DOCSLIB.ORG

Wikipedia's History of Bulgaria

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wikipedia's History of Bulgaria Wikipedia's History of Bulgaria • First Bulgarian Empire in 681 dominated most of the Balkans in the 9th-10th centuries and functioned as a Slavic cultural hub. • After a period of Byzantine rule (1018- 1185), the Second Bulgarian Empire emerged and lasted until 1396 • This was followed by 500 years of Ottoman Rule aka “Turkish yoke” Read: Under the Yoke by Ivan Vazov • A national rebellion (April Uprising) fails in 1876 , but Russians succeed in Russo-Turkish War freeing Bulgaria 1877-78 Russo-Turkish War) • The Treaty of San Stefano was signed on March 3, 1878, setting up an de jure autonomous Bulgarian principality on the territories of the Second Bulgarian Empire (see previous slide). • The Great Powers immediately rejected the treaty out of fear that such a large country in the Balkans might threaten their interests. The subsequent Treaty of Berlin (July 13, • 1878) split Bulgaria in two. Map of Treaty of Berlin: • This played a significant role in Bulgaria is split in two – forming Bulgaria's militaristic Bulgaria and Eastern approach to foreign affairs during the first half of the 20th century. Roumelia • Treaty of San Stefano March 3, 1878 (black out-line) • Treaty of San Stefano March 3, 1878 • Congress of Berlin (July 13, 1878) split Bulgaria in two Eastern Rumelia • After a bloodless revolution on 6 September 1885, Eastern Rumelia was annexed by the Principality of Bulgaria, which was de jure a tributary state but de facto functioned as independent nation. • After the Bulgarian victory in the subsequent Serbo- Bulgarian War, the status quo was recognized by the Tophane Agreement on 24 March 1886. • The province was nominally under Ottoman power until Bulgaria became de jure independent in 1908. 6 September, Unification Day, is a national holiday in Bulgaria Bulgarian unification and Serbo-Bulgarian War (1885). Serbo-Bulgarian War, Two Balkan Wars, and World War I • Serbo-Bulgarian War: between Serbia and Bulgaria in14 November 1885 lasted until the 28th. As a result of the war, European powers acknowledged the act of Unification of Bulgaria which happened on 6 September 1885. A final peace treaty was signed on 19 February 1886 in Bucharest, as Bulgaria incorporated the semi-autonomous Ottoman territory of Eastern Rumelia- but not fully until 1908. • Bulgaria proclaimed itself an independent state on 22 September 1908. • Between 1912 and 1918, Bulgaria became involved in three consecutive conflicts—two Balkan Wars (1912 and 1913) and World War I (1914–1918) • Read “THE BALKAN WARS: 1912-1913” BY JACOB GOULD SCHURMAN 1st Balkan War: 1912 • Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro and Serbia ally to become the Balkan League. • Large parts of their ethnic populations remained under Ottoman sovereignty. • The Balkan League succeeds in, terminating the Ottoman Empire’s five-century rule in the Balkans in a seven month campaign, resulting in the Treaty of London. Treaty of London (1913) • The combatants were the victorious Balkan League (Serbia, Greece, Kingdom of Bulgaria, and Montenegro) and the defeated Ottoman Empire. • Representing the Great Powers were Britain, Germany, Russia, Austria- Hungary, and Italy. • However, the division of the territories ceded to the Balkan League was not addressed in the Treaty, and Serbia refused to carry out the division agreed with Bulgaria in their treaty of March 1912. • As a result of Bulgarian dissatisfaction with the de facto military division of Macedonia, the Second Balkan War broke out between the combatants in June 1913. A final peace was agreed at the Treaty of Bucharest on 12 August 1913. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1913) • The territorial gains of the Balkan states after the First Balkan War and the line of expansion according to the prewar secret agreement between Serbia and Bulgaria Second Balkan War • The Second Balkan War broke out on 16 June 1913 when Bulgaria, dissatisfied over the division of the spoils in Macedonia after the First Balkan War, attacked its former allies, Serbia and Greece. Initial Bulgarian plan of operations • Bulgaria lost most of the territories gained in the First Balkan War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Balkan_War *Treaties of Bucharest Treaty of Bucharest may refer to the following treaties signed in Bucharest: Treaty of Bucharest (1812), between the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire ending the 1806–1812 Russo-Turkish war Treaty of Bucharest (1886), between Serbia and Bulgaria ending the Serbo-Bulgarian War Treaty of Bucharest (1913), between Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Montenegro and Greece ending of the Second Balkan War Treaty of Bucharest (1916), a treaty of alliance between Romania and the Entente powers (France, Britain, Italy, and Russia) Treaty of Bucharest (1918), between Romania and the Central Powers Map showing the final (Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Germany and the Ottoman Empire), subsequently nullified due to the defeat of the Central Powers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Bucharest territorial gains of the Balkan countries after the Balkan Wars Treaty of Bucharest (1913) • Bulgaria, dissatisfied with its gains in the First Balkan War, and especially with Greek and Serbian gains in Macedonia, launched an attack on its former allies in June 1913. • The attacks were driven back, and the Greek and Serbian armies invaded Bulgarian-held territory in return. • At the same time, the Ottomans advanced into Eastern Thrace and retook Adrianople, while Romania used the opportunity to invade Bulgaria from the north and advance against little opposition to within a short distance of the Bulgarian capital, Sofia. • Isolated and surrounded by a more powerful coalition of opponents, Bulgaria was forced to agree to a truce and to peace negotiations to be held in the Romanian capital, Bucharest. • Wikipedia: Treaty of Bucharest 1913 • In the aftermath of the Balkan wars Bulgaria found itself isolated on the international Bulgaria in World War I scene, surrounded by hostile neighbors and deprived of the support of the Great Powers. Anti-Bulgarian sentiments were especially strong in France and Russia, whose political circles blamed the country for the dissolution of the Balkan League. • In the aftermath of the Balkan Wars Bulgarian opinion turned against Russia and the Western powers, whom the Bulgarians felt had done nothing to help them. The government of Vasil Radoslavov aligned Bulgaria with the German Empire and Austria-Hungary, even though this meant becoming an ally of the Ottomans, Bulgaria's traditional enemy. But Bulgaria now had no claims against the Ottomans, whereas Serbia, The Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine required Bulgaria to cede various Greece and Romania (allies of Britain and territories, after Bulgaria had been one of the Central Powers France) held lands perceived in Bulgaria as defeated in World War I. The treaty was signed on 27 November 1919 at Neuilly-sur-Seine, France. Bulgarian. In Literature an Film: The story ¨Kradetzat na praskovi¨ (English: “The Peach Thief ") depicts the love story between a Bulgarian colonel's wife and a Serbian prisoner of war. Written by Emilian Stanev in 1948, and turned into a film in 1964 http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsWa30Z-M38 Bulgaria sat out the first year of World War I recuperating from the Balkan Wars.[67] Germany and Austria realized they needed Bulgaria's help in order to Bulgaria's Entry into WWI defeat Serbia militarily, and thereby open supply lines from Germany to Turkey, and bolster the Eastern Front against Russia. The Kingdom of Bulgaria participated in World War I on the side of the Central Powers from 15 October 1915, when the country declared war on Serbia. However, the war soon became unpopular with most Bulgarians, who suffered great economic hardship and also disliked fighting their fellow Orthodox Christians in alliance with the Muslim Ottomans. The Russian Revolution of February 1917 had a great effect in Bulgaria, spreading anti-war and anti-monarchist sentiment among the troops and in the cities. The Armistice with Bulgaria (also known as the Armistice of Thessalonica) 30 September 1918, effectively ended Bulgaria’s participation in WWI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria_during_World_War_I Interwar Period • Aleksandar Stamboliyski opposed involvement in WWI and was a member of the Agrarian Union which won Just when political stability had been restored, the full effects national elections in March 20, 1920 and confirmed of the Great Depression hit Bulgaria, and social tensions rose Stamboliyski as prime minister. again. • Faced with this array of enemies, allied himself with the In May 1934 there was another coup, the Agrarians were again Bulgarian Communist Party and opened relations with the suppressed, and an authoritarian regime headed by Kimon Soviet Union. Georgiev established with the backing of Tsar Boris. • In March 1923, Stamboliyski signed an agreement with In April 1935 Boris took power himself, ruling through puppet Yugoslavia recognizing the new border and agreeing to Prime Ministers Georgi Kyoseivanov (1935-40) and Bogdan suppress Macedonian succession from the Ottomans. Filov (1940-43). This