Authentic Turkish documents about Macedonia

[Ptolemy]

Introduction.
For all those interested in the situation in the Balkans, I am presenting here extracts from some authentic Turkish documents, which are an indisputable testimony in regard to the ethnic nature of the Macedonian Slavs. I am giving here in the first part of the edition a photocopy of Sultan’s FERMAN for the establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate on February 28th, 1870, and some parts from it. In the second part of the booklet I am giving fifteen photostatic copies of the document entitled YEARBOOK OF THE BITOLA VILAET, printed on the Arabic alphabet in 1902. The Yearbook consists of 249 pages. On the first page it is indicated that it had been printed in the Vilaet printing shop in Bitola. The Yearbook presents the official statistics of the Turkish vilaet (provincial) government of Bitola.

Here it should be noted that the term „Vilaet“ was used by the Ottoman regime to name the principal major administrative territorial unit of the empire. All of Macedonia, consisting of 67 thousand square kilometres, was divided into three Vilaets: the Vilaet of Salonik (which included only Macedonian districts) and the Vilaets of Bitola and Kosovo; the last one included also other territories to the north-west, inhabited predominantly by Albanians.
The Bitola Vilaet covered the south-western part of Macedonia, with Bitola as its main administrative city. This province with a predominant Bulgarian population was the most remote from the borders of the present Bulgarian state. It was precisely in this province that the famous llinden insurrection of 1903 took place, where the local Vlahs fought shoulder to shoulder with the Macedonian Bulgarians.

The Yearbook provided also a statistical data of the population for each district of the Vilaet; similar data presented the ethnic structure of the „nahii“ (nahiyas). By the term „nahiya“ the Turks were indicating smaller than a district administrative unit.

The third part of the booklet presents some Turkish documents on the murder of the one of the most famous Macedonian revolutionaries GOTSE DELCHEV (1872-1903). Being born in Kukush, Aegean Macedonia, he was one of the founders and leaders of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation (IMRO). Gotse Delchev was a chief organiser and leader of the armed forces (chetas) of IMRO. He was then author of the first statute of IMRO, named „Statute of the Bulgarian Macedono-Adrianopol Revolutionary Committees". The present pro-Serb authorities in Skopje proclaim him as an „ethnic“ Macedonian, the emanation of the great spirit of the ‘Macedonian nation’ and so on – regardless of the Delchev’s writings in which he confessed his Bulgarian consciousness. The Turkish documents on the murder of Gotse Delchev were published in Skopje in 1992 by Aleksandar Stoyanovski (see Appendix No 15).

The fourth part of the book contains several pages from the MEMORIES of the Turkish national hero ENVER BEY (Enver Pasha), born in Resen, Vardar Macedonia. He was one of the Young Turks officers who, with arms in hand, rose in revolt against the Sultan’s regime, dethroned Abdul Hamid, and proclaimed the Huriet (freedom) in 1908. Enver Bey became extremely popular and his name will forever be connected with the above event in Turkish history. His Memoirs refer 30 times to the revolutionary struggle of the Bulgarian population in Macedonia, elaborating on the role played by all social classes: peasants, city folk, intellectuals... Enver Pasha knew Macedonia very well. He had graduated from the military school of Bitola and had stayed in Solun (Salonik), Shtip, Kochani, Veles, Tikvesh and other Macedonian cities. Excerpts from the Enver Bey’s Memoirs were quoted by the Turkish writer Shevket Sureyya Aydemir in his book entitled „From Macedonia to the Middle of Asia“, published in 1970 in Istanbul (see Appendix No 19).

http://knigite.abv.bg/en/turk/turk_1.html

[Ptolemy]

„...But in spite of all this we observed with regret the disputes and controversies which contrary to our good will, have lately arisen between the Bulgarians of the Orthodox faith and the Greek Patriarchate, i.e. concerning the relations between the Bulgarian archbishops, bishops, priests, the Bulgarian Church and the Patriarchate.

The following articles, the result of many discussions and much though about the best solution of the difficult problem were formulated as follows:

1. A special spiritual jurisdiction shall be established under the name of Bulgarian Exarchate, which will include the below mentioned archbishoprics, bishoprics, and others; the Exarchate shall be authorised to manage all the church affairs of this religious faith.

...

10. The spiritual jurisdiction of the Bulgarian Exarchate shall include the bishoprics of Ruse, Silistra, Shurnen, Tarnovo, Sofia, Vratsa, Lovech, Vidin, Nish, Pirot, Kyustendil, Samokov, Veles, Varna... , the district of Sliven..., the country of Sozopol... , the bishopric of Plovdiv...

If all, or at least two thirds of the Orthodox Christian population in other places, besides those enumerated above, are willing to accept the supremacy of the Bulgarian Exarchate in religious matters and if this is duly proved, they will be allowed to do so, but this shall happen only by the will and with agreement of all or, at least two thirds of the population. Those, who try by these means to create trouble and disturbances among the population, will be persecuted and punished according to the law“ (see Appendix No 1).

