Macedonia and Bulgarian National Nihilism
Ivan Alexandrov
 

7. THE RIGHT AND LEFT WINGS OF THE MLM
 

The second question pertains to the so-called Left- and Right-Wings of the MLM. Clearly such labels are both inconsistent and incorrect, and in the final analysis only benefit foreign aspirations. A striking example of this "contradiction" is provided by studying the Young-Turk Revolt [16] (Huriet) in 1908. From its very inception, this revolution was conceived as a strategy to neutralize the national-liberation movements within the Ottoman Empire, analogous to the political stratagem of 1876 which thwarted Bulgarian autonomy and led to the Russo-Turkish War. The only objective of the Young Turks was to expand and strengthen their Empire in Europe. They were not concerned with the national and social problems of the subjugated peoples of the Empire.

Yet history unequivocally reveals the Left-Wing strongly supporting the Young Turk Revolt while the Right-Wing opposes it [17]. However with respect to the basic social-economic issue, that of the ethnic land, little difference existed between the Left and Right policies. Overall the MLM was trying to provoke a middle-class-democratic revolution in both Macedonia and Thrace to end Turkish feudalism. When we examine other historic facts, such as the very existence of IMRO, the disarming of the population, the educational work and much more, we note how the two factions reversed their claimed political ideologies; the Left manifests itself as the Right and vice-versa. This is precisely why the assigned labels are incorrect and why Bulgarian historians should now strive at every opportunity to categorically acknowledge and promote the factual record. On this subject, we only have to ask why Hristo Chernopeev (1868-1915), one of the most prominent members of the Left, resigned from the group to become a leader within the re-established Right-Wing IMRO. He later lost his life for the Bulgarian national cause (unification). The frequently maligned Right not only proved to have the greater vision and perception but also saved IMRO from complete disintegration, yet they are portrayed as assassins and terrorists.

The historic record unambiguously establishes that the Young Turks were the sworn enemies of the oppressed people. Their intention was to destroy the MLM, by disarming the population, liquidating MLM leaders and preaching Osmanism (making Turks from Christians). The same Turks ravaged the Bulgarians of Eastern Thrace during 1913, and in 1915 committed the incomprehensible Armenian genocide with some 1 ½ million victims.


18

With respect to the Left and Right factions, we unjustifiably honour certain members of the Left, but others from the Right we either denigrate or dismiss, in an entirely arbitrary manner. IMRO activists like Pere Toshev (1867-1912), Boris Sarafov (1872-1907), Hristo Matov (1872-1922), Ivan Garvanov (1869-1907), the legendary Todor Alexandroff (1881-1924) and countless others all deserve recognition and acclaim. The Bulgarian Pantheon should include all the people who fought for her. It is absurd to focus on the activists within one part of Macedonia, like the Seres region, just because they were denoted the Left-Wing, and improperly hail their exploits when in truth their overall contribution to the MLM historic record was quite minor.

Such misrepresentation allows the extensive nature of the Bulgarian national element within the MLM to be challenged and thus directly sustains the Greater-Serbian thesis of Macedonism [18]. There is no doubt some of our academics and politicians are unwittingly manipulated in this manner by sophisticated foreign falsifications and chauvinism which ultimately aims to make us deny our own historic past and then have it erased completely.
 

[Previous] [Next]
[Back to Index]

16. Military revolt instigated by the Ottoman Committee of Union and Progress and supported by the Third Army Corps in Salonika, which led to the overthrow of the old and corrupt regime in Constantinople and the restitution of the 1876 Ottoman constitution with its elected assembly.

17. During 1908 Todor Panitza, Hadji Dimov and Dimiter Vlahov together with other noted IMRO activists, particularly Yane Sandanski, formed the Popular Federal Party (PFP), of Socialist-Communist ideology, to contest the Turkish elections. At this time Sandanski and his supporters had been in fact expelled from IMRO and only had support in the Seres and Drama regions. The main reason relates to the murder in 1907 by Panitza, acting on Sandanski's orders, of Boris Saratov and Ivan Garvanov, both members of IMRO's Central Committee. Sarafov had been a key IMRO figure working closely with Gotse Delchev at the turn of the century and had raised large monetary sums abroad to finance the fight against the Turks. The Young-Turks quickly realized the divisive advantage in favouring Sandanski's "outlawed" IMRO faction, and numerous historic photographs clearly show Sandanski posing with and being honoured by the highest officials of the Young-Turks regime. In a speech before the Ottoman Parliament the Deputy Habib-Bey stated (19th January 1909) stated

"One faction (in IMRO) seeks many conditions from the Young-Turks Committee, while the other strives to become Ottoman. This latter is the faction of Sandanski. This faction is fully Ottoman and will remain committed. Let their publications be distributed and their wishes met so that they might bring all Bulgarians closer to us"


For their alignment with the Young-Turks Sandanski and Panitza received many special privileges denied the general population. Furthermore they ruthlessly controlled all aspects of administration within their region and misappropriated public funds destined for education etc to increase their own personal wealth. Independent corroboration of all these facts is available from the published memoirs of Young-Turks like Kyazim-Bey (pseudonym Sheih Muhsin Fani, printed Sep 1970 in the Turkish newspaper "Bizim Anadolu" under the heading "The Revolution of 10th July and its aftermath"). Kyazim-Bey served in the Seres (Sandanski's) region, Salonika and was later an elected member of the Young-Turks Party. Sandanski and the PFP had little or no support from the Bulgarian-Macedonians. Note the following passage written by the well-known author and statesman Charles Roden Buxton, who visited Macedonia and the Turkish regimes on many official occasions.
 

"Why are there only four Macedonian Bulgars in the Parliament?" he asked suddenly, with an indignant flash in his ayes. "And one or two of those are Sandansky's men, who threw themselves into the arms of the Committee at the start. They would never have been put up by their own fellow-countrymen, and don't represent them"
from Turkey in Revolution. T Fisher Unwin, London, p. 252-253, 1909. In Jan 1910, the Central Committee of the PFP, on Vlahov's instigation, expelled Sandanski, on the grounds he and his supporters were working contrary to PFP ideology and seeking rapprochement with the Bulgarian Constitutional Clubs. This caused a major split within the PFP as the Seres and Drama members continued to support Sandanski and Panitza. Sandanski was assassinated on 23rd April 1915 by unknown person(s). Panitza later became an active Serbian and Greek agent and was killed for complicity in Todor Alexandroff’s murder, amongst numerous other reasons, by Mentcha Kernitcheva (Vienna, 7th May 1925), dubbed the "Avenging Angel".

18. Macedonism represents a contention that a separate and unique "Macedonian" race exists, separate from either Bulgarian or Serbian. Some adherents however also claim that "Macedonians" are in fact a non-Slavic race with a direct lineage from the "Ancient Macedonians" of Alexander the Great. Macedonism is an example of sophism, originally encouraged by the Serbians and then championed by the YCP to benefit their political aspirations with respect to formation of a Balkan Federation.