triggered a nationalist reaction, and on 9 June there was a coup after which Stamboliykski was The Tsar's regime banned all opposition parties and took assassinated (beheaded). Bulgaria into alliance with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. • A right wing government under Aleksandar Tsankov took Although the signing of the Balkan Pact of 1938 restored good power, backed by the Tsar, the army and the VMRO, who relations with Yugoslavia and Greece, the territorial issue waged a White terror against the Agrarians and the continued to simmer. Communists. The Communist leader Georgi Dimitrov fled to the Soviet Union. Wikipedia: Interwar Period World War II and Communism • Bulgaria drifted into World War II, faced by an Invasion and bribed by the return of southern Dobruja from Romania, on the orders of Hitler (see Vienna Award), in September 1940. • In March 1941 Bulgaria formally signed the Tripartite Pact, becoming a German ally, and German troops entered the country in preparation for the German invasion of Greece and Yugoslavia.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Romanian Foreign Policy (1878-1914)
    World Wide Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development WWJMRD 2017; 3(11): 69-74 www.wwjmrd.com International Journal Peer Reviewed Journal Romanian foreign policy (1878-1914) Refereed Journal Indexed Journal UGC Approved Journal Dragos Ionut ONESCU Impact Factor MJIF: 4.25 e-ISSN: 2454-6615 Abstract Prior to independence, Romania has conducted foreign policy actions aimed at achieving this Dragos Ionut ONESCU objective (see trade convention with Austria-Hungary in 1875) and after 1878 was sought to ensure Strasbourg University/Babes- Bolyai University Cluj- security through political alliances with neighboring countries and powers. One of the main foreign Napoca, Romania policy issues, with important consequences and the territorial integrity of the Romanian Principalities and then was the status of the Danube. In the present paper I analyzed the Romanian foreign policy between 1878 and 1914. Keywords: Romanian Foreign Policy, International Relations, Security, Foreign Policy Introduction The first time the issue is considered Danube is the Treaty of Bucharest between Russia and Turkey, signed on May 28, 1812, which ended the Russo-Turkish war took place between 1806 and 1812. The Clashes of interest between the major European powers were put on the agenda the need to solve the problem of freedom of navigation on international rivers and its consecration in an international act. Used the occasion to ensuring this was the Peace Congress in Vienna, met after the first abdication of Napoleon. The Final Act 1815 states in Articles 108-118, fundamental principles of river. Under Article 109, navigation on international rivers was free for all states without distinction between riparian and non-riparian states; is accurate but that freedom of navigation applies only to commercial navigation, not for the war.
    [Show full text]
  • The Diary of Bogdan Filov Bogdan Dimitrov Filov
    DOCUMENTS FREDERICK B. CHARY, translator and editor (Gary, Ind., U.S.A.) The Diary of Bogdan Filov Bogdan Dimitrov Filov (1883-1945) was prime minister of Bulgaria from 1940 to 1943 and a member of the regency couiicil from September, 1943 to September 9, 1944. One of the most important political leaders of the Kingdom of Bulgaria during the critical years of World War II, he wrote a diary of day-to-day events of that time which has great value for the historian. In it are revealed both the stresses of Balkan politics and the views of Axis leaders and their allies on the war. Before entering upon his political career, Filov was an art historian and an archaeologist. He was at one time a rector of Sofia University and president of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. His scholarly works were so numerous and impressive that even today they form a major contribution to the study of Bulgarian antiquities and medieval art. Filov first entered the Bulgarian government in November, 1938, as minister of education. Although he was a Germanophile (he had attended German universities and belonged to several German scholarly societies), his minor post and academic background kept him from the center of political controversy in 1939. At that time a power struggle between Georgi K'oseivanov, the prime minister, and Ivan Bagrianov, the minister of agriculture in the 1938-1939 cabinet, occupied Bulgarian politics. King Boris III had hand-picked K'oseivanov for the premiership in 1935, after the struggles following the Military League's coup d'etat of the previous year had brought the state under the domination of the throne.