Note: The Bishoprics of Kyustendil and Samokov contained parts from the geographical area of Macedonia. Whole Bishopric of Veles was situated in Macedonia. After a plebiscite (1 871-1873) almost whole Slavic population in the rest of Macedonia chose the supremacy of the Bulgarian Exarchate. According to Lyubcho Georgievski, a leader of the biggest Macedonian non communist party VMRO-DPMNE (IMRO-DPMNU), this event was the first time when „the Sultan’s decree allowed a free referendum and when the people of Macedonia with a majority of over two thirds accepted the Bulgarian Exarchate as their own“.

[Ptolemy]

II. Statistical information from the Turkish yearbook of 1902 for the Bitola Vilaet.



1. As Appendix No 2, I am inserting the title page of the Yearbook.

2. In the Appendix No 3 there are given the following data for the city of Bitola (called Monastir in Turkish):
The total population of the city is given as 89,985 people consisting of:
a/ Moslems (Turks, Albanians, etc.) 24,713
b/ Greeks and Vlahs 30,036
c/ Bulgarians 30,891
d/ Jews 4,264

Note: The number of the other small minority groups are not given here. The Yearbook does not refer separately to Turks, Albanians and the other Moslem ethnic groups as Gypsies and Bulgarians, but puts them under the general name as ‘Moslems'. After the Balkan war of 1912-13, a considerable number of Moslems left not only the Bitola Vilaet, but also other provinces in Macedonia.



3. On page 50 the Yearbook gives for the district of Resen the following data (see Appendix No 4):
a/ Moslems 3,261
b/ Greeks 3,708
c/ Bulgarians 8,847
Note: In this district there were no real Greeks. As Greeks were considered the so-called Grekomans (Grkomani) Bulgarians, who remained loyal to the Greek Patriarchate at Constantinopol (Istanbul) as their spiritual leader, and also some Grecianized Vlahs.

4. On the pages 52 and 53 is written about the district of Prespa and the following information is given (see Appendix No 5):
Total population in the district 8,581 people, and divided as follows:
a/ Moslems 1,765
b/ Greeks 2,038
c/ Bulgarians 4,778



5. On page 55 of the Yearbook information is given about the district of Demir Hisar and the following statistics (see Appendix No 6):
Total population in the district is given as 11,758 people, and divided as follows:
a/ Moslems 628
b/ Bulgarians 11,130
6. On page 58 for the district of Krushevo the total number of the population is given as 11,283, and divided as follows (see Appendix No 7):
a/ Moslems 140
b/ Vlahs and Greeks 5,305
c/ Bulgarians 5,838



7. On the page 65 the population of the district of Prilep is given as 51,124 people, and divided as follows (Appendix No 8):
a/ Moslems 14,279
b/ Vlahs and Greeks 955
c/ Bulgarians 35,890
8. On the pages 69 and 70 of the Yearbook for the nahiya of Morihovo is given the total population of 8,124 people, and divided as follows (Appendix No 9):
a/ Greeks 303
b/ Bulgarians 7,821


9. On page 83 the population for the district of Ohrid is given as 26,416 people, and divided as follows (Appendix No 10):
a/ Moslems 8,135
b/ Vlahs and Greeks 746
c/ Bulgarians 17,535

10. On page 91 the population of the nahiya of Debartsa is given as 7,510 people, and divided as follows (Appendix No 11):
a/ Moslems 353
b/ Bulgarians 7,157



11. On page 95 of the Yearbook the population of the district of Kichevo is given as 34,222 people, and divided as follows (Appendix No 12):
a/ Moslems 13,586
b/ Greeks and Vlahs 64
c/ Bulgarians 20,572

12. On page 170 the population of the district of Kostur (Kastoria) is given as 45,220 people, and divided as follows (Appendix No 13):
a/ Moslems 9,459
b/ Vlahs and Greeks 6,921 c/ Bulgarians 28,840



13. On page 175 the population for the district of Hrupishta is given as 14,905 people, and divided as follows (Appendix No 14):
a/ Moslems 4,507
b/ Vlahs and Greeks 4,150
c/ Bulgarians 6,248

Note: It should be noted that the Yearbook reliably pointed out the ethnic Bulgarian frontiers to the southwest: the regions of Kastoria and Hrupishta included. Thus the Turkish statistics confirmed the works of the 19th-early 20th century academic authorities on the region: both European and Bulgarian (Ami Bove, Henry Brailsford, Gustav Weigand, Vasil Kanchov, etc.)

