This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Independent Macedonia (1944) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The image Image:SocialstMacedonia1944-1946.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 03:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm stubbing back this article to the status before the recent large-scale expansion by Jingiby. Jingiby has a habit of copy-and-pasting text around from other sources, sometimes from within Wikipedia and sometimes, I fear, copied/plagiarised/translated from elsewhere. The results are: (1) incoherently jumbled-together articles, (2) massive POV issues, (3) proliferation of content forks through multiple treatment of the same historical material in multiple articles, often with almost identical wording; (4) problematic copyright situation, since the ultimate sources of the material (within Wikipedia or outside) get obscured.
Jingiby, I know you aren't writing all this text yourself; your English wouldn't be up to it. If you want to expand articles, you need to provide a full account of where you are getting each bit of text from. And avoid those redundant "background" etc sections, they are basically all just POV forks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, but you are getting a bit extreme. What means ...you need to provide a full account of where you are getting each bit of text from... All my texts are referenced. Even so I try every way to change the concrete text from the source before pasting its content here. Regards. Jingby ( talk) 10:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: article moved to Independent Macedonia (1944) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 12:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Macedonia (independent state) → Independent Macedonia (proposed state) – or a variant thereof. First, from a search in GBooks, the term "independent state of Macedonia" in English, Bulgarian and Macedonian, seems to refer mostly to the Republic of Macedonia, while the 1944 project is usually termed simply "Independent Macedonia" ("независна Македонија" [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). Second, the current name is not a good solution because a) because "Macedonia (independent state)" can equally mean the Republic of Macedonia or the ancient kingdom, but is misleading for a state that was neither truly independent nor ever existed in a meaningful form, b) it is best to use the official name, especially since the common name "Macedonia" conflicts, just as in the case with the Republic of Macedonia, with Greek and Bulgarian Macedonia. Constantine ✍ 20:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
G'day all, just a reminder that edit-warring in ARBMAC-land can get ugly quickly. Can we get some discussion here about what it is you are arguing the toss about? Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 06:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Please stop vandalizing. The proposed state would have been bilingual, both languages are included in the infobox and the motto and the anthem should be bilingual. Remember that at that time the anthem was rewritten in modern Macedonian in 1943 by the Macedonian poet Koco Racin.-- MacedonianBoy ( talk) 12:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
It seems that much of this article is based on the assumptions of Wikipedia editors. Are there any reliable sources that speak of the flag, motto, anthem, capital, language, currency, etc.? -- WavesSaid ( talk) 03:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
The infobox of this article is currently subject to a lot of mucking about which is not consistent with the template. This is on the back of some infobox-related ARBMAC edit-warring that occurred only a week or so ago. Given the obscurity of the subject, this strikes me as more than a little suspicious. In order to alleviate my concerns, can I ask that involved editors actually look at Template:Infobox_Former_Country before editing the infobox? I will commence restoring it in line with the template forthwith. If you have an issue with my edits, please bring it here. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 00:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
It's highly unlikely that Serbo-Croatian would have been allowed in any way, shape or form. The IMRO faction of "autonomists" of which Mihailov was the leader were extremely hostile towards Serbia (or rather Yugoslavia). A supradialectal Macedonian norm had already become stable by the 1940s (used in the interwar period as well as by the Partisans), but it's certain that these "autonomists" would have attempted to suppress it. We can deduce that Standard Bulgarian would have been imposed, but any speculation with regard to the official language would be just that: speculation. I think the safest course of action would be to omit it entirely, unless someone comes across a source in the meantime. -- WavesSaid ( talk) 08:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The next sentence is nonsence: By 1944 much of the modern-day Republic of Macedonia was occupied by the Germans who were actively supporting Macedonian nationalists. Jingiby ( talk) 06:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The sentence is unclear and incorrect. Firstly, Bulgaria withdrew from Macedonia in the period from September 8 to September 10. Until then, most of the area was under Bulgarian administration. Second, the so-called Macedonian nationalist were actually pro-Bulgarian oriented activists, who supported the Bulgarian authorities and were mostly supporters of the right wing of the IMRO. Later, they all were tried in Yugoslavia as Bulgarophiles and collaborators. Jingiby ( talk) 07:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The sources used for this article aren't too bad, but there are several that are either dubious or need translations in English as they are in Macedonian.
Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 23:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
There is a reference to "Switzerland on the Balkans" in the lead. The grammar and sentence construction doesn't really make any sense, and the phrase is not explained. I propose removing it as I don't see what it adds. Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 23:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
B.V.: The Macedonian poet Kocho Razin (1908-1943) in a speech of his on the glorification of Ilinden in 1940 says that he would like Macedonia to become a Switzerland in the Balkans. You are in favor of the idea as well. Do you think this is an accidental coincidence, or was this the motto of the Macedonian liberation movement? What is your opinion?
I.M.: I am very happy that Kocho Razin liked the political structure of Switzerland. I did not know him personally. But I am pleased that he had also embraced the belief that Macedonia should become something like a Switzerland in the Balkans. As far as I am concerned, I have dreamed about the Swiss political structure long before 1940, and I do not remember – whether in speeches to our people or some time in an article – having spoken about the idea or wished for Macedonia to be structured in the same way. I have not read anything written by a Bulgarian public figure on the same idea. The motto of the Macedonian liberation movement was not based on the copying of the Swiss formula. The motto of the Macedonian liberation movement was a free and independent Macedonia. You ask me what I think “a Switzerland in the Balkans” means. I think I have answered this question in greater detail in my book Macedonia – the Switzerland in the Balkans. I wrote this book right after the end of World War II as a refugee in a village in the Alps. But I will answer the question here in short: I think this means what I think all peoples would desire most. In Switzerland even the smallest ethnic group was recognized legally and within the society – and this ethnic group could not have become more than 50 thousand people. But it is naturally given all rights, and all laws in the country respect it...
By the way the book of Mihailov is originally translated as: Macedonia: a Switzerland of the Balkans. According to the Macedonian Academician Ivan Katardzhiev the policy of Mihailov for establishment of an independent Macedonian state meant a Macedonian state of the Bulgarians in Macedonia, i.e. a second Bulgarian state, but not a national ethnic Macedonian state. Beсник "Вест", Година:1 Број:215 Сабота 3/24/2001 On the other hand, I have found that on 12 February 1933, the Great Macedonian Assembly of IMRO revised and reformulated its program in today Blagoevgrad (then Gorna Dzhumaia). They decided to abandon the minimal aim and to reformulate the maximal one into a ‘‘Free and Independent United Macedonia—the Switzerland of the Balkans.’’ One formula captured its essence: ‘‘To be under no-one. To be ourselves. To govern ourselves.’’ Andrew Rossos Macedonian Nationalism: From Right to Left (1920s and 1930s) p. 160. Jingiby ( talk) 06:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Both ideas are reliable and related to the article. The IMRO, (and Mihailov himself) one, for a second Bulgarian state on the Balkans, using the multiethnic model of the Switzerland, and the last moment Nazi idea for Macedonian puppet-state, backing the German withdrawal from the Balkans. Jingiby ( talk) 07:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
WavesSaid, your last edid resembles vandalism. Please stop deletind sourced info, only because you do not like the facts. Thank you. Jingiby ( talk) 09:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Both statements are true. Bulgaria officially annexed the occupied areas with a resolution of its Parliament. However, Hitler did not allow the Bulgarians entirelly to annex the parts they now controlled. According to the Agreement Cloudius-Popov the Germans imposed limited sovereignty of Bulgaria over the annexed territories. Jingiby ( talk) 10:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Glasnik na Institutot za nacionalna istorija, Том 25, Броеве 2–3 (Skopje, Macedonia), 1981, стр. 15. [6];
България и Беломорието (октомври 1940 - 9 септември 1944 г.), Военнополитически аспекти, Димитър Йончев [7];
I think, this 7 sources may be enough:
By the way this is the Decree with which all inhabitants of the newly liberated lands, who are of Bulgarian origin are given Bulgarian citizenship. The document explicitly refers to these areas (annexed from Greece and Yugoslavia), as they are under the jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Bulgaria. Jingiby ( talk) 15:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
"Bulgaria During the Second World War", Marshall Lee Miller, Stanford University Press is a specialized and reliable as well as "Local Government in Occupied Europe (1939-1945)", Academia Press and "The A to Z of Bulgaria", Scarecrow Press. Bulgarian sources are clear. The situation was complex: firstly it was an occupation with German permission, afterwards an official annexation was proclaimed in the Parliament and then the Germans made some obstructions and limited the Bulgarian sovereignty in the annexed areas with the Cloudius-Popov agreement. Jingiby ( talk)
P.S. Check also here: Bulgarian campaign committes in Macedonia 1941, Dimitre Mičev, Macedonian Scientific Institute 1995, Political situation prior to the Appearance of the Campaign Committees.