    [Show full text]
  • THE UNIFIER KING and the RESCUE of the JEWS from UNIFIED Bulgariapage 1 of 200
    THE UNIFIER KING AND THE RESCUE OF THE JEWS FROM UNIFIED BULGARIAPage 1 of 200 THE UNIFIER KING AND THE RESCUE OF THE JEWS FROM UNIFIED BULGARIA (ON THE ROLE OF KING BORIS III OF THE BULGARIANS DURING THE YEARS OF THE HOLOCAUST) Contents: БЪЛГАРС Two statements contradicting a third one (Foreign The "it was all Hitler's fault" argument BULGARI Minister and Prime Minister vs. President) The "it wasn't our jurisdiction" argument The issue and the response of official Bulgaria The impediments to a solution STARTING Why is it to the best Bulgarian public interest to What could the Prime Minister do today? POINT FOR name the culprits? Bulgarian Civil Society as a savior THOSE WIT Is there a place for Boris among the saviors? A magic formula: "Nothing could be done in NO PREVIOU The credit that goes to Boris Bulgaria without the King's involvement" KNOWLEDG The Government's responsibility The role of Bulgaria's diplomacy today ON THE The arguments in favor of Boris Who was saving the Jews from whom? SUBJECT The "they were not Bulgarian citizens" argument What is of greater importance - the label or the policy? ↓ The real saviors ☼ Two statements "The King must have obviously shown great ingenuity in negotiating with the contradicting a third Nazi leaders to substitute the internal administrative and police measures one (Foreign Minister for the deportation. A policy act of the magnitude of the revocation of the and Prime Minister vs. deportation, which had already begun, couldn’t be done without the support of the head of state." [...] "At the same time my compatriots deployed lots of President) efforts, alas, unsuccessful, to save 11000 Jews – who were not Bulgarian citizens – from Aegean Thrace and Macedonia, where, notwithstanding the Bulgarian military presence, the highest authority were the Nazis." Excerpts from the statement of Foreign minister Solomon Passy at the OSCE conference on anti- Semitism in Vienna, 19 June 2003 "We mourn, of course, the fate of those who could not be saved.
    [Show full text]
  • Will Bulgaria Become Monarchy Again?
    Southeast European Politics Vol. IV, No. 2-3 November 2003 pp. 157-174 Will Bulgaria Become Monarchy Again? ROSSEN VASSILEV The Ohio State University ABSTRACT This article deals with the much debated question of whether post-Communist Bulgaria should restore the monarchy abolished by the 1946 referendum. The prospects for bringing back the monarchy are believed to be negligible, given the existing constitutional hurdles and the population’s pro-republican sentiments. But ex-King Simeon’s triumph in the June 2001 parliamentary election has dramatically changed his standing at home. Any restoration of the monarchy will depend on the perceived success of his coalition government, especially in rebuilding the ailing national economy. It is questionable whether Simeon II will be able to live up to the overoptimistic expectations of Bulgarians who believe that like a Messiah he will save their country from the economic, social, political and institutional turmoil into which it has descended. But with a population distrustful of the politically bankrupt old parties and politicians and despondent enough to grasp at straws, a revival of the monarchy cannot be ruled out. Introduction Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan consider the issue of constitutions and constitutional formulas to be a significant, if neglected, aspect of democratic transitions (Linz and Stepan 1996: 81-83). They offer a classification of six different possible constitution-making environments, ranging from those that present the most confining conditions for democratization to those
    [Show full text]