Photos of the authentic documents here:
http://knigite.abv.bg/en/turk/turk_3.html

[Ptolemy]

Appendix No 16. A photocopy by the telegram of Salonik valiya (chief of Vilaet) Hasan Fahmi from May, 5, 1903. The telegram contains the phrase:

„The cheta of the one of the famous leaders Delchev, is composed by twenty one rebels, but shamelesses from the Bulgarian population joined to the cheta and they together counted almost from seventy to eighty persons. They were encircled by the Ottoman army in the village of Banitsa which is outlying two and half hours from Seres".



Appendix No 17. A photocopy by the telegram of the Myutisarif of Seres from May, 9, 1903. The document has the words:

„I am informing you that the killed famous rebel Delchev wanted to pick on revolt the whole village population and that from the declaration of the captive hurt rebel Georgi we knew about existence of weapons in every village. The authorities know, according to the last information, that the Bulgarians from the village of Rondi near Seres are rebels and they help to the chetas of the Committee".



Appendix No 18. A photocopy by the telegram, written to the Turkish Embassy in Bulgaria, May, 9, 1903. It contains the phrase:

„On April, 22 (May, 5), in the village of Banitsa one of the leaders of the Bulgarian Committees, with name Delchev, was killed“.

photos of the turkish documents here
http://knigite.abv.bg/en/turk/turk_4.html

*Note of the author...Even Turks knew that Delchev and his committees were Bulgarian!!!!

[Ptolemy]

IV. Memoires of the Turkish national hero Enver Bey (Enver Pasha).

Appendix No 20 contains the phrase: „Prior to 1908, the Macedonian Bulgarians were the most militant element..." (page 372 in the Turkish edition).



Appendix No 21 has the following acknowledgement: „Since the Bulgarians were the most important and the most energetic element, the Macedonian question, with all its gravity, was a Bulgarian question" (page 434).



Appendix No 22 gives information about the formation of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation (IMRO). There it points out the unflinching Turkish conviction that the creator of this Organisation was Damyan Gruev, a Bulgarian and Bulgarian teacher in Macedonia. The same is said about the other great tighter, Pere Toshev from the city of Prilep. While Gruev was born in the village of Smilevo not very far from Bitola (page 435 in the original).


This Turkish evidence undermines the Serbo-Macedonist propaganda claim saying that Gruev and the rest of the Macedonian Slavs are not Bulgarians but some kind of another nationality unknown to anyone in the world since the 12th century.

Appendix No 23 contains the following phrase: „The outrages against the Turks, against the foreigners, the bombing of railroads and bridges, in the cities, countries and all other possible places all such disorders and outrages, according to the Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation, would indicate to the Europeans
that the Ottoman state was unable to govern in the Balkans. The Ottoman government was subject to attacks in many different ways and, indeed, it would have remained powerless. As a consequence the Macedonians would have had the say-so, more specifically the Bulgarians" (page 438).



Appendix No 24 contains the following passage: „Briefly, the insurrection of the Macedonian Bulgarians was a bloody history. Is the given statistical information true? What were the losses of the army, the gendarmes, and Moslem villagers? It is useless to delve into these questions. Indisputable was the fact, that under such conditions it was no longer possible to govern Macedonia“ (page 452).

Appendix No 25 has the following words; „Even a part of the officers began to respect their enemies of the interior, who were dying for a holy cause. For example, the Resen company commander Niazi Bey who was subsequently proclaimed a hero of the Young Turks revolution, on 44 pages of his Memoirs writes: „The cruelties of our administrative authorities were bringing the Bulgarians to bloody tears. However, I was suffering more than they. I was giving. It was because I was crushing the strength of a people which had armed itself against the terror of the state of which I am a servant was preventing me from taking a different course...“

We find also similar statements in the Memoirs of Enver Bey. Yes, a country was fighting for a domination whose end was visible, because in the course of 500 years it did not invest any capital in Macedonia for its welfare and did nothing for its city planning; it was a domination with weak will and under the influence of foreign desires.

While our internal enemy knew what it was fighting and dying for, and the situation should continue, inevitably, sooner or later, the nationalistic front would have succeeded. However, along with the disintegration of the government the Turkish population living in that country would have perished. They were supplying the state with good soldiers“ (page 456).

Appendix No 26 gives quotations from the Memoirs of Enver Bey in which he points out his views and those of his uncle Halii Bey, that in Asia Minor there should be created chetas (armed groups of people) similar to those of the Bulgarians in Macedonia, to fight against the Sultan’s regime (page 501).

Note: And here again I must emphasise the fact that they speak only about chetas of the Bulgarian nationality in Macedonia, and not some kind of non-existent at that period nationality as „Macedonian“ one.






Appendix No 27 among other things states: „Our regular cheta already consisted of eight persons. I was trying to stir up the citizens of Veles. Speaking to them, I pointed out as an example the Bulgarians who had the most popular and active revolutionists all from Veles. On July 9, (1908) at 6:30 P.M. I entered Veles" (page 562).