Hm. What about:
Look, I don't read German either, but really, so what? I could probably dig up articles that say the territory wasn't annexed. We have more than enough sources already to balance what the sources say about this issue. Alongside the sources you have produced we have at least three reliable scholarly sources that either explicitly say they weren't annexed or don't even mention the word and talk about the Bulgarians just "Bulgarising" the occupied zone. That's not the same as annexing. I will be starting to incorporate what Tomasevich, Pavlowitch and Lemkin say into the article in the next little while. Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 09:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Look, I do not produce sources. We have at least three reliable scholarly secondary sources that explicitly say - those territories were annexed and even the exact date of the event: 14 May 1941. More, we know the place: at a plenary session of the Bulgarian Parliament in Sofia. Jingiby ( talk) 09:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Look, it is a complicated issue. The Bulgarian government officially proclaimed the annexation of the occupied areas, on 14 May 1941, at a plenary session of the Bulgarian Parliament in Sofia. However, the Germans regarded this annexation as inconclusive and imposed limited sovereignty of Bulgaria over the occupied territories, especially on the issue of the the exploitation of the mineral resources. The issue of the borders, also was not definitively resolved. There had been several military clashes between Bulgarians and the Italians in Western Macedonia. Therefore, the question of the borders was left to be resolved finally after the war. Nevertheless, Bulgaria granted Bulgarian citizenship to all Bulgarians fron the newly liberated lands in June 1942. But the non-Bulgarians - Jews, Turks, and others did not get a citizenship. Jingiby ( talk) 10:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
OK. Jingiby ( talk) 11:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, Peacemaker67. I have found a movie on Youtube on the official proclaimation on 14 May 1941, in the Bulgarian Parliament in Sofia. Jingiby ( talk) 11:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
P.S. As per Tomashevich, he on 40 places confirms as the Bulgarian annexation, as well as on 3 places the limitation of its souvereignity through the Clodius - Popov protocol. Jingiby ( talk) 13:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC) .
No problems. The situation with the occupation/annexation was very complicated. Jingiby ( talk) 07:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm specifically referring to this. The IMRO had disbanded a decade earlier. Minahan (1998) does not suggest that independence was declared by former members of the IMRO, but by "nationalist leaders". Explicitly labeling them members of the right-wing faction of the IMRO is—apart from being a misrepresentation of the source—anachronistic and speculative. -- WavesSaid ( talk) 00:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I do not understand you Peacemaker, what do you do. On one, its became clear that Mihailov wanted an independent Macedonia and refused any cooperation with Bulgaria. On the other hand, the article says, that would be an independent Macedonia with predominantly Bulgarian population. At the same time, you insists that he was for joining of Macedonia to Bulgaria. More, you wiped also obvious facts as for example, that Bulgaria maintained diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union during the war, and the name of Ohrana, and then you even have threaten me with ARBCOM?!? Could you provide a single source Mihailov was against independent Macedonia, but for its annexation from Bulgaria? Jingiby ( talk) 12:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Look, Tomachevich is not an expert neither in the Macedonian issue, nor in the IMRO-history. The period when IMRO sought an incorporation of Macedonia into Bulgaria was during the wars 1912-1919 and shortly after, until 1923. Afterwards, no one from its different factions wanted it. As per Mihailov and his opinion please, read "Collective Memory, National Identity, and Ethnic Conflict: Greece, Bulgaria, and the Macedonian Question, Victor Roudometof, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002, ISBN 0275976483, p. 99:
... In the aftermatch of the WWI the conservative (pro-Bulgarian) fraction of the IMRO was reconstructed under the leadership of Todor Alexandrov... This IMRO developed an agenda for an autonomous Macedonia, as it was a way for an unification with Bulgaria... Ivan Mihailov and Alexander Protogerov, who assumed IMRO's leadership in the wake of Todor Alexandrov's death (1924), retracted their support for an independent Macedonia and moved toward that would be their old position of autonomy. By 1928, Mihailov, who had emerged as the key leader of the group proposed a new plan calling for unification of a pre-1913 Macedonia into a single state, that would be autonomous from Bulgaria. By 1931, Mihailov, with Italian support, broke his ties with the Bulgarian government and began to operate as a semi-autonomous agent, wishing to create a Macedonian state that would be under his personal control. Jingiby ( talk) 14:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Excuse me for my linguistic mistakes. This with the Guantanamo inmates was a good idea, regards! Jingiby ( talk) 14:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm struggling to understand the article. Can someone explain what's said on this matter in the cited source, Stefan Troebst's book, which is cited regarding the event of the proclamation of the state. Who exactly proclaimed it, how was it proclaimed? Did they issue a document, what was its content? And what happened on 13 November, when, according to the infobox, the "state", which the introduction says did not become a reality, was "disbanded"? The first two sentences in the "Aftermath" section give the impression that the "state" were in fact some "new-formed "Macedonian committees".
Regarding the mentioned committees: When questioned by Yugoslav authorities in January 1945, Dimitar Gjuzelov (who in this Wikipedia article is presented as part of this state) said ( See p. 393 here): 1) that on the day of the withdrawal of the Bulgarian officials from Skopje, General Pop Dimitrov told Gjuzelov, Chkatrov and Klenkov not to leave Macedonia, but "so that nothing happens in the city, a committee should be formed", to which the Bulgarian authorities will leave the "care of the population". Chkatrov told the general to stay in Macedonia, but he said that he could not sacrifice his career, and the meeting ended with that. 2) that a few days after the withdrawal of the Bulgarian officials from Skopje, Dirigel proposed to create a committee that will take care of the sustenance of Skopje. Then Gjuzelov uncertainly says that an assembly may have been called to form such a committee, but he and Dimitar Chkatrov did not attend. Even if this committee was formed, it seems that it was civil organization formed by people who were part of the city's administration under Bulgarian rule, and whose purpose was to take care of the basic needs of the residents of Skopje in a time of anarchy - but from the presented, it can be concluded that, if it was formed, it was a committee limited to Skopje. Do we know of committees in other cities and places and can we say that they acted as organs of the reportedly proclaimed "Independent State of Macedonia"?
I think the article needs to be revised in this regard. Идеологист ( talk) 09:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
@ Jingiby How is File:Macedonia 1944 en2.png related to this article? There are no cited sources on which this map is based on, ie. I question its historicity. Why should we have it in the article? Can you explain what this map is supposed to depict? Идеологист ( talk) 13:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Disclaimer: The contents of this Homepage contains some Third Reich militaria. We wish to stress that we are collectors and hobby historians, and not neo-nazis. This is not a site for neo-nazis or their views. Nor are we responsible for the content of any websites linked to this Homepage. I am expected by German Law to place this disclaimer on every page in the German language where certain Third Reich symbols can be seen.Based on this disclaimer, this does not appear to be a reliable source. The site was operated by a guy who does not have any academic credentials. So, I support removing the map. In the absence of a reliable source, it should not remain. StephenMacky1 ( talk) 21:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
In the interrogation by the Yugoslav services, Kitinchev, who in the current version of the article is presented as the "Government Chairman" of this "Independent State of Macedonia", stated that when the Bulgarian authorities withdrew from Skopje, he also left Macedonia. "I arrived in Kyustendil on 8 September in the morning. I stayed there until 8 October, on which date I was arrested." In other words, Kitinchev could neither have participated in the alleged proclamation of a Macedonian state on 8 September 1944, nor to have participated in any committees that existed during the retreat of the German military to the north until mid-November. [Source: p. 435] What should we do? I say the article needs serious revision. Идеологист ( talk) 17:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Independent Macedonia (1944) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The image Image:SocialstMacedonia1944-1946.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 03:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm stubbing back this article to the status before the recent large-scale expansion by Jingiby. Jingiby has a habit of copy-and-pasting text around from other sources, sometimes from within Wikipedia and sometimes, I fear, copied/plagiarised/translated from elsewhere. The results are: (1) incoherently jumbled-together articles, (2) massive POV issues, (3) proliferation of content forks through multiple treatment of the same historical material in multiple articles, often with almost identical wording; (4) problematic copyright situation, since the ultimate sources of the material (within Wikipedia or outside) get obscured.
Jingiby, I know you aren't writing all this text yourself; your English wouldn't be up to it. If you want to expand articles, you need to provide a full account of where you are getting each bit of text from. And avoid those redundant "background" etc sections, they are basically all just POV forks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, but you are getting a bit extreme. What means ...you need to provide a full account of where you are getting each bit of text from... All my texts are referenced. Even so I try every way to change the concrete text from the source before pasting its content here. Regards. Jingby ( talk) 10:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: article moved to Independent Macedonia (1944) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 12:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Macedonia (independent state) → Independent Macedonia (proposed state) – or a variant thereof. First, from a search in GBooks, the term "independent state of Macedonia" in English, Bulgarian and Macedonian, seems to refer mostly to the Republic of Macedonia, while the 1944 project is usually termed simply "Independent Macedonia" ("независна Македонија" [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). Second, the current name is not a good solution because a) because "Macedonia (independent state)" can equally mean the Republic of Macedonia or the ancient kingdom, but is misleading for a state that was neither truly independent nor ever existed in a meaningful form, b) it is best to use the official name, especially since the common name "Macedonia" conflicts, just as in the case with the Republic of Macedonia, with Greek and Bulgarian Macedonia. Constantine ✍ 20:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
G'day all, just a reminder that edit-warring in ARBMAC-land can get ugly quickly. Can we get some discussion here about what it is you are arguing the toss about? Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 06:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Please stop vandalizing. The proposed state would have been bilingual, both languages are included in the infobox and the motto and the anthem should be bilingual. Remember that at that time the anthem was rewritten in modern Macedonian in 1943 by the Macedonian poet Koco Racin.-- MacedonianBoy ( talk) 12:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
It seems that much of this article is based on the assumptions of Wikipedia editors. Are there any reliable sources that speak of the flag, motto, anthem, capital, language, currency, etc.? -- WavesSaid ( talk) 03:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
The infobox of this article is currently subject to a lot of mucking about which is not consistent with the template. This is on the back of some infobox-related ARBMAC edit-warring that occurred only a week or so ago. Given the obscurity of the subject, this strikes me as more than a little suspicious. In order to alleviate my concerns, can I ask that involved editors actually look at Template:Infobox_Former_Country before editing the infobox? I will commence restoring it in line with the template forthwith. If you have an issue with my edits, please bring it here. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 00:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
It's highly unlikely that Serbo-Croatian would have been allowed in any way, shape or form. The IMRO faction of "autonomists" of which Mihailov was the leader were extremely hostile towards Serbia (or rather Yugoslavia). A supradialectal Macedonian norm had already become stable by the 1940s (used in the interwar period as well as by the Partisans), but it's certain that these "autonomists" would have attempted to suppress it. We can deduce that Standard Bulgarian would have been imposed, but any speculation with regard to the official language would be just that: speculation. I think the safest course of action would be to omit it entirely, unless someone comes across a source in the meantime. -- WavesSaid ( talk) 08:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The next sentence is nonsence: By 1944 much of the modern-day Republic of Macedonia was occupied by the Germans who were actively supporting Macedonian nationalists. Jingiby ( talk) 06:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The sentence is unclear and incorrect. Firstly, Bulgaria withdrew from Macedonia in the period from September 8 to September 10. Until then, most of the area was under Bulgarian administration. Second, the so-called Macedonian nationalist were actually pro-Bulgarian oriented activists, who supported the Bulgarian authorities and were mostly supporters of the right wing of the IMRO. Later, they all were tried in Yugoslavia as Bulgarophiles and collaborators. Jingiby ( talk) 07:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The sources used for this article aren't too bad, but there are several that are either dubious or need translations in English as they are in Macedonian.
Regards, Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 23:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
There is a reference to "Switzerland on the Balkans" in the lead. The grammar and sentence construction doesn't really make any sense, and the phrase is not explained. I propose removing it as I don't see what it adds. Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 23:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
B.V.: The Macedonian poet Kocho Razin (1908-1943) in a speech of his on the glorification of Ilinden in 1940 says that he would like Macedonia to become a Switzerland in the Balkans. You are in favor of the idea as well. Do you think this is an accidental coincidence, or was this the motto of the Macedonian liberation movement? What is your opinion?
I.M.: I am very happy that Kocho Razin liked the political structure of Switzerland. I did not know him personally. But I am pleased that he had also embraced the belief that Macedonia should become something like a Switzerland in the Balkans. As far as I am concerned, I have dreamed about the Swiss political structure long before 1940, and I do not remember – whether in speeches to our people or some time in an article – having spoken about the idea or wished for Macedonia to be structured in the same way. I have not read anything written by a Bulgarian public figure on the same idea. The motto of the Macedonian liberation movement was not based on the copying of the Swiss formula. The motto of the Macedonian liberation movement was a free and independent Macedonia. You ask me what I think “a Switzerland in the Balkans” means. I think I have answered this question in greater detail in my book Macedonia – the Switzerland in the Balkans. I wrote this book right after the end of World War II as a refugee in a village in the Alps. But I will answer the question here in short: I think this means what I think all peoples would desire most. In Switzerland even the smallest ethnic group was recognized legally and within the society – and this ethnic group could not have become more than 50 thousand people. But it is naturally given all rights, and all laws in the country respect it...
By the way the book of Mihailov is originally translated as: Macedonia: a Switzerland of the Balkans. According to the Macedonian Academician Ivan Katardzhiev the policy of Mihailov for establishment of an independent Macedonian state meant a Macedonian state of the Bulgarians in Macedonia, i.e. a second Bulgarian state, but not a national ethnic Macedonian state. Beсник "Вест", Година:1 Број:215 Сабота 3/24/2001 On the other hand, I have found that on 12 February 1933, the Great Macedonian Assembly of IMRO revised and reformulated its program in today Blagoevgrad (then Gorna Dzhumaia). They decided to abandon the minimal aim and to reformulate the maximal one into a ‘‘Free and Independent United Macedonia—the Switzerland of the Balkans.’’ One formula captured its essence: ‘‘To be under no-one. To be ourselves. To govern ourselves.’’ Andrew Rossos Macedonian Nationalism: From Right to Left (1920s and 1930s) p. 160. Jingiby ( talk) 06:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Both ideas are reliable and related to the article. The IMRO, (and Mihailov himself) one, for a second Bulgarian state on the Balkans, using the multiethnic model of the Switzerland, and the last moment Nazi idea for Macedonian puppet-state, backing the German withdrawal from the Balkans. Jingiby ( talk) 07:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
WavesSaid, your last edid resembles vandalism. Please stop deletind sourced info, only because you do not like the facts. Thank you. Jingiby ( talk) 09:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Both statements are true. Bulgaria officially annexed the occupied areas with a resolution of its Parliament. However, Hitler did not allow the Bulgarians entirelly to annex the parts they now controlled. According to the Agreement Cloudius-Popov the Germans imposed limited sovereignty of Bulgaria over the annexed territories. Jingiby ( talk) 10:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Glasnik na Institutot za nacionalna istorija, Том 25, Броеве 2–3 (Skopje, Macedonia), 1981, стр. 15. [6];
България и Беломорието (октомври 1940 - 9 септември 1944 г.), Военнополитически аспекти, Димитър Йончев [7];
I think, this 7 sources may be enough:
By the way this is the Decree with which all inhabitants of the newly liberated lands, who are of Bulgarian origin are given Bulgarian citizenship. The document explicitly refers to these areas (annexed from Greece and Yugoslavia), as they are under the jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Bulgaria. Jingiby ( talk) 15:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
"Bulgaria During the Second World War", Marshall Lee Miller, Stanford University Press is a specialized and reliable as well as "Local Government in Occupied Europe (1939-1945)", Academia Press and "The A to Z of Bulgaria", Scarecrow Press. Bulgarian sources are clear. The situation was complex: firstly it was an occupation with German permission, afterwards an official annexation was proclaimed in the Parliament and then the Germans made some obstructions and limited the Bulgarian sovereignty in the annexed areas with the Cloudius-Popov agreement. Jingiby ( talk)
P.S. Check also here: Bulgarian campaign committes in Macedonia 1941, Dimitre Mičev, Macedonian Scientific Institute 1995, Political situation prior to the Appearance of the Campaign Committees.
Hm. What about:
Look, I don't read German either, but really, so what? I could probably dig up articles that say the territory wasn't annexed. We have more than enough sources already to balance what the sources say about this issue. Alongside the sources you have produced we have at least three reliable scholarly sources that either explicitly say they weren't annexed or don't even mention the word and talk about the Bulgarians just "Bulgarising" the occupied zone. That's not the same as annexing. I will be starting to incorporate what Tomasevich, Pavlowitch and Lemkin say into the article in the next little while. Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 09:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Look, I do not produce sources. We have at least three reliable scholarly secondary sources that explicitly say - those territories were annexed and even the exact date of the event: 14 May 1941. More, we know the place: at a plenary session of the Bulgarian Parliament in Sofia. Jingiby ( talk) 09:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Look, it is a complicated issue. The Bulgarian government officially proclaimed the annexation of the occupied areas, on 14 May 1941, at a plenary session of the Bulgarian Parliament in Sofia. However, the Germans regarded this annexation as inconclusive and imposed limited sovereignty of Bulgaria over the occupied territories, especially on the issue of the the exploitation of the mineral resources. The issue of the borders, also was not definitively resolved. There had been several military clashes between Bulgarians and the Italians in Western Macedonia. Therefore, the question of the borders was left to be resolved finally after the war. Nevertheless, Bulgaria granted Bulgarian citizenship to all Bulgarians fron the newly liberated lands in June 1942. But the non-Bulgarians - Jews, Turks, and others did not get a citizenship. Jingiby ( talk) 10:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
OK. Jingiby ( talk) 11:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, Peacemaker67. I have found a movie on Youtube on the official proclaimation on 14 May 1941, in the Bulgarian Parliament in Sofia. Jingiby ( talk) 11:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
P.S. As per Tomashevich, he on 40 places confirms as the Bulgarian annexation, as well as on 3 places the limitation of its souvereignity through the Clodius - Popov protocol. Jingiby ( talk) 13:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC) .
No problems. The situation with the occupation/annexation was very complicated. Jingiby ( talk) 07:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm specifically referring to this. The IMRO had disbanded a decade earlier. Minahan (1998) does not suggest that independence was declared by former members of the IMRO, but by "nationalist leaders". Explicitly labeling them members of the right-wing faction of the IMRO is—apart from being a misrepresentation of the source—anachronistic and speculative. -- WavesSaid ( talk) 00:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I do not understand you Peacemaker, what do you do. On one, its became clear that Mihailov wanted an independent Macedonia and refused any cooperation with Bulgaria. On the other hand, the article says, that would be an independent Macedonia with predominantly Bulgarian population. At the same time, you insists that he was for joining of Macedonia to Bulgaria. More, you wiped also obvious facts as for example, that Bulgaria maintained diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union during the war, and the name of Ohrana, and then you even have threaten me with ARBCOM?!? Could you provide a single source Mihailov was against independent Macedonia, but for its annexation from Bulgaria? Jingiby ( talk) 12:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Look, Tomachevich is not an expert neither in the Macedonian issue, nor in the IMRO-history. The period when IMRO sought an incorporation of Macedonia into Bulgaria was during the wars 1912-1919 and shortly after, until 1923. Afterwards, no one from its different factions wanted it. As per Mihailov and his opinion please, read "Collective Memory, National Identity, and Ethnic Conflict: Greece, Bulgaria, and the Macedonian Question, Victor Roudometof, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002, ISBN 0275976483, p. 99:
... In the aftermatch of the WWI the conservative (pro-Bulgarian) fraction of the IMRO was reconstructed under the leadership of Todor Alexandrov... This IMRO developed an agenda for an autonomous Macedonia, as it was a way for an unification with Bulgaria... Ivan Mihailov and Alexander Protogerov, who assumed IMRO's leadership in the wake of Todor Alexandrov's death (1924), retracted their support for an independent Macedonia and moved toward that would be their old position of autonomy. By 1928, Mihailov, who had emerged as the key leader of the group proposed a new plan calling for unification of a pre-1913 Macedonia into a single state, that would be autonomous from Bulgaria. By 1931, Mihailov, with Italian support, broke his ties with the Bulgarian government and began to operate as a semi-autonomous agent, wishing to create a Macedonian state that would be under his personal control. Jingiby ( talk) 14:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Excuse me for my linguistic mistakes. This with the Guantanamo inmates was a good idea, regards! Jingiby ( talk) 14:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm struggling to understand the article. Can someone explain what's said on this matter in the cited source, Stefan Troebst's book, which is cited regarding the event of the proclamation of the state. Who exactly proclaimed it, how was it proclaimed? Did they issue a document, what was its content? And what happened on 13 November, when, according to the infobox, the "state", which the introduction says did not become a reality, was "disbanded"? The first two sentences in the "Aftermath" section give the impression that the "state" were in fact some "new-formed "Macedonian committees".
Regarding the mentioned committees: When questioned by Yugoslav authorities in January 1945, Dimitar Gjuzelov (who in this Wikipedia article is presented as part of this state) said ( See p. 393 here): 1) that on the day of the withdrawal of the Bulgarian officials from Skopje, General Pop Dimitrov told Gjuzelov, Chkatrov and Klenkov not to leave Macedonia, but "so that nothing happens in the city, a committee should be formed", to which the Bulgarian authorities will leave the "care of the population". Chkatrov told the general to stay in Macedonia, but he said that he could not sacrifice his career, and the meeting ended with that. 2) that a few days after the withdrawal of the Bulgarian officials from Skopje, Dirigel proposed to create a committee that will take care of the sustenance of Skopje. Then Gjuzelov uncertainly says that an assembly may have been called to form such a committee, but he and Dimitar Chkatrov did not attend. Even if this committee was formed, it seems that it was civil organization formed by people who were part of the city's administration under Bulgarian rule, and whose purpose was to take care of the basic needs of the residents of Skopje in a time of anarchy - but from the presented, it can be concluded that, if it was formed, it was a committee limited to Skopje. Do we know of committees in other cities and places and can we say that they acted as organs of the reportedly proclaimed "Independent State of Macedonia"?
I think the article needs to be revised in this regard. Идеологист ( talk) 09:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
@ Jingiby How is File:Macedonia 1944 en2.png related to this article? There are no cited sources on which this map is based on, ie. I question its historicity. Why should we have it in the article? Can you explain what this map is supposed to depict? Идеологист ( talk) 13:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Disclaimer: The contents of this Homepage contains some Third Reich militaria. We wish to stress that we are collectors and hobby historians, and not neo-nazis. This is not a site for neo-nazis or their views. Nor are we responsible for the content of any websites linked to this Homepage. I am expected by German Law to place this disclaimer on every page in the German language where certain Third Reich symbols can be seen.Based on this disclaimer, this does not appear to be a reliable source. The site was operated by a guy who does not have any academic credentials. So, I support removing the map. In the absence of a reliable source, it should not remain. StephenMacky1 ( talk) 21:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
In the interrogation by the Yugoslav services, Kitinchev, who in the current version of the article is presented as the "Government Chairman" of this "Independent State of Macedonia", stated that when the Bulgarian authorities withdrew from Skopje, he also left Macedonia. "I arrived in Kyustendil on 8 September in the morning. I stayed there until 8 October, on which date I was arrested." In other words, Kitinchev could neither have participated in the alleged proclamation of a Macedonian state on 8 September 1944, nor to have participated in any committees that existed during the retreat of the German military to the north until mid-November. [Source: p. 435] What should we do? I say the article needs serious revision. Идеологист ( talk) 17:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)