  • 70353,16-Utks-Ozetlerpdf.Pdf
    16th INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF TURKISH ART: ABSTRACTS 16. ULUSLARARASI TÜRK SANATLARI KONGRESİ: ÖZETLER MINISTRGENERALY OF DIRECTORATECULTURE HACETTEPE KÜLTÜR VE GÜZELTURİZM SANATLAR BAKANLIĞI HACETTEPE AND OFTOURISM FINE ARTS UNIVERSITY GÜZEL SANAGENELTLAR GENEL MÜDÜRLÜĞÜ MÜDÜRLÜĞÜ ÜNİVERSİTESİ GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF FINE ARTS T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları, No: 3642 Editor / Editör Serpil Bağcı Translation and proof reading / Çeviri ve Düzelti Serpil Bağcı Lâle Uluç Graphic design and application / Graf ik tasarım ve uygulama Yasin Büyüktaşkapulu Printing / Baskı Önka Matbaa www.onkamatbaa.com +90 312 3842685 © Scientif ic responsibility of the abstracts belongs to the authors © Özetlerin bilimsel sorumluluğu yazarlarına aittir. ISBN 978-975-17-4291-9 Print run / Baskı adedi 300 Ankara, September / Eylül 2019 The Local Organization Committee is grateful to the following for their collaboration and contribution to the16th International Congress of Turkish Arts: Members of the International and National Committees of the International Congress of Turkish Arts; the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Directorate General of Fine Arts, Directorate General for Copyright; Hacettepe University, Faculty and Students of the Art History Department, Max van Berchem Foundation; Anatolian Civilizations, Cermodern, Erimtan Archeology and Art, and Rahmi Koç Museums, Vehbi Koç Ankara Studies Research Center; Mehmet Nuri Ersoy, Turkish Minister of Culture and Tourism, Deputy Minister Özgül Özkan Yavuz; Prof. Dr. Haluk Özen, Rector of the Hacettepe University, Deputy Rector Prof. Dr. Rahime Nohutçu, Dean of the Faculty of Letters Prof. Dr. Sibel Bozbeyoğlu; Member of the Presidential Council of Culture and Art Policies Havva Hümeyra Şahin; Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism, General Director of Fine Arts Assoc.
    [Show full text]
  • There Has Been No Bulgarian Tradition of Any Long-Standing Resistance to the Communist Regime
    There has been no Bulgarian tradition of any long-standing resistance to the communist regime. There was neither any political opposition, nor any other kind of an influential dissident movement. Bulgaria never went through the purgatory of the Hungarian uprising of 1956, or the “Prague spring” of 1968. It is indeed difficult to find any counter arguments whatsoever against the cliché that Bul- garia was the closest satellite of the Soviet Union. The fundamental contradictions within the Union of Democratic Forces (SDS) coalition were present from the very first day of its inception. There were Marxists who were longing for “socialism with a human face”, intellectuals with liberal ideas, social democrats and Christian democrats, conservatives and radical demo- crats, monarchists and republicans. The members of the center-right coalition did not delude themselves about their differences; they rather shared the clear un- derstanding that only a painful compromise could stand some chances against the Goliath of the totalitarian Bulgarian Communist Party (BKP). It was this unani- mous opposition to the communist regime and its legacy that made the coalition possible. But only for a limited period of time. The United Democratic Forces (ODS) government under Prime Minister Ivan Kostov (1997-2001) completed the reformist agenda of anti-communism. At the end of the ODS term of office, Bulgaria was a country with a functioning market economy, stable democracy, and a clearly outlined foreign policy course towards the country’s accession to the European Union and NATO, which was accepted by all significant political formations, the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP) included.