Appendix No 28 gives a description of Enver Bey’s entrance into Veles, a city of about 20,000 population, three-fourths of which are Bulgarians.

In the marked lines it is stated: „The hour has arrived...
As the representatives of the Muslims and Christians gathered at the City Hall, so did the people and the Army. As Enver Bey appeared on the terrace with his retinue, the people became ruffled and began shouting:
Long live the fatherland! Long live the people!
Until this day such words and voices were not heard. These shoutings were filling the atmosphere. First one of the hodjas (Mohammedan priest) read a prayer. After that Rev. Gyoshev, one of the Bulgarian priests, delivered a touching speech in the Bulgarian language. The final word, however, was said by Enver Bey. This is how he described the moment:

„I took the floor.delivered two speeches - one in Turkish and one in the Bulgarian language“ (page 563).

Appendix No 29 in the lines within the parenthesis points out: „During the time of the Berlin Conference (Congress of Berlin, June 13, 1878) the Greek Church announced that in Macedonia there are 438,000 Greeks, and only 388,000 Bulgarians. During the census of 1905 it was established that there were 360,000 Bulgarians and only 180,000 Greeks“ (page 440).

It has no bearing on the problem of this brochure as to how much they reduced the number of the Bulgarians in Macedonia in both of the above statistics. The important thing is that both of them
recognise the Bulgarian nationality there, rather than some kind of a non-existing Slavic nationality as has recently been decreed in Communist Yugoslavia and by the Serbo-Macedonists in nowadays Republic of Macedonia.





Appendix No 30 contains a Turkish statistic which the Young Turk hero Niyazi Bey included in his Memoirs about the time of 1908. In this statistic are given (for the three Vilaets: Salonik, Bitola and Kosovo) altogether 570,534 Bulgarians (page 425). And even here the number of the Bulgarians is greatly reduced, while those of the Greeks are doubled. What is really important, as pointed out in Niyazi Bey’s brochure, is that even according to him the Slavs in Macedonia are Bulgarians.


Photos of the documents here
http://knigite.abv.bg/en/turk/turk_5.html

[Ptolemy]

CONCLUSION

It is more than obvious that the Turkish statistics and documents explicitly referred to the Slavonic population in Macedonia as Bulgarian. Both bureaucracy nomenclature and personal testimony of prominent figures witness on Bulgarians in Macedonia; there is no mention of some „Macedonian ethnic nation“ whatsoever. Such ethnicity was unknown to the all non-Slave living in Macedonia. The Turks ruled the region of Macedonia for over five centuries, hence, they were well aware on the ethnic character of the population.

The publication of the Turkish documents on the Macedonia is very important at present time. The Serbo-Macedonist neo-Communist powers in Skopje continue pro-Serb Macedonist policy, formulated by the Serbian Stoyan Novakovich in 1887: „Since the Bulgarian idea, as it is well-known, is deeply rooted in Macedonia, I think it is almost impossible to shake it completely by opposing it merely with the Serbian idea. This idea, we fear, would be incapable, as opposition pure and simple, of suppressing the Bulgarian idea. That is why the Serbian idea will need an ally that could stand in direct opposition to Bulgarianism and would contain in itself the elements which could attract the people and their feelings and thus sever them from Bulgarianism. This ally I see in Macedonism“.

Although the formal independence was proclaimed, the pro-Serb Macedonist power-holders in Skopje continue to assist Yugoslavia: they supplied Belgrade with food, raw materials and petrol during the world embargo against Serbia. Meanwhile the authorities go ahead with its half-a century-old policy aimed at the construction and 'affirmation’ of a separate Macedonian ethnic nation. However, the prospects of their success are doubtful: the extremist nationalist re-writing of history (a basic instrument for nation-invention) is always bound to be undermined by the original historical sources like the Enver Bey’s memoirs or the official Ottoman statistics. Prepared for publication:

Spas Tashev
President of IIM

http://knigite.abv.bg/en/turk/turk_6.html


Regards,
Perseas

[admin]

Beautiful work Perseas! Amazing stats and pictures... very solid factual information... I will be putting this information up on the main pages along with the other articles.

[akritas]

I agree, excellent work!!!

[Robert]

Excellent work?!? :-))) It is telling that you have stooped to bulgarian "arguments". Can't get any lower than that.

The fact is that the Ottoman Empire was teritorially organized by religious affiliation based on the millet system. It is telling that originally, anybody who was in the Greek church was called "Greek".

As the Macedonian church, the Ohrid Archbishporic, was closed down by the Turks due to Greek treachery, the only acceptible option was to join the newly-formed Bulgarian church, mostly to avoid "helenized". Hence, the Ottoman censuses identify them as Bulgarians, and those Macedonians (or others) who joined the Patriarchate as Greