme sme hto ning the Organization around 1901 when 1901when ning Organization around the – -Adrianople Revolutonary 1908 – Organization], 7

Organ of the Supreme Macedonian Committee], Committee], Macedonian Supreme of the Organ 9 The IMARO activists quickly realized realized quickly activists The IMARO

The first history of the revolutionary revolutionary the of history first The [What We Were, What We Are] (Plovdiv, (Plovdiv, We Are] What We Were, [What , kn. I IX, -IX, byreported (Sofia: L. Miletich] MNI, - Ilinden -Adrianople Revolutionary Committee -IX saobshtava L. Miletich [Materi [On the Management of Internal the -1906. [The Revolutionary Struggle in period when the internal internal the when period Adrianople Organization], Organization], -Adrianople

- examined shanta Makedono 10 [Macedonia and and [Macedonia

[Revolutionary [Revolutionary Lyubomir Lyubomir 06). , one of

, s. l., l., s. , 6

als als La La - -

CEU eTD Collection volumes 14 13 12 MNI, 1931). [Materials for the Historyof the Macedonian Liberation Movement, kn. XI, reported byBoyan Mirchev] (Sofia: works t Likewise, re be to Thus nation. Macedonian aseparate policy of recognizing adopted change profound a underwent Ilinden after events the treated and in 1943 appeared volume fromthedealt1893 to Ilinden withhistory the organization theof publish question. the on view of point Bulgarian the propagating in active very was which Institute intellectua Bulgarian Ormandzhiev. Ivan Thrace from historian Bulgarian by the collected topic was mostly treated by Vlahov. and Kyosev Tushe Dino mostlytopic was treated study. his to analysis comparative of element an adds which WWI in Bulgarians were unknown him prior to officialincluding Serbian docu that documents introducing archives state the used who first the also was Silyanov fetched. far little a are opponents ideological the of characteristics the sometimes why explains Orga wingwithin he the However, the with right period. sympathized Si Himselfahistorian, writer and also participantin many of themajor events he described, [Contributions to the Rebel Movement in Adrianople Region] kn. I (Burgas, 1927), kn. II-IV (Sofia, 1929-1941). Macedonian National Revolutionary Movement] (Sofia, 1954); Tushe Vlahov, velikobalgarskitei Varhovizmat Liberation], Sofia Idem, 1950; Istoriya namakedonskoto natzionalnorevolyutzionno dvizhenie

Dino Dino l Hristo Silyanov, yanov managed to give a complete and more or less objective historical picture of the of the picture historical less objective or more and give acomplete to managed yanov Ivan Ivan Kyosev, Kyosev, from the earlier period earlier from the , After the end ofWWII theBulgarian historiogr The the first volumethe his “The of Liberation work Struggles ofin Macedonia” which 1933, (Sofia: - Ormandzhiev, Ormandzhiev, written and treated as an element of the larger his larger the of as element an treated and written

he Macedonian Scientific Institute in Sofia was c was Sofia in Institute Scientific Macedonian he large quantity of Borbite na makedonskiya narod za osvobozhdenie Izdanie na Ilindenskataorganizatziya

Osvoboditelnite borbi na Makedon Osvoboditelnite borbi ls, most of them born in Macedonia, founded the Macedonian Scientific Scientific Macedonian the founded Macedonia, in born them of most ls, Prinosi kam istoriyata navastanicheskoto dvizhenie Odrisnkov (1896-1903)

documentation gathered by this time allowed Hristo Silyanov to to Silyanov Hristo allowed time this by gathered documentation

were banned were under

the

command ,

or access to them was restricted. At that time the , 1933, 9

iya

and and Bulgarian Communist Party Communist Bulgarian the of [The Liberation Struggles of Macedonia] 1943).

[The struggles of the Macedonian of the struggles [The aphy on the Macedonian q Macedonian the aphy on

14 to Revo theto Young Turk tory of the Macedonian nation. nation. Macedonian the of tory losed down.

mentation captured by the mentation captured ,

the history of IMARO had Uprising. The second The second Uprising. 12

number of number large A In 1923 fifty In 1923 nization and this this and nization

[Historyof the

People for for People lution.

and the the and uestion uestion

in two two in - two two

13 -

CEU eTD Collection 18 17 16 15 Bulgarian Monarchism] (Sofia, 1947). shovinisti history, diplomatic of publishedfour a general Sciences Academy of Bulgarian the at History of Institute the with in conjunction Institute its In activity. resumed and established Bulgaria in today. perio basic the established and theses, earlier ofsome Silyanov’s Ilinden the to Congress Berlin the from movement revolutionary Adrianople Macedonian of the picture overall an he created sources newmany and using subject work. influential highly and important very a freedom more allowed were historians and understandings earlier the to returning shift another took Macedonia aspects and episodes in the history of the late 19 late the of history in the episodes and aspects of History at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences of Academy Bulgarian the at History of Scient Macedonian (Sofia: volumes, four in Bulgarians] Thracian and Macedonian the of Hung politikata na Rusiya i Avstro-Ungariya Universitetsko izdatelstvo“Sv. Kliment Ohridksi”, 1992); and Nina Dyulgerova, Macedonia in Movement Revolutionary the and Public [Russian A and Macedonia in Movement Liberation Church Life Macedonia] in (Sofia: MNI, 2003). balgarskata Adrianopleand Thrace] (Sofia: Izdatelstvo BAN, 1982); na Konstantin Pandev, “Narodnostna deynost na pregled

Stoyan Stoyan Natzionalno-

Voyn Bozhinov, Bozhinov, Voyn Konstantin Pandev, the Macedonian the ary] (Sofia: Izdatelsvo BAN, na 1994).

(1) 1986; In Bulgarian historiography there are several established trends that can be noticed: noticed: be can that trends established several are there historiography In Bulgarian From hundreds the 1980s onwards of In the beginning of Communist the 1960s Party the Bulgarian policy towar Germanov, Germanov, – krepiteli na balga ekzarhiya (1878-1912)” [National Activity ofthe Bulgarian Exarchate, 1878 .

osvoboditelnoto communism of fall the After

Petar Petar BalgarskataMakedoniyaOdrinska prosvetaTrakiya v i Ruskata obshtesvenost revolyutzionnotoi dvizhenie Makedoniya v Odrinsko i (1893 -1908) -

17 Adrianople revolutionary movement. revolutionary Adrianople Natz

Petrov and Hristo Temelski, the the ,

ionalnoosvoboditelnoto dvi b - ut the real change the ut volume rskiya monarhizam history of the Bulgarian Chur Bulgarian the of history dvizhenie

work of what can be called the be the can called of what work

na makedonskite trakiyskitei balgari [Bulgarian National Question in the Policyof Russiaand Austria drianople Thrace, 1878 -1903] (Sofia:

1994-2000). [Supremists and Great Bulgarian chauvinists – chauvinists Bulgarian Great and [Supremists the periodthe 1994-

came inKonstantin Pandev published 1979when came monographs and articles monographs 10 15 zh Tzarkva i tzarkovenzhivot Makedoniya v - was re Institute Scientific Macedonian the

enie v Makedonieniev

th written on the the on was written that everything on Based

and early 20 early and

16 ch and education, and ch

Adrianople Region, 1893- 2003 y th a Odrinsko i 1878 [Bulgarian Education in Macedonia Macedonia in Education [Bulgarian

Macedonia century Balgarskiyat natzionalenBalgarskiyat vapors v “

the [ ” official , izkustvo i Nauka dization that is still valid valid is still that dization National

devoted Macedonian -Liberation Movement

18 ific Institute Bulgarian Bulgarian Uprising, revised

-1912, and and

to the different the to -1903 1979).

Supporters of 1908] (Sofia: the

[Church and , Scientific Istoricheski appeared appeared [National

, version official official Institute

ds ds - - -

CEU eTD Collection Adrianople region], and Odrinsko, 1878-1912” [Political Macedonia in Demands of Movement the Bulgarian National-Liberation the Macedonism Lies and the Myths the and Lies Macedonism the 19 21 20 19 propaganda Bulgarian the formulation this national as seen are movement the within factions rival the between aspirations irredentist against the fought already nation aMacedonian existence of the of assumption the through examined is Tc t examined also is autonomy history cultural and social on debates current more the mention to not historicismislargely and by untouched debate Their in facts. base for historical subj , Thrace and Macedonia in Bulgaria of policy 1912) v o bratsva (Sofia: Ivray, ofitzerski Idem. 2003); Taynite Macedonian Supreme [The etnokulturnata situatziya v Balgariya naBalkanitei avtonomiya Makedoniya” na [Genesis Development and ofthe Idea forAutonomy of Macedonia] Aspektiin na Politics Of Memory In PostYugoslav Macedonia PostYugoslav In Memory Of Politics Universitetsko izdatelstvo “ in the Programs of the National natzionalnoosvoboditelnotoOdrinsko dvizhenie Makedoniya v i (1893-1941) BA (Sofia: Balkans]. the Romanticism ], [ romantizam” 88; Idem., “Istoriografiyata i obuchenieto po istoriya mezhdu pretentziyata za nauchnost i natzionalniya 1912] (Sofia: Voenno izdatelstvo, 2002). Idem., Politics of National Peculiarity in Southeastern Europe

Konstantin Pandev, “Politicheski iskaniya na balgar Svetlozar Tchavdar Marinov, “ Marinov, Tchavdar th havdar Marinov. havdar

ect in a rather traditional way, as way, traditional in arather ect century.

[The Secret[The Officers’ the Fraternities Liberation Struggles in of Adrianople and Macedonia 1897- Region, n Supra n of Macedonia Paths The Macedonians’: the “‘We In Macedonianhistoriography rightstarted after which WWII, the history IMARO of

Eldarov,. Eldarov,. Historiography and the Teaching of History: Between Scientific Pretensions and Pretensions Scientific Between History: of Teaching the and Historiography

Sotziologicheski problemi IMARO is viewed IMARO

Istoricheski pregled t he Sofia he Varhovniyat makedono

21 Za lazhite na makedonizma i mitovete mitovete balgarshtinata na v

N, 1982); Dimitar 1982); N, Gotzev, Ideyata za avtonomiya kato taktika programite v na Sv. KlimentSv. Ohridski Adrianople Committee and the Macedonian the and Committee -Adrianople

Liberation Movement in Macedonia and Adri and Macedonia in Movement -Liberation - . by Bulgaria Thrace and Macedonia of annexation the advocating based Supreme Macedonian Supreme based hrough this prism.hrough this

about Bulgarianship the

presentative of the Macedonians w Macedonians the of presentative re legitimate the as

(6) 1980 : (1-2) -odrinski komitet makedono i -odrinskata organizatciya Balgariya v terpretation from mainly nineteenth comes terpretation ”, 1983). , 21 , historians historians ,” 2002

of neighboring states neighboring of

48; Kostadin Paleshutski, “Genezis i razvit “Genezis Paleshutski, Kostadin -48; [Aspects of Ethno the Currents of History (Tokovi istorije) (Tokovi History of Currents 19 skoto natzionalnoozvoboditelno dvizhenie v Makedoniya i i vMakedoniya dvizhenie natzionalnoozvoboditelno skoto 11

(Budapest: CEUPress

s However, However, svoboditelnite borbi na Makedoniya Odrinsko i (1897 - 20

331 on nations and nationalism on a on nationalism and nations on

One of the rar the of One

in ; Idem., “ -339; engage

Macedonia -Nationalism (1878-1912)” in - was a tool of was atoolof Committee Adrianople all this extensiveliterature treats the

mainly mainly Adrianople Organization in Bulgaria] Bulgaria] in Organization -Adrianople ]. -Cultural Situation in Bulgarian and

Kritika i humanizam Kritika i Anticommunist, But Macedonian: e exceptions are the works of works the are e exceptions anople 1893-1941] Region, [The Idea of Autonomy As Tactics Tactics As of Autonomy Idea [The , 2009),, 107 . The political differences The political differences in

antag the the -139. . reconstruction of of reconstruction

onisms Makedonia (1–2) The demand of of demand The

We, the People. ie na ideyata za

global scale global (12) 2009, . Thus .

2001 century century ” [ National National ,

in t in (Sofia: 65-83 About About hich , , in in ,

55- he he ;

CEU eTD Collection istorija, 1977). knezhestvo Bugarija, 1893 -1903 Macedonian Liberation Movement, 1893 – 1893 Movement, Liberation Macedonian Natzionalnoto prashane makedonskoto vo osloboditelno dvizhenie, 1893-1903 N Macedonian 1966). (Skopje: MANU, 1999), Ibid., Soznajbi za jazikot, literaturata natzijatai contested regions or the “Great Macedonian Struggle” as the period between 1904 between period the as Struggle” Macedonian “Great the or regions contested 27 26 25 24 23 22 known. usually predominantly other. the on Macedonian historiography demandfor political autonomy the OttomanEmpire within is viewed as such. IM the lo the Chuposvki Dimitrija and Misirkov would that approach nuanced more character Bulgarian the recognized theses. Matters) published Macedonian nationality. Misirkov’s most important work was Za Makedontzkite Raboti Nation] (Skopje: MANU, 2008). – 1893 Movement, Liberation Macedonian Natzionalnoto prashane makedonskoto vo osloboditelno d Organization], Revolutionary Macedonian revolutzionerna organizatziya” [The Principles of Autonomous Macedonia in the Program of Internal the na RM, Darzhavna agentziya „ Bulgarian nationalism. K.P. Misirkov, Dnevnik 5.VII Misirkov is ahighly controversial figure. During his life he several times switched opinions from Macedonian to Years From the Formation of Formation From IMRO – the Years Organizat revolutzionerna organizatziya neovrhovizmot, i 1904-

Ivan Douglas Douglas Istoriya na makedosnkata natziya Ristovski. Blazhe example for See Aleksandar Hristov, “Printzipite na avonomna Makedoniya vo programata na Vnatreshnata makedons Vnatreshnata na vo programata Makedoniya avonomna na “Printzipite Hristov, Aleksandar Early advocates of the view that Macedonian Slavs are neither Bulgarians nor Serbs, but a separate separate a but Serbs, nor Bulgarians neither are Slavs Macedonian that view of the advocates Early Slavko Slavko A RO on the contrary fought for for establ the fought contrary the RO on

cal Analyzing ofits Greek population. the Organization and the establishment goals Katardzhiev. Katardzhiev.

Greek T Interpretations of Macedonian historians slightly historians Macedonian of Interpretations ion and Neo and ion he independence of Macedonia Macedonia of independence he Dimevski, Dakin,

ational Liberation Movement and the Exarchate] (Skopje Exarchate] the and Movement Liberation ational 25

historiography Bulgarian inHowever, modern Macedonian 27

in 1903 in which advocatedhe a the creation of standard a Macedonian language. However, The Greek Struggle Macedonia, in 1897-

Sto godiniSto formiraneto ot na VMRO IMARO is considered an agent serving the interest of Sofia and oppressing oppressing and of Sofia interest the serving agent an considered is IMARO -supremism] Makedonskoto nacionalno osvoboditelno dvizhenie i Egzarhiyata (1893-1912)

character of character Arhivi

[Macedonia and the PrincipalityofBulgaria] (Skope: za Institut nacionalna

and initiated a rethinking of some of the earlier estab earlier of the some of arethinking initiated and (Skopje

naturally focuses on their own national movement in the the in movement national own their on focuses naturally ” One Hundred RB, 2008). 24 , 1983)

of IMARO. Ivan Ivan IMARO. of

on the one hand, and the IMARO’s political separatism separatism political IMARO’s the and hand, one the on IMARO 1903] distinguish between separati national between the distinguish Glasnik na INIGlasnik Skopje, , 5 (2) 1962, 1903] (Sko .

(Skopje: Years Revolutionary Tradition] (Skopje: Kultura,1993). marked – 12 ishment of aMacedoni ishment

is still strong. is still 30.VIII 1913 g.

– pje: 1974); Kultura, historiography vizhenie, 1893-1903 1908

sto godini revolutzionerna traditziya Kultura, 1974); Idem.,

1913 a

Katardzhiev new period in development period the new of [The Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Revolutionary Macedonian Internal [The ( Thessaloniki: Institute for

changed and some of themeven

26 [Diary] (Sofia

e, Literature and and [EvidenceLiterature of e, Languag

[Historyof the Macedonian Nation], : Kultura), 1963; Kultura), : the tendency to downplay the the downplay to tendency the

[The National Question in the the in Question National [The [The National Question in the the in Question National [The Krste Krste for example called for a for examplecalled for nation an

Vnatreshnata makedonska Skopje: Darzhaven arhiv arhiv Darzhaven -Skopje: -31; Bitovski, Bitovski,

(On Macedonian Macedonian (On

23 Manol Manol Manol Pandevski, Pandevski, Manol state

Balkan Studies, sm of Krste Krste of sm [One Hundred Makedonija i 22 Pandevski, Pandevski, -

1908 is 1908 is and the the and lished lished

[The [The

ka ka

CEU eTD Collection Bulgarian translation of book. the Makedonski heavily drawso it has never been translated from German into English and does not fit into this category.However, the thesis 33 32 31 30 29 28 in the found be to is material statistic and involved, actors the all of interests the question, below. from view arare and offer st intere particular of also band are armed in IMARO an member a as experience his described eye an of impressions his summarized uprising the after Macedonia in mission relief a led who sford Brail century. past the throughout annexation. G the of interests. caused were Macedonia to claims Serbian the that c a in policy foreign Serbian the Examining Sof of agent an than more nothing annex future the for method better asones the extreme more the to in opposition nationalists Bulgarian moderate more by the was chosen autonomy that argues Kofos Evangelos 2002). Frage: Ihre Entstehung und Entwicklung Wiesbade bis 1908, The SerbianQuestionThe the in Balkans for the Balkans], (Belgrade: Istorijski institut SANU, 1992); “The Ibid., Serbs the and Macedonian Question” in Relations in the End of XIX and the Beginning of XX Century] (Belgrade: SANU, 1988). 1964), 25.

Albert H.N Srbija Grckai (1856 Terciz, – Slavenko M. I will not discuss Fikret Adanir’s classical study of the Macedon Evangelos Kofos, Nationalism and Communism in Vojvodi

. ation of the regionby Bulgaria.

Brailsford

In regard to Serbian Sonnichsen, Sonnichsen, reat reat

According him to c 30

P M. M.

n this and Adanir’s and this othern owers owers

, authors emphasize the emphasize the authors Macedonia, Its Races and Their Future Srbija u me Confessions of a Macedonian Bandit (New York:Duffield and

and once auto and once t he he - witness as early as 1905. as early witness existing literature dunarodnimodnosima poc krajemi XIX

the demand for call autonomy coined was to forthe demand the 31

In a popular and much cited book the British journalist Henry Henry journalist British the book cited much and popular a In (Belgrade: Faculty of Geography, University of Belgrade, 1995). ia that expanded Bulgarianinfluenceia that brutal through terror. nomy was attained it would imminently lead to a Bulgarian aBulgarian to lead imminently it would attained nomywas 33 1903): Borba za Balkan works

28 A complete analysis of the origins of the Macedonian Macedonian the of origins of the analysis A complete

“

y artificial nature artificial , at v at

so theywill be discussed many times the in text. I used the

, authors, have English in written about this topic a omparative perspective Slavenko perspective omparative 13 pros

Macedonia (Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies,

(London: Methuen

[Bulgarian translation of Makedonische Die Idem, Albert Sonnichsen’s memoirs in which he he in which memoirs Sonnichsen’s Albert n: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1979

by mainly economic and geostrategic geostrategic and economic mainly by

ian Question here because, to m to because, here Question ian ” [Serbia and Greece, 1856 Greece, and [Serbia

of the movement the of etkom XXveka and

Company, 1909).

, [Serbia in the International International the in [Serbia 1905

). whichis seen as -1903, The Struggle

] (Sofia: Amicitia,

Terzic

intervention intervention y knowledge,

argued 29

CEU eTD Collection Journeyman, 1988 ). Press, 1978 Press, Monographs, 1998) 1951 Press, University Balkan Wars 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 importance. great Krakak Anastasia impermeability ethno supposed the of the old school diplomatic treatment of the subject leadershipof the and supporters movement.of the structure social the analyzing also but events the only not presenting approach sociological of fornatio similar pattern the it set that arguing activities IMARO the of aspect terroristic the on concentrated IMARO prominent two 1988 respectively anoth representations ethnographic the behind standing interest political the showed convincingly maps of Macedonia different hundred several of examination Question. Eastern the and history diplomatic of prism the through controversies Macedonian complicated the Wars. Balkan the an origins the investigated which Commission, Carnegie of the Report 1870-1990, London: Duke University Press, 1 Duke Press, University London: Inte

Freedom or Death:The Life of Gotse Delchev, (London Gotse Delchev, of Life Death:The or Freedom and New MacDermott, York:Mercia The Nadine Nadine Barker, Elisabeth. H.R. Carnegie Comm Anastasia Duncan rnational Affairs, 1950). Wilkinson, the interest in the history of the Balkans. Along with with Along Balkans. the of history the in interest the of reviving the The saw 1990s In 1950thebook in British historianBarker published a she Elisabeth examined which Lange Perry, Perry, Mercia MacDermott Idem.,); Mercia ndon: Universityndon: Lo and of Chicago Press, 1997 (Chicago . (Washington. Karakasidou, Karakasidou, Akhund. -Akhund. The PoliticsTerror: of TheMacedonian Liberation Movements, 1893-1903, nal movements which appeared later in in later appeared which movements nal ission. ission. .

Maps and Politics: reviewA the of Ethnographic Cartography of

34 40 asidou’s study of the nation building processes in Greek Macedonia was of of was Macedonia Greek in building processes nation the of study asidou’s Macedonia, Its Place in Balkan Power Politics, 35 ).

Hugh Poulton published a study on Macedonian national identity asking: national Macedonian study on a published Hugh Poulton A year later the Brit the later year A The Macedonian Question 1893-1908 from Western Sources Report of the International Commission Inquire to the Causes andConduct of the

DC: CarnegieEndowment, 1914). Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood: Passages into Nationhood in

er British historian Mercia MacDermott dedicated biographies to the to biographies dedicated MacDermott Mercia historian Britisher

leaders Gotse Delchev and Yane Sandasnki. 988)

, For - linguistic labels established in the region. In this regard regard this In region. the in established labels linguistic

Freedom and Perfection: Lifethe of Yan e ish this time geographer H.R. Wilkinson after careful careful after Wilkinson H.R. geographer ish time this 14

appeared works whichappeared works the questioned the the ). (London and New York:Royal

20 th

century. century. of of the region. the d the consequences of of consequences the d Perry

Boulder: East European European East (Boulder: Macedonia, 37 Sandansky

Greek Macedonia, offered a touch a touch offered Duncan Perry Perry Duncan 36

In 1978and Durham and and (Durham

Journeyman

Liverpool: (Liverpool: Institute of

London: (London: CEU eTD Collection National Identity Ottomanin Macedonia 1878-1908 and after 1991 ], after and 45 44 43 42 41 region. of acontested history complex of the understanding abetter for studies helped of the and atmosphere intellectual and the political parameters fundamentall which tendencies fresh and new shows treated is subject the way the of development recent the However, them. to belong should Macedonia why “proving” in preoccupied mostly been have and countries of their interests political si influenced been have historiographies national Balkan the of Most religion. or language like lines dividing impermeable involved communalthe conflict that of peasants to topic. the approach s Roudometofedited and Victor processes building nation the with connection in historiography of Macedonian development world. the of parts all in found be can that identity national and ethnic for struggle natural a of claims Macedonians?” Are the “Who Macedonian Question, (Westport, Connecticut and London: Praeger, 2002). Monographs 1995 UniversityPress, Princeton predi ” Macedonia of Republic the ” Macedonia of Republic the (M Socialist Macedonian Historiography,” History Compass (3)

Ipek Yosmaoglu- Victor S Hugh Loring ue tefan

nster: Lit -Verlag i

sled 42 Poulton, Poulton,

In sum, the literature dedicated to the problem is extensive, diverse and controversial. controversial. and diverse extensive, is problem the to dedicated literature the In sum, , explaining these explaining , perspective anthropological an from in Macedonia Roudometof, ed. Troebst

Danforth, The German scholars Stefan Troebst and Ulf Brunnbauer Ulf and Troebst Stefan scholars German The

was more of a historical contingency contingency historical a of more was 1991 , 2000), Idem., ,

Macedonia into nationhood at the turn of the 20 the of turn at the nationhood into Macedonia

Istorichesko bades , “‘ , WhoMacedonians arethe .” g.” Turner, Metarazkazite [Political Interference History in Historical and Meistererzählungen in Macedonia The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism aTransnational in World ) , 2004, 165 2004, ,

The Macedonian Question: Culture, Historiography, Politics

The Priest's Robe and the Rebel 44 Collective Memory, National Identity, and Ethnic Conflic: Greece, Bulgaria, and

Furthermore, Furthermore,

in Historein

). commemorated as a “nationalist liberation struggle” byparties all struggle” liberation as a“nationalist commemorated

’ (Re)Writing History. Historiography in Southeast Europe after Socialism hte

i -200

politicheskite 41

everal collections of articles that that of articles collections everal (

12) Loring Danforth analyzed Danforth Loring ; Idem. “Pro Idem. ;

( 4) ? 2002, (London: Hurst 2003 Ipek Yosmaoglu examined the tr

20-36

4, 161-182 -4, interferntzii (Ph.D. Dissertation Serbians against Pro against -Serbians 15 ; Ulf Brunnbauer, “Serving Brunnbauer, Ulf

rather than being set firmly on presumably presumably on firmly set being than rather ’s Rifle: Communal Conflict and the Construction of

2005, 1-17. and , Idem.,

45 v

istoricheskata Company, 1995).

“ th Historiography, Myths and the Nation in y changed the theoretical base, the the base, theoretical the y changed :

Princeton century the national claims and counter counter and claims national the

-Bulgarians: Revisionism in Post- offered an inter an offered nauka

and convincingly argued and convincingly argued University the Nation: Historiography in

43 na

ansition of Christian Christian of ansition Boulder: East European European East (Boulder:

Republika gnificantly studied the recen studied the

asan emanation ,

2005). - disciplinary disciplinary

Makedoniya

Princeton: (Princeton:

by the by the before before the the t ,

CEU eTD Collection Renan, “What is a Nation?”, available at: at: available a Nation?”, is “What Renan, the other is present nation as consisting of two main principles: “… ethno Ernest Renan analyzedwhat nation is in a way that is surprisingly similar to our modern any concepts. Rejecting centuryother voicescould also be heard. In a lecture delivered at the Sorbonne in 1882 the French philosopher rediscovered themselves somewhere in the 18 in the somewhere themselves rediscovered fo condition latent a in stayed nations Balkan the which in anachronism Thus evolutionary. and as unilinear history their views least and Ages Middle at the or Antiquity This way. this in for granted. Ottomanperiod during the 46 self of principle the to according state national own of their right the had which communities “natural” considered were They humanhistory based on common elementslike ethnicity, territory, language, religion, etc. in general. nationalism on global of the debate analyze aspects several to in particular movement revolutionary Macedonian the of formation the lead to what to proceeding before place all one only is histo national Balkan 19 natural – portrayeditsin context not is andit if beexamined not properly understood

Despite the predominance of thisprimordialist nineteenth the in even view that of be noted nations it must th

and early 20 early and -linguist or biological determinism and emphasizing on the voluntary human choice, he describes the ,

- multi a As alread existed that phenomena as everlasting seen nations were Traditionally The

over the European continent in the last two hundred years. That is why it is ne is it is why That years. hundred two last the in continent European the over

history of the Internal Macedo Internal the of history element of the general process of nationalization and nation building that took took that building nation and nationalization of process general the of element national empire like the Ottoman the like empire national day con -day y mentioned, y mentioned, th outdated

centuryOttoman woefully Balka context acomplicated ns, riography. sent, the desire to live together live to desire the sent, “nationalparadigm nations awakening” existin presents as

Balkan historiography II. 2. II. 2. Theoretical Approaches Balkan nationalism nationalism Balkan that argue I thesis, this throughout Indeed, - determination. determination. http://www.nationalismproject.org/what/renan.htm

Most of the the of Most One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; memories; of legacy rich a of common in possession the is One nian 16 -

Adrianople Revolutionary Organization can can Organization Revolutionary Adrianople th …” and describes itas: “a daily plebiscite”.

or 19 or existing literature too often too Empire th

century. Balkan national meta national Balkan century.

is seen as “unnatural as is seen takes a national consciousness consciousness anational takes

discussed here treats treats here discussed r centuries until they they until centuries r

ignored by the byignored the

throughout throughout

, ” cessary cessary the late late the g

Ernest Ernest since alien alien 46 it -

CEU eTD Collection 50 49 48 47 “ethno an calls he what offers and rigid too them finds who Smith Anthony like of overdeterminism economical and social communion.” their image of lives the each minds of inyet the them, mos know never will nation smallest the even of members “the acommunitybecause create myths that and unifying the nature “imagined” nation’s the for“constructors” givenofa product certain pol its identity citizens. of upon the state of the influence the especially emphasize and society industrial the of ideology political a as nationalism view Modernists ot but the and nationalisms makestates not do “nations categorical: a necessity.” universal not and acontingency, are states like “nations, that Gellner states clearly Earnest school of this representative prominent most modernists. the therefore and nationalism of paradigms existing of rethinking the and institution state state the huge that role the By stressing are. nationalism France of modernization emancipation. political “rediscovery” this that posit uncritically narratives interested in the cultural dimensions and the m and the in cultural dimensions the interested Windus, 1977).

Eugen Eugen Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities Benedict. (revisedAnderson, edition) Eric Ernest army played in the proc the in played army Hobsbawm, Hobsbawm, Modernist andModernist paradigms postmodernist recently more In contrast, M in wasIt the 1970s whe Gellner, Weber odernist theories of nationalism concentrate on modernthe nature of nations. concentrate of nationalism theories odernist

Peasants into Frenchmen. TheModernization France Rural of

Nations and Nationalism, (Oxford: Blackwell, 6. 1983),

Nations and Nationalism Since 1780. Cambridge: Cambridge U

47 ess of “turning peasants into Frenchmen into ess“turning of peasants

that started a new wave of discussions what nations and nations and what of discussions wave anew started that

post n Eugene Webern his Eugene seminal publishedon the work - modernist see the nation mostly as acult as mostly nation see the modernist

the modernists, post modernists, the 17 ultiplicity of conflicting human agencies. human conflicting of ultiplicity

, however, , They stress stress They iticalideological purposes. and initiated processes of first cultural and then then and cultural first of processes initiated , ( London and New York:Verso, 1991 York:Verso, New and London 48

have been criticized by thinkers by thinkers beenhave criticized Eric Hobsbawm is even more more even is Hobsbawm Eric t of their fellow members, meet meet members, fellow their of t can be considered a precursor to aprecursor becan considered

- , 1870-1914, modernists are much more

, ” he initiated a complete acomplete initiated he ” niversity Press, 1990 Press, niversity 50

I n opposition to the round.” way her s London: Chatto and Chatto (London:

s school like ural construct, construct, ural - symbolist” symbolist” ), 5. ), ,

10.

The The and and

CEU eTD Collection Europe,” Europe,” N on thestate. s The Maced in the is in It 1912. there states nation of the advent the before Macedonia for inapplicable nationalism on theories general consider I that grounds these on is exactly It construct. placei only new which took process nuanced manner. nuanced understandings 52 51 nation future a of creating project the to possible range of who now sought emerged, activists to winmany as over as their of ethnic group non of the attributes historical sometimes and social cultural, linguistic, the of awareness an of dissemination and into “ people of mainly consists and numerous not still is movement period initial the In movement. national the of development the in phases three distinguishes Hroch nation. a into turning before transition complex and prolonged a underwent which movement a as nationalism of phenomenon the examines ethnohistories.” of different patterning and resonance with theideological demands ofnationalism but also with the scientific evidence, popular nati [the “their since “agents” different between interaction was acomplex but entirelyconstructed not was building in modernity. Nation nations for creation heritage” of the of importance the “ethnic the in ethic of groups the pre existence the emphasizes He approach.

ations. Miroslav Hroch, “From National Movement to the Fully Smith, Anthony D. “ ” In this regard Miroslav’s Hroch trea In fact,

New Left Review Nations and Nationalis onian case case onian ,

and I I and

Smi tatewas not the omnipotent It is clear from this discussion this from clear is It th’s approach stands close stands approach th’s

1 Gastronomy or or Gastronomy view it view (98), not not m

1993, 3-20 1993, to analyze the analyze to , onalist constructors’] interpretations must be consonant not only only not consonant be must interpretations constructors’] onalist

(1) as as - dominant group dominant

1994 a variation of the former that treats the subject in a more more in a subject the treats that former the of variation a n the last two hundred years hundred two last the n , G

, available at: 19. ole of of Role The eology?

tment tment of nation building provides processes of nationalization of processes

18 entity behind all human human all behind entity

.” In the next per next the In .”

http://www.newleftreview.or that the formation of nations is a relatively relatively a is nations of formation the that

- Formed Nation: The Nation .” .” to to 51

If the modernist post the and

and and N ationalismin the when , or “P or , devoted to scholarly enquiry enquiry scholarly to devoted ,

- and the nation is a modern modern a is nation the and iod modern times and stresses stresses and times modern this period of patriotic patriotic this of period , agency period.in that

hase A

or or as entirely dependent g/?view=1702 “ Phase B Phase Building Process in in Process -Building some R ,” econstruction of econstruction

e national national e help modernist important ”

“ a new new a . 52

He He

CEU eTD Collection , Order World 1878 Empire, Ottoman the in Macedonians “The Adanir, hardly possible to draw clear boundaries between phases. between draw clear boundaries to hardly possible d their of phases depth. http://www.promacedonia.org/en/other/yasamee.html 55 54 53 nation linguistic larger the into identities local smaller, of absorption smal into Moslem) “t encompassed simply not them of none argues convincingly aret tha patterns usually general the analyzes Yasamee offered as amodel of explanation and all to be applied can practically and general “ into in Hroch, to According movement. popular moveme elite and intellectual the succeeds agitation wouldbe oversimplificatio an of all expense others the identity at national to approach Kappeler et al. et Kappeler

Ibid. F. A. K. Yasamee K. A. F. Fikret Adanir is skeptical how useful this three conservative

Besides, in Macedonia there were at least several national movements in very different invery different movements national several least at were there in Macedonia Besides, In a short but insightful article on the rise of nationality in the Balkans Feroze Feroze Balkans the in nationality of rise the on article insightful but short a In valu is, indeed, approach Hroch’s

compe of pressure the under particularly change, further of possibility the remained there combined and were This partially allegiances redefined. processof not was necessitynew definitive: and old which in reinterpretation, and reconstruction of process as a but rebirth, creation or of as displacement, aprocess not understood best is amalgam of allegiances, and the emergence ofnational identities in theirmodern identities an of group are comprised modern elsewhere, as Balkans, in In the sum, form

(A lling events. lling ldershot, Hants: Dartmouth / New York: New Yo New York: New / Dartmouth Hants: ldershot, , “Nationality in the Balkans: the Case of Macedonians,” in in Macedonians,” of Case the Balkans: the in “Nationality , evelopment. They actively interacted and influenced each other making it it making other each influenced and interacted They actively evelopment. - ler linguistic linguistic ler programmes. own with their each wings, democratic liberal and clerical, (Istanbul: EREN, 1995),

55 he progressive dissolution of larger religious identities (Orthodox, identities (Orthodox, larger religious dissolution he progressive of

‘ national are sufficient. According to him it was a process that did did him that it was aprocess to According sufficient. ’

able phase periodization is in the case of Macedonia. case the in is periodization -phase units

“ 19 national C Phase ,

. but at the same time ” Neither was was Neither ”

- 1912“, in:

” movements nt could be transformed into a mass amass into be transformed could nt

rk Universityrk Press, 1992), 161 the movement is very likely to be split split be to likely very is movement the

The Formation National of Elites it it 121 as simple as the as simple as

-133, available at: without without Balkans: Mirror A the of New ,

his classification classification his analyzing them in in them analyzing .”

Choosing one one Choosing

“ -91. progressive progressive

See Fikret Fikret See n: ,

is too too is

ed. ”

A. A. 53

CEU eTD Collection (Carnegie Endowment: Washington DC), 1914, 21-31. Peace, Peace, “The Origin of the Macedonian dispute” in James Petifier James in dispute” Macedonian of the Origin “The population. Adanir, Makedonskiyat the unification of Italy and Germany in 19 in Germany and Italy of unification the Thus a nationalcommunity. belonging to for of the defining most criterion decisive language the as IMARO leaders IMARO 59 58 57 56 constitutes themost comp here. be considered willnot Macedonia on claims territorial their legitimize such if were there population, largely on was It Bulgaria. autonomous in planed included the be to “Bulgarian” as map Kiepert’s on marked regions all in 1876, gathered Conference International the to delegates the from demanded t Ignatiev, Count why reasons the of one (1876) Kiepert Peninsulabefore 1878– well most three the On Macedonia. Ottoman century opinion were followedby Greeks, Albanians, Jews, Turks, Vlachs, and Gypsies. and plurality least at or majority a were Slavs the terms inlinguistic strictly is that seems clear the “sci the

For a general summary and comment of the conflicting perpectives see: Carnegie Endowment for International International for Endowment Carnegie see: perpectives conflicting of the comment and summary a general For Adanir, As Fikret Adanir points out, the priority of the linguistic criterion borrowedfrom European ethnographers for Acording to Fikret Adanir the Slavs were biggest the ethnic groupconstituting between 40and 50% of the ,

Report of the of InternationalReport Commission Inquir to entific” justification of the Bulgarian claims to they became typical representatives of this concep this of representatives became typical they Apart from sheer numbers it is the national consciousness of these Slavs that that Slavs these of consciousness national is it the numbers from sheer Apart statisticsThe by different in produced conflicting 1878 parties the after to order of the feelings nationalthe to it corresponded not because important isfact This will all di the that cover asingle pattern of choosing Instead

is practically impossible practically is Makedonsiyat

, the basis of basis the

Macedonia was portrayed as territory populated mostly by Bulgarians. It was It bymostly Bulgarians. populated as territory portrayed Macedonia was viewed the ethno the viewed , 15.

the mapsthe Amie of Gustave (1847) Lejean Boue and (1861) Heinrich

licated point of point contention licated th were Bulgaria of Sanis borders Stefano the map that , 18., Elisabeth B , but but ,

I thinkit is better to start from the rather - confessional situation in Macedonia. They thought of of thought They Macedonia. in situation confessional because it played an important role in the way in way role the important playedan it because th

century. arker defines them as a “bare majority.” Elisabeth Barker, he Russian ambassador to the Sublime Porte, hetheto Sublime Russian Porte, ambassador

Macedonia 20

ed. e e the Causesinto and Conduct of the BalkanWars , The New Macedonian Question 5. , 57 - kn ,

is beyond any doubt. Ibid., 16. Ibid., doubt. any beyond is and it is here where the ethnographic ethnographic is the ithereand where own ethnographic maps of the Balkan maps the Balkan of own ethnographic t of a nation which was the basis was the which nation of a t v erse cases which, in my my in which, cases erse , namely 19 namely beginning , 59

However, However,

drawn. future 56 what

f or or th

CEU eTD Collection Press, 1985 Press, Ottoman Population 1830- Patriarchate and were in good part Hellenized. Those choosing the Exarchate were Bulgarized.” Kemal Kemal Bulgarized.” were Exarchate the choosing Those Hellenized. part good in were and Patriarchate ‘Greek became and Exarchate Istanbul and were regarded as ‘Bulgarian as regarded were and Istanbul carefully and and carefully homogenization. national of policies Balkan 62 61 60 loyalties, 1912 national and religious affiliation situation the fact, In nationality. Greek or Bulgarian of declaration madea political effect in they Patriarchate and Ecumenical the Exarchate the between made communities Orthodox oice ch the with KemalKarpat, to According in terms. more secular and more was religion seen Henceforth, ethno on primarily based 1870 in Exarchate Bulgarian the of establishment . versa vice by and enemies IMARO considered were they Thrace and Macedonian in communities the between struggle armed the of course In the community. national Bulgarian members the as of not definitely but as Ottomans or Muslims Pomaks ethnic as narrow as means no by and identity, the administrators millets of system the namely realities, method whichfindsnationalin featureslinguistic correspond Ottoman did groups not to

Adanir, Yosmaoglu, Karpat describes itthe following way: “S their their based Empire the in communities different the Notwithstanding all ambiguities and ambiguities all Notwithstanding Or the to In regard

nation nation language did not matter at all as identity marker. They identified themselves eith themselves identified They marker. identity as all at matter not did language Makedonsiyat

, 49 -50. 49 , on the on The Priest’s The not t not states partitioned t partitioned states

aken in absolute terms, but perhaps it sill offers it fruitful a more sill but perhaps aken inoffers terms, absolute was not at all that clear but was characterized with much confusion i much confusion with but was characterized at clear allnot that was term referred “ to respective respective ,16. , 119. , 1914: Demographic andSocial Characteristics

-speaking Bulgarians.’ The Romanian -speaking Vlachs largely re

thodox Christian communities, their unity was broken with the the with broken was unity their communities, Christian thodox

millet. . 62 he Ottoman European territories and and territories European Ottoman he

The

speaking Greeks,’ while afew Greek while Greeks,’ -speaking

church affiliation, which was which affiliation, church ome Bulgarian The data provided below should be treated extremely extremely be treated below should provided The data se complex processes se complex . As understood byAs . understood the 19

the the 21 .”

60 transformation of the millet the of transformation

-speaking groups remained with the Patriarchate in For example, for the Bulgarian the for example, For 61

political

continued until continued . Madison: University of Wisconsin of Wisconsin University Madison:

not as broad as religious loyalties -speaking groups chose the th

- initiated long initiated linguistic linguistic century Ottoman Ottoman century , albeit transient system, prior to to prior system,

1912 when the mained with the the with mained - Muslims or or Muslims orientation orientation grounds Karpat - er as as er term term n . . CEU eTD Collection into such cases that make any attempt at drawing a “general patter” impossible. patter” a“general drawing at attempt any make that cases such into Macedonia,” 66 65 64 63 isIt thisbackground against will that I IMARO’s analyze demandfor autonomy. nationalmovements mainly as politicalforces in relation external to factor circumstances political to due largely redefined prio on the growing politicization of eth in for mobilization as acommunal source interpretation religious behardly underestimated. could of success prospects IMARO’s for fact this of importance The population. of the part numerous most the were Sultan the hists: Serbs:100 307,000; Patriarc Macedonia accounts nationalistic than the they often switched their loyalty. Albanian leaders also well understood that theywere in a dangerous situation vis especiallyvalid about the Albanians who along had tradition of rebelling against the Sultanate. In this period statistics showed. Muslim identity on the ground did not automatically meant “loyalty” to the Porte. This is Ipek

Yosmaoglu, Yosmaoglu, Adanir, to according cited Numbers It must be noted that Ottomans the well than understood complex more is this process number the game and An exc r to 1878 did not seem to constitute a point of contention. The basis of identities was was identities of basis The contention. of point a constitute to seem not did 1878 to r Yosmaoglu’s “ Yosmaoglu’s Thus ellent analysis how perplexing the processof “taking the nation out of denomination” can be found in

International Journal of Middle StudEast ies, , in curr the , The Priest’s Robe Priest’s The was was Counting Bodies, Shaping Souls: distributed distributed ent thesis I will base my argument not on any ethno any on not argument my base will I thesis ent , 247.,

. 63

Makedonskiyat as follows: follows: as

717; Vlachs: 99,000. Vlachs: 717; According to the the to According ic and religious differences between communities which which communities between differences religious and nic , 21. , 22 Muslims 1,508,507; Exzarchists:Muslims 1,508,507; 896

The 1903 Census and National Identity Ottoman in , 66

v. (1) 38,

1904 Ottoman census, the population 1904 Ottomancensus, and that is why I will treat the various various the treat will is I why that and 64

In other words, t 2006 65 , 55-77., The census authorities run

Empire Ottoman late the

-à -vis Balkan irredentism and he Muslims loyal to to loyal Muslims he s and one another. another. one and s

- linguistic 497; 497; but but

or in in

CEU eTD Collection named province Byzantine different times. TheAncient Macedonia didnot include thesame territories as the Medieval varied Macedonia as described The territory itself. Macedonia term the concerning differences nat versus policies Ottoman of result was acombined It awakening.” “national or hatreds” “ancient terms of its goals. achieve IMARO that believe I why regarding answer an and provide factors during the uprising, how it appealtried to the to lo policyinconsistent the Ilinden during contrad caused this that argue Macedonian the within factions different for meanings different sus follow the will I organizations. model a byemigrant adopted it infounded established the Internal 1893 Organization was view they how anlyze will I homes. native their regarding push to first the were who Principality Bulgarian the in emigrants Macedonian the among autonomy for demand the of origins the back trace will I events. of impact onthe subsequent course had and such tremendous “Mace as donian Question” ionalismprojects of the

Macedonia. Macedonia. A factors different the will present This chapter s I argued in the previous chapter the Macedonian Question should not be seen in bein not seen in shouldthe Macedonian Question s the argued previous chapter I .

But if the Macedonian Question is a modern phenomenon it also holds true holds true modernit isa also if Macedonian phenomenon Question the But II. Hopes and Disill and Hopes II.

foreign intervention in the Ottoman domestic affairs, the competing competing the affairs, domestic Ottoman the in intervention foreign , In this period, this In

and there was never an administrative unit within the Ottoman Empire to to Empire Ottoman the within unit an wasadministrative never there and neighboring states, and states, neighboring ictions in the behavior of the O the of behavior the in ictions

II.1. GeneralII.1. Background the European territories of the Empi the of territories European the usionment b equent evolution of the idea where it cam idea where of the evolution equent uprising of 1903. I will I 1903. uprising analyze of the IMARO demands : 23

t he First Ten Years, 1893- he Years, Ten First

cal population and the external the and population cal the the of communal communal of politicization growing that e d autonomy and argue that whend autonomyand argue that

led to the emergence of the led of emergence the the to - Adrinople movement. movement. Adrinople rganization and led to an led to and rganization re were divided into the the into divided were re

for political attention attention political for

ultimately failed to to failed ultimately 1903

e to aquire aquire e to

political political

I willI in in CEU eTD Collection Demographic 71 70 69 68 67 howeve Bulgarians, recognizeit if were thewilling church to was The Patriarchate Exarchate. of the scope concerned territorial the but exist not did almost millet of status Thus Exarchate. Bulgarian of autocephalous an creation the for February 1870 28 On in Istanbul. Patriarchate Ecumenical from the separate church Bulgarian a of creation vilayet Ottoman the and ; south ; north generally remained Macedonia comprised precisely territories which of boundaries meritedshould the with reinventionbe t of and Kosovo. Skutari (Shkoder) Yanina (Ioannina), (Bitola), Monastir vilayets or provinces following to the the to 1912“, in 1912“, in (The Hague Makedoniya of century] 20th in Ibid., 240- Yosmaoglu, Adanir, Fikret Adanir. „Socio Adanir. Fikret Dimitar vilayet was based on almost entirely ethno entirely almost on based was

the the of Kosov The conflict between the two churches two between the The conflict emerthe led to that factor first The nineteenth educated classically the was actually It Regional andNational Identities in Europe the in XIXth and XXth Centuries

a Makedosnkiyat vilayets

-London accepted to be to accepted

Rhodope Rhodope millet 241. Sazdov

i an

The Priets’s Robe Priets’s The Odrinska of Edirne according to the Ottoman administrative division. d

National following decades of Bulgarian efforts Bulgarian of decades following lakes lakes Natzionalnoosvobotilenoto o. Boston: Kluwer Law Kluwer -Boston:

, “ inside the Ottoman Empire Ottoman the inside of Salonika and Monastir 70 r, opposed any territorial restrictions. The ferman The restrictions. any territorial opposed r,

Mountains in the east the in Mountains Politichesko In regards to -political Environment ofBalkan Nationalism: the Case ofOttoman Macedonia, 1856

, of of Trakiya

13 Situation

Prespa and Ohrid and Prespa defined by the territory by territory the defined , 59

: Edirne (Adrianople, Odrin), Selanik (Salonika, Thessaloniki), Thessaloniki), (Salonika, Selanik Odrin), (Adrianople, Edirne : - in 60. kraya sotzialno

Macedonia the Adrianople region or Adrianople Thrace it corresponded it corresponded Thrace Adrianople or region Adrianople the

International, 1998), 241.

na , vol.2, 9. vol.2, ,

-ikonomichesko XIX - and and Aegean coast ; the linguistic grounds. gence of the Macedonian Question as such was the suchas the Macedonianwas Question of gence the he ancient term term ancient he

and , as , in the west. , strictly limited north to the Balkan range. The The range. Balkan the to north limited strictly

24 i and what is more important more is what and

Adrianople

nachaloto

did not

well as the san the as well between , ,

demografsko

concern the Sultan issued a issued Sultan the 69

na Thrace

and Rila M Rila and Shar the

“ roughly to the to This roughly corresponded .” Macedonia XX -

century Euro

at c vek

ak differences of dogma which

the Pindus Mountains the the Bulgarians acquired the the acquired Bulgarians the

” [

i of of

end 67 Political

nar attempted to evade the evade the to attempted Uskub

of , 68 71 odnostno Hans , pean travelers who who pean travelers

19th and the beginning

Although the exact exact the Although for thefirst timea

decree or decree , disputed, itdisputed,

-Georg Haupt -economicalSocio (Skopje) ountains polozhenie

ferman

in the the in in the in the in the the in

(ed.) was

v - ,

CEU eTD Collection Debar and Strumitza (Usturumca). Sublime Porte

74 73 72 Balkan history The 1912. ended war until w that event decisive most the fact, in was, and Question Macedonian the of emergence greater. was even party Bulgarian of the victory the Ohrid In Exarchate. Bulgarian the with sided eparchy Skopje the of population Orthodox two of majority necessary the was only Not pr the to proceeded institution within the Ottoman administrative system. autonomy difference establishedin 1833, fromindependence the P Exarchate The adherence. church of nationalization that: provided 10 article however, At samethe Balkans. time, the question coordinated actions wit actions coordinated eparchies in the E Institute, 1978 Do Adanir, Makedonsiyat, Adanir, Although 82. the after Russo Yosmaoglu, cuments and Materials Document № Document The Russo The Bulgarians the be schismatic, to Exarchate the declared Patriarchate the After with growing infuture the the conflicts of bitter become asource This was to of the population. so, do sha to this but allowed be will they proved, duly is if this and, matters religious in Exarchate Bulgarian of accept supremacy the the willing to are above, enumerated those besides lea at or all, If ,

and all the territories granted, with the exception of Veles (Koprulu), were north with of were (Koprulu), exception Veles territories of granted, and the allthe

in the Exarchate’s creation in Exarchate’s the from the Ottoman Empire Ottoman the from , available, at: for the following eparchies: T 110 he Priest’s he mpire, surprisingly managed it to keep Istanbul. seat in its What is more, in the 1890s in “ Exarchate Bulgarian of a establishment the for Firman The - ll happen only by the will and with agreement of all or, at least, at two thirds allor, agreementwith of andby will happenll the only ovisioned were heldfirst The two plebiscites. in in 1872 and Skopje Ohrid. Turkish W Turkish

h the Bulgarianh government it managed to obtain been not had .

, 153. st two thirds of the Orthodox Christian population in other places, places, other in population Christian Orthodox the of thirds two st http://www.promacedonia.org/en/ban/index.html Sofia: Bulgarian AcademyofSciences, Institute ofHistory, Language Bulgarian

. For example, the Church of Greece, which was which of Greece, Church example, the For . atriarchate

ar ofar 1877- recognized recognized Skopje Ohri and

. was that was 73

Thus 1878 ith a Russian victory with the preliminary Treaty Treaty preliminary the with victory Russian a ith 25 until 1850. The until The 1850. Istanbul in by Patriarchate the - 74 thirds achieved, but even nine evenbut achieved,thirds

, Turkish War of War -Turkish 1877-1878the Exarchate

church church

d the Bulgarians had an official Bulgarian Bulgarian official an had Bulgarians the

in 1890, in was the most important factor for the for factor the important most was the

was not the first church independence

Nevrekop Monastir, Veles 1894and and in

new

in Macedonia” in Macedonia” in metropolitan seats from the

ha d preceded political preceded d - tenths of the the of tenths that

Macedonia.

lost allits

shaped shaped sought

CEU eTD Collection was never given back. given never was 77 76 75 of source another refugees. provided andBosnia Herzegovina “condominium” of refugees permanent became from demographic change treaties gaveby territories populated Albanians states. other to and Berlin San both Stefano the that concerned also were stateless, still Albanians, The Bulgaria P European independence. Romania acquired authority direct the under returned were Macedonia and Thrace South Porte. the by appointed governor Christian a by controlled was which Rumelia, Eastern of province in autonomous the separated MountainsRhodope was t The Bulgaria. of Principality autonomous established sancak the and range Balkan the of north territory The July 1878. in Berlin of Congress the at treaty the revised and Mediterranean, the to advancing influence most andof Macedonia. much Trace of which covered a The Treaty created 1878. inFebruary which was signed of San Stefano Death andExile: Death 1999), 90- Lange According to the Treat the to According Approximately Bulgarian 260,000 Muslims were killed or died of disease, starvation or cold. Justin Mc the Principality and Eastern Rumelia Eastern and Principality the The Russo The con provoked treaty Stefano The San however, England, notably Powers, Great The Akhung, -Akhung, , 91.

since i since

owers. The other Balkan states were also displeased with the provisioned Great Great provisioned the displeased with were also Balkan The other states owers. The Ethnic Cleansing The Macedonian to which they also believed they had they believed also they which to territories covered t

- was also acatalyst of huge was also War Turkish s y of Berlin Austria y Berlin of . Between .

,1 . Thrace and inMacedonia nly mai

0. 1877

of Ottoman Muslims

-Hungary was the granted province for period a ofyears. 30 Infact, it and

, approximately 1879, of t of returned, returned, them of Some . 26 he S he

cerns not only only not cerns ultan. ultan. , 1821-

erritory south of the Balkan to the the to Balkan the of south erritory Moreover, 1922 were not satisfied not witwere

of Sofia constituted the newly newly the constituted Sofia of

. (Princeton . a milliona Muslims driven were

among the Ottomans the among 76 waves of

Serbia, Montenegro and Montenegro Serbia, but morebut than 500,000 The Austro The : The Darwin Press Inc.,

legitimate claims. claims. legitimate Greater Bulgaria Bulgaria Greater migration and and migration - h Russian Hungarian 77

arthy. Carthy. These

and

CEU eTD Collection 80 79 78 Sofia, in which Macedonia included.was – states Bulgarian autonomous envi Eastern Crisis,” “Great the solve to peacefully gathered another. or form a an through gone had Greece, of exception the with states, Balkan goal. Inte the why explain large extent a to can region of the character borderland This intersected. movements E Ottoman the wa Macedonia Ottoman with hadMacedonia. aborder states Balkans small the Thessaly, all took Greece in 1881 and when Treaty Berlin the to and according Vranja Nis, Pirot, around territory the acquired Rumelia, Eastern and Principality contentionin thiscould period rolefor the way communities withinnegotiated and power the Empire authority. refugees Bulgarian revolutionaries inBulgarian 1860s revolutionaries and and the Policyof Western the States] (Sofia: 1968), 63- Movement during XIX century] (Sofia: Hristo Hristov, Osvobozhdenieto na Balgariya i politikata na zapadnite darzhavi Mi

Ibid.,

lcho Lalkov, Balkanskotonatzionalno osvobotilenodvizhenie vek prez Lalkov, XIX lcho 87. Autonomy was a wide a was Autonomy of Macedonia offor point theimpact principal ofthe development The as geography

were settled in settled were the

rnal Macedonian mpire, European diplomacy, the Balkan states, and the local national localnational and the states, Balkan the diplomacy, European mpire, 78

The autonomous principle was also present in the programs of the the in of present programs the also was principle The autonomous s henceforth henceforth con - -

spread idea and practice in the 19 the in practice idea and spread Adrianople Revolutionary Organization chose autonomy as its its as autonomy chose Organization Revolutionary Adrianople one with its center in Tarnovo, and the other with its center at at center its with other the and Tarnovo, in center its with one tested regions and borderlands which played an instrumental instrumental an played which borderlands and regions tested 1982), 14-52. be be

- II.2. Why Autonomy? Why II.2. 1870s. and their subsequent unificationinsubsequent and when their 1885, Serbia hardly underestimated. With the creation of Bulgarian Bulgarian of creation With the hardly underestimated. transformed into a border region wher region border a into transformed 80 79

Autonomous were both San Stefano Bulgaria on on Bulgaria Stefano San both were Autonomous The Constantinople Conference in 1876, which in which 1876, Conference Constantinople The 27 79.

saged the creation of two of two creation the saged century Balkans.Almost all utonomous status in one status utonomous

[Balkan National [Balkan

[The Liberation of Bulgaria ofBulgaria Liberation [The e the interests of of interests the e

-Liberation CEU eTD Collection 82 81 populat Christian the of representation broader for provided Empire, the of provinces European other of the that: 23 provided treaty Articleof the of Berlin. after Congress the local context in the it examine to needs one period in this demand IMARO’s of specificities and origins the under to In order systems. political and administrative various of range whole a covering other. the on Berlin, of Congress p and Principality Bulgarian the and hand one the Powers, the Balkan states, and revolutionaries. the Balkan states, the Powers, Great authorities, Ottoman the of views the situated were diapason broad this In governance. their interests interpretation the provisioned of by involved reforms allin actors would a way that best suit th Statesmanship European and Near between Eastern Question Politics” Cretan The in Paschalis M.Revolutions: of K Century “A Kallivretakis, Leonidas level.” local at competence administratio machinery composition in of and courts, for equal the the use and of Turkish Greek the languages the in Independence and a Nation -State Philosophy, Department ofHistory, Institute for N “Treaty №177 Document Berlin of e content of the article was too general and ambiguous. This allowed for a diverse adiverse for This allowed ambiguous. general and too was article of the e content The Cretan Organic Law provided for “the involvement of Christians at every level of the administrative administrative the of level every at Christians of involvement “the for provided Law Organic Cretan The In fact, the the fact, In meanings has very different actually which term vague is autonomy a that isIt obvious represented, to settle the details of the new laws in each province. The schemes in province. each laws new of the details settle the to represented, largely be shall element native the in which commissions, special depute shall Sublime The Porte treaty. present the by provided been has organization special no which ininto parts the Eur of other shall Crete, introduced Turkey be to granted also from taxation exemption the regards as excepting local requirements, to adapted lawsLaw consideredmodifications such Similarwith equitable. maybe of as 1868 Cre applyin Island of undertakes the scrupulouslyThe to Porte Sublime consult the European Commission instituted for Easter for instituted Commission European the consult force, shall forinto puttingActs which, them before the Sublime promulgating Porte, the to examination for submitted be labors shall from these resulting organization n… and perhaps most importantly of all, for the election of ageneral assemblywith legislative

(Edinburgh: Edinburgh U.P., 2006 U.P., Edinburgh (Edinburgh: – ionin thelocal administration from limited administrative reorganizations to complete poli complete to reorganizations administrative limited from Organic Law of Crete which was pointed out as a model for the settlement settlement the modelfor as a out was pointed which Crete Law of Organic ,

vol. 1. ( 1. vol. –

Article 23” in 23” Article Skopje: The Universityof ‘Cyril and Methodius , 21. ), ational

28 Documents onthe Struggle ofMacedonian the People for

History, 1985): 239-241.

but did not foresee didnot but autonomy. itromilides of Trials The Venizelos: ed., Eleftherios rovince of Eastern Rumelia created after the the after Rumelia created Eastern of rovince

Roumelia.

te the Organic Organic the te 82

As a whole whole a As ’ , Faculty, of tical self tical ope for stand stand

of of - CEU eTD Collection 1885). was instrumental in shaping the initial views on Macedonian autonomy the Berlin Treaty Berlin the administration and the local armed forces. The most important thing was that the Porte, despite the provisions of accomp initiative which took the political leaders in Principality completelyby surprise and they simply accepted the fait eth Eastern Rumelian militia which overthrew the authority of the Eastern Rumelian general governor who was also in 1885](Sofia:in Narodna prosveta, 1985). As will be discussed many Balgariya i Iztochna Rumeliya Izdatelstvo Otochestveniya na front, 1983) Idem.and Andreyand Saedinenieto Pantev. naKnyazhestvo 85 84 83 - Saxe Ferdinand Prince after Porte, Sublime the on impose autonomy would Russia that hoped Bulgarians If1885 the to up increasing. was inMacedonia enforce autonomy to aneventual Maced what as to factors interested all among suspicions caused and internationally idea autonomous the compromised strongly act This movement. revolutionary Macedonian the of development Thrace. Macedonia and to its attention turned greater much were Principality the with unification for and prospects the status autonomous an enjoyed it already since Rumelia Eastern mainly preoccu was that to prior which attention of Bulgarian forefront the came to each to other. opposed or beingnot delineated clearly simultaneously, existed unification direct for hope and the very popular was Bulgaria idea Stefano San the of period this during Additionally, etc. memoranda, petitions, - of action methods legal strictly to andr confined in characte 23. article of implementation the for Istanbul in 1880 in had gathered who Commission the European Ruse to inMacedonianLeague émigré Macedonian an annexation. However, I prefer the term “unification” to emphasize that the act started on on started act the that emphasize to “unification” term the prefer I However, annexation. an Ibid, 41. Ibid, Pandev,

Unification or annexation, of course, depends on the point ofview. According to internatio ic Bulgarian and recognized the Bulgarian prince as a ruler. Elena Statelova Elena a ruler. as prince Bulgarian the recognized and Bulgarian nic

li Ikonomika,politika, kultura The Eastern Rumeli The Eastern untilitisnot more, was What Macedonia as 1885 when well as the the among from came demand apolitical as autonomy of formulation clear first The . In the years Inthe . tolocal prior Bulgarians 1885the to managed acquire complete controlover the

Natzionalnoosvoboditelnoto 40. , ,

coup d’etat coup a was itself act The province. the in garrisons stationed never onian autonomy could re s in the Principality of Bulgaria. It was the Memoir of the Bulgarian the of Memoir the was It Bulgaria. of Principality the in s

1885 godina a

example was have to ahuge influence on the origin and [EasternRumelia, 1878-1885. Economy, Politics, Culture] (Sofia:

[The Unification of the Principality of Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia present. As aresult of thesefears, the reluctance 83 85 29

At this early stage the movement was peaceful was peaceful movement the stage early this At

After the successful unification act Sofia Sofia act unification After successful the

ofits parts .

occasions below, Eastern Rumelia

widespread. The two widespread.

mainly protests, through , Iztochna(1878 Rumeliya -

Adrianople region an an

84 nal law the act was was act the law nal

Eastern Rumelian

organized by the pied with with pied Coburg

ideas ideas case case - - CEU eTD Collection same problem and were by no means mutually exclusive. mutually means no by were and problem same then 88 87 86 A memoirs. be reconstruc it has to preserved, meeting were first of the documents schools. in Exarchist the teachers school Exarchists Bulgarian were All Batandzhiev. Hristo and Dimitrov, Macedonia inbysix 1893 founded organization Salonika on23October was preserving much the so disputed integrityterritorial Macedonia. of al above achieve and to easier realistic, more is that a goal as Principality in the emigration Macedonian the of circles inall accepted gradually was autonomy also of the uni in Russialonger the country, no supported this practical as a solution. Gotha democracy, “Friedrich Naumann Foundation, 1992, 169. Balkanite Development of Idea for the Autonomyof Macedonia] Aspektiin na etnokulturnata situatziya Balgariyav nai Pandev Makedoniya Kostadin Paleshutski, “Genezis i razvitie na ideyata za avtonomiya na Makedoniya” [Genesis and Macedonian autonomy Macedonian unification.” of “national process of the as anecessary phase s of the the of sides two as the to Bulgarians the seemed Principality the with union ultimate took the throne in Bulgaria, which was seen as an extension of the Austrian influence influence Austrian the of extension an as seen was which Bulgaria, in throne the took The name of the or the of name The revolutionary The model. established awell accepted IMARO regard In this success The ultimate conclusions. different completely drew however, The Bulgarians,

, [Aspects of Ethno the Natzionalnoosvoboditelnoto, 36 onist act act of 1885sanctionedonist autonomy -

ccording to Hristo Tatarchev, the name was Macedonian Revolutionary Macedonian was name the Tatarchev, Hristo to ccording [Macedonia Damyan Gruev, Hristo Tatarchev, Ivan Hadzhinikolov, Patar Poparsov, Andon Andon Poparsov, Patar Hadzhinikolov, Ivan Tatarchev, Hristo Gruev, Damyan ] , №36, , 19 -Cultural Situatio ganization that they established still remains unknown. Since no no Since unknown. still remains established they ganization that

August II.3. Autonomy for Whom? for Autonomy II.3. - 66.

1889, 143.

n in Bulgarian and the Balkans]. Sofia: Center for the Study of 30

and it viewedwas not only as but possible 87

In the second half of the 1880s 1880s the of half second the In 88 ,

86 and most of them were were them of most and local young men from from men young local

ted almost entirely on entirely on almost ted l as a guarantee of of aguarantee l as

and and

CEU eTD Collection Revolutionary Organization” in 92 91 90 89 meeting: the during debates the about information Treaty.” Berlin the of provisions the of “Implementation was motto their that and Treaty” Berlin the of implementation the for “a was demand founded: been had summarizeHadzhinikolov to basic attempted principles the future IMARO uponwhich the – goal the of discussions the in basic opinions two were there third, and Macedonia; only idea encompassed the stage early this at second, 23; article of implementation the on insisted they first, things: following the It by Berlinto the Granted Treaty. it a“ called Poparsov byOrganization run za Macedonia Macedonia Granted to It by the Berlin Treaty] Berlin the by It to Granted Macedonia VMORO Mac in Movement

Document № № Document Petar Document № 38 “ Osvobotilenoto pridobivanie

, Poparsov , Damyan Gruevin his memoirs twicementioned that the goal of thefirst committee memo founders’ the thing, important most the not being name The for moral and material support for the struggle of the Macedonian revolutionari of the for struggle Macedonian the moralmaterial support for and From5. itin theshould MacedoniansBulgarian population ask Bulgaria and theonly autonomy be should Organization the of slogan political The 3. Its2. foundersbelocal should living in citizens Macedonia. government. there active be an Greeks the and that so Macedonia in founded be should organization revolutionary The 1. contacts with the governments of neighbouring countries. neighbouring of governments the with contacts 4. № 8,№ 19 July 1919, 3.

and The Organization should be secret and i and be secret should The Organization

Adrianople politicheski nary organization in Macedonia,” Ibid. Ibid. Macedonia,” in organization nary ofrevolutio creation the on Grouev “Damyan 101 “ edonia and the First Steps andedonia the of First Salonika the dvizhenie Proizhod Hadjinikolov Ivan

a Central Macedonian Revolutionary Committee. Revolutionary Macedonian Central a

Region Secret Committee for Acquiring the Political Rights of Macedonia of Macedonia Rights Political the Acquiring for Committee Secret prava

na v

Macedonia. Documents and Materials revolyutzionnoto Makedoniya

na . d Serbians should not consider it as a weapon of the Bulgarian Bulgarian it of consider weapon asthe a not should d Serbians

Memoirs

autonomy Makedoniya on the Serbian propaganda in Macedonia which led to the creation of the of the creation the to led which Macedonia in propaganda Serbian the on ” 90

and i

in in

Odrinsko

Byuletin naByuletin Vremennoto predsatvitelstvo naobedinenata bivsha

dvizhenie Materials , or or dadeni dire 31 :

ct joining to Bulgariajoiningct to i Spomeni ]

ot v vol

Makedoniya

Berlinski Committee for Acquiring the Political Rights of .1. ( .1. ndependent and establish should ndependent not

Sofia i

. Materiali

dogovor : 92

Nauka i

parvite Hristo Tatarchev gave mor Tatarchev gave Hristo

.” .”

[ i The

izk [Origins of the Revolutionary Revolutionary ofthe [Origins

stapki

of . , 1983),, 103. ustvo

In his memoirs Ivan Ivan memoirs his In Liberation

89 Macedonia. irs seem to agree on on agree to seem irs

na Petar Petar contrast, In

Solunskiya

Movement

es.

komitet

in e

CEU eTD Collection much more complicated question that the current thesis analyzes. thesis current the that question complicated more much forfought the autonomyfor Macedonia and Adrianople Thrace. they What by meant “autonomy”of is course a York: Random House, 2000), Nation the „Building Mark, Mazower, Macedonia.” for autonomy the and Bulgaria Greater stating Organization Revolutionary Adrianople Macedonian 96 95 94 93 it ispresented. as Bulgaria, usually of Greater anchampion not unequivocal wasSMAC during th between relations discuss the to not is here My aim Macedonian be Supreme cameknown as later the to that Macedon to unanimous were Organization Internal of the founders All the of time. same the at public Bulgarian Adrianople Organzation in Bulgaria] (Sofia: Committee; from December 1895 – acquisition provisions of article 23 ofBerlin Treaty, which if implemented, were considered an abso opini same the organizatziya v Balgariyaorganizatziya v Adrianople Committee. Hristo Silyanov, the first historiographer of the Organi Like Like

Even prominent ouet № Document Bulgaria proceeding itsformalalso organization. was In to March 1895allexisting : “the Bulgarians were weakened by a murderous split in their own ranks between thosewho fought for a most ofthe most - ten whole the In parallel with the revolutionary movement in Macedonia, the Macedonia emigration emigration Macedonia the in Macedonia, movement revolutionary the with In parallel among the debates the reflected extent alarge to discussions early these Actually autonomous and states neighbouring small the of by aspirations and the Powers by Great the be opposed would this that see could we un ‘direct of accept principle the the not autonomy of the on settled we later length and at organization this of aims the We discussed as a part asof apart an autonomous programmeour at the beginning, we later think and I that peoples. The of district Odrin [Adri federation the Balkan of link a of be it the uniting be could couldnot achieved, .” Silyanov, Osvoboditelnite Silyanov, .” e Committe byled aMacedonian Organization inMacedonian a united ian societies in on. In his own words: “for the O

142 that they based their program on what they considered practically possible. practically they considered what on program they their based that

organizations in this period scholars like Mark Mazower misinterpret the differences between the two organizations by organizations two the between differences the misinterpret Mazower Mark like scholars

“ From the memoirs of

Macedonia Macedonia, with the predominance of the Bulgarian element. We could We could element. Bulgarian of the predominance with the Macedonia, members of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO), who wanted wanted who (IMRO), Organization Revolutionary Macedonian Internal of the members Svetlozar Eldarov, Varhovnoyat makedono -odrinski komitet Makedono i - Eldarov, Svetlozar year peri 1903) [The Supreme Macedonian Supreme [The (1895-1903) 99. Actually in this period all existing or

existence Committee’s the of od d with d unite easily more belater could Supreme Macedonian Committee; from 1901 , vol. 1.,40. vol. ,

Macedonia.

Ivray, 2003).

Dr. Hristo Dr. ,

in in often: very changed name the

rganization the concept of autonomyoverlapped with the a ” nople], as far as I remembered, did not enter into enter not did remembered, asfar I as nople], Ibid. 32 93

Turkey. It came to our minds an came that our to It Turkey. Tatarchev on the foundation and aims and foundation the on Tatarchev ification of ification

zation and himself participant in the movement, shares shares movement, the in participant himself and zation

e two organizations, which were mixed mixed were which organizations, e two State“ in The Balkans: A Short History (New History AShort (New Balkans: The in -State“ Adrianople Committee and the Macedonian the and Committee -Adrianople -

ganizations, not only IMARO and SMAC, SMAC, only and not IMARO ganizations, Adrianople Committee (SMAC). Committee Adrianople Macedonia but to rather demonstrate that

thought thought including of the area Macedonian Macedonian was March 1895it with

- Bulgaria, or, if this if this or, Bulgaria, Supreme Supreme

Bulgaria’ because because Bulgaria’ sfactory lutely satisfactory

of the Internal M acedonian odrinskata 94

96 95 - -

CEU eTD Collection Bulgaria 98 97 vilayet the in nationality predominant the to belongs “who aperson appointed be should province the of head Skopje was avoided “autonomy” very word by Eastern Reformsfor Turkey upthe drawn the project, the to Note Explanatory the In in Be Introduced Are to That with negotiations holding prime Bulgarian the of invitation the on these government, of form a societies. goal Macedonian of of the the for achievement andthe act help would that persons such of parliament Bulgarian the in MPs for candidates supporting t with negotiations governments, European the to delegations and memoranda of sending meetings, agitation, press, governments andin the public and opinion a variety Bulgariathrough Europe” methods: of achieve order to this goal th In Powers.” by Great the and guaranteed applied autonomy, apolitical region Adrianople and in organization. of this statutes the appeared first movement revolutionary Macedonian the in principle autonomous the Formally, are cited as in the official translation of the document. of the translation official the in as cited are

Document №46 “ №46 Document “Statuti na makedonsitedruzhestva” [Statutes pr oposals of the Constantinople Conference of 1876 Conference Constantinople of the oposals

T b building concrete the to With regard in Macedonia populations by the “acquiring as its goal saw Committee The Supreme [Uskub] setting out the history of the plan for reforms” in Macedonia. Documents and Materia he first demand was that: “the present Soloun present “the that: was demand first he

Circular letter 141 of the Supreme Macedonian Committee to the Macedonian Societies in in Societies Macedonian the to Committee Macedonian Supreme of the 141 letter Circular vilayets

should be merged into one one into merged be should

”. The SMAC recommended the two former Eastern Rumelian Rumelian Eastern former two the recommended SMAC The ”. the Sublime Porte. Sublime the

were developed in the project in project were developedinof the Committee the Supreme 1896

Macedonia e Committee would exert influence “upon the Bulgarian Bulgarian “upon the influence exert would Committee e he other Balkan states for joint action and last through through last and action joint for states Balkan other he ,

and only the more diplomatic “reforms” was used. “reforms” was diplomatic more and only the

the Committee stated that these reforms were based on on based were reforms these that stated Committee the

of the Macedonian Societies], Pravo Societies], Macedonian of the - in Order to Pacify the Agitated Population There.” There.” Population PacifyAgitated in to the Order minister Konstantin Stoilov, who at that time was

- locks of the concept of autonomy as a status and and status a as of autonomy concept the of locks 33 The project was called “A Note was called The project Roumelian Commission European

vilayet

, the Berlin Treaty and the the and Treaty Berlin the , [Salonika]

with Soloun as its centre.” At the its centre.” as with Soloun 97 , Bitolya [Monastir] Bitolya ,

, , №25,9 May 1895,9 1.

on the Reforms Reforms the on ls.

. The The in 1880. Names below below Names Bill of of Bill 98

and and

CEU eTD Collection Makedonski39. Cause], 1905, June 25 Liberation №3 pregled, “[Macedonian delo osvoboditelno “Makedonsko Petrov, Gyortche issue.” it became the final goal of the Internal Organizatio 101 100 99 Macedonian Bulgarian name the adopted It Organization. the Sofia in out pointed been already has autonomy of principle “the remembers: Petrov Gyorche discussion. Organiz Internal the leaders of When the time. that at autonomy viewed IMARO how demonstrates province. lost the years Ottomans the ten after s case Rumelian Eastern about the Porte Sublime the remind to was it wise how doubtful is rather It program. this influenced heavily Rumelia Eastern exampleof the adoubt Without Bulgarians. ofinterests the the expressed demands these that of organizations.” in school left of the respective be charge should nationalities Christian vilayet the in majorities the constituting nationalities “thelanguage the be of Turkish, should language, with Theappointed.” along official belong “should lines ethnic upon built be to was administration The groups.” minority of the rights the observing strictly from population among the elected vilayet the in population Christian the satisfy and suit best because,Krustevich according to Alekoandgovernors Bogoridi Gavril

Ibid.

And also adds: “This political formulation – Ibid. Odrin [Adrianople]

Salonika the fact, In SMAC vilayet into the introduced be should reforms “similar that demanded also The project vil The newly created ation met inmet Salonikaination 1896, the springof they this without accepted project ,

and discuss we not did this question at all.”

project is important not only because it was the first but also because it it also but because first was the it not onlybecause is important project to the nationality which is in the majority in the region in which they are majorityin they are in which the region isinthewhich nationality the to . ” This project was narrowly national in character national narrowly was project ” This

ongress can be seen in many ways as the founding congress of of congress founding the as ways many in seen be can ongress ayet

was to be governed by an assembly, “which should be be should “which assembly, an by governed be to was goal, was approved by the political world in Bulgaria and silently n too, even though until today none of us has dwelled on this 34

and all officials, gendarmes and officers officers and gendarmes officials, all and ” and “the educational matters of the matters educational “the ” and

101 .”

o openly. After all, it was only only was it all, After openly. o - Adrianople Revolutionary Revolutionary Adrianople

, SMAC

and and it was obvious , this“would 100

CEU eTD Collection troops which supported by Powers finally which giventhem,Cretans the Great troops supported were Greek the and rebels the both defeated Ottomans the terms military in Although encouraging. eval 104 103 102 Empire and the eventsin Crete, indeed, were from secede the to desired groups’ Christian casesin sinceboth two the between connection im another were Greece forprepare and raise a general uprising. mouth, and of disseminate to byitideas to revolutionary through word among or the press forfeeling self t against an revolt open wouldlead to later which Adr and Strumitza, Serres, Skopje, Monastir, Salonika, namely: regions, six included later had beenbut not structure clarified the this period During division. administrative regional formed which regions into divided been had The territory in Salonika. seated Committee sex district Odrin the and Macedonia for autonomy political “full as defined The goal was Committees. 112. However, the practice in the next years next imposed the in the above practice mention the six However, 111-112. 1896 dvizhenie, National of the [Development 1899” natzionalnoosvoboditelnoto na “Razrastvane Eldarov, Sveltozar Adrianople. and Tikvesh, Macedonia. Documents and Materials. and the foreign diplomatic agents. It was almost as important as the Central Committee. was a This effective. Another institution that was found was the so called Foreign Representation or Representation Abro -Dzhumaya, Strumitza V Skopje, Monastir, Salonika, established: were regions seven congress this On The Statute of the Bulgarian… of the Statute The ouet № Document .” .” ianople. uate 102

The Cretan Crisis of 1897 and the subsequent war between the Ottoman Empire and and Empire Ottoman between the war subsequent the and of 1897 Crisis The Cretan Central the bodyleading was The centralistic. and was hierarchical The structure [Adrianople r

how successful eventual rebellion could be. In this direction the result was rather was rather result the direction be. In this could rebellion eventual successful how committees committees two 103 -three

- 41 “The Statute of the Bulgarian Macedonian Bulgarian of the Statute “The 41 The Organization clearly saw the achievement of its goal through propaganda propaganda its goal through of achievement saw the clearly The Organization defense among the Bulgarian population of the areas menti areas the of population Bulgarian the among defense -member institution set Sofia in order in to keep contacts wit the Bulgarian governmenth egion] and portant factor for the course of events in Macedonia. There is a direct is adirect There inMacedonia. events of for course the factor portant

in turn go turn in .

”

Membership was provided to “ to provided was Membership Liberation Movement, 1896 Movement, -Liberation

verned the district committees reflecting the Ottoman Ottoman the reflecting committees verned district the ” 104

35 monitored

he authorities stating that it “ -1899] in Natzionalnoosvoboditelnoto -Adrianople Revolutionary Committees” in

closely by IMARO. They wanted to to wanted They IMARO. by closely any Bulgarian, irrespective of of irrespective Bulgarian, any - region structure as more more as structure region

oned in Article 1, 1, Article in oned must arouse a arouse must

what they they what , vol2., vol2., , eles a d. d. - -

CEU eTD Collection Elefterios policyfor the moment. A. Lilly Macrakis, “ union between Crete and Greece and stood his groundyears for later Venizelos widening to had reject the accusations of of t political separatism because he opposed the immediate unionists ofbeing led by accused was Eleftherios who Venizelos Empire in 1897 and inconsistent character of autonomism in this period. For example, after Greecewas defeatedby the Ottoman 105 way. novel a in goals final their view to started activists revolutionary the of some that Principality not matter did differences religious or national whom for and movement the joined in general leftists and Empire. movement into a ofone all from Bulgarian wider nationa a narrowly Organization that they the understood couldleaders transform appealthem of Some well. to IMARO as to popula Macedonian of the picture The diverse Organization. of the ideology the on huge repercussions had structure social in change This village. every in almost committees Gradually IMA Congress. after Salonika the course intensive amore on took expansion Organization’s but the Adr and Macedonia for autonomy secure which could intervention European Allneeded dowas to they just raise the population and this wouldbe enough cause to wanted

The similarities between the two movements are intriguing and the Cretan case illustrateswell the ambiguities

tions which were a mix of various ethnic and religious groups mademix religious variousleaderswereethnic aof and groups attempt tions whichthe This change in policy was assisted by the fact that many social democrats, anarchists, anarchists, democrats, manysocial that fact by the was assisted in policy This change 1894 to back dates of committees network building a towards steps practical first The

, – 58 autonomy. very much very 76. -76. ,

the so called “autonomists” in the Cretan revolutionary movement had asharp conflict with the

RO lost its urban intellectual character become alarge to itscharacter intellectual RO lost urban 105 . It was actually under the dir the under was actually It .

The revolutionary organization drew its own lesson from the crisis. crisis. fromlesson the its own drew organization The revolutionary II.4. TheII.4. and Evolution Failure of Idea an

Venizelos’

36 Early Life Political and Career in Crete” in Kitromilides,

ect influence of the socialist thought in the the in thought socialist the of influence ect “an agent of the Greek consulate.” Several Several consulate.” Greek of the agent “an he Cretan autonomy as a more realistic realistic more a as autonomy Cretan he

ianople Thrace. ianople Thrace.

movement with with movement - lities in the the in lities Adrianople CEU eTD Collection and Question should aim to create a democratic republican political system. political ademocratic republican create to should aim them, to according Autonomy, help. foreign any on rely not should it that and movement f to and movement the to elements new bring to intended they that declared socialists Macedonian 109 108 Odrinsko 107 106 absolutism. S the if“Turkish”it of struggle to for population the expressed abolishment the desire to wiling was committee The polity. a separate land as the organize to or states existing the of any join to wanted they whether choose to opportunity the S the against unite all acomm for it to willstrive that declared and nationalities among the antagonism national existing the condemned Committee The (MRCU). Union Committee Revolutionary Macedonian and (MSRC) Committee Revolutionary Secret Macedonian t population majority the the of to which according interpretation region.” Adrianople and Macedonia inhabit which peoples, of the liberation economical and political “full as goal final saw their Macedoni it. to Socialis Revolutionary Adrianople

Pandev, Pandev, Politicheska svoboda Konstantin Dobrin

the ind new ways and methods and ways new ind 106

National Ideologically similar to the revolutionary socialists were the members ofmembers t the were socialists revolutionary the to similar Ideologically in Macedonian the organized socialists ideas the were new ofbearers the main The

] (Sofia , 1878-1912”, [Political As early as 1895 in the newspaper Revolytuziya newspaper in the 1895 as As early

Mich . 29 Politicheski region an revolutionary socialists published their own program according to which they according to program own their socialists published revolutionary an 109

Pandev ultan’s And thisachieved authority. was after the nationalities wouldbe given : “All nationalities in Macedonia to be allowed to organize small cantons, in cantons, small organize to be allowed to in Macedonia “Allnationalities : : ev

MNI Question ] , “ in BRSDP

Istoricheski , 1993), 80-151. “ Politicheski , №1, 6 February 1898, 3. , 1891, -1918]

t Group headed Group t by Vasil Glavinov assome well groups as close other

natzionalniya Demands

pregled

iskaniya

of struggle (6) 1980, 21

of Izsledvaniya

na s vapro With regard to With regard the

balgarskoto

Bulgarian

(1891-1918) [Bulgarian -48. 37 . They insisted on the independence of the the of independence the on insisted They .

i, 28 i, natzionalnoozvoboditelno o arrange their social their affairs.” arrange o makedonskiya National-Liberation -29.

they autonomy the

(Revolution) published in Sofia, the(Revolution)in published Sofia,

accept within its ranks the peaceful peaceful the its within ranks accept

vapros Workers

Movement

107 [Studies ’

dvizhenie Socia Later inLater 1898the

gave it a wid a it gave on

l in

Democratic

the 108

v Macedonia he so called called so he

on s on Makedoniya

Macedonian truggle truggle ultan’s ultan’s

Party

and er er

CEU eTD Collection 110 splitting are that quarrels nationalist and propagandas chauvinist the condemned was categorically kind of whatever regions. two these for autonomy full a political arevolution, win, through to nationality, of regardless “ Macedonian longer emphasized no was character Bulgarian l however, evolution, views leftists’ the shared activists doubt influenced the development of IMARO’sideology. At the same time, not all of IMARO their victory.” who nationality, and religion “any sex, of could regardless beAmember languages. person MRCU widelyspoken of fedandmajority on the of language willbe the canton the in Thelanguagematters. freedom cantons,officiallocal in have absolute whichor all should districts in separate nationality to according as in Switzerland, be grouped, should population t stipulated federative fromalso independent republic, absolutely Turkey.” The the “from that insisted level. neighboring states, the revolutionary struggle should be conducted partitioning of danger avoid the to as wh nationalities other of the suspicions the overcome uniting uniting ., 30. ., Ibid

They str They as of the Macedonian socialists in Bulgaria without a Bulgariain without socialists Macedonian the ide of as the mentioned, As already into them, to order According views. these developed further activists The MRCU ” in A member of SMARO SMARO of member A

all the discontented the all a whole - AdrianopleOrganization Revolutionary 110 ongly opposed the

ed to the changes in the Statute and the Regulations from 1902. from and Regulations the Statute in the changes the to ed vilayets

agrees with the principles of for the work Unionand to desires

of Salonika, Bitola, Skopje, and Adrianople to be formed one beformedAdrianople Skopje, one and to Bitola, Salonika, of could SMAC’s 1896 SMAC’s ,

andmany to stuck their previous understandings. This

be be the the and Macedonia

elements in Macedonia and the Adrianople region, region, Adrianople the and inMacedonia elements “ any any 38 , ,

Macedonian or Adrianopolitan.” Nationa Adrianopolitan.” or Macedonian “obliterate to: struggled Organization the and and the Organization took nametook the “ and Organization the

reform project as nationalistic and instead instead and nationalistic as project reform broader: much was time this goal The .” ich they had towards Bulgarians towards had they ich eral level Adrianople region between the the between region Adrianople entirely entirely –

three from most three the and and on an international international an on enervating , as well well as , hat the hat Secret Secret

lism The The the the

CEU eTD Collection Organizatziya izdatelstvo ( Letters)]. Resolutions, Orders, Minutes, Letters, Circular Declarations, Memoranda, Revolutionary deklaratzii Macedonian 111 in polity: autonomous an Thrace Adrianople and of Macedonia Organization, Internal the of organ Pravo nationalities. all unite exc autonomy that insisted too they Now autonomy. of understanding their up broadened have to seemed also in period this Committee The Supreme socialists. the to limited only means po increasingly overall and ageneral for is needed with all that population of the armament timely and forthcoming and consciousness among the population “ only not Organziation the that elaborated further even autonom to way the and revolution the of vehicle main the again was MacedonianinAdrianople and population

Document and that the revolutionary organization should struggle to to struggle should organization revolutionary the and that Bulgaria luded with unification

(Rights)

For example For was becoming It lifeits own. live a of to started idea autonomy the of period In this political separatism, the spiritual integrity of the Bulgarian nationality seems seems nationality Bulgarian the of integrity spiritual the separatism, political politically even though its culture, spiritual united through and undivided whole, people Bulgarian of the preservation the namely, this doctrine, from consequence significant and is essential one there promises, separatism political the all of spite in future, the in and now both bring may Stefano San of Bulgaria a of dream the which harm all the of spite In population. Macedonian - Stefano San — Principality the from Bulgarians The uprising. , “ -Adrianople Sv. Kliment Ohridski Kliment Sv.

okrazhni

№29 “ №29 Organization (1983-1919). pular among the Bulgarian public edited by Nikola Naumov and Toma Karayov Toma and Naumov by Nikola edited ” Ustav 111 , ,

protokoli

Revolutionary in an article called “Political Separatism” published in the newspaper newspaper in the published Separatism” “Political called in article an

have no reason to be dissatisfied with the political separatism of the the of separatism political with the be dissatisfied to reason no have na

(1983-1919).

Dokumenti Taynata ,” 2007), 179 -182. ,

neredbi

makedono

Organization they specified the essence of the demand for the separation for separation the demand of the essence the they specified Doc na ,

uments of the Central Executive Organs (Statutes, Regulations, tzentralnite rezolyutzii -odrinska ”

its

but also but

39 ] struggle against the com the against struggle in dream of Bulgaria of of Bulgaria of dream who any still are if there

, ,

revolyutzionna rakovodni being all by accepted byno almost groups Vatreshnata pisma

“ uses all the means and efforts for for the andmeans efforts uses all the ) acts to introduce to acts

[The

organi ov and considered the unofficial unofficial the considered and ov Makedono-Odrinska

organizatziya Internal

( ustavi separated. Without this this Without separated. mon enemy mon y,

advantages which the the which advantages

, Macedonian

but this time it was was it time this but ” [ revolutionary spirit spirit revolutionary pravilnitzi, Sofia: Universitetsko Statute

.” Uprising Uprising .” of volyutzionna -Adrianople the memoari

Secret ,

CEU eTD Collection Organization, headed by Hristo Stanishev, by Hristo headed Organization, that it“ canthat - “non attracting 116 115 [Adrionople]” in Macedonia. Documents and Materials 114 Autonomy’, 113 112 if secure to rebels attempted the beginning, In the contradictions. intentions. IMARO’s concerning mistrustful and suspicious remained Empire and th states neighboring the assurances, all despite is why, That element. Bulgarian the of priority the secured program this discussed, already fromidentical 1896. the one to almost which was handedahim project Tatarchev, b led Organization, Internal the and Karayovov, and Stanishev by led Committee, both the Supreme delegation of a Decemberin 1902 Lambsdorffvisited Sofia the reject not did Bulgaria its suppo and Organization Internal ideas, the new these preached they timesame when i regard, Sandansky (London: Methuen inform Uprising calendar Julian the to (according in revealed is Macedonia of autonomy for demand was in the Serres region which started in mid Transfiguration) the beginning in of Adrianople, Besides August. and the Monastir third wave clashesof armed

Pandev, Macedonia” in Macedonia. Documents in and MaterialsMacedonia” The uprisingThe iscalled Ilinden ouet №68 Document See See ouet №63 Document ation about the uprising can befound in Henry ouet №72 Document ” Ilinden of the course and the start The However SMAC’s impossible. It is in the interests of the Bulgarian Principality not only to support this its for work realization. continuethis to to but idea, support to only not Principality Bulgarian the of interests the in is It impossible.

t is important here to note the existing contradictions within the movement. At the the At movement. the within contradictions existing the note to here important is t . because of the uprising in Adrianople region which started which region Adrianople in uprising of the because

, 31. , Politicheski London: Journeyman, (London: which notes that one of these elements is the presence of a compact Bulgarian population population Bulgarian compact of a presence the is elements of these one that notes which strengthen the hopes of mutual respect and joint work for for commonthe cause. work joint and mutual respect of hopes the strengthen - non and Bulgarian

, all these hopes very soon proved to be nothing more than illusio than more nothing be to proved soon very hopes these all ,

and “From an article in the newspaper the in article an “From newspaper newspaper “‘Political Separatism -

Co., 1906 of the Macedonian the of Committee Supreme of the 111 No. letter “Circular

ir be

old understandings. When the Russian foreign minister Vladimir Vladimir minister foreign Russian the When understandings. old Reformi ) and Mercia Mercia and )

cause itstarted first in the Monastir region on St. Elijah’s day – ). In Bulgarian historiography itis referred to as “Ilinden

1988)

. setting out demands for reforms Macedoniain and the region of Odrin Slav elements

On the process

(Reforms) an article in the newspaper the in article an

“ in Macedonia. in “ Documents MacDermott, September on Krastovden on -September 40

Reformi,

Brailsford, also also .” Stanishev welcomed this fact and stated and stated fact this welcomed Stanishev .” rding rega Uprising For Freedom and Perfection: the Life of Yane

112 approved lements Necessary for entitled Necessary ‘Elements e othernationalities in the Ottoman

Macedonia. Its Races andTheir Future how how

116 on on

Pravo,

Preobr and Materials. Ilinden of 1903 revealed the same of (Feast English of Cross). In the

y Hristo Matov and Hristo Hristo and Matov Hristo y

IMARO’s new course of of course new IMARO’s not the sympathy sympathy the not

in which the essence of the of the essence the which in azhenie became the cornerstone of of cornerstone the became

(The Day of Lord’s 115

Preobrzhenie -Preobrzhenie

20 July20 1903 Macedonia’s Macedonia’s ns. In this Inns. this Adrianople -Adrianople then then rters in 114 ” 113

As As

at at .

CEU eTD Collection 119 118 117 Macedonia and the Uncertainties of Nation Macedonian national identity the and conflicting interpretations see KeithBrown, prior despite task impossible regardless the – control international an “the of establishment and second, Porte” from Sublime independent the administration and Turkish the to belonged never has who governor general Christian a of Powers Great the with appointment “the first, demands: two only raised They administration. Ottoman in“bad corrupt” and the were problem roots of the the that diplomacy European opin freedom!” with “Down like: phrases general with full only was outbreak the for declaration The population. Muslim the of neutrality the least cause for the Outbreak of the Uprising in Macedonia and Adrianople Region] in Vatreshnata Hristo Tatarchev and Simeon Radev to the Representatives of the Great Powers in Which They Explain the Ilinden Uprising [Declaration predstavitelite

Document№274 “TheKrusevo Manifesto” in Document № Document Document ir ion forion their They cause. modestlytheir as presented goals persuade possible as trying to

appeals. If in If appeals. In practice the situation was much more complicated than the rebels presented it in it presented rebels the than complicated more much was situation the In practice win European to was revolutionaries the for important more was what fact, In and of the same homeland, shall do you no harm and shall not hate not shall and harm no you do shall homeland, same the of and bannerfor and yourour freedom, and for our your justice. the man under last the to fight will we necessary, if and us, and you for both alone Sultan the against yourselves us and declare not so and thatyou arewrong. Nevertheless,if you honour doesnot allow unders and see willsoon You you and acrescent. astar but flag join to imperial on the is cross no slaves not there you since are that yoursis and empirethe that think might Moslems Arnautsyou and Turks, as Weneighbours! understand that Dear

117

of from

№94 “ №94

orders language or religion to rise up against rise religion upagainst language or to

82 the same direction: same the in hints Manifesto Krushevo famous The in Macedonia” in Macedonia. in Documents and Macedonia” in Materials.

. In . Velikite the “ The Proclamation of the General Staff of the Bitolya Revolutionary District announcing the Deklaratz

Central

principle, principle, to the contrary. Other acts such as singing Bulgarian songs songs Bulgarian such as acts singing Other contrary. the to assurances and fact, in many places the insurgents did attack Patriarchists and Muslims Muslims and Patriarchists did attack insurgents the inmany places fact,

collective, permanent and having broad ri broad and having permanent collective, sili

iya Macedonian

ot prichinite the entire population entire unite the to wanted Organization Internal the

TMORK, -Adrianople (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003

doveli sastavena The Struggles The Turkey! Down with the tyrants!” and “Long live live “Long and tyrants!” the with Down Turkey!

do 4

Revolutionary

izbuhvaneto

Hr the Sultan the ’ . , 432 , s tyranny, we, yours brothers tyranny, we, in suffering , Matov -424

na Commit, tee dr

, in practice this proved to be an be an to proved this in practice , vastanieto . Hristo ghts of sanction.” of ghts

118

The Past Question: in Modern Tatarchev comprised

Makedoniya ).

you. We will fight fight will We you. , 310.,

i tand that thisis

Simeon

of consent of the the of consent

119

, Matov

Radev Odrisnko

public public dr. do

CEU eTD Collection Bulgaria in Macedonia” in in Macedonia” in Bulgaria Region the uprising. Belgrad in reactions The bands. own their with army Ottoman the joined also Ohrid and Debar of regions the in Albanians The rebellion. Karavangelis,organizing started own units support their to the Ottoman quell troops to the led Patriarchist, the Kastoria In it. of region the opposed 122 121 120 on relied of actions in and course the in failed that they definitely elements,” “allunite discontented and intervention: military provoke Bulgarian to clearly tried Lozanchev) Anastas Sarafov, Boris Gruev, (Damyan District Insurgent Monastir the of Staff General the government, Bulgarian the to sent memorandum a In Principality. the was hope last rebels’ the intervene to willing not were Powers the that clear became it When intervention. foreign causing and thus associated rebels were Adanir, Yosmaoglu, Document №92 Document

waving Bulgarian f waving Bulgarian

to the Bulgarian Government on the position ofinsurgent the population, requestioning assistance The uprising appeared to lack a clear strategy. If the leaders hoped in the beginning to to inbeginning the hoped leaders the If strategy. lack aclear to appeared The uprising uprising the join not communities other did only Not Bulgarian homeland at the present moment present the at homeland Bulgarian th threatening danger by the and circumstances of force by imperative made manner, energetic and impressive in an here brothers its own to its duty ifdischarge nation, it for Bulgarian fails to to fatalthe the consequences Government th of attention draw the to duty its it considers Staff General the aand without beingtrace obliterated byviolence, hungerby and approaching poverty, perishing here theis riskof running Bulgarian that fact everything of thefurthermore, view, in farach; they willre how foresee cannot one that and systematically, continue cruelties and devastations these fact that in the view of bashibazouks, vilayet following the devastations by and cruelties perpetrated and the Turkish troops po Bulgarian of the situation terrible and critical of the In view

the well the Makedonsiyat 121 The Priest

“Letter No. 534 from the General Staff of the Second Macedonian Second the of Staff General the from 534 No. “Letter - knownformula of attackingMuslim villages, provoking retaliations , 189 , ’s Robe Macedonia.Documents and Materials. by by lag -195. most s

compromised , 52. ,

with Bulgaria. with

IMARO’s 120 42 e and Athens were especially sharp and against sharpAthens and against e were andespecially

. 122

intentions

by the metropolitan Germanos Germanos metropolitan the by

for a for ,

but in fact inbut

genera pulation of the Bitolya Bitolya the of pulation Adrianople Revolutionary Revolutionary -Adrianople e

Esteemed Bulgarian Bulgarian Esteemed l , uprising ,

they actively actively they e common

and and in turn in turn from from the the CEU eTD Collection formuliranite na enormous a problem constitute wouldhave but seemnot did earlier to this understandings. period In their to stuck and autonomy” a“Bulgarian as primarily view autonomy to continued activists in movement. the participated actively many whom of Bulgaria, influencedby theviews of thesocialist and social democraticcircles in the Principality of was heavily It also practice ground. during convinced onthe their themselves onaries revoluti ethno by complicated the caused was in policy change This ranks. their join to elements” discontented “all inviting committees revolution mass a into circle uprising convinced themautonomy that could be achieved a general through uprising. 123 principle IMARO’s of sincerity countries po established an with them Rumelia provided of Eastern The example inBulgaria. organizations émigré Macedonian evolution. The principle from autonomous was such as adopted the programs the of it andwas afailure. inlast period examined and attempt the first their act military for favorable conditions are condit winter the to “due wasthey Althoughinsurgents quelled. activities claimed that temporarily the only ceased the Goals

Document vastanicheskite Ceasing

and At the time when IMARO was undergoing a transformation from a small conspiracy conspiracy from asmall atransformation was undergoing IMARO the At time when All the other the All year ten first the In rebels behalfthe ableintervene on of to not Bulgaria was However,

Program ,

repercussion of the other communities in the E in the communities other the as well as

i №121 “ №121

tzeli Rebel ]

deystviya i in

programa Activities Okrazhno

Vatreshnata, 336-

actors involved – actors s

, for the future. the for ions” and that the uprising will be “resumed again as soon as there there as soon as again “resumed be will uprising the that and ions” za ” [ , s of IMARO existence theidea of autonomy underwent a profound

Pismo for

Circular zakrivaneto ary movement the leaders attempted to expand the networks of networks expand the to leaders attempted the movement ary

litical the

confessional situation in Macedonia and Thrace in which the the in which Thrace and in Macedonia situation confessional of autonomy na Disbanding 336.

Letter - Glavniya administrative model to follow to model administrative

the Ottoman authorities, the Great Powers, neighboring neighboring Powers, Great the authorities, Ottoman the na

ions of

Glavniya

the

of shtab , 43 ” this was hardly possible. hardly was this ”

. Not only did other national groups refrained nationalgroups other did only Not . the General

na General

shtab

Bitolskiya

mpire mpire Staff

i Staff

– deystviyata

the revolyutzionen and had great suspicions about the the about suspicions great had

Monastir At At ti same the

for

the

na SMARO and later and

Revolutionary

123

TMORO okrag ,

This was in fact fact in was This and the uprising and the uprising me many of the the of many me

actions za ,

prekratyavane v the Cretan Cretan the

ramkite Region

within

for na its

CEU eTD Collection unfounded. goal – opposite the had exactly reforms the hopes, IMARO’s contraryto but, government Ottoman the impose on program areform to proceeded inter inter armed fierce a lead to to about was This organizations.” “internal own their fr om joining joining om - confessional rivalrywithin OttomanMacedonia years during the 1904 European diplomacymadeits own conclusionsconcerning theit uprising. Indeed,

the movement the ,

but in fact in but , they ,

44 actively opposed it and in turn started to create create to started itin and turn opposed actively

to make the demand for makedemand the to – 1908. -

ethnic and ethnic and

autonomy autonomy CEU eTD Collection and Russia, concluded an agreement for preserving the the preserving for agreement an concluded Russia, and - contrary the rather but autonomy, towards step first be the meant to not were The reforms hopes. of IMARO’s opposite exactly the diplomacy proceeded impose to reforms on the Ottoman government European in chapter, the previous As indicated attention. international considerable attracted system. political Ottoman the within drifting workingfor towards a general democratization elite intellectuals of the movement the of intellectuals elite multi how show and agendas different their of autono projects very different two of emergence the and Organization the within conflicts ideological growing the for instrumental was conflict 27, 2003] (Sofia: Paradigma, 2003), 26 22 September Sofia, Conference, Academic International the from of Papers Collection Uprising. Preobrazhenie dokladi ot Mezh Ilinden the 124 inresulted inter a fierce in domest Ottoman states Balkan small and the EuropeanPowers Great analyze T was reached. autonomy Macedonian of question the of potential conflicting interests exclusive mutually and many

Nina

Dyulgerova, As early as 1 as early As If If

The how the prospect of Macedonian autonomy led to the increasing interference of the the of interference increasing the led to autonomy of Macedonian prospect the how -Preobrazhenie Uprising] in 100 godiniIlindesnko ot -preobrazhenskoto vastanie (1903). Sbornik ot after the Congress of Berlin Congress the after

Ilinden III.1. Autonomy, ReformsIII.1. Autonomy, and Greatthe Struggle for Macedonia dunarodnata nauchna konferentziya, Sofiya, 26

“Mezhdunarodni apekti na Ilindesnko 897, the two “most interested” P interested” “most the two 897, uprising III.

- The Split communal war in the region. I will argue that inter this that willargue I in region. the war communal

of 1903 3-225.

within the Organization, 1904- -

. many nationalism opposed and whomstrongly were of

, Macedonia became a point of intersection between became of between a intersection Macedonia , point might have ended in failure but at the same time it it time same the at but failure in ended have might , it is it , -

to dimensional these processes were even among the 45

make the demandfor autonomy unfounded.

during

Preobrazhesnkoto vastanie”[International Aspects of Aspects vastanie”[International -Preobrazhesnkoto owers in the Balkans, Austria Balkans, in the owers the post the my. I will analyze the complexity of of complexity the analyze will I my. -27 septemvri 2003 status quo - Ilinden 1908

in the region. the in ,

period but their goal was [100 Years Ilinden ic affairs which his that

chapter will will chapter - communal communal 124 - Hungary Hungary th

In this this In e full full e

- - CEU eTD Collection unit three I radical. he 127 the Struggle 126 125 S quic was expectations, the to contrary it, government Ottoman signatories the states to it announcedFebruaryin 1903 and their ownelaborated project Hungary it Macedonianby Supreme organizedin the November 1902 revenue of eachbe will province works appropriated to of public utility. houses fifty than more with judgesbe will “ changed and a in provinces the be recruited Rumeli. administrator manipulate to they tried was exactly what Christians local keep to if wanted least they measures some from at taking abstain claimed be to protectors of the Christian populationsin the Empireand couldnot forlong Macedoniain caused onl anyregard turmoil

ultan saw only minor changes to the measures he measures had the ordered. already to changes minor ultan saw only Lange Document“Instructions№283 forVilayets the ofDecemberEuropean Turkey, 12th 1902” in Yosmaoglu, was the P was the were not the the not were

- vilayets the General Inspectorate of Inspectorate General the However, this act coincided with another escalation of violence – violence of escalation another with coincided act this However, Hamid Abdul Sultan 125 Akhund, -Akhund, n 1902 December , 444-448.

Some of the more important points of the program included: program points of the important more Some of the of - Austria and Russia saveface. to in order measures propose to turn owers’

The The all provinces of the Empire in Europe Europe in Empire the of but at provinces all was appointed in of the was charge appointed the Berlin Treaty who approved it. approved who Treaty Berlin the ders of the national movements were well aware of this fact and this this and fact this of aware well were movements national of the leaders The . The Macedonian one formulate to them pre Priest’s Robe Priest’s

ary schools will be establis be will schools ary prim

the Sultan , 49 half the number will will number the half . He He . this well understood

, 135 ,

mong the Moslems and Christians; and Moslems the mong -141.

Rumeli. H Rumeli.

directed hisintroduced program directed own . action into rivals Ottomans’ the forcing by - yirritation for them.At the same time, the two emptively, emptively, 46 Inspectorate with the title General Inspector of with Inspector General title the Inspectorate , useyin Hilmi Pasha

b 127 ” Christians; half and Moslems e

When When felt that reforms were imminent and if if and imminent were reforms that felt the European version European the - thus creating a creating thus hed; Adr the project was delivered to the to was delivered project the kly accepted it. Obviously the it. Obviously the accepted kly ianople Committee. This time time This Committee. ianople

and “ and ”

an experienced an their prestige among the the among prestige their the method of selecting of selecting method the 5 percent of the general general of the percent 5

“

126 “t an abortive uprising uprising abortive an new ge he not not s

administrative administrative

could be could too ndarmes will Documents on Documents only at the the at only in villages in villages

Ottoman Ottoman

CEU eTD Collection 130 129 Silyanov, reforms.” inclusionof Christians in thelocal police were and referred to them with the mocking term “field Struggle 128 other. Austria Austria and from Russian 1903 the October on2 the Ottomangovernment to wereMurzsteg submitted shou European a Muslim, remain to is governor general in that proposed memoranduminit whichsuggested that the Vienna Reform Planbe should expanded. London Josephmet in DuringMurztseg. their the English discussions go September 1903the head ofAustria of Russia states and again. In act to diplomats forced press European inhad the it repercussions huge the year. The next followed the project and reform of arevolt pattern same for thepreparing big of uprising 1903 w tithe the collecting of way the including condemnedfor political reasons question;” “ assis the use will government Plan returned to to returned Macedonian Reform Sowards, Steven realities. local the with familiar not were they because ineffective they because by villagers preferred Christians and Moslems in proportion to thein numbersChristiansMoslems proportion to and of each population Lange As Steven Sowards summarized the results from the Vienna Reform Action, the amnestied Bulgarians Bulgarians amnestied the Action, Reform Vienna the from results the summarized Sowards Steven As Document №284 “The February Program of Reforms, 21st February 1903” in in 1903” February 21st Reforms, of Program February “The №284 Document

provided that: “for the reorganization of the police and the gendarmerie, the Ottoman Ottoman the gendarmerie, the policeand the of reorganization the “for that: provided 130 449. These reforms came to be remembered by the local population only with the unsucceful unsucceful the with only population local by the be remembered to came reforms These ,448-449. - However, the moment was poorly chosen. During a time in which IMARO was was in IMARO which time momentchosen. a During poorly thewas However, the Sublim original ofin proposals Indeed, the to addition d Great Britain, France and Italy on the the on Italy and France Britain, Great d an hand, one the on Russia and Hungary -Ak

subversive activity

hund, hund, the Ottoman Government “ Government Ottoman the - Hungarian ambassadors and included a compromise between the interests of of interests between the acompromise included and ambassadors Hungarian The Macedonian Macedonia either a Christian general governor should be appointed should governor general aChristian either Macedonia Osvoboditelnite Boulder: East European East (Boulder:

and only a f a only and

better protected them from Muslim extortions. The new judges were largely largely were judges new The extortions. Muslim from them protected better , tance foreignspecialists of tance , 141 , vol2., vol2., ; ” -145.

ew Christians applied to join the police, 212- and“the payment of the civil andmilitary services,

Monographs, 1989 Monographs,

it is no surprise that these reforms failed reforms these that surprise no is it 225. will grant an amnesty for all the accused and and accused allfor the an amnesty grant will ill be modified be ill

), 27. ld be attached to him. The decisions of of him. ldto The decisions be attached .” ;”

128

the gendarmerie gendarmerie the

- Hungary Nicolas II and Franz Franz and II Nicolas Hungary e Porte, the the Porte, e

vernment submitted a Albanian filed Ilinden in the regions in in regions the in Austria’s Policy of Documents on t on Documents

Vienna Reform Reform Vienna will will uprising and and uprising , -guards were 129 consist ,

or if the the if or but the the but -guard

of of he he CEU eTD Collection

IMARO claimed the whole of Macedonia as its own, bloody conf bloody its own, as of Macedonia whole the claimed IMARO Since community. respective of their interest best the suit it could given really was autonomy andsecond, controlled to expand they theirregions regions of controlso if one day thislocal 133 132 of Kosovo - 131 clean first the forced provision pr and autonomy which and IV stated: III namelyarticles mustbeen have overlooked, which clause one was there population, local the of lot the improving than interest own their securing in out carried appoint to allowed were measures. the implementation of for introduced it provisions the 455-457. establishment the being goal main their with Macedonia, 1897 historiography Bulgarian the like “national war thatwas on going there in the period 1904 sancak the and Britain Great vilayet The partition of zones between the Great Powers was the follwoing: the sancak Document №288 “The Murzsteg Programme for Reforms, 2n Reforms, for Programme Murzsteg “The №288 Document I called this period the “Macedonian St of Salonika was divided into three into divided was of Salonika This was a well a was This bigin Eur Besides clauses these which the The

andfavour thedevelopment oflocal autonomy. ininstitutions, it whichwould be give desirable to access indigenousthe to Christians adm of the demand reorganization to Simultaneously IV. the of delimitation territorial nationalities. different of the grouping for regular more the the units in administrative modification a Government Ottoman o pacification acertain as As soon III. se Austria . Murzsteg All the All