    [Show full text]
  • Ust Dergi Sayi 17 Layout 1
    THE MAKING OF THE RHODOPEAN BORDERS AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE POMAK IDENTITIES IN THE BALKANS Cengiz HAKSÖZ Ph.D. Candidate Department of Anthropology University of Pittsburgh Ph.D. Candidate Department of Sociology Middle East Technical University Abstract: Nation-state borders are a phenomenon became part of the international relations as well as the everyday lives of people. Even though borders, in theory, are constructed entities state borders directly or indirectly influence identity formation of communities. The Pomaks are Slavic-speaking Muslim population living historically in the 47 Rhodope Mountains region on the Bulgarian-Greek border. In Bulgarian, Greek, and Turkish nation-building processes, Pomak identity was continuously contested by all the three states. For the Bulgarian state, the Pomaks are ethnic Bulgarians who forcefully converted to Islam. Thus, if this process can be reversed, they can become “real” Bulgarians, again. For the Greek state, the Pomaks are descendants of Hellenic tribes who were assimilated by more populous Slavic-speaking populations in the region. In Turkey, the Pomaks are regarded as descendants of pre-Ottoman Turkic tribes, such as Kumans and Pechenegs, who later assimilated by Slavic-speaking populations. This paper discusses how the modern Rhodopean borders were created and how their creation influenced and shaped the construction of Pomak identity in Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey. The first part focuses on the making of the modern Rhodope Mountains borders between Bulgaria and Greece. The second part evaluates the identity construction processes of Pomaks in Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey. Finally, the paper discusses how the making of state borders, directly and indirectly, influenced the construction of Pomak identity boundaries in Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shaping of Bulgarian and Serbian National Identities, 1800S-1900S
    The Shaping of Bulgarian and Serbian National Identities, 1800s-1900s February 2003 Katrin Bozeva-Abazi Department of History McGill University, Montreal A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 1 Contents 1. Abstract/Resume 3 2. Note on Transliteration and Spelling of Names 6 3. Acknowledgments 7 4. Introduction 8 How "popular" nationalism was created 5. Chapter One 33 Peasants and intellectuals, 1830-1914 6. Chapter Two 78 The invention of the modern Balkan state: Serbia and Bulgaria, 1830-1914 7. Chapter Three 126 The Church and national indoctrination 8. Chapter Four 171 The national army 8. Chapter Five 219 Education and national indoctrination 9. Conclusions 264 10. Bibliography 273 Abstract The nation-state is now the dominant form of sovereign statehood, however, a century and a half ago the political map of Europe comprised only a handful of sovereign states, very few of them nations in the modern sense. Balkan historiography often tends to minimize the complexity of nation-building, either by referring to the national community as to a monolithic and homogenous unit, or simply by neglecting different social groups whose consciousness varied depending on region, gender and generation. Further, Bulgarian and Serbian historiography pay far more attention to the problem of "how" and "why" certain events have happened than to the emergence of national consciousness of the Balkan peoples as a complex and durable process of mental evolution. This dissertation on the concept of nationality in which most Bulgarians and Serbs were educated and socialized examines how the modern idea of nationhood was disseminated among the ordinary people and it presents the complicated process of national indoctrination carried out by various state institutions.
    [Show full text]
  • During the Second World War
    DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR _______________StK______________ SK MARSHALL LEE MILLER Stanford University Press STANFORD, CALIFORNIA I 975 Stanford University Press Stanford, California © 1975 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Printed in the United States of America is b n 0-8047-0870-3 LC 74-82778 To my grandparents Lee and Edith Rankin and Evelyn Miller Preface SOS h e p o l it ic a l history of modern Bulgaria has been greatly ne­ T glected by Western scholars, and the important period of the Second World War has hardly been studied at all. The main reason for this has no doubt been the difficulty of obtaining documentary material on the wartime period. Although the Communist regime of Bulgaria has published a large number of books and monographs dealing with the country’s role in the war, these works have been concerned mostly with magnifying the importance of the Bulgarian Communist Party (BKP) and the partisan struggle. Despite this bias, useful information can be found in these works when other sources are available to provide perspective and verification. Within recent years, German, American, British, and other diplo­ matic and intelligence reports from the wartime years have become available, and the easing of travel restrictions in Bulgaria has facili­ tated research there. As recently as 1958, when the doctoral thesis of Marin V. Pundeff was presented (“Bulgaria’s Place in Axis Policy, 1936-1944”), there was very little material on the period after June 1941. It is now possible to fill in many of the important gaps in our knowledge of Bulgaria during the entire war.
