Reflections caused by: “Macedonia- the latest Comintern project” (a documentary of the Bulgarian National Television)

(The reflections are not on the film itself, for I have not seen it, but on the title, which is intriguing, because it refers to a problem of our near past- the twenties-forties of the previous century).

Officially, it is considered that with the creation of the Third Communist International, (on Lenin’s initiative), in March, 1919, parties of non-existing nations were authorized as members. It was thought that would enhance its prestige. Thus the Macedonian nation was artificially created. It is widely accepted that the initiative belonged to the Bulgarian communists, then still Social Democrats, else referred to as narrow socialists. However, there is no clear-cut evidence about that. Subsequently, in the process of decommunization (during the 90s of the twentieth century), this fact was used as proof of betrayal of the national interests.

In my opinion such conceptions represent not exactly a talented attempt of interpretation while implementing the transition from one type of ideological formulation to another. In general, they do not facilitate the discovery of historical truth. The reason is the fact that ideology does not always keep pace with historical reality. On the other hand, such a superficial interpretation is an indicator of poor orientation in the nature of the on-going processes and phenomena.

The idea of creating a Macedonian nation in the 1920s is generally not new, though a bit transformed, depending on the specifics of the concrete historical conditions.

The Bulgarian National misfortunes, in one way, or another, with little exceptions, were related to external factors. As far as the early 1890s, when the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) was created, the notion of autonomy prevailed, i. e. Macedonia ought not to be annexed to Bulgaria after the separation from the Ottoman Empire. The real goal was to attract more communities to the liberation movement in order to be declared autonomous (in fact Macedonia is a complex and diverse set of ethnicities, predominantly Bulgarian in character). Besides that, this much suffered land was the subject of many other aspirations- coming from countries, having already been separated from the Ottoman Empire and truly confessing stately chauvinism, like Greece, Serbia, even Albania, the latter not yet liberated at the time.

The wars for national liberation and unification carried out during the second decade of the twentieth century, ended unsuccessfully. In the early twenties of the twentieth century, the communists, without exaggeration, some of the most educated people in the Bulgarian society then, saw in the Macedonism a new opportunity of developing of the idea formulated by the IMRO ideologists. They believed autonomy was the opportunity to put the liberation process with a natural subsequent annexation of the autonomous region to Bulgaria. The communists also accepted that the ideas of a Macedonian, Thracian or Dobroudjan nation were a good opportunity for the narrow, selfish state frames, considered the result of unfair post war contracts to be overcome. It was reasonable to think, including the 1890s, too, that Macedonia, also the other artificially differentiated nations, would ultimately get closer to Bulgaria. Thus the national ideal would have been realized.

Therefore, since the IMRO activists were not accused of betrayal, since they did not actually deny their Bulgarian origin, then the communists ought not to be blamed for betrayal either. Although they professed internationalism, they still worked rather for the Bulgarian national cause than internationalism, though acting on its behalf. Such was the concrete historical reality.

The communist emigrants from Georgi Dimitrov’s circle continued to urgently develop their ideas after WWII, when the Bulgarian national issue was still left unresolved. In parallel to the idea of a Macedonian and other nations, the idea of a Balkan Federation began to emerge, which was essentially not new, either.

During the 60s of the nineteenth century (1866), the Russian ambassador in Constantinople, the great Slavophil, Count Nicolay Ignatiev, worked on a project of creating a great Slavic state, in which Serbia and Bulgaria and Serbia should have been unified as a barrier against the expansion of the Western Great Powers. This idea was further developed by the Goodwill Society (else called the Committee of the Old People) in their “A Program about the Political Relations of the Serbs-Bulgarians (Bulgarian-Serbs) or Their Hearty Attitude”. The establishment of a Federal State called either Bulgaria-Serbia, or Serbia –Bulgaria was envisaged. On 5th April, 1867, the programme was approved of at a meeting of “The Old” in the presence of the Odessa Council representatives.

Not only the liberal and conservative circles in our national revolution the supporters of this idea. The revolutionary democracy, with few exceptions, also saw the federation as an opportunity of carrying out the liberation process. In 1867, Lyuben Karavelov accepted the idea of a South Slavic Federation, perceived as an alliance between Bulgarians and Serbs, under the leadership of the Serbian Prince Mikhail Obrenovich. The idea of a “South Slavic” or “Danube” organization can be traced to the Bulgarian Revolutionary Central Committee (BRCC) Programme from 1st August, 1870. The idea of a South Slavic federation can also be found in “An Order to the Workers for the Liberation of the Bulgarian People”- Vassil Levsky’s draft regulations, completed in the period August- September, 1871. Hristo Botev also put forward the idea of a Balkan Federation with an emphasis on the social aspects of this alliance: only free people could unite in a true federal union on a fair and democratic basis.