Christian other from possible as territory much as time in due -1913. -Hungary eserving Ottoman territorial integrity intact. In practice, however, this this however, In practice, intact. integrity territorial Ottoman eserving

powers

(Thessaloniki: Institute for national national

very much very not was Program

The Priest’s Robe Priest’s The Yosmaoglu, France. to of Serres ; two “ci two

- in the vilayet of Monastir intentioned measure aimed at satisfying intentionedmeasure theboth demand aimedfor at

were assigned different zones different assigned were

movements vil agents” whose task was to oversee how reforms have been been have how reforms was task oversee to whose vil agents”

ruggle” because I think it best it think I because ruggle” zones - liberation movement.” See in Dakin, Douglas. Struggle Greek The , the the ,

of the Christians the of

-1908. Actually itis awell established ter Balkan Studies

sancak of 48

f the country ascertained, to demand from the from the demand to ascertained, country f the , security.

the town the

opean states seemed much more concerned concerned more much seemed states opean of Salonika went to Russia, the sancak differentfrom the previous one, d

132 October, 1903” Documents on the 1903” Struggle October, s ), 1966. 131

of Monastir, Kastoria and Serfice –

they would be responsible be would they which for

to mobilize all their forces and to to and forces their all mobilize to

s describe

licts were soon to follow. Russia and , 53

the full inter -scale -55.

inistrative and judicial judicial and inistrative of Skopje, part of the ofthe part of Skopje,

Austria elements n in the Greek Greek the in n

except for for except of Drama to to of Drama - communal -communal Hungary Hungary

Italy; th

in vilayet

133 the the ,

CEU eTD Collection 138 137 136 Uprising] in Natzionalnoosvobotilno, 36. 135 134 bands. them viewed assisted were itjustifying with the provisions o to Exarchate, convert the to villages Patriarchist on IMARO was exerting that pressure the communities. Greek and Muslim the resentmen bitter the time same caused the at but inMacedonia population Exarchist of the 1,640. number pol of crimes. political for amnesty general a give would it importantly, most and, provided reforms the all out carry would government Ottoman the return, In territory. its within bands armed and committees in1904 provided banrevolutionary Istanbul. all would It Bulgaria that inApril reach managed to Empire Ottoman Bulgaria the and that agreement was the uprising that the Bulgarians should refrain recommended IMARO its discontent demonstrate To of reforms. scope the within included be vilayet the that insistence explicit Sultan’s the under taken decision frominnovation which anyin an Turkey remains sanction that lacking wishes kind and of “a as: recommendations set to referred they are 1904 Yosmaoglu, Yosmaoglu, 225. Ibid., Adanir, Memoar na Vatreshata organizatziya, 265. Stoyan Germano Stoyan 137 138 Inincursions 1904the first Greek andartes of Ilinden the of consequences with the dealing act diplomatic important very The other in published Memoir In the reforms. the satisfied with not itself was The Organization

The Bulgarian The Makedonsiyat Similarly, Serb Similarly,

as acounterweight against IMARO. The Priest’s Robe Priest’s The by overlooking the itical criminals released until 9 May 1904 in the three vilayets three the in 1904 May 9 until released criminals itical v, “Makedoniya i Odrinsko sled vastanieto” [Macedonia and Adrianople Region after the the after Region Adrianople and [Macedonia vastanieto” sled Odrinsko i “Makedoniya v, , 224., - Ottoman ian ian

, 56 chetniks

- 58.

agreement contributed greatly to the temporary satisfaction satisfaction temporary the greatly to contributed agreement rom enrolling in the police or gendarmerie. in policeor the enrolling rom

f article 3 of the Murzsteg Agreement. The Greek bands bands The Greek Agreement. f the Murzsteg of 3 article and even silent even cooperationand of Ottoman authorities, who

were quick to have appeared to quick were 49

The

illusion.” started.

s Muslim local

came as a result of of aresult The activity as came 134

IMARO also opposed the opposed also IMARO

of Adrianople wouldnot in in

also actively also Kosovo and Northern Northern and Kosovo 135

amounted to to amounted

joined 136

The t of of t the the

CEU eTD Collection 142 141 140 139 discour were activists The collapsing. was committees of revolutionary whole network the members, and manyleaders loss of 4, The victims arrested. more and killed twice were goal main its fulfill to which and 1908 Macedoniabetween 1903 in but observe foreign oppression uponthe Macedonian Christians Muslim as Ottoman terms in mostly white black and in Europe was presented moment that villages Christian attacked also turn in bands Christian of Ma civilians

Memoar na Vatreshnata organizatziya, 249- Yosmaoglu, in Istanbu German ambassador 56. Ibid, 500. cedonia. Muslim and Albanian Albanian and Muslim cedonia.

Ilinden the After not did security area, in the presence European the and reforms the Despite ethno complicated extremely The for the anarchy, than the confrontation between Christianity and Islam. and Christianity between confrontation the than anarchy, the for Christia local the between hatred mutual the that and Bulgarians, and Patriarchist Exzarchist Vlahs, Pomaks, Albanians, Turks, but “Macedonians”, no are namely there true, not is press European b should it least At As a result of the violence, o violence, the of Asa result is period duringis th deteriorated fact . 141

It was It The III.2 r s:

Priest

in this situation of virtual civil civil virtual of situation in this . Two Trends: Two . ’s

Robe 000 rebels Around 000rebels totalin 1, disarray. theuprising Organization was e known that the bigger part of what has been published in the the in published been has what of part bigger the that known e , l Marschall to the Foreign Ministry. Cited in Adanir, – 58.

the autonomy of Macedonia and Adrianople Thrace. Adrianople and autonomy ofthe Macedonia

ns from the different nationalities is a much stronger factor factor stronger much is a nationalities different the from ns

The Emergence of t of Emergence The bands ver 25, aged with only only with 256. - confessi that ,

and the discipline was poor. Many poor. was discipline the and

000 .

50 , attacks the from villages Muslim the protected Approximately was beginning finally to bebeginningfinallyby grasped the was to

people emigrated to Bulgaria.people to emigrated onal situation in Macedonia, which prior to to whichsituation prior Macedonia, in onal war that IMARO tried to find novel ways in in ways novel find to tried IMARO that war among the civilian were population around 3,500 he he . 139 being Left and Right Wing

8,000 people werein killed8,000 band members band Makedonsiyat

140 leaders thought thought leaders

142

and the rest rest the and

Due to the the to Due , 217.

improve

CEU eTD Collection 1928), 62. Activity of the Organization.” the Activity of 144 “national as neo IMARO activists 143 them liberate will to come state other some or Bulgaria that population deceive the to “not warned d solely relie They organization.” the of and regulations onlocal statutes of the forces and way s bas Theleftists group. whole of the representative are views his two managed impose of a commission the establishmentof group discussions, to the Sandanski questioninguprising without the “solidmovement. traditions” of the “moderate as Silyanov by defined those contrary, the On organization. in the changes personal and structural demanded Sandanski of Yane leadership the under group left the situation, discuss the to Sofia tendency. reformist strong new a to way gave before existed that views in The differences in policy. change aradical for come had time the “right” as broader and co and broader as “right” to a respective leader like: Sarafists, had Sandinists, of activists group a that etc. That loyalties is why personal the I have on opted based for factions the umbrella more many were terms there “left” practice In and grounds. refer group Serres The latter. the for “left” term the used also He factions within IMARO, Silyanov defined them respectively as “moderate had Supremea Committ based Central a former Committee, Since the SMAC. had were they asCentralists, and known because latter the In the 1890s the basic division was between the two distinct organizations, the internal – tatute and pointed out that if they wanted to consolidate their ranks they had “to work in a in work “to had they ranks their consolidate to wanted they if that out pointed and tatute Silyanov, Hrsito Matov, Zarevolyutzionnea svoysta deynost. Lichi belezhki Matov, Hrsito

– in which had .” Dimo Hadzhidimov and Dimitar Stefanov Dimitar and Hadzhidimov Dimo

In this period Dimo Hadzhidimov was themain ideologist of the emergingleft wing so the Maced leaders ofbigger inbeginningonian part When 1904the thein of gathered The leftists also advocated that not that advocated also leftists The - revolutionary” “international and -evolutionary.” Besides, this is the division onlyon ideologica l

Osvoboditelnite they -Supremists. Petko Penchev, one of the ideologists of the right wing, defined them as vering the whole ideological spectrum. ideological whole the vering ee, they were known as Supremists. After Ilinden After Supremists. as known were they ee, worked before the uprising in the better organized regions, in the spirit inspirit organizedinbetter the regions, before the the uprising worked , vol 2, 58 2, vol , s Matov were Hrsito ” around

144

-61.

The question of the names of the twowings is acomplicated matter.

only Organization avoidnot the should should but 51

to work on new “Directives for the Future Future the for “Directives new on work to

willing a draw to lesson only from the red to the more nationalistically

[On [On conservative” and “radical and -conservative” H ed their onthe 1902 positions ed is Revolutionary Activity]. (Sofia, , with the emergence of the two two the of emergence the with , 143

IMARO and the Sofia the IMARO and

Following long - reformist” reformist” -minded - CEU eTD Collection 147 146 145 other of the support the win and federative and become international organization leftists, ofin onlythe way According to couldinmanagement the the organization. this the The solution moment. that at faults allfor reason the by seen was which structures internal the of centralization the of aresult was inconsistency This appetites.” and aspirations national Bulgarian that IMARO Organization in provinces the nationalities of allequality w in Switzerland) that as to (similar federalism two of the wholeness the secure would which separatism, unification” or San Stefano Bulgaria. Autonomy shouldbe built upon the principle of political autonomy be and region” Adrianople the and of Macedonia t Hadzhidimov, – Bulgarian from fro “include discontented the to strive presented in Hrsto Matov’s book Matov „Osnovi vatreshnata na organizatziya” [Dimo Hadzhidimov’s Criticism on the IMARO Principles Sandanski] in Organization and Instructions for Its Application Drawn Upby the Organization Activists around Yane izraboteni otorganizatzionnite deytzi, okolo Yane Sandanski” [Directivefor the Future Activityof the Internal

Revolyutzionen list Revolyutzionen aneto i, i, prilaganeto za upatvane i organizatziya Vatrshnata na deynost badeshtata za “Direktiva №126 Document Document №159 “Kritika na Dimo Hadzhidimov na printzipite na VMORO, izlozheni v knigata na Hristonaknigata v izlozheniVMORO, printzipiteHadzhidimov na Dimona “Kritika na №159Document independent and and independent The leftists saw as the greatest obstacle to its success the its the success obstacle to greatest saw as the leftists The d further Hadzhidimov ofIn articles aseries in this conception Vatreshnata .” .”

“ did thenot strugglefor any self d ha inconsistency this in past, the that leaders argued Leftist autonomy –autonomy organization he of the goal nationalities”

[Revolutionary become a become , 342 , -347. “Fundamentals of Internal the Organization] in Vatreshnata

in the future. the in List separate polity in a future Balkan federation Balkan future a in polity separate completely excluded all ult all excluded completely ], №.7, 9 December 1904, 5. m the existing regime elements also from other – other from also elements regime existing m the . ”

147 145 52

the the and Macedonia

hich would serve to “ to hich serve would

, they, proposed, - government government eveloped the leftists’ views. According to to According views. leftists’ the eveloped was “ –was

the the rather region erior motives for “national left as tyranny and themain

was was f ull political independence independence political ull Adrianople region should

a was secure the freedom and freedom and the secure s

“inconsistency of the the of “inconsistency broad decentralization decentralization broad and the principle of of principle the and

a vanguard of the the of vanguard a caused s caused , 452-457. . 146

Therefore, Therefore, uspicions

apart apart CEU eTD Collection 149 Organziation], 148 have been against would the Bulgarians probably very then but autonomy accepted wouldhave undoubtedly states Serbs these or Greeks more were there revolutionaries because but inhabited Macedoniamainly was by hisif Bulgarians. Inview, the of intention another or one to due not autonomy against were nationalities other the and countries neighboring him, the to According revolutionaries. former from the not and disbanded, Revolyutzionen list newspaper the in interpreted as this was state, another to joining nor independence neither mean and could and organization move this of ideologist main the Matov, organization. the traditional principles andallownot did in any changes the composition and theof structure same the on work should they future the for that thought they uprising, the after especially condition changed the Despite Committee. Supreme the of principles ofsome the to theleft, uncriti of Chernopeev and Sandanski accused He importance. little and practical of irrelevant be completely to principles these considered he in region, the situation the to view With a impo to attempts influences. external from independent absolutely be should organization the addition, In nationalities. Za svoy Za Matov, Hrsito Avicenus [Dimo Hadzhidimov] “Vatresho ustroystvona organizatziyata” [Intrenal Strucutre of the cally accepting the views of “Marxist dogmatists “Marxist of views the accepting cally Critics of the leftist perspective like Matov, however, like Matov, perspective leftist the of Critics

148 such and the future fate of the province should be decided by the regional parliament parliament by regional the be decided should province of fate future the and the Revolyutzionen list

firmly stood activists of onthe statute 1896and were also coming closer to explained that autonomy was constituted was autonomy that explained se social democratic principles in Macedonian the principles democratic se social at a , 68 -71. , №3, , 17 September 1904, 8.

. Once .

autonomy was achieved the organizations should be be should organizations the achieved was autonomy 53

” like Hadzhidimov. ”

separation only to a certain degree acertain degree to separation only zed the analy goal of thement,

criticized these “directives” as as “directives” these criticized

it . He thought He . - Adrianople movement. movement. Adrianople 149

this was what was what this In opposition s before and and before s ,

CEU eTD Collection 152 Macedo 151 Yanko Sakazov] (Sofia,1910), 14-16. 150 doo people the if our opens one that “I knew anti in power its wasthe revolutionary, IMARO of the that argued He decision. previous revise the dang the out pointed cause. Macedonian the Exarchate. ansent order to Monastir in committee regional directio in that decision A nationalism. Bulgarian towards more and more drifting were Bitola regions and Skopje outlooks and willingness to work within theframework of the Ottoman Empire. bands by attacks armed to exposed directly so not areas were which northeast, in the Strumitza Greek – regions Macedonian western the in mostly concentrated was wing right The trends. two the of analysis in the underestimated be couldhardly factor The geographical ground. the on realities the to ” propaganda “foreign the caused Internal Organization as the leftists claimed. leftists as the Organization Internal Ibid, 154 Ibid, Hristo Matov. Pisma za Makedoniya. Otgovor na Y.g. Sakazov Matov. Hristo Materiali za istoriyata na na makedonskoto osvoboditleno dvizhenie - nationalistic positions and thus should not be abandoned. He remembers in his memoirs: memoirs: his in remembers He abandoned. be not should thus and positions nationalistic nian Revolutionarynian Movement], book IX (Sofia: MNI, 1927) 154. and this fact allowed t allowed fact this and In such a campaign against the Patriarchist villages Gorche Petrov saw a betrayal to saw abetrayal to Petrov Gorche villages Patriarchist the against In acampaign such th were figures leading the of some While andartes -155. 151

the the

and Serbian chetniks Serbian and chetas ers which might emerge for thefor O emerge might which ers n was officially taken in the beginning of 1904 from the newly formed fromnewlyin beginning nwas 1904 the the of officially taken 152 Skopje andMon

in Southern Macedonia to force the Patriarchist villages to go to villages t force Patriarchist to the in Macedonia Southern At the Monastir Regional C Regional Monastir the At

hem

. They decided to start an open attack on the Patriarchists and and on Patriarchists anthe attack open start They to . decided

than rather to independence more retain as to as more well pluralistic . The most radical leftists came from Serres and and from Serres came leftists radical most The . astir which were heavily exposed to the attacks by by attacks the to exposed heavily were which astir 150 54 r to nationalism, they will all go there, that we we that there, go all will they nationalism, to r

Bulgarian policy or any inconsisten any or policy Bulgarian

eorizing, others were spontaneously reacting reacting spontaneously were others eorizing, rganization in th in rganization ongress in 1904, the summer of ongress

[Letters for Macedonia. A Reply to Mr. Mr. to Reply A Macedonia. for [Letters

[Materials for the History of the issituation and tried to

Thus, Thus, cy of the the of cy o the the o

the the he he CEU eTD Collection 155 154 153 beginning of under 1904were but accepted the all condition that who refused submit Serbs to t in was anticipated. widely congress general 1905- period large a to been strong very was trend reformist the uprising the After own. its on Grekomanism Serbomanism of eradication complete the require cause liberation Macedonian of the interest the that know everyone let On contrary, the world. of the eyes from the struggle majority. Pere Toshev was explicit: happened.” idea, revolutionary the and willabandon an sore open will create reported: leaders with revolutionary the regular contacts he kept in who identify themselves as Serbs or respectively as Greeks. as or respectively Serbs as themselves who identify Patriarchate Ecumenical to the belonging -Hungarian consul in Bitolya Austro August Kral, ofthe cited in Adanir,Makedonsiyat A Report za Materiali Monastir, August Kral, who was usually was who Kral, August Monastir, The terms hebeginning The 1905. D of This led contradictoryThis to policylike by the one adopted the Skopje acting and was deciding committee regional each disorganization total of In asituation the win to managed Gruev Damyan and Toshev Pere argumentation, his Despite B were made attempts to ascribe certain Macedonian ascribe certain to made attempts were far which so to movement the that it admits, with which Exarchate, the to Patriarchate R emphasized. Christ or belonging national their only as Exzarchists, become to or Patriarchate the faithful remain to to either choose voluntarily completely people could in markedly fact national Bulg Ilinden [The efore 153 Serbomans 1906. However,1906. the desireforstillstrong, was preserving the unity …., book 203. VIII, .” 154 extent

This change This

ecently the revolutio ecently the

and and been Grekomans

Uprising] nogrea accepted by the regional by the accepted

of policy did not go Austro- unnoticed.not The policydid of irectives elaborated by the theoreticians of the left wing in the in the wing left of the by theoreticians the elaborated irectives

as used in the sources mean respectively local Macedonian Slavs Slavs Macedonian local respectively mean sources the in used as “There is no reason why we should hide the national national hide the should whyis we reason no “There arian.

nary people’s army stresses on the passing from the the from passing the on stresses army nary people’s

155 one of thebest informedforeign diplomats since 55 t importance to importance t

congres - Christian, anti Christian,

denomination was attached and and was attached denomination ses of the Organization in the in the the Organization ses of

and the ideas of the left had had left ideas the of and the -

Turkish features, is is features, Turkish Regional C Regional and this is what what is this and ian solidarity was was solidarity ian Hungarian consul consul Hungarian

, 213. and a new new and a

ongress

and and

CEU eTD Collection C Gru Damyan present. not were Hadzhidimov Dimo and Matov 1905inin October Rilamonasteryin B contradicted 158 in 1905 April ofSalonika, 463 Region Vatreshnata, Program], Reform Murztseg the Regarding Region Revolutionary Salonika Myurtzshtegskata programa”reformena [Excerpt from the Decisions 157 First Regular Skopje Revolutionary District Congress] Vatreshnatain 156 nationalism. Bulgarian that O the of mustpopulation completely Patriarchist peaceful the on attacks the that ruled also was It Principality. Bulgarian Otherwise would political attract – conspiracy political a of level the on left persecuted. be would Organization the to was further specified that “the Organization struggles for the removal of the chauvinistic chauvinistic the of removal the for struggles “the Organization that specified further was it article in Andanother state.” by any regions of these conquest and partition of aspirations tw these for autonomy political elementsin Macedonia and theAdrianople region “ same: goal remained the The mostly today. known Macedonian Internal to Organization ongress Silyanov, Silyanov, Document №155 “Protokol ot Parviya redoven Skopski okrazhen revolyutzionen kongres” [Protoc kongres” revolyutzionen okrazhen Skopski redoven Parviya ot “Protokol №155 Document ouet 13 Ivehne t ehnyt n Pria oge n Slnky rvluzoe org po okrag revolyutzionen Solunskiya na kongres Parviya na resheniyata ot “Izvlechenie №163 Document

were propaganda Greek Serbian and

be comprised merely of merely comprised be concentrated longer no The regional congres The regional In 1905the Salonika the summer of rganization to treat the innocent Turkish peasants as enemies. Ind enemies. as peasants Turkish innocent the treat to rganization . 158 ,

Osvoboditelnite the outside world quite rightly would seein IMARO onlyan instrument of the

the guiding principles in the D in the principles guiding the The name was changed was name The -465.

supporters. It was therefore decided that t that decided was therefore It supporters.

157 , vol.2, 376. vol.2, ,

ses were a preparation for the G the for apreparation ses were stop

o regions.” Article 2 Article regions.” o . Likewise, it was determined that i that determined it was Likewise,

- Adr

from Secret Macedonian from Secret ianople Revolutionary Organization by it which is ulgaria. The ideologists of both factionsulgaria. irectives. to Regional C Regional 156 56

the delegates observed - observed delegates the be rigorously fought propagating without but

This was a provision that fu that This was aprovision

stated that “the Organization opposes the the opposes “the Organization that stated

to unite to regardless of regardless

ongress was held. The movement movement The held. was ongress Exarchist school teachers and priests. priests. and teachers school Exarchist , 437-441., ener

he leadership on the local level level local the on leadership he Taken on the First Congress of the ev was elected chairman of the all all whole one in al C al

- Adrianople Revolutionary Revolutionary Adrianople ongress which took place which took ongress t w nationality nationality

as not in the interests interests in the not as without managing to managing without eed, eed, it was decided decided it was discontented to gain full full gain to ndamentally ndamentally ol from the – Hrsito Hrsito had

CEU eTD Collection №2 161 160 inVatreshnata Congress] Rila General First 159 discussingforeign propagandas and theirstates: activity, o the on Bulgaria and hand one the on Serbia and Greece intention. with abad the enter Organization to article could use this elements dangerous applicatio in the attention extreme pay the to regard regions the to sent were that decisions Congress from the excerpts example, For clauses. the of some on reserves certain – Poparsov and Petar Stefanov, Dimitar Petrov, Gyorche were and Tatarchev Matov replaced who foreign representatives, P Todor and Toshev Pere elected were Gruev) from Damyan (apart Committee Central In the posts. highest the to candidates their elect to managed they was that important more was even What statute. the introduction specialof courts Gospel. the and cross the as such symbols Christian such to oath an take to obliged be not would they join to wanted Muslims specifi not was deliberately organization entering the for ritual the this regard, inhabitant of Turkey, European regardless faith, of sex, nationality, and convictions.” propa Document №193 “Tzirkulyar №2 s resheniyata na Parviya Rilsi obsht kongres na VMORO”Parviyakongres“Tzirkulyar Letter na obsht №193 Rilsina resheniyata Document s[Circular №2 Silyanov, o Parviya na priet VMORO, na “Ustav №178 Document with the Decisions of the IMARO First R IMARO ofFirst Decisions with the the gandas whichsplit the population.” and enervate Membership “each was to provided In this connection there was there In this connection shoul it However, On

the General C General the Osvoboditelnite broader broader opantov opantov membership provision , Most of left Most wingprevailed. the ongress d be noted that the reformists’ victory was not complete. There were were There complete. not was victory reformists’ the that noted be d vol .2, –

377 advocates of decentralization and Gruev’s opponents. The new The new opponents. Gruev’s and of decentralization advocates all all

, the election of leaders and so on were included in the new new in the included were on so and leaders of election the , -379 the three were supporters of the left wing. of the supporters were three the

still a difference made made still a difference , 513-517.,

ila General Congress] General ila ns of t of ns . The instruction warned that “i that warned instruction The .

his article” because there was a “ a was there because article” his 57

bsht Rislki kongres [IMARO Adopted Statute the at Letter №2 Letter Circular in

in in

between the between Vatreshnata ther. Circular Letter №1, when when №1, Letter Circular ther.

the the , 577 leftists’ in in is , instruction there

armed bands sent from from sent bands armed -583.

160

demands such as

t is necessary to to is necessary t which contained contained which possibility that that possibility

ed so if if so ed ” 159 161

In In CEU eTD Collection 163 162 policy in shift reformist complete a wanted leftists The completeness. in their views pass their able to not were they since congress newspaper the that in most difficult the unity the goal. same as arival with the faction treated were Greeks werein thefundamental goal seat either withinits territory, or outsideit.” own its within not tolerate it could because andmovement in keep unity the the them to against - Ibid. Ibid. chief of the IMARO organ Revolyutzionen list organ IMARO the of chief “moderates” who after making many concessions with their principles in order to preserve preserve to in order principles their with concessions manymaking after who “moderates”

territory“any groups corporations or other with the same goal which and task,

were “reformists” the or wing left The be The ephemeral. to proved Congress Rila the at reached The consensus – character another of were bands Supremist the against motives The the Turkish authorities. Turkish the and careprotect withisorganization take they d) of together obligedto work and to for whichinnocent the peoplekill d) the Turks; inagainst strength the struggle Adria and Macedonia of autonomy the against are they such b) as territory; organized of the conquest following they thea) and which want states are grounds:tools governments of O activity their and governments…, I t [the Organization] considers t considers Organization] [the t

rganization. As such it will pursue them with all its forces and means on the the on means and forces its all with them pursue will it such As rganization. the results which seemed too radical to them. One of the the of One them. to radical too seemed which results the with satisfied not were

things theyhad to swallow was the election of Dimo Hadzhidimovfor editor would increase socialist tendencies. socialist increase would III.3.

The FinalThe Split nople region; c) they split the population and thus weaken its its weaken thus and population the split they c) region; nople

162

– organs of the of bands organs heGreek and Serbian

they did not accept autonomy, accept not did they . They were also dissatisfied with the fact that they they that fact the with dissatisfied also were They . : t

58 163 is is he Kyustendil Congress not happy with the undecided character of the of the character undecided happywith the not

Accordingly, the differences with Serbs and and Serbs with differences the Accordingly, openly di

(Revolutionary List). List). (Revolutionary

rected against the goal of the the goal of the against rected

They were concerned concerned were They while the Supremists while the Supremists

IMARO was right wing or wing right se

respective respective have their their have -

CEU eTD Collection 166 165 164 dilemma was quickadd: “this to wouldhave like to in its ranks nationalitiesall other living in Macedonia” being but r f nationalities other of members prevent didnot character national him, Bulgarian the to According nationalistic.” “not timesame the at but national” remain should is and “the Organization him that to natural quite it was insignificant is number non are There national. completely means which membership of structure the organization“the concluding: Organizationis Bulgarian purely first He right. the of positions the outline to attempted Penchev views, opposed diametrically these Juxtaposing government. Bulgarian the on dependent movement nationalistic astrictly it was while hypocritical as Organization the of “internationalism” t considered part their on socialists narrow The population.” Macedonian wretched of the expense the at theories utopian their with experiment which elements radical other some and t; independen be to cou nationalists in – Bulgarian political thought lin dividing main the probably was what Penchevaddressed Petko wing right of the theoreticians leading the of one Internationalism” or “Nationalism entitled, article an In positions. its explain to order in press the in articles and suited for ‘new times.’” the not ‘reactionaries’ and “‘criminals’ be to them to seemed who leaders previous the all replace to able not were Silyanov,

The narrowsocialists Makedono-Odrinski pregled Apart from the problem of the infrom Apart problem the of the numerous publishing campaign apropaganda started Each side , the most important disputedmost question independencewas the the Organization. theof , Osvoboditelnite autonomy the understand not ld

them to be to them considered they were

is, however, if not impossible, rather doubtful”. rather impossible, not if however, is, – , vol. 2, 439. 2, vol. ,

only 2 only the Orthodox Marxist part of the Bulgarian Social Democratic Worker’s Party.

[Macedonian

- re almost exclusively Bulgarians Bulgarians exclusively almost re we members Since the 3%.” the extreme nationalists and the narrow socialists. narrow the and nationalists extreme the

№ 19,1 № March Review] 1906. -Adrianople ternal structure and the centralization the and structure ternal e in the organization. Penchev analyzed the two poles poles two the analyzed Penchev organization. the in e rom joining. In hisjoining. In “the own words: rom Organization 59 164

“a bunch of adventurers, socialists, anarchists anarchists socialists, adventurers, of bunch “a

principle and the striving of the Organization principlestrivingOrganization and of the the

- Bulgarians in its rank, the Vlachs, but their their but Vlachs, the rank, its in Bulgarians

166 pamphlets, brochures, brochures, pamphlets,

- decentralization

examined the the examined 165 ealistic ealistic

The The

he he

CEU eTD Collection Organization strove to overcome. to strove Organization wo That internationalism. itsindependence anyaccepted andhelp from the principles Bulgaria of this compromise will if Organization the that claimed help and Bulgarian of question the analyzed He nationality.” hav people who you, like “are Bulgarians them, called derogatorily as Penchev “utopians,” these that Hadzhidimovstated movement, anational goals the of with incompatible is socialism that criticism denouncethe to someDaev’s letters “proving” his guilt but no originals, if such existed their were to ever found. According 169 168 167 “tool their and Garvanov Ivan and Sarafov Boris foreign representatives the on sentence a death passed Committee with words. fought longer no were differences ideological the where point a reached confrontation The factions. both by respected highly was and center the man of the was Organization, the of founder actual the Gruev, Organization. the for blow severe a was which event an 1906, December in troops Ottoman with battle movement “unacceptable elements.” the to brought they that stating socialists the attacked again He in return. obligations s at but Bulgaria help of the needed Organization the that argued Penchev help. foreign accept to independence, revolutionary pure the name of in the refusal, leftists’ the criticized another In governments. Bulgarian with relations the to mostly referred actually term vague This ame time defended its independence and stated that help should be accepted with no no with be help accepted should that stated and independence its time defended ame Po nashite sporni Penchev, vaprosi Petko [On Our]. Disputed Questions The whole question about the conspiracy is highly doubtful. The Serres activists published only transcripts of Revolyutzionen list Yanehi and Sandanski ina Gruev of Dame death the came tensions of growing atmosphere heated In this charges these to replied Hadzhidimov one one of Penchev of , №11 , ’s brochure -12, 16 December 1906. , ” the Drama Drama ” the uldincrease national the existingwhich the antagonism

s supporters proceeded to the final split. The Serres Regional Regional The Serres final split. the to proceeded s supporters 168 s ,

167 entitled entitled vodavoy

“On Disputed Our Questions in another another in e neither renounced, nor will renounce their their renounce will nor renounced, neither e 60 Mihail Daev. Mihail

article in in article

169

(Sofia, 1906 The sentence was justified on on justified was sentence The Revolyutzienen list Revolyutzienen , 54. ), , ” Penchev

. In. order

strongly

the the

CEU eTD Collection [Disclosure Regar [Disclosure were tied behind his back. Stoyan Malchankov, “Razkritiya po dramskiya ubiystvoto na voivoda Daev” Mihail ki been had Daev murder. a fact in was “suicide” the that clear became it and in 172 Daev] M. i Sarafov B. Garvanov, Iv. of Vatreshnata Sentence Death the for Reasons the for Committee Revolutionary os 171 Sarafov Mihail and Daev] Boris in Vatreshnata Garvanov, Ivan of Sentences Death the for Decision the and Committee Revolutionary Regional Serres reshenie za smartni prisadi na Ivan Garvanov, Boris Sarafov i Mihail Daev”170 [A Protocolfrom Session of the account region was too formal Salonika the from partly and Bitola from came Skopje, nearThe delegates Kyustendil. Marchin of Zhabokart, village 1908 the of half first in the held was which congress anew to proceeded wingers right The of question. foreign, hostile power.” time first the also of conquest on her [Bulgaria’s “the poli anymore: states Balkan three the of policies the between difference no was there and - the Sandanski the other group between stood which difference biggest the actually revealed letter first The positions. their IMARO the within and both Bulgaria in indignation of huge wave a caused The act in Sofia. Garvanov and Sarafov interests.” dynastic and state Bulgarian the of behalf on “acting as defined were Garvanov Sarafov and Organization.” of the independence and integrity onthe “principles ofstood “enervate the andwhich the activists Serres subjugate” planning to that grounds the of Kliment Shapkarev as an Vatreshnataan as in , 773 Congress] Shapkarev Kyustendil the on ofKliment Representative Adrianople Participation the On Region Revolutionary Adrianople ofthe Position [A kongres” revolyutzionen okrag po utchastieto Klimentna Shapkarev kato predsavitel Odrisnkona na Kyustendilskiya azhdane na smart na Iv. Garvanov, B. Sarafov i M. Daev” [First Open Letter of the Serres Regional Regional Serres of the Letter Open [First Daev” M. i Sarafov B. Garvanov, Iv. na smart na azhdane

The Adrianople Regional Commi Regional Adrianople The Document №250 “Protokol ot zasedanie na Okraznhiya komitet na Serskiya revolyutzionen okrag s vzeto vzeto s okrag revolyutzionen Serskiya na komitet Okraznhiya na zasedanie ot “Protokol №250 Document ouet 26 Pro trt pso a esia kahn eoytinn oie z pihnt za prichinite za komitet revolyutzionen okrazhen Serskiya na pismo otkrito “Parvo №256 Document

Mihail Daev being after discovered committed suicide. In 1913 a commission exhumed his dead body After the murders and the open letter any reconciliation between the factions was out was out factions between the anyletter reconciliation open murders the and the After 1907 December 28 on out beenhad carried The decision , 757-764. ding the Murder of the Drama Vo Drama of the Murder the ding

the “Bulgarian nationalist movement in the Organization” led by the two was two byled the in Organization” the movement nationalist “Bulgarian the that

, Bulgaria should be treated “as a be treated Bulgaria should that stated clearly activists Serres the 172

171 group Serres the so

ders were not present at all. T at present not were ders lea Strumitza and Serres the and ttee disavowed its delegate. Document №262 “Stanovishte na Odrinskiya Odrinskiya na “Stanovishte №262 Document delegate. its disavowed ttee ] part is the same with that of Serbia and Greece.” This was was This Greece.” and of Serbia with that is same the part ] , 747-748.,

r the attitude towards Bulgaria. For the Serres acti Serres the For Bulgaria. towards attitude the egion y

voda Mi . However, t However, . published two open letters to explain and defend explainand defend letters to open two published 61

hail Daev] in Sbornik in Ilinden Daev] hail he representation of the Adrianople Adrianople the of representation he 170 -774. lled with twobullets

when Todor Panitza killed

(4) 1925, 52- , and his hands his and 54.

vists vists cy cy he he

CEU eTD Collection 176 175 Ge Kyustendil 174 173 However, organizations. revolutionary other all actions with joint for agreement to open it was in principle that declared to With regard before.” ever than energetically more them “persecute should Organization the that recommended delegates and negative extremely was, hostile Exarchate the If movement. ry revolutiona the towards neutral it should remain that recommended - legal only Turkey.” denynatur “couldnot Bulgaria’s “clear and consistent Macedonian policy i vindicate Penc that positions the on stood reforms. agaistruggle. IMARO again protested goal remained autonomyfor the Macedonia and Adrianople region through revolutionary The practical results.” no “achieved reforms the them, to According negative. remained before tow attitude IMARO change the not did Congress invited decided but not participate.to f ormer were not invited because they were considered “ considered were they because invited not were ormer Ibid. Silyanov, Ibid. Document №269 “Rezolyutziya na Kyustendilskiya obsht kongres na VMORO” [Resolution of IMARO IMARO of [Resolution VMORO” na kongres obsht Kyustendilskiya na “Rezolyutziya №269 Document

Greek and Serb Greek the towards attitude the side, On other the “the it as described Organization The similar. was Exarchate the towards The attitude Th The smoothly. proceeded work delegates’ the adversaries, of their absence In the 174 175 e Kyustendil C Kyustendil e ts independence and prestige and accused the Bulgarian government of a lack of of lack of a government Bulgarian the accused and prestige and independence ts

- cultural Osvoboditelnite

neralCongress] in educational institution non educational the of

it “will be persecuted however undesirable it be.” might undesirable however it “willbe persecuted , vol.2., 551. vol.2., , ongress paid special attention to the attitude toward Bulgaria. They They Bulgaria. toward attitude the to attention paid special ongress Vatreshnata, 857-

hev had described earlier. The O earlier. hev described had al right to take care of her non her of care take to al right

173 the from region Adrianople the of exclusion the nst

in relation to the Young Turk C Turk Young the to relation in .” .” 853. At the same time, the delegatesstated that they 62

ards the Murzsteg reform action which as as which action reform Murzsteg the ards

- other national movement national other liberated Bulgarians” and strongly strongly and Bulgarians” liberated splinters rganization stated that it will that stated rganization - ,” liberated compatriots liberated

while the latter were were latter while the ian

ongr bands 176 ess in Paris ess

, IMARO IMARO , remained

in in ,

CEU eTD Collection 179 178 177 - on the of course the During ranks. own its in problems we considerably was Organization Internal inter afierce in fact brought it was, as intentioned well in 1908. character and program acquired accepted time officially Thus states. Balkan the all encompassed it if only but finding viewssuch “too radical, inopportune and precipitate Serres Only the outdated. already idea was autonomous Federation Eastern “Great a of creation congres joint their Strumitza, Serres, in Empire. the peoples the of ideafederating and autonomous the of abandoning the advocated Voice) Odrisnkiglas (Adrianopolitan newspaper The groups. Serres and Strumitza Organization.” ideal the of autonomous with the variance “at was integral Turkey” goal Turks’ - Young the because send delegates not to decided IMARO Deliradev “Is the Autonomus Idea Feasible Idea Autonomus the “Is Deliradev positio the Such were government. Bulgarian the with connections tighter for regionsother – Ma “The was: slogan Their harmony. in live should nationalities different the where Empire Ottoman leftthe Macedonia group Adrianople and become should an autonomousin province the cle an obsta fornot were and the unity within theorganization. According the to reformists or existence their at hinted only had before which delineated, clearly more became factions main Paleshutski, Ibid. Document№266“Statyiya PavelotDeliradev Osashtestvima avtonomnatae li ideya”Article [AnbyPavel

The post The Adrianopolitansfromthe OrganizationInside seceded this also period and cedonian question benot willcedonian solvedlong as isit as as a Bulgarian put question”. The

Genezis, 178. Genezis, mainly Monastir and Skopje – Skopje and Monastir mainly - Ilinden s held ininMay Bansko they 1908, proclaimed that Adrianople

period was characterized by the Murzsteg reform action, which as which as reform action, by Murzsteg the was characterized period

and part of Salonika region founded region of Salonika and part ” ] in Vatreshnata akened as a result of the uprising and had serious serious had and uprising the of a result as akened .”

63 on the contrary were looking in years looking the next contrary were the on The majority of delegates agreed that the the that agreed delegates of majority The

, 778-782. ,

the federative principle was for the first first the for was principle federative the - communal war within Macedonia. The The Macedonia. within communal war

going debates going activists expressed some reserves, reserves, some expressed activists .”

They too accepted federalism federalism accepted too They 179

a new organization. At At a new organization. theirfinal goal w ,

outlines of the two

“the revival of of revival “the ns of the two two the of ns 177 d with the the d with

178 as the the as

Thus Thus CEU eTD Collection surprised them all. and Revolution out completelybroke Turk in 1908whengroups summer the of Young the

CEU eTD Collection arethinkingideolo of IMARO’s provoked conflict The autonomy. Macedonian of involvedfuture prospects the about many factors between conflict dimensional War. Balkan First of the the for outbreak this was important Organizat faction different negotiation when only was It Turks. Young be to have and Ottoman the wihin show and founded they parties program the discuss will I movements. national Macedonian with different by contact the influenced it was deeply how analyze Wars. Balkan the and na region, the in history of course the changed completely chapter current the In split. formal in ended and autonomy of competing projects of two emergence last 15 yearsth of 15 last the on impact aconsiderable had but in Macedonia situation political the changed completely IV. The Question of Autonomy during the Hurriyet As discussed in the previous chapter, the “Great Macedonian Struggle” was a multi a was Struggle” Macedonian “Great the chapter, previous in the As discussed I will trace back the origins and the evolution of the Young Turk movement and and movement Turk Young the of evolution the and origins the back trace will I , The Young Turk Revolution was a major event in Ottoman history that historyin that Ottoman event major Revolution a was Turk The Young

I will discusshow instrumental thislocal context wasfor much ion’s new strategy and tactics, adopted after its after adopted tactics, and ion’snew strategy s sought sought

united and took on amuch more nationalistic course. I will also analyze e Empire’s existence and also shap imperial imperial IV.1. MacedonianIV.1. Autonomy theand Young Turks

in the negotiation of power between the IMARO factions and the andfactions the IMARO between the power of in negotiation the Turks, IMARO and the Young Turks, framework

that by no means was means byno that . s of the both wings within IMARO and the political and wingsboth the political IMARO within s the of

I will argue that the reasons are much more complex much complex more are reasons will that the I argue 65 seemed

everyonehostile to the notion of staying

nolonger a possible solution that the . This This . Republic Turkish early the ed

Donemi Donemi 1908-

mely the Young Turk Revolution Revolution mely Young Turk the

1912 at at pointing restoration (The Time of Freedom): of Time (The

larger

gy,led to events which which events not only only not how how the the the

CEU eTD Collection 181 Turks: Children of Borderlands?,” the International Journal of Turkish Studies 9(1-2) 180 be to authority “Ottoman opposed Riza modernization. and unity Empire’s the of preservation around revolved propagate a his newspaper émigrésideasYoung which Turk started to lea ofder the as the becamelater known who Ahmed Riza, in seek refugeEurope. to forced 19 of the theories much bymore elitist the shaped had been which ideology in their element important most the not was rule Parliamentary Hamid. Adbul of ousting the beyond go not did and rudimentary rather still was ideology their stage early this at However, interference. foreign for main reason the considered Turks. ethnic not were them of majority the since misleading is Turk” “Young term the and Empire or called Ittihad committee secret a established inArmy School Medical the students regime. constitutional nationali disparate the together bringing by Empire the of disintegration the stop to and irredentism and intervention sever upon touch briefly to necessary why is That policies, imperial ethno complex the and inMacedonia internal development the with connected was deeply movement Turk Young study. limits this beyond of goes the that grander debate much a of part is means that the question concerning origins the Young Turks’ and policy Press, 2001 Press, Thisis holds true no

Sukru HaniogluSukru This group of intellectuals of group This Unity”. “Ottoman 180 Following an unsuccessful coup d’etat unsuccessful an Following Abovemovement attempted all, the struggle to with the problems caused byforeign

), 3. ), s wa Abdul who Hamid of Sultan deposition was the goal The Committee’s

before before ,

inter Preparation t I proceed with the analysis of the IMARO programs in this period, it isit in period, this programs the IMARO the with analysis of proceed I

onlyfor the first period Young whole Turks the for but also

stic aspirations within the framework of an administratively regulated regulated of an administratively framework the within aspirations stic - The imperial rivalry imperial - confessional situation there, aresul there, situation confessional

movement began largely as an intellectual one in 1889 when the the when 1889 in one intellectual an as largely began movement for aRevolution: TheYoung Turks

al more important aspects of the Young Turk movement. movement. Turk Young the of aspects important more al ,

and complications caused by competing nationalisms. nationalisms. by competing caused and complications

66 attempt in most of1896, were the Young Turks attempt

th originatedfrom all possible regions of the

century and Social Darwinism. Social and century ,

1902-1908. At the same time same the At the intersection of Ottoman ofintersection Ottoman the of t

(Oxford: . , Zurcher, Eric, “The Young Young “The Eric, Zurcher, 275 -86

. Oxford University

, however, , - 181 i Osmani

the the the the iye iye

CEU eTD Collection 184 183 182 Young Turks. the goal of restoring theconstitutional regime with the Constitution of 1876 – pursued They committee. Paris the and them between differences no were there Ideologically conc the from but convictions or considerations theoretical ( Cemiyeti central preserving of autonomous sided with aroundgroup The Sabahaddin. prince Ahmed who advocated Riza, - non Many rule. autonomous have vilayet Every . Empire Ottoman the of decentralization Initi of Private League the formed Sabahaddin led by prince group One in resulted asplit. however, congress, – nationalities all almost Ot the E whole anot or one for only not reforms “We want carried: been had reforms interventi direct with replaced Its founders were founders were Its in Europe. least Turks inbeginning, the with Young no connections,the at had revolution. It revolution. oppositionfor thestate of world affairsbut didnot playamajor rolein the preparation of the Osmanli Hurriyet Cemiyeti) Hanioglu, Hanioglu, 250. Ibid., CitedAdanir, in toman Empire. toman The committee foundedThein committee the name 1906under F The mpire; not only for the benefit of one nationality but for the benefit of all subjects of of subjects all of benefit the for but nationality one of benefit the for only not mpire; ).

183

The merit of the Young Turk émigrés Young Turk merit the The of Preparation irst Congress w Congress irst

ative and Decentralization. As the name suggested, they advocated a radical aradical advocated they suggested, name As the Decentralization. and ative Makedonskiyat clerks and officers like mainly officers local and clerks ” ism, ism, , 212. 182

formed the Committee of Union and Progress and of Union Committee the formed

Turks, Arabs, Greeks, Kurds, Albanians, and Armenians. The The Armenians. Albanians, and Kurds, Arabs, Greeks, Turks, , 248., as held in February 1902 in Paris. The delegates belonged to belonged to in delegates The Februaryin Paris. 1902 held as

on of the foreign P foreign the of on in Salonika was the one which actually which one the was Salonika in

Turks in the movement which wanted to see their province their see to wanted which movement the in Turks 67

owers” and the selective and the owers” base on which

, every kaza every , was that they informed the interna the informed they that was . 184

the the

rete condi rete byany not driven were They “Ottoman Freedom Society” Society” Freedom “Ottoman , even every village was to to was village every even , her province but for the the for but province her tions intions Macedonia

( Ittihad ve Terraki veTerraki Ittihad

carried out carried a goal of all a goalall of

the the s . l CEU eTD Collection 189 188 187 186 185 Army Ottoman Third politicalmilitaryand long In action. a bloodyin sequel clashes years of the 1907– Mus the of indignation autonomy, the Young Turks [government]. constitutional administration ; 2) abdicate to Sultan force Hamid to “1) principles: basic following “theof Turkey revival contribute willing to not to theywere As alreadymentioned, Bulgariansinvited IMARO wasbut also refused C Constitution. the of restoration the was goal in“Ottoman Saloni Freedom and Society” the group AhmedRiza’s between achieve unification to tried som of intervention by the or amnesty by either asultan’s released as arule rebels were the captured once were, they successful how matter no because efforts their all of uselessness the comprehended value the to learned they bands the with different numerous clashes the thebands. armed In against fought units which young officers of the ThirdArmy Corpsin Salonika. Most of them were commanders of small ongress. The initiative came from the Armenian revolutionary federation, Dashnaksutyun. federation, revolutionary Armenian from the came initiative The ongress. Hanioglu Hristo Hanioglu Adanir ., 222.. Ibid While the émigrés tried to oppose the arguments of the advocat of the arguments the oppose to tried émigrés While the movement Young Turk of the competingindependent sometimes groups The and even managed t new committee The

, Matov , Makedonsiyat , , Preparation Preparation

Za drasticallyand 3) t

svoyata e Great Power. e Great

, 252., , 205. , 215- managed to a large extent to limit to the extent alarge to managed terror of the Christian bands created bands Christian the of terror against lims , 53.

. 217.

” In September 1907 an agreement for unification was reached was reached unification for an 1907 agreement In September 189

nationa in Macedonia were facing the local realities. The growing The growing local realities. the facing in were Macedonia

186 o establish a establish o

l idealism of their adversaries. their of lidealism o attract manyo membersfollowers and among the 68 187

This w This system of mesveret of system as soon followed by as soon the Second .” Bulgarian 188

The Congress (agreed on the the on (agreed Congress The

komitajis

t to participate to o change the present change present o the 185

(consultation) and es of Macedonian es of Macedonian

a social base for ka. The common common The ka. They also had had also They

activity. As a activity. 1908

because because the the CEU eTD Collection Natzionalnoosvobotileno 193 192 191 190 of their existence of the found by traces some Sultan sent the commission autonomy. towards step another as saw Bulgarians which something the official circles hand, other the On position. Serbian the also Such was interests. Bulgarian the serve would intervention, this to objected also Greece control. European but Macedonia for governor aspasha ageneral Adbu . of Macedonia governor general a of appointment the and forces gendarmerie European the of expansion an proposed wi question Macedonian in the shift another caused Britain vilayet whole the in inIMARO, to as auseful counterbalance been have tolerated would bands Greek the While previously Albanians. In 1907andAlbanians were a 1908 target byof systematic attacks the andartes bands losing positions. was constantly Organization the this of result of Macedonia. be autonomy the main would Its principle introduced. wouldbeyear project anewthe reform of by end the that agreement aprinciple reached II Edward Nicolas czar VII and Russian the act.seemed In determined a meeting to inReval (Tallinn) on9June the British 1908, king Ibid., 255- Ibid., Adanir Milcho Lalkov, “Myurtzshtegskata reformena programa” (1903- , the Young T Young the , quickly The were compelled Young Turks act quickly to W campaign The 254. , Makedonskiyat hen the Ottoman army was about to eliminate to about was army Ottoman the hen

256. the autumn of 1907 the Ottoman troops started a decisive started them autumn offensive against 1907the Ottomantroops the of

en 193

at at the end of 1907 lines, IMARO within strife internal the and struggle ergetic

in in

of Monastir. of , vol 3, vol , Sofia we Sofia

urks’ attitude was determined mostly by their cooperation with the the with cooperation their by mostly was determined attitude urks’ , 253. against the Serbian Serbian the against

24.

re very joyful joyful very re 191

l Hamid hinted that he was prone to appoint Hilmi Hilmi appoint to prone was he that hinted Hamid l chetniks of 69

the prospects of a future expansion of reforms, of expansion reforms, future of a prospects the

190

was also successful. In regards to the Greek Greek the to In successful. regards also was

would never accept a governor under under agovernor would accept never

bandit activity in Macedonia, Great Great in Macedonia, activity bandit

1908) [Murztseg Reform Program] in th a new initiative for reforms. It It reforms. for initiative new a th since in her eyes the new reforms reforms new the eyes her in since also for another reas another for also 192

This time the British British the time This

secret organization. organization. secret foreign foreign on. A A on. . CEU eTD Collection [Nationalistic Irredentism on the Balkans and Ottoman Policy, 1 195 Arabs and Young Turks similar to the Balkan treatment of the subject and historiography tends tooversimplify the ambiguities of their early policy. this In regard it is surprising, how Turkish and the 194 be. should regime newlyestablished the towards attitude what the to as question FollowingAdrianople revolution were this activists adherent. widening gap onthe the was and Skopje, only Bitola, represented Congress at Kyustendil the elected Committee The Central IMARO Empire. Ottoman the within movements national different the with negotiations started CUP the that platform occur. to reforms were andlanguage; agrarian in native the conducted be should education primary autonomy; administrative extent large a to be guaranteed should shoul Constitution the demands: it during1908includedthe nationalfollowing August as the question they presented on position Their nationalities. all from could they as support much as needed they revolution didg Turks actnot that immediately, danger was the there Youn they the if would And and prosecuted nationalists from the very beginning. very the from nationalists and stern centralists were argued, have ashistorians some or, movements national reach with an agreement the is sincerely to Young Turks tried in regard whether the this Los

As I already mentioned, the term “Young Turk” is a misnomer. The movement was by no means ethnically

Angeles Fikret Adanir, “Natzionalisticheskiyat iredentizam na Balkanite iosmankata politika, 1878 of half As already discussed in the previous chapter, on the eve of the Young Turk Revolution Revolution Turk Young on eve the the of chapter, in previous the discussed As already was split into two main factions and practically did not function as a single whole. whole. asingle function as not did practically and mainfactions two into split was IV.2. TheIV.2. Wing: Right

- Salonika London members of were coming from very different backgrounds and perspectives. Nationalistic perspectives. and backgrounds very different from coming of were members .

An impor An revolution. a for signal the gave This

: University: of California Press, 1997), 1-17. :

region Ottomanism, Arabism, and Islamism Ottoman the in Empi . Serres and Strumitza activists pursued their own pol own their pursued activists and Strumitza Serres .

d be based upon popular sovereignty; the different regions regions different the sovereignty; popular upon based be d t he Union of the 194

the Arab nationalistic historiography are What 70

is clear is that at this early stage of the of the stage early this at isclearis that Bulgarian Constitutional Clubs 878-1912] in 100 Godini

tant and still debated question and tant still debated re, 1908–1918 , 76 , 195 -78. . See Hasan See . Kayal

It is from this this from is It

icy to whichicy to

“ Berkeley (Berkeley Turkish

caught - 1912” 1912” ” i, i, –

CEU eTD Collection vol Organizations 199 198 197 196 disbanded of the Bulgarian populationhad not beenfulfilled interests if“the struggle armed resume the ready to were and conditionally” movement Turk explicitl representatives IMARO The from disintegration. the joined words own his in and beginning very the from skeptical was Matov Hristo organizations. two the of leaderships between the continued moodsprevailing in lines IMARO even at this ofstage early nego metdecision strong opposition easily not and was This passed. was a symptom of the chetas their disband and activities cease armed to decided They committees. district in meeting a summoned Hristov Pavel and Penchev parliamentary rule, and equalityfor all. C Regional Monastir to IMARO aletter the sent branch Salonika their 1908 July 4 on revolution were established. contacts no revolution up the to despite goals, common but, made them apotent This system. political Ottoman the within democratization and the beginning ofaway 1908were shiftingfrom general autonomy towards organizations. two the of goals different revolyutzionen Revolutionary imperiya ommittee. They offered cooperation on the already discussed principles of liberalism, liberalism, of principles discussed already the on cooperation offered They ommittee.

.3, 224. Parvanova, Legalnite, 226. Legalnite, Parvanova, Silyanov, Zorka Document e initiative of the Young Turk C initiative the Young Turk of e th On The took first Young Turks step the towards negotiations. the Shortlybefore cooperatio for proposal Turk Young the rejected Congress Kyustendil The

[Letter Parvanova

Osvoboditelnite only if

and Committee 27 “ №297

komitet

№287

Parties , “

Pismo Legalnite general political amnesty granted. The main point of contention was was contention of point main The granted. amnesty political general na from

for of

, vol 2, 563-565. VMORO

the

Cooperation

№108 the

Bulgarian Organizatzii

Ottoman

s Osmanskoto

predlozhenie

Population

Progressive All

198 196 partii

Oppressed

On 12 July the Central Committee members Petko Petko members Committee Central the July 12 On Yane Sandans

progresivno na

in za

balgarskoto

Unionist

the ommittee within the city the negotiations negotiations the city the within ommittee edinodeystvie

negotiations only s to ” Ottoman

the Monastir It was agreed that the chetas the that was agreed It

i Ottoman

Society sayuzno ki’s supporters from 1907 end of the ki’s supporters y stressed that they “join the Y the “join they that y stressed naselenie

Emp

with the repres the with Empire

t ” ire

obshtesvto o

tiations. vsichki the v in

Osmanskata

] IMARO Natzionalnoosvoboditelnoto in

potisnati Vatreshnata ave O the 199 do

Bitolskiya 197 Monastir entatives of the the of entatives

imperiya” [

v ial CUP ally

n due to the the to n due rganization rganization , 896-897., Otomanskata

would be would be

okrazhen Regional . This This . oung Legal

CEU eTD Collection 204 203 konstitutzionni 202 201 200 a with organizations political into developed clubs the quickly regime, new of the support activemore ina population Turks’ by Young the degree acertain to stimulated was appearance non the of activity political for forms main organizational the were clubs constitutional the revolution the After party. in character. ationalist intern constitutional.” - as ultra Sandanski of by those rejected categorically s province autonomous an of creation the demanded project The program. IMARO and the the constitution, Ottoman the on based platform pregled two the between Organization platform so that they upon a common agree to group Sandanski’s contacted simultaneously Hristov and Pavel be concluded. meeting t third the after and inextricable the that demand IMARO’s Memoirs] (Sofia: Nauka Izkustvo),i 1981, vol2, 116. [The the imilar to Eastern Rumelia. Eastern to imilar Parvanova,Legalnite, 229. Parvanova,Legalnite, 227.

Borbite v Makedoniya i Odrinsko. Spomeni, 1878 Odrinsko. i vMakedoniya Borbite Tzocho People Tzocho Bilyarski, “Introduction” in Vatreshata

Internal With all negotiations failed, the right wing proceeded to form a separate political political form aseparate to wing proceeded right the failed, negotiations With all Progress and Union for Committee the with negotiations the During

(Macedonian ’s

Bilyarski Federative

Macedonian

.” klubove 201

203 After the arrival of Hristo Matov in Matov After thenegotiations arrivalHristo 25July of Salonikaaround the

the editor the Naumov, Nikola continued. wings , “

At that time Sandasnki was

Party Vatreshnata i -

-Adrianople

Adrianopl Narodnata could present could present the Young Turks the demands “th of

(Bulgarian

chetniks

- clearly defined character. national 202 Muslim

makedono

federativna

Revolutionary acted as mediator. He drafted a project aproject drafted He mediator. as acted magazine, e Review) It “was accepted in principle by Matov’s comrades but comrades Matov’s by in principle “wasIt accepted

Section

be allowed to weapons. their keep to be allowed

communities -odrinska he any without negotiations stopped real to agreement ) after partiya , 45-46. ,

-1912 [The Struggles Macedoniain and Adrian

Organization

72 the

revolyutzionna

(balgarska Young already working on a programmuch more Vilayet

e Ottoman Empire. Although their their Although Empire. Ottoman e th in

Turk , Union

Act, some Murzsteg of the Act, sektziya Revolution

organizatziya nationalistic, local and anti and local nationalistic, of - in 204 Bulgarian ) - chief of Makedono- of chief

sled

]

200 IDA Mladoturksta

efforts to engage the engage the to efforts

, The problem seemed seemed The problem Constitutional

(56) 1988, 136-137. Sayuzat e whole Internal Internal whole e , Petko Penchev Penchev Petko ,

na revolyutziya ople Region. Region. ople

balgarskite

reforms, Clubs odrinski odrinski

and ” -

CEU eTD Collection Declaration balgarskite 208 Founding Dnevnitzi nauchreditelniya vtoriya i kongres naSayuza na balgarskite konstitutzionni klubove nationalities in new administrative units, more homogenous if possible, with regional self 207 Constitutional Club] in 206 205 and minded nationalistically they were is that clear fu to prior documents in different present were units. self regional for formula the supported delegates the of majority The statutes. IMARO the within principles the to stick Unionshould that the thought delegates of the Most positively. accepted with disagreements the Despite population. Bulgarian of the strata wealthier the clergy, and the of representatives activists, IMARO former mainly were members The UBCC in Salonika. congress of the Union of the Bulgarian Con state.” Ottoman of the greatness the and “thefor prosperity and working keep while country” of the development care economic of “take the and to culture” Bulgarian the and keep develop “to were points the drafting of thestatute. Themain goal was“regional self infourquota seatsof leadership for IMARO the membe places. in formto clubs other started the the of Union the of rther democratization of the political system with universal suffrage, etc. suffrage, with universal system political of the democratization rther

Georgi This was actually the plan maximum but put in diplomatic tone. different of The the text says: grouping “the ouet 24 Utv a agrky kntttinn lb Sln [ttt o te aoia Bulgarian Salonika the of [Statute Solun” v klub konstitutzionen Balgarskiya na “Ustav №294 Document Document - govern 207 the Young Turks the Young It is not necessary to go into further discussion of UBCC. From what has been said, it it said, been has what From UBCC. of discussion further into go to necessary not is It Salonika of the The statute firs The

and Second Congress of Union the of Bulgarian Constituional Clubs] (Solun, 1910), 84. , “ Parvanov In the program were also included, almost without amendments, the demands that that demands the amendments, without almost included, also were program the In

konstitutzionni

of different nationalities were to be grouped in separate administrative administrative inseparate be grouped to were nationalities different as ment

31 “ №301 the t Bulgarian Constitutional C Constitutional Bulgarian t

Bulgarian Constitutiona Clubs] Union Sazdavane Programna Vatreshnata

klubove of , the est the , the

Sayuza

Bulgarian ” [ deklaratziya , 905

Statutes ablishment of a constitutional a of ablishment -907.

na C

lubbecame themodel for the other clubs. Thefounding 205 balgasrkite Consotitional

Sinceitsfoundation the Salonika na the the other nationalities other the with relations “brotherly ing

–

lub was created in Salonika on July 27 and quickly andin 27 quickly July on Salonika lub was created stitutional Clubs was held in 7 in held was Clubs stitutional Sayuza Bulgarian Vekove 73

konstitutzionni

the congress – congress the

Clubs

na (6) 1982, 10. met

Co balgarskite ] nstitutional

and Youngrks’ Tu platform with reserve rs. Hristo Matov was instrumental in in instrumental was Matov Hristo rs.

klubove Document -

government.” Among the other other the Among government.”

konstotuzionni changes in the C the in changes Clubs - parliamentary regime was was regime parliamentary

( yuli

] 32 “ №302 in -sept 206

Vatreshnata -

208 13 September 1908 1908 13 September C .

1909)” [The Creation lub provisioned a Ustav klubove

[Diaries from the

-govrenment”. na onstitution, , 926-931., ” [

Sayuza Program

na ” s

CEU eTD Collection 213 212 211 210 209 fellow his assured He long awaited.” so freedom of “the ray it as describing revolution the welcomed Sandanski alike, Muslims mem In aspecial newthe situation. to according dramaticchanges that came with the revolution causedfurther a development of their plans former. the oppose to alarge to extent and MARO was created group RevolutionaryOrganization (MARO). Most ofits ac Macedonian founded a separate existingpossible structures the within was opponents ideological with their agreement no that convinced were who leftists the much higher. wingleft were with the of cooperation prospects the IMARO attitud arrogant his in hissuperior’s memoirs criticized in negotiations these interpreter Matov’s organizations. merge two the to even or reconcile CUP. the with made they agreement the schemes”“Young Turk of wingright out for preserving a efforts his own highlyMatov appreciated theevaluation events of Progress and Union for between the negotiations the circumstances these Under beginning. very from the Catastrophes] (Sofia: 1924), 14-19. revolyutzionna made Saloniak 56 Ibid., , 15. svoyata Za Matov, Hristo Hanioglu, IV.3. The Left Wing: Left The IV.3. Pancho Dorev, Dorev, Pancho Document

by e.

As discussed in the previous chapter, evenbe chapter, in previous the As discussed the Regional 211 right wing right 58. -58.

Serres

Prepara to terms with the with terms to coming of difficulties of the aware also were Turks The Young

28 “ №298 organizatziya

, Committee Vanshna politika prichinii za nashite catastrofi Salonika tion . Besides they were not desperate to r to desperate not were they Besides . Pismo , 245 ,

and , t

he Macedonian -246. and and IMARO could hardly have proceeded smoothly. In a later later In smoothly. a have proceeded hardly could and IMARO ot izraboyena

Strumitza

Solunskiya

Draft Party Federative People’s

Program ot regions

- countrymen that “with the joint endeavors of all the the all of endeavors joint the “with that countrymen Serkiya okrazhen 209 - and fiercely attacked Sandanski and Chernopeev for for Chernopeev and Sandanski attacked fiercely and Adrianople Revolutionary Organization ] In his memoirs Matov ridiculed CUP attempts to attempts CUP ridiculed Matov memoirs In his

in of ,

74 Vatreshnata 911 , the Solusnkiya komitet

Macedonian 210 fore the Young Turk Revolution some of of some Revolution Turk Young the fore orandum addressed to Christiansaddressed to and orandum

tivists came from the IMARO Serres Serres IMARO the from came tivists

In contrast, Pan contrast, In

Proektoprograma i

each an agreement with them since

[Foreign Policy and the Causes for Our Our for Causes the and Policy [Foreign Strumishki -A -921. drianople

212

okrazi

Revolutionary

cho Dorev who was was who Dorev cho na

” [ 213 Mekedono A

The swift and and swift The Letter -

Adrianople Committee Committee

Organization and t leastt the -odrinskata

from t he he

the

CEU eTD Collection 216 (3) 1989, 33. natzionlanoosvoboditelnoto dvizhenie” [People’s Feder the Principality and joined Sandasnki’s group after 11 July. Gerogi215 Parvanov “Nardono 214 MAROalso budgets. and provincialstate frombe the taken would offinance education The free charge. and of mandatory, universal, Educat communities. national and class privilegesand absolute equalityfor allnationalities and religious belimitedby only of demanded the qualification MAROalso age. of the abolishment all were offices local administrative up government andthe administrativeto smallest universal units, All suffrage.central and sovereignty, democratization; constitutionalism, one demanded trans radical “most regions. revolutionary Salonika the and Strumitza, Serres, prepared their own program. The so wi right the with negotiations Bulgaria.” in authorities official the by undertaken be might which agitation villainous “the full “their win shall they nationalities” political, economical, and cultural development.” cultural and economical, political, including – innation, ours which every region shou such order, introduction of an “the from ldwith because bethe Empire separated Adrianople and Macedonia the that be reason no would there fulfilled, were demands these on the Struggles revolyutzionna made Saloniak

Both the Manife Document“Manifesto№345Nationalities SandanskiAllYane Ottomantoby theEmpire” in Document

The general political demands inc demands political general The After MAROfirmly opposed thefoundation ofconstitutional clubs and ended the the Regional

Serres from the Young Turks “preliminary guarantees for the rights and freedom and rights the for guarantees “preliminary Turks Young the from

28 “ №298 , 542. , organizatziya

, Committee sto and the Draft Program were actuallywritten by radical social democrats which came from Salonika

formations in the Empire in the spirit of a real democracy a real of spirit in the in Empire the formations Pismo ion was to be in the native language, as the primary education would be be would education primary as the language, innative be the ionwas to

and ,

and ot izraboyena

Strumitza

Solunskiya ng for a common platform, the Sandanists, as they were known, known, were they as Sandanists, the platform, common a for ng a

Draft to be elective. The passive and active voting rights were to to were rights voting active and beThe passive elective. to

Program ot regions

Serkiya called Program”“Draft behalf published was on of okrazhen freedom” and at the same time warned them against them against time same warned andthe at freedom” wanted the replacement of the regular army on the the on army regular of the replacement the wanted ]

the Bulgarian, will have all guarantees for free free for guarantees all have will Bulgarian, the in of ,

75 ative Party in the National-Liberation Movement]Vekove Vatreshnata 911 , the luded:liquidation of absolutism, popular Solusnkiya komitet

216 Macedonian

- chamber parliament, provincial self provincial parliament, chamber i

Proektoprograma i

Strumishki 215 -A -921. drianople

the the were basic principles The

okrazi

Revolutionary

na -federativnata partiyav

” [ Mekedono A

, ” and MARO MARO and ” Letter

Organization -odrinskata Documents Documents

from .” .”

214 the If If -

CEU eTD Collection Bulgarian Bulgarian the with alliance an of aproof as CUP well served agreement this achieved once and wing, right the of attitude the mind in having especially Sandanski, with agreement the in interested 219 P Macedonian the 218 217 woul matter no region, Adrianople and for the Macedonia firmlystuck the to autonomous beliefsthey stating that wouldfor autonomy broad struggle – allies their of those than wing right MARO’ the of programs the with similarities more many bore government that the problem of autonomy documents from the it is clear democratization, reforms and through Empire in Ottoman the sincere MARO’s Despite inconsistent. were regarding the demandfor autonomy. from However, the verybeginningleftists’ the policies Rapoportstated that: Austro the On occasion this serve. to allowed be would religion and nationality of regardless citizens all army, regular of the that to similar loc Hanioglu, Hanioglu, Avstriski dokumenti za istorijata na makedonskiot narod Ibid. al level with a people’s armed militia which would operate only in the region. In a manner In a inonly region. the operate would which militia armed apeople’s level with al with the the with of autonomy question harmonize the to They tried status. same the acquire d

Rapoport was both Rapoport str seemed MARO and CUP between The cooperation Macedonia. directed against Ottoman national interests for the defining of the Bulgarian in borders of anti Sandanski, and or socialist on the the demand with case for is the provincial as and interest, no local have autonomy, can they diametricallywhich from negotiationsThe the Bulgarian embarked on Young points Turks on program population of Macedonia. of population Preparation eople], eople], 217 218

vol. 2. (Skopje, 1981), 108.

, 247.

wrong and right. Thewrong definitely Young andTurks much very right. were

wasstill present. The Draft Program’s provisionforbroad self - Hungarian diplomat and civil agent in Macedonia Alfred Alfred in Macedonia and agent civil Hungarian diplomat 219 the Young Turks. Somethe Young Turks. left of wing the also activists

At the same time, he was right in his observation inhis observation was right he time, same the At

desire to find to desire a solutionthe to national probl 76

(1907-1908) [Austrian Documents on the Historyof

wh ether the other regions in the E in the regions other the ether ange to some foreign observers. observers. someforeign ange to s adversaries of the the of s adversaries - clerical ideas mpire mpire ems ems -

CEU eTD Collection independence] in Vatreshnata Balgariya Appeal of [An Revolutionary Regional Serres the Committee Regarding theDeclaration Bulgarian of Serskiyaobyavenataokrazhenrevolyutzionennezavisimostzakomitet na na “Apel Document№306 Empire” wish to support the Macedonian Bulgarians in theirmonarchism struggle with its conduct and actions for gives rights another categorical and proof freedom in its that political plans there as is citizens no o independence 224 223 222 221 220 nam “in the nationalities all of unio the and party democratic Ottoman single in a Committee Turk Young the around forces political all of uniting the regime, new the of stabilization the all above be should movement autonom rejected to loyalty regime. Turk for the Young support What their unitedthemwas revolutionaries and the radical social democrats andsocialists whichjoined themovement. national. the over interests imperial common the for of supremacy the socialists of the position C C District Salonika the l circular In asecond MARO. of congress general the of summoning the for was set Salonika the program MARO. supporting project congress of resolutions with the came Bulgarians.” Macedonian of the desires legitimate the of representative “the only [Resolution 922-925. omm Draft Program, 925. 233 Legalni, Parvanova, At this stage leftists’ support for the Edinstvo Document ittee it is pointed out that the main reason for the congress will be “to discuss the new new discuss the “to be will congress the for main reason the that out isit pointed ittee At In fact,

220

the the

from [Unity], the end of Augustthe end of

in Septemberin 1908 the leftists

222 Revolut 30 “ №300 CUP

within

the The Strumitza leader Hristo Chernopeev, however, disagreed with Sandanski, Sandanski, with disagreed however, Chernopeev, Hristo leader Strumitza The ism and accepted reformism. According to him, the main principles of the the of principles main the him, to According reformism. accepted and ism

№3, 4 October 1908, 1. 1908, October 4 №3, Extraordinary ,

Yane Sandanski firmly defended the independence of the organization as as organization the of independence the defended firmly Sandanski Yane ionary ionary Rezolyutzii

MARO from t from MARO -234. ommittee from 21 September 1908 sent to Adrianoplefromtheto 1908sent ommittee 21September , 939-942.,

District

e of the interest whole E of the interest e of the

Congress

ot 1908

Izvanredniya

sent a circular letter in which the date 25 September 1908 September 1908 25 in date the letter which acircular sent CUP was unconditional. For example, when Bulgaria declared its its declared Bulgaria when example, For unconditional. was CUP different visions different were there beginning he

took place the took categorically c of

the

Adrianople 77

kongres

ondemned ondemned this actstating that: “…the Bulgarian

na Revolutionary Adrianople RegionalCongress

Odrisnkata mpire”. 221

223 Organizatio

revolyutzionna Without questioninghisWithout

224

between the old old the between n]

On 23 August On 23 in

- f the Ottoman

Adrianople organizatziya Vatreshnata

District etter of of etter . The The . n ,

CEU eTD Collection the Founding Congress of the People’s Federative Party (Bulgarian Section)] (Solun: 1909), 15. 226 225 national make. the Theof solving to forced they were that compromises and uneasy the mainlyrevolutionaries, around Sanda the group least years ten earlier. at organization of the inideology the appeared first demand and social democratic old an this was chapter, previous “E an for MARO. The onlynew elementhere was the general and quitelaconic formulation providing of program the on based entirely almost were principles main Its one. only the remained was and congress the horizontal structure or a corporation that would unite theleftist groupings ofall nationalities – 3 on founded was Party Federative People’s program the base of the became Program Edinstvo cente groups constituent congress held. ofnot the MAROwaslasted This until January 1909when the two Thus congress. Kyustendil the during Sandaski on passed sentence death the out carrying inwounded an assassination attempt committed by thevoda voy carry out to region. Adrianople from the revolutionaries the a to able were MARO of activists the that beit concluded can document this From Turks”. Young the with negotiations for acommon platform elaborate to and situation komitet

Resheniya naUchreditelniyaResheniya k Document za The other program documen The other scene, from historical the MARO disappeared Therefore, Thrace Adrianople Macedonia and throughout spread of IMARO The activists

astern Federation” without any further specifications of the term. As discussed in the in the As discussed term. the of specifications anyfurther without Federation” astern nasrochvane (Unity) agreed to unite into a single party. into asingle unite party. to agreed (Unity)

№306 a campaign for the congress the for a campaign Konstitutzionna zarya Konstitutzionna newspapers the around red Okrazhno

datata

seen as founding only the Bulgarian section of the party. In fact, it fact, In party. of the section Bulgarian onlyfounding the seen as

pismo

obsjiya ongres naNarodnata federativna partiya

kongres Solunskiya ts reflected the existing contradiction between the old old between the contradiction existing the reflected ts

, na

but it was spoiled because Sandasnki was heavily heavily was Sandasnki because it was spoiled but

226 documents of the People’s Federative Party. The The Party. Federative People’s of the documents MORO

okrazhen 78

10 August 1909. The 1909. party August a wasas10 planned

n ski, and the newly arrived social democrats democrats social newly arrived and the ski, 21

revolyutzionen September

1908

but its principles in the Draft Draft the in principles its but (balgarska sektziya) [Decisions of [Decisions sektziya) (balgarska

(Constitutional Dawn) and and Dawn) (Constitutional komitet in Tane Nikolov who was was who Nikolov Tane

Vatreshnata do

Odrinskiya

, 939., ttract also also ttract

in order in order okoliyski ,

the the 225 ,

CEU eTD Collection 228 227 on state citizenship.mutual Inthe of basis 1908this Macedonia and after equal of rights howeve 1910, problems cultural and agrarian the on initiatives several to limited was activity Its more. anything aspiration.” “nationalistic of it as aresult and described movement revolutionary of the restoration the Duringin the discussions the beginning of 1910theleadership party once again condemned and reas activists Strumitza of the decision the condemned which declaration special a issued Bureau Central the In response, Committee. Revolutionary Strumitzathe restore left to party the Chernopeev later, months several only 1909, leadersh new in the participate to refused Sandanski First, split. prevent in action any unity thwarted conflicts internal existing the “protector towards the constitutional clubs was more straight on but nationalism” of “promoter as a characterized it was hand, On one the 1909. of summer the in CUP the towards attitude contradictory the revealed The Declaration system. and political was connected questions Narodna volya 3 Ibid., the other as “the only guarantee for the spread of the democratic rights.” The position position The rights.” democratic the of spread the for guarantee only “the as other the presumed political loyalty to the Ottoman Ottoman the to loyalty political ofThe project Ottomanism Young presumed Turk Par Federative The People’s itself achievement was establish an aparty managed to leftists the fact that The -8.

and with the parliamentary speeches of its representative Dimitar Vlahov. In August August In Vlahov. Dimitar representative its of speeches parliamentary the with and s

228 of the interest agent haute bourgeoisieof the interest of the and r,

the PFP was prohibitedby the CUP [People’s Will],

with the process of democratization of the Ottoman administrative administrative Ottoman of the of democratization process with the IV.4. IMARO Restore IMARO IV.4. №23,29 August 1910,1.

ty ty had

neither the political nor the social cohesion to do do to cohesion social the nor political the neither 79

t . he Road War to

- forward. They were condemned as as condemned were They forward. s

offoreign aspiration ,

sured and the compromise did not not did compromise the and

the the ip CUP in its loyalty. loyalty. its in CUP ,

and in the end of of end the in and s.” 227

but but

CEU eTD Collection persecution of the former band members band former the of persecution 231 Turkey, 1908-1910 230 Economic, and Political Studies of the Middle East and Asia 229 Bulg called organization new a founded Nikolov Tane and Petkov, Apostol Chernopeev, by led wing right and left the both of leaders IMARO former in Sofia March 4 On region. revolutionary Strumitza February 1910Chernopeev, of beginning In the 1909. inend Chernopeev of December the byHristo was followed Petkov mention to began s do to intention his declared openly activity. resume armed and BillAct the Bands of Persons and Suspicious Vagrants banned. This was followed by campaigns centr of policy aconsistent pursue to started regime Young Turk The movements. national different the over control the tighten to measures authoritarian to resorted increasingly or nationalities order should bebuilt. Theidea of Ottomanismmanage new the basis what on than regime Hamidian the of rejection in their more much overlap the – aspirations secessionist their definit ., Ibid Ada Fikret Zorka Parvanova, “ Parvanova, Zorka

idea failed. The goals of the Young Turks and the different national m national different the and Turks Young of the The goals ideafailed. alization alization ely meant that the Bulgarians, Greeks, Serbs, and Albanians were expected to give up give up to expected were Albanians and Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians, the that meant ely Within this strained atmosphere some of the former IMARO activists proceeded to to proceeded activists IMARO former the of some atmosphere strained this Within The per

32.

nir, Natzionalisticheskiyat, 83 in in

iod of cooperation turned out to be very short. From 1909 on the CUPleaders create a sense of loyalty to the state. a state. loyaltythe create sense to of ” Balkan Studies (Etudes balkaniques) the second half of 1909. First, all national political organizations were allnational were First, half organizations second political 1909. of the

armed band armed Birth of the Conflict: the Young Turk Regi Turk Young the Conflict: of the Birth

During arian People’s Macedonian People’s arian

together with some of his old his of some with together but not by all means their nationality. their means byall not but the springof 1909 s active s active Aykut Kansy Aykut Also -85. o. o. in the regions regions the in . 230 At the same time, the time, same the At aimed disarming at

(4)

the the (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997), 165 2000

- Adrianople Revolutionary Organization Adrianople Revolutionary Organization Ye , 39. , me and the National Movements in different regions of Macedonia. of regions in different nice ,

The Revolution of 1908 in Turkey, Social,

d only temporarily - Vardar Vardar

the population -

time associates, restored the restored time associates, reports offoreign diplomat

practically sanction practically 229 vodavoy However, However, ovements seemed to -240. ,

Apostol Petkov and finally

to uniteto the in long long in

in European European in ed the the ed , run,

the the 231 s

CEU eTD Collection 235 234 233 revolyutzionna 232 Bulgarian members “only accepted organization The restored introduced. were the and Macedonia name, inevitable. was Empire Ottoman the and Bulgaria between war afuture that he stated Thought) newspap moving the finger.” In a“not following a policyof Hris ideals to was RevolutionTurk anymo published in the newspaper be found”. are to in which adherents and those bypopulated Bulgarians religion unification.” o autonomy Committee. Adrianople Macedonian former Supreme members the of also founders were Amongthe (BPMARO). balkaniques) Turkey (1910-1912): Adrianople Kambana Ibid. Zorka Parvanova. “ Parvanova. Zorka Document also Matovto also

– re. Obviously disappointed by the result of Ilinden, the reform projects and the Young Ilinden, bythe Obviouslyresultreform of disappointed and there. Young the projects

statutes Unity was achieved in early 1911 when the Organization when the 1911 early inachievedUnity was adherents the an to appeal wrote revolutionaries the ideas, their propagate to In order obtain to goal the with grounds national “on created was organization new The impose the Bulgarian state to intervene to state impose Bulgarian the , ” and its territorial range of action encompassed “not its”“not only andaction allland encompassedbut range of territorial Turkey state and national and the state should well understand that well understand should state the and national and state

Revolutionary 235

(1) [Bell],№.987, 1 August 1910, 1.

f Macedonia and Adrianople region as a phase towards our spiritual and political political and spiritual our towards aphase as region Adrianople and fMacedonia

232 30 “ №330 organizatziya

2002 , and, regulations. T

Contrary to IMARO, “members can be only Bulgarians regardless of sex or of regardless be only Bulgarians can “members IMARO, to Contrary ,

BMARO’s goal wasnot so much work to among thelocal population, it as

, 55 , same opinion. He accused Bulgaria of being too indifferent and and indifferent being too of Bulgaria accused He opinion. same the shared Part Two: The Albanian and Rezolyutziya Programme and Organisational Transformations of N Adrianople region. In the protocol for the unification however, changes changes however, unification the for protocol the In region. Adrianople -56.

Organization ” [

Resolution Kambana

ot ]

in Uchreditelnoto he goal remained same the –

From

Vatreshnata

(Bell). No uprisings or reforms were on the agenda agenda the on reforms were or uprisings No (Bell).

the

Founding

The Bulgarian Revolutions Bulgarian The 81 , 984 ,

on their behalf, their on sabranie

-985. Assembly

Balgarskata

of er er

the n not be two two be not n ca there “because (Modern (Modern Savremenna missal

ational Movements European in full political autonomy for for autonomy political full Bulgarian was restored with its old old withits restored was

Balkan Studies (Etudes BalkanStudies in ” narodna .” 233 234

During People

makedono ’s

Macedonian this period period this -odrinska s - -

CEU eTD Collection Armed order to affect European interests and provoke intervention. provoke and interests European affect to order To units. bomb exploded onthe town market and killed 24people, most of them the Bulgarians. Kotchani In In 300 injured. around and killed were Bulgarians 20 followed that violence crowd the and panic The lives. their save to terrorists the allowed and suspicions no Donkeyscaused carriers. as used were saddlebags their in explosives 239 238 Organi revolyutzionni deystviya” [A Letter from IMARO Foreign Representation About the Unity Achieved the in 237 236 Emp the with war a for public Bulgarian the inciting in influential attack Bulgarian public opinion go to to war. possible, thus bombing on concentrated was tactics new The changed. were targets and Empire the against action in Bulgaria drag out broke Aleskandrovint determined 1911, was September to active again. th reported Lazarov, Todor in Sofia, foreign representative the 1911 from March letter Withopen an movement. the and army Bulgarian – member areserve and Chaulev included Aleksandrov inChernopeev, Petar Todor and Hristo oldwas It 1909. over one of term the the since written correspondence, through was elected Committee Central IMARO nationalists.” na and

Zorka koito Document №338 “Pismo ot ZP na VMORO za postignatoto edinstvo v Organizatziyata i za zapochvaneto na na zapochvaneto za i Organizatziyata v edinstvo postignatoto za VMORO na ZP ot “Pismo №338 Document Document IMARO IMARO Aleksandrov. dor These are known as magareshkite as atentati known are These

the

zation and the Starting of Revolutionary Activities] March 1911 in Vatreshnata, 1006 -1008. s

The main propagator of mainpropagator The Activities Principles

The restored IMARO The restored tq

Parvanova ininKochani Shtipin November 1911and July 1912

explosions tryabva

№336 “ №336 237 236

and

It Muslim Muslim provoke in turn

Taking advantage of the possibiliti of the Taking advantage da

, “

Sh explosion in Shtip was close to the town mosque killed and 1

IMARO Protokol

Vazobnovyavaneto stoi ould

, thus representing almost all factions within allfactions within representing almost thus voda voy , Supremist former in public places which would which places public in

[Protocol Be

Restoration

Based №1 №1 at the split in the O the in split the at

chose new tactic new chose

started with attack on railways, withattack started trains, train za such

№1 №1

Upon obedinenieto lieuten for

na ] tactics tactics in ]

vaorazhenata in the

Natzionalnoosvoboditeln

The bombing bombing The succeeded. tactics new the regard In this

(literally bombing Vatreshnata

ant Unification reprisals on the Bulgarian popu onthe reprisals was

na - colonelAleksandar Protogerov, in the an officer 82

BNMARO s

the new strong strong new the –

rganization had been, rganization overcome borba bombi , 999-1000.

of es that that the 1908statutees provided, the new

kill indiscriminately BPMARO

vazstanovyavaneto attacks ng assaults assaults ng i

VMORO , oto

238

with donkeys) because donkeyswith man and vol

When the Italo the When ire. .3, 256..3, v

IMARO

edna in the Central Comm Central the in by small specially trained trained specially small by 239

and injuredand 29people. the In

na the retaliations

organizatziya were in many ways ways many in were

into VMORO” [ asmany people as stations, stations, lation and incite incite and lation

One - Turkish

Organizations and it was itand was

o military military o i brid Resuming

were killed killed were printzipite ges in in ges ittee, ittee, War War ,

CEU eTD Collection Revolutionary Struggle in Macedonia] (Skopje, 1917; Sofia, 1918), 142 21 and injured 221 they de what Cretans granted and intervened diplomacy European Greeks, the defeated army Ottoman the and quelled was rebellion the Although revolutionaries. the for inspiration of source another were crisis of the settlement final the Empire and revolutionarization formula: was the follow to wanted they scheme The violence. to resort not did and propaganda through mainly yearsmodel.first onlyist the theamong population Organizationthe worked During Exarch Thrace. guarant it second, and unification than realistic more it was first, because phase a necessary even but option an only not considered was Autonomy followed. be was to that pattern successful au the and Principality the among the Macedonian unopposed go not did often interpretation nationalist the which in meanings deferent and various covering concept Berlin. of Congress the after Empire in Ottoman the communities different the among nationalization of processes ongoing the and states Balkan the rivals imperial Ottoman of policies interventionist the policies, the and Macedonia

The Cretan Revolt of 1896, the subsequent war between Greece and t and Greece between war subsequent the 1896, of Revolt Cretan The established an already adopted Organization Internal the of founders the regard In this born was Thrace Adrianople for then Macedonia for and first idea of autonomy The for autonomy for demand IMARO’s that argued have I thesis current the In eed the preservation of the so mush disputed territorial integrity of Macedonia and and Macedonia of integrity territorial mush disputed so the of preservation the eed

people Adrianople region has to be sought in the the in sought be to has region Adrianople .

. Angel Angel . - Adrianople Adrianople tonomous Ottoman province of Eastern Rumelia sanctioned it as the sanctioned Rumelia of Eastern Ottoman province tonomous Tomov and Georgi Bazhdarov, Revolyutzionnata borba v Makedoniya Bazhdarov, Georgi and Tomov émigrés -

uprising Conclusion

in Bulgaria. The successful unification between between unification successful The Bulgaria. in 83 -

foreign intervention intervention foreign

-144. intersection of Ottoman imperial imperial Ottoman of intersection , comp

It was a multidimensional multidimensional a was It - eting national projects of of national projects eting

autonomy.

he Ottoman manded [The [The –

CEU eTD Collection intervention. foreign of threat and violence endemic of context Macedonian in this rooted was deeply movement Turk The Young general. in population Muslim of the politicization increasing much the for contributed in Macedonia Albanian and by Serbian followed appear, to first bands were Greek region. 1904- ex the had of reforms series with a intervened diplomacy European Indeed, wrong. interests. defend form bands their and to armed to low example IMARO fol to communities the other ofit. Macedonian autonomy provoked The prospect participated against accept not communities other only the did th in struggle against a all. for autonomy to Bulgarians for from autonomy The idea evolved inmovement. the participated whom actively the views of the socialist and social democratic circles as possiblesupporters was“regardless religion.” nationality also of heavily It influenced or by ethno The complicated princip main the to changes brought turn in character social in change the and expansion all an into transformed inf a school teachers as of asmall Exarchist rted sta conspiracy years what few is do rebel to needed to autono 1908 saw a full 1908 saw a my under the suzerainty of the S the of suzerainty the under my An Indeed, this This initiated a new period of intensive armament and a preparation for revolt. In a revolt. for and apreparation armament intensive of anew period initiated This to provoke European intervention European provoke to rebels, the of expectation other actly opposite goal – goal opposite actly

was the goal of the of goal the was

- - , scale inter scale - encompassing e S

confessional situation convinced IMARO leaders to attract as many as many attract leaders to IMARO convinced situation confessional and success was imminent. was and success ultan. However, contrary to the revolutionaries’ expectations revolutionaries’ the to contrary However, ultan.

to maketo themovement for autonomyunfounded. Theyears - communal war between the different communities in the the in communities different the between war communal organization with branches in almost every village. The The village. every in almost branches with organization

1903 ultan. To the IMARO leaders it seemed that all they all they it that seemed leaders IMARO the To ultan. Ilinden 84 to

join join

uprising: uprising: in the P the in the movement, the to unite all discontent elements rincipality of Bulgaria of rincipality

but but ,

but but

ones actively actively also the also proved be to ew towns was was ew towns these reforms these . The turmoil The .

many of of many ,

les. not not

CEU eTD Collection forces. reformist other with nor them with neither cooperating in interested not were They newgime. the re of inmain stabilization the saw goal their activists these Bulgarians the of isolation the to left autonomy for demand the that Considering wh the of interests of the name the “in nationalities different the between Chernopeev. aroundgroup Hristo declared Thisitsmain group as goal the among strongly most manifested was tendency This system. political Ottoman the within democratization and reformism accepted and agenda the from autonomy dropped leftists great the by catalyzed Empire Ottoman the in movements national the of ideology political the in tendency general a followed It movement. Adrianople impos reconciliation andin Boris Sarafov 1907onthe order leftof wing leader made Sandanski any attempt at Garvanov Ivan of murder The terms. to wing right and left the bring to attempt last the was t more and more drifting they were minorityyearsfor In the these national majority rights governingand groups. guaranteed a of polity Adrianople region Bulgaria asbeinterpreted Macedonia joiningshould autonomy to and excluded und This federalism. and separatism political of on principles the based idea the of autonomy advocated movement left Thewing born 1903. were before that processes lines catalyzing IMARO

should be bui be should The right wing had had wing right The in shiftMacedonia ofThe Revolution programs caused another the Young Turk - pre the to kept faction other the of The representatives ofThe the uprising defeat c lt as a federation of all communities. of allfederation lt as a becoming independent polity becoming sible. erstanding was based on the premises that the on based was erstanding

been skeptical towards beenfromskepticalthe Youngvery towards beginning. the Turks oward Bulgarian oward nationalism. Rila 1905 The Congress of aused regrouping, serious conflicts and eventual split in in conflicts and serious aused split eventual regrouping, 85

and second and

change July 1908. after , Ilinden

that the future autonomous autonomous future the that

first understandings ,

the demand for for demand the achieving unity achieving unity ole E ole

Some of the

within the the within and the the and mpire – self .” - -

CEU eTD Collection wa Macedonian of ait. and achieved war provoke to campaign domestic embarked reforms.They foreign or achieved an uprising, through wasstill the officially proclaimed goal the revolutionariesnolonger believed it canbe When in was IMARO it restored adopted 1911 a new strategy and tactics. Although autonomy ral. in gene principle autonomous with disappointed were leftists the of Many activities. armed self regional broad on based questions national for the prio goals itsandinsistedindependence traditional on This group the future of future the struggles liberation among many, which means it was s a much more complicated phenomenon than the homogenous the than phenomenon complicated more much a s nationalism This thesis should be viewed as an attempt to overcome the teleological interpretations interpretations teleological the overcome to attempt an viewed as be should This thesis wingsboth inhalfin 1909 After of resumed the policysecond the turn Young Turks’ -

Adrianople R Adrianople Macedonia and Adrianople Thrace Thrace Adrianople and Macedonia

characteristic characteristic ” usually assumes. M assumes. usually evolutionary Organization even with respect to its intellectu its to respect with even Organization evolutionary of

by no ways inevitable ways no by Balkan national histories. The history of the Internal Internal the of history The histories. national Balkan any any

IMARO activists activists IMARO 86 - government. government.

and

only one one only was option national the that .

had very different idea different very had

narrative narrative rity of solving the solving the rity of of of on a terror aterror on “national “national s al elite

about about CEU eTD Collection Svyato Makedonsko delo: spisanie [Holy Cause: Macedonian 1902– Magazine]. Society]. 18961899. Strandzha: Organ “Strandzha” nadruzhestvoto 1906. Macedonian Internal List: [Revolutionary Revolyutzionen Vatreshna list: Makedono- Macedonian [Reforms Organ komitet naVarhovniya Makedonski Reformi: Politicheska svoboda 1898. [Politca1 Liberty]. 1908 Party]. Federative People’s Bulgarian the partiya federativna Narodna narodna nabalgarskata Organ volya: 1905 Magazine]. Weekly Political Review: Makedono- Makedonskiy glas News Defense and o for A Newspaper pravdini [Macedonian: nanarodnite zashtita i Makedonetz: List za novini 1908 - Macedonian the of Organ Dawn: [Constitutional Makedono- zarya:Konstitutzionna na Organ Newspaper]. 1907- vestnik Kambana: Veskidneven nezavisim naroden 1907. Ilinden – Glas makedonski: Sedmichen vestnik Edinstvo Adrianople 1901- Interests]. namakedono Branitel Delo: - Organization]. 1903. organizatziya naVatreshanta Zadgranichen Mak list (L’Autonomie): Avtonomiya Newspapers Magazines: and Sources Primary

– 1909. [Unity]. 1908- Odrinski pregled: Sedmichen politicheski zhurnal Committee]. 1899– Committee].

[Autonomy: Foreign Newspaper of the Internal Macedonian Internal of the Newspaper Foreign [Autonomy: 1908.

[Macedonian 1885, Voice]. 1887, 1890. 1908. f the 1880, National 1885, 1894/5. Rights].

1909.

1902.

odrinskite interesi Macedonian of the Guardian [Cause:

1905.

[Macedonian Voice: Weekly Newspaper]. 1893 – 1893 Voice: Weekly Newspaper]. [Macedonian

B ibliography - - 1907. Adrianople Revolutionary Organization]. 1904- RevolutionaryAdrianople Organization]. 87

- 1909.

Odrisnka revolyutzionna organizatziya Odrinskatarevolyutzionna organizatziya Adrianople Revolutionary Organization]. Organization]. Revolutionary Adrianople

[Strandzha: Or [Strandzha:

[Bell: Daily People’s Independent

–

[Macedonian [People’s Will: Organ of of Organ Will: [People’s gan of the “Stradzha” “Stradzha” of the gan Organ of the Supreme edono-

1903. - - Adrianople Adrianople Odrisnka Odrisnka

1896.

CEU eTD Collection iSofia: Nauka 1983.izkustvo, volumes. in two Memoirs and Materials] Region. Adrianople and in Macedonia Movement Spomeni Materiali i Odrinsko: Osvobotilenoto v dvizhenie Makedoniya i Po nashiteO sporni vaprosi [On Petko. Penchev, Sofia, 1928. _____. Yanko Sakazov].Mr. Sofia,1910. _____. Sofia, 1904. “Fundamentals”)]. the Selectand Formulate to Attempt na“Osnovite”)formulirane Mat I Movement]. Revolutionary Macedonian the of History dvizhenie osvoboditleno namakedonskoto zaMateriali na istoriyata 1995. MNI, in aSt and Thrace – Makedoniyana XIX Trakiya i za /krayat v svoboda borba Organization]. 1904. 1893 Region, Adrianople and [Macedonia (1893- Makedoniya Odrinsko i History, Bulgarian 1978. Language Institute, DocumentsMacedonia. andMaterials Solun: 1909. [Decisions of the Foundi partiyasektziya) federativna (balgarska Narodnata Resheniya kongres naUchreditelniya na Constituional Solun, Clubs], 1910. klubove nabal na Sayuza kongres vtoriya i uchreditelniya Dnevnitzi na History, Institute for National vol.1. Independencecedonian for andaNation the People - Ma Documents Struggle of onthe Conduct the of WarsBalkan Commission. Carnegie Adrianop SpomeniBorbite v (1878 Makedoniya Odrinsko. i Published Documents and Memoirs: ov, ov, Skopje: University The ‘Cyril of and Methodius’, Faculty of of Philosophy, Department Pisma za M za Pisma

Za svoysta revolyutzionnea deynost. belezhki Lichi Hristo, Hristo, [Diaries from the Founding and Second Congress of the Union of Bulgarian Bulgarian the Unionof FoundingCongress of from and Second [Diaries the le Region. Memoirs, 1878 Memoirs, Region. le

Osnovi na Vatreshnata organizatziya revolyutzionna (opit za podbirane i ruggleFreedom, – XIX for of the End akedoniya. Otgovor na g. Y. Sakazov nag. akedoniya. Otgovor

Report of the International Report Commission of Inquire to the Causes and ng Congress of the People’s Federative Party (Bulgarian Section)]. Section)]. (Bulgarian Party Federative People’s of the Congress ng . Washington. DC: Carnegie 1914. Endowment,

[Fundamentals of the Internal Revolutionary Organization (An (An Organization Revolutionary Internal the of [Fundamentals History, 1985. History,

1903). Sdve k 1903).

- 1912]. 1912]. Sofia: Balgarski 1982. pisatel,

Sofia: BulgarianAcademy of Sciences, Institute of - 1903. With Two Maps. A Memoir of the Internal Internal the of Memoir A Maps. Two With 1903.

arti. arti. ur Disputedur Matters]. – 1912) Memoar naVatreshnata organizatziya - XI. Sofia: 1925- MNI, the Beginning of XX century]. Sofia: the Beginning Sofia: XX century]. of

[Letters for Macedonia. A Reply to A to Reply Macedonia. for [Letters

nachaloto naXX vek/ [The Struggles in Macedonia and Macedoniain and [The Struggles [On his Revolutionary Activity]. Activity]. Revolutionary his [On

garskite konstitutzionni garskite konstitutzionni Sofia, 1906.

[Materials for the the for [Materials

[The Liberation Liberation [The 1931.

[Macedonia [Macedonia

State .

CEU eTD Collection (Bulgarian Section) after the Young Turk Revolution], in IDA 117 1988: (56) C Bulgarian of Union the Organization, Macedonian Internal [The revolyutziya” Mladoturksta sled sektziya) (Balgarska Partiya Federativna i Narodnata klubove konstitutzionni Balgarskite na makedono “Vatreshnata Tzocho. Bilyarski, 1991. edition) Communities Imagined (revised Benedict. Anderson, 221 1998), Centuries Macedonia, 1856- “Socio _____. Elites _____. 2002 Amicitia, Sofia: 1979 Verlag, Steiner Franz Wiesbaden: , Frage: undEntwicklungbis 1908 Ihre Entstehung Adanir 26 September Sofia, Conference, Academic International the from Papers of Collection Uprising. Preobrazhenie Mezhdunarodnata 26- nauchna Sofiya, konferentziya, Ilindesnko ot 100 godini - volumes. 6 Skopje: MANU, 2003. May on held Conference Academic from Contributions Ilinden. Years 1903- Ilinden, 100 godini Secondary Literature Letters)]. Resolutions, Orders, Minutes, Letters, Circular Declarations, Memoranda, Regulations, (1 Organization neredbi, pisma) rezolyutzii, tzentralnite pravilnitzi, memoari, rakovodni deklaratzii, (ustavi, okrazhni, organi protokoli, Vatreshnata Makedono- Brown, Keith. ThePast Ques in Keith. Brown, Brailsford, Ohridski andAdrianople 1893- Region, National the of in Programs the As Tactics Autonomy natzionalnoosvoboditelnoto dvizhenie Odrinsko i v Makedoniya (1893- Gotzev, PrincetonPrinceton: University Press, 2003.

, ed. “The Macedonians in the Ottoman Empire, 1878- in“The the OttomanEmpire, Macedonians ”, 1983. ”, Fikret , ed. , Sofia: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “ izdatelstvo Sofia: Universitetsko

A. Kappeler. New York: New York University- 161 Press, 1992, Kappeler. A. - Dimit Henry. Henry. 254.

. Hans -

political Environment of Balkan Nationalism: the Case of Ottoman Ottoman of Case the Nationalism: Balkan of Environment political Makedonski

ar. ar. 983- 1912“ in Macedonia. ItsRaces andMacedonia. Their Future - - Georg Haupt Georg Sofia: Paradigma, 2003. 27, 2003]. Sofia: Paradigma, . 1919). 1919).

Ideyata zaIdeyata avtonomiya kato taktika v programite na Odrinska Organizatziya(1983 Revolyutzionna - 2003. Prilozi ot nauchniot sobir odrzhan na6- sobir odrzhan Prilozi nauchniot 2003. ot Regional andNational IdentitiesEurope in the in Regional y preobrazhenskoto Sbor (1903). vastanie at v at Documents of the Central Executive Organs (Statutes, (Statutes, Organs Executive Central the of Documents

tion: Modern andthe Macedonia Uncertainties Nation,tion: of apros 1941]. 1941]. [The Internal Macedonian Internal [The - Hague The .

onstitutional Clubs and the People’s Federative Party Party Federative People’s the and Clubs onstitutional [ Die Makedonische Die Makedonische Idem, of translation Bulgarian Sofia: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “ izdatelstvo Universitetsko Sofia: Sv. Kliment Ohridski Kliment Sv.

- odr 89

inska revolyutzionna organizatziya, Sayuzat Sayuzat organizatziya, inska revolyutzionna London 27 septemvri 2003

- - Liberation Movement in Macedonia Macedonia in Movement Liberation 1912“, in Boston: Kluwer Law International, International, Law Kluwer Boston: .

London: Methuen and Methuen London: .

London and New York: New and London - ,” 2007. ,” - Adrianople Revolutionary

Adrianople Revolutionary Revolutionary Adrianople T he Formation of National of Formation he 1919). Dokumenti na Dokumenti na 1919).

nik ot dokladi ot nik dokladiot ot 1941) [100 Years[100 Ilinden 191. 8 maj 2003 8 maj - - 8 2003] in two in 8 2003] two XIXth andXXth XIXth 189.

Sv. Kliment Kliment Sv. [The Idea of Idea [The

Co., 1906. Co.,

Verso, Verso, [100 [100

]. ]. -

CEU eTD Collection Nations andNationalism since since Programme, 1780: Myth, J. Eric Hobsbawm, Cambridge and New Cambridge York: Press, 1997. University The Adrian. Hasting, University Oxford New York: PreparationHanioglu, Sukru. forn: aRevolutio the Young Turks, 1902- Gellner, Balkan Studies, 1966. Dakin, Douglas. 1897- Macedonia, in TheGreek Struggle Program of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization], Glasnik naINI Organization], Revolutionary Macedonian Internal the of Program in the Macedonia Autonomous of Principles [The organizatziya” revolutzionerna makedonska Vnatreshnata na programata vo Makedoniya avonomna na “Printzipite Aleksandar. Hristov, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Boulder: European East Monographs, 1998. Lange for Balkan Studies, 1966. Institute Thessaloniki: Nationalism. Macedonia andCommunismin Evangelos. Kofos, Edinburgh University 2006. Press, Kitromilid 1908–1918. Empire, Kayal Brill, 2002. _____. Madison: University Wisconsin of Press, 1985. Karpat, Struggle],izdatelstvo Sofia: Akademichno prof. Marin Drinov, 2008. 1894 and in Thrace, Macedonia Movement National programma, praktika Ideologiya, 1908 gg. politicheskoy borbi [Bulgarian dvizhenie Bolgarskoe Frakiiv natzionalno v i 1894- Makedonii Olegovich. Dmitriy Labauri, . and Asia East Middle the Kansu, Aykut. 1993. MNI, Izsledvaniya pomakedosnkiya vapors 5- (1962), i, Hasan.Young Turks and Arabs - Studies on Ottoman Social and Poli Studies onOttomanSocialand Akhund, Nadine. Ma The

Kemal Ernest. Ernest. 31. es, Paschalis Eleftherioses, The ed. M. Trials Venizelos: of Edinburgh: Statesmanship,

. The Revolution 1908 of Turkey in

Nations and Nationalism Ottoman Population 1830-

Berkeley

Construction Nationhood: Ethnicity, of andReligion Nationalism Leiden

Press, 2001. Press, – Los : E. J. E. :

cedonian Question 1893- cedonian Question

Angeles

[Studies on the Macedonian Question] Vol. 1, Sofia: Sofia: 1, Vol. Question] Macedonian the on [Studies : Brill, 1997 Brill, Ottomanism, Arabism, and Islamism in the Ottoman Ottoman the in andIslamism Arabism, Ottomanism, . Oxford: Blackwell,1983. tical History: Selected Articles Essays. Leiden: and

1914, Demographic andSocialCharacteristics -

90 1908. Ideology, Program, Practic -

London

, Social, Economic, andPolitical Studies of .

: University: California of Press, 1997. 1913.

1908 from Western1908 from Sources

Thessalonik

1908. i: Institute for e of Political Political of e

Oxford and and Oxford ,

Skopje, 2

Reality.

. . .

CEU eTD Collection balkaniques) Turkey0- (191 _____. European Turkey, 1908- _____. Years IMARO] Macedo in Movement (1878 [Autonomism Trakiya and Odrisnka i Politicalv Makedoniya Separatism dvizhenie in the Ideology of the Bulgariannatzionalnoosvoboditelno balgarskoto na National v ideologiyata separatizam ipoliticheski Avtonomizam Zorka. Parvanova, Creation of the Bulgarian Constitutional Clubs, July _____. intional Na Party the Federative [People’s “Narodno Gerogi. Parvanov, 1969, 68 (1) pregled Isricheski Ilinden the before and Regulations Statutes [IMARO vastanie” Pandev, “Ustavi Konstantin. ina pravilnizti VMORO predi Ilindensko 1980, 21 (6) National dvizheni natzionalnoozvoboditelno balgarskoto na iskaniya “Politicheski Konstantin. Pandev, Sofia: 1903, Pandev, the Balkans]. Sofia: Friedrich1992, 168- Fondation, Naumann situatziya v naBalkanite Balgariyai Ide the of Development and [Genesis na Makedoniya” zaavtonomiya ideyata na i “Genezis razvitie Kostadin. Paleshutski, 1994- Institute Scientific Macedonian Bu Thracian and Macedonian the of Movement Liberation Natzionalno- HistoryShort A TheBalkans: Mark. Mazower, Journeyman Press, 1978. _____. Journeyman, Mercia. ForFreedom of the andPerfection: Life Yane MacDermott, 2000. Nauka iNauka izkustvo - [National

“ “Sazdavane Sayuza na balgarskite konstitutzionni klubove (yuli klubove konstitutzionni balgarskite na “Sazdavane Sayuza “ Freedom or Death: The Life of Gotse. of Delchev Life The Freedom or Death: - v 1878- ei Makedoniya Odrinsko, European in Movements national of Transformations Organisational and Programme . Konstantin Birth of the Conflict: the Young Turk Regime and the National Movements National the and Regime Turk Young the Conflict: the of Birth Istoricheski pregled Istoricheski in region] Adrianople and Macedonia in Movement Liberation

osvoboditelnoto trakiyskite dvizheniei balgari namakedonskite 48. 1988. ( 4) 1912):

Sofia: MNI, Liberation Movement in Macedonia and Adrianopleinand 1878 - Region, Macedonia Liberation Movement 2001

Natzionalnoosvoboditelnoto

nia and Adrianople 1878- nia Thrace, and Part One. Legal Political Organisations Political Legal One. Part 52 , ” in in 1910” 1979.

- 68

60- - Aspekti na etnokulturnata in Aspekti naetnokulturnata Macedonia] of Autonomy for a

federativnata partiya vnatzionalnoosvoboditelnoto dvizhenie” - 80. , 70. Institute of History at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Academy of Bulgarian the at of History Institute Balkan Studiesbalkaniques) (Etudes

[Aspects of the Ethno the of [Aspects - Vekove in Movement] Liberation 91 . 1912” [Political Demands of the Bulgarian Bulgarian the of Demands [Political 1912” New Random York: 2000. House,

dvizhenie - September 1908], Vekove 1908], September [100 in1912] [100 VMORO 100godini -

Cultural Situation in Bulgaria and and Bulgaria in Situation Cultural lgarians] in four volumes, Sofia: Sofia: volumes, four in lgarians] v Makedoni

New d an London 184. ” in in ”

- Preobrazhenie Uprising] Preobrazhenie Uprising] Balkan Studies (Etudes StudiesBalkan (Etudes

( 4)

y Sandansky a i Odrinskoa i 1878- 2000, - sept. 1908)” [The1908)” sept. (3) 1989, 20- (3) - henskoto henskoto Peobraz 6 (1982), 6- 6 (1982),

23-

- York: The The York: Liberation Liberation - [National . 43

London: London:

- 1903], 1903], 1912) 1912) 44. 16.

in in

CEU eTD Collection S Turkish “The Eric,Zurcher, Journal Childrenof Young Turks: of the Borderlands?,” International University Ottoman in National Identity 1878 Macedonia - _____. 55- Macedonia,” in Ottoman “ Yosmaoglu, Ipek. Eren Yaincilik, 121- 1995, (eds.) Kemali Saybasili and Yasamee, Monographs, 1989. Steven Sowards, of D. Anthony Smith, volumes in two Macedonia] Silyanov, Boulder: European East Monographs, 2000. ed. Victor Roudometof, andLiterature Nation], Skopje: MANU, 2008. Soznajbiza jazikot, literaturata inatzijata Blazhe. Ristovski, The ed. James Pettifer, 1903. ThePolitics Terror: of Duncan. The Perry, LiberationMacedonian Movements, 1893 Studies (Etudes balkaniques) Turkey0- (191 _____. London, and St Martin St and London, N 77. ations.

Durham andLondon: Duke University 1988. Press,

“ The Priest'se Rebel andth Robe Programme and Organisational Transfo Organisational and Programme tudies F.A , ”

Hristo 2005.

Nations andNationalis . 1912) “Nationality in the Balkans: The Case of Case The Balkans: the in “Nationality - 9 (1

. .

Counting Bodies, Shaping Souls: “ Osvoboditelnite borbi naMakedony Boulder: East European Boulder: East Reform, Macedonian PolicyAustria’s of : Gastronomy or G 2): 275-

Part Two: The Albanian and Albanian The Two: Part ’ s Press, New York, York, New s Press,

International Journal of Middle East Studies, East Middle JournalInternational of New Macedonian 132. The Macedonian Question: Culture, Historiography, Politics Question:The Macedonian Culture, Historiography, , Sofia: Izdanie na Ilindenskata organizacija, 1933 organizacija, na Ilindenskata Sofia: Izdanie ,

( 1) Balkans. ABalkans. Mirror of

2002 m

, 1 (1994): 3- 1 (1994): eology? The R 47 ’ s Rifle: Communal Conflict and the Construction of andthe Construction of Communal Conflict Rifle: s - 59.

1999.

. Macmillan Press, Basing Press, Macmillan . Question rmations of N

23.

N of ole

The Bulgarian Revolutions Bulgarian The the New international Order 1908. The 1903Census and National Identity

the Macedonians” in Gunay Ozdogan in Ozdogan Gunay Macedonians” the

, ationalism in the the in ationalism Ph.D. Dissertation Ph.D. [The Liberatio [The European in Movements ational

[Evid

v. 38, no. 1(2006) no. v. 38, ence of Language, Language, of ence ,1943. n of Struggles R econstruction econstruction ” in in ” :

. s

Princeton toke and toke - Ista

Balkan Balkan nbul: nbul: : .