    [Show full text]
  • Blood Ties: Religion, Violence, and the Politics of Nationhood in Ottoman Macedonia, 1878
    BLOOD TIES BLOOD TIES Religion, Violence, and the Politics of Nationhood in Ottoman Macedonia, 1878–1908 I˙pek Yosmaog˘lu Cornell University Press Ithaca & London Copyright © 2014 by Cornell University All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or parts thereof, must not be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher. For information, address Cornell University Press, Sage House, 512 East State Street, Ithaca, New York 14850. First published 2014 by Cornell University Press First printing, Cornell Paperbacks, 2014 Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Yosmaog˘lu, I˙pek, author. Blood ties : religion, violence,. and the politics of nationhood in Ottoman Macedonia, 1878–1908 / Ipek K. Yosmaog˘lu. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8014-5226-0 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN 978-0-8014-7924-3 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Macedonia—History—1878–1912. 2. Nationalism—Macedonia—History. 3. Macedonian question. 4. Macedonia—Ethnic relations. 5. Ethnic conflict— Macedonia—History. 6. Political violence—Macedonia—History. I. Title. DR2215.Y67 2013 949.76′01—dc23 2013021661 Cornell University Press strives to use environmentally responsible suppliers and materials to the fullest extent possible in the publishing of its books. Such materials include vegetable-based, low-VOC inks and acid-free papers that are recycled, totally chlorine-free, or partly composed of nonwood fibers. For further information, visit our website at www.cornellpress.cornell.edu. Cloth printing 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Paperback printing 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 To Josh Contents Acknowledgments ix Note on Transliteration xiii Introduction 1 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Waldemar PARUCH1
    Humanities and Social Sciences 2014 HSS, vol. XIX, 21 (3/2014), pp. 185-196 July-September Waldemar PARUCH1 AUTHORITARIANISM IN EUROPE INE THE TWENTIETH CENTURY: A POLITICAL-SCIENCE ANALYSIS OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POLITICAL SYSTEM (PART 2) The article is a political-science analysis of authoritarianism as a political system, which was an alternative to democracy and totalitarianism in Europe in the twentieth century. Three of seven elements of the authoritarian syndrome were analyzed in second part of this article: consolidation of State power; the traditionalist axiological order and its sources; the authoritarian camp. The results of the author’s studies presented in the particle show that the collapse of the authoritarian system in Europe in the twentieth century did not stem from the achievement of the declared goals but for two other reasons. First, the defeats suffered during the World War Two caused the breakdown of the authoritarian states in Central Europe, in which the authoritarian order had been established. Regardless of the circumstances, the authoritarian leaders were unable to prevent the loss of independence and of the status of political actor by the states and nations in this part of Europe. Second, in Western Europe (Spain, Portugal, and Greece) there was an internal crisis of the authoritarian political system triggered by the dispute within the ruling camp over the direction of politics and new strategic goals, especially in the face of rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union under conditions of confrontation between the democratic order and totalitarianism. This was accompanied by the loss of legitimacy by the authoritarian camp, which was tantamount to the delegitimation of the political system.
    [Show full text]
  • Small State Autonomy in Hierarchical Regimes. the Case of Bulgaria in the German and Soviet Spheres of Influence 1933 – 1956
    Small State Autonomy in Hierarchical Regimes. The Case of Bulgaria in the German and Soviet Spheres of Influence 1933 – 1956 By Vera Asenova Submitted to Central European University Doctoral School of Political Science, Public Policy and International Relations In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Supervisor: Prof. Julius Horváth Budapest, Hungary November 2013 Statement I hereby state that the thesis contains no materials accepted for any other degrees in any other institutions. The thesis contains no materials previously written and/or published by another person, except where appropriate acknowledgement is made in the form of bibliographical reference. Vera Asenova ………………... ii Abstract This thesis studies international cooperation between a small and a big state in the framework of administered international trade regimes. It discusses the short-term economic goals and long-term institutional effects of international rules on domestic politics of small states. A central concept is the concept of authority in hierarchical relations as defined by Lake, 2009. Authority is granted by the small state in the course of interaction with the hegemonic state, but authority is also utilized by the latter in order to attract small partners and to create positive expectations from cooperation. The main research question is how do small states trade their own authority for economic gains in relations with foreign governments and with local actors. This question is about the relationship between international and domestic hierarchies and the structural continuities that result from international cooperation. The contested relationship between foreign authority and domestic institutions is examined through the experience of Bulgaria under two different international trade regimes – the German economic sphere in the 1930’s and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) in the early 1950’s.
    [Show full text]