It is exactly on the basis of federal ideas that speculations of a new ideological type were begun. Their purpose was to blemish communism as an ideology and political practice that was inconsistent with national interests. Except for the fact that such a conception, which is not consistent with the principle interaction between the separate processes and phenomena, the vicious beginning is based in the biased idea that: on the one hand, during the forties of the twentieth century, a process of macedonization of the Pirin region was taking place, but an important detail is deliberately missed. Those were targeted attempts of macedonization the rest of all Macedonian lands- that meant no Greek and Serbian teachers, but culture and teachers based on the Macedonian dialect- something different from what was accepted as a primary basis for treating the indicated processes. On the other hand, it is unequivocally assumed that the passing of the Macedonian idea went through the dominant role of Tito’s Yugoslavia. However, there is no direct evidence that Josip Bross Tito would head the new federation. If the future federation would be dominated by Serbia, in recent times, there is no direct evidence of such views.

However, two important details are omitted, which is an indication of the superficial nature of the theories, based on the idea of  betrayal of the national interests. First, the initiator and master mind was not Tito, but Georgi Dimitrov. Second, it was Dimitrov, not Tito, who was close to and could count on the patronage of the bigger brother- Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin. Therefore, a new interesting moment emerges in the plans for Balkan Federation- the pre-dominant factor turned out to be Bulgaria, in the face of the “leader and teacher” Georgi Dimitrov. What would happen, if that federation disintegrated for some reason, or another? There was no guarantee that Macedonia would automatically be returned to Yugoslavia. A lot of scenarios are possible, but most of them work in favour of the Bulgarian cause.

It is logical to ask a certain question- why was that idea not implemented. Was it because Stalin was not so far-sighted and did not support it, as in fact, it is accepted to be considered in the new ideological conditions of the 1990s? Or, there was something else, which remains hidden to the inquisitive mind? Upon indirect testimonies, Georgi Dimitrov was summoned at the beginning of 1948 to the Soviet capital, allegedly in connection with the Balkan Federation. There is no conclusive evidence that Moscow had a negative attitude towards the idea. Furthermore, it is absurd to assume that the Bulgarian side could initiate foreign policy steps of such nature without being agreed on in advance with Moscow. Two conclusions are possible. One of them, related to Stalin’s disagreement, is rather a suggestion of a new ideological type aimed at discrediting the communists. The second, the more likely one, hints that Stalin, a well-known master of political games, set a trap

for Tito, summoning Dimitrov.

The development of the processes is sufficiently indicative in favour of the second thesis. Yugoslavia was excluded from the Communist Information Bureau (CIB), the successor of the Comintern after 1943. Obviously, the old sly Tito had not been caught up with the Balkan Federation, where he had been allotted a minor role. The attempts to press him only led to the fact that he kept a distance. The impotence to influence him lead to the fact that he was excluded from the community, just for edification. They could afford it. Yugoslavia was not the decisive factor on the political chessboard, for other, coercive solutions to be looked for. So Stalin decided that the break was enough.

There was something else, quite indicative, too. After the summer of 1948, when the Yugoslav-Soviet relations were discontinued, the idea of Macedonism faded, too.

It was just a coincidence that Georgi Dimitrov died in the spring of 1949, i.e., a few months after the denouement, which however, created preconditions about the conceivable provoked death of the Bulgarian “leader and teacher”, who was being treated at the time near Moscow. Why should he have been killed? With Tito’s exclusion, Dimitrov was frightened enough to continue with the idea of Macedonization. There is good reason to accept, so do his relatives believe, that he died of natural causes as a result of his severely aggravated state of health. The people around Stalin really died in mass numbers, but not of malicious attacks, mainly by cirrhosis, or other derivatives of alcoholic abuse.

Viewed upon objectively, Macedonization in the 1940s, as a political process, could be considered (if we shake off prejudices and new political clichés) a continuation of the policy of national liberation and unification of the Bulgarians.

This policy continued in a very unconventional way in the more recent historical conditions with the notorious decree of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party for Bulgaria’s annexation to the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics as a 16th one. Historical references can be found here, too- the programme of Soffroni Vrachanski about Bulgaria, being seen as a region behind the Danube, in which he, our great enlightener, saw the opportunity for the Bulgarian lands to get out of the obscure Ottoman Empire.

A great deal of historical prospect is traced in the Central Committee’s decree, which on the surface is overloaded with anti-national ideas. The model, developed by the other great sly leader on the Balkans, Todor Jivkov, ought to follow the creation of a common border with the metropolis in the face of the USSR and that meant for Bulgaria to regain the northern parts of Dobrudja, historically belonging to the country. From here on, it is not difficult, neither does it take any special effort to imagine what the solution of the equation would be after the collapse of the USSR. Sooner or later empires collapse- such is the historical predetermination.

Just do not be in a hurry to raise monuments! They are constructed for concrete results, not for good intentions. Concrete results have never been achieved, despite the well-intentioned efforts that have only left crippled fates and ultimately unfulfilled national ideals. But we should not exercise in total denial either, and its derivation-    stigmatizing, especially when we are not fully aware of what had really been happening. I will again repeat- there are no concrete results. There were only intentions, which remained unfulfilled. Peace to their dust, but we should learn better. The Bulgarian national cause has not been fulfilled yet. Moesia, Thrace, Macedonia and Dobrudja, the territories, occupied by Bulgarians for centuries, still remain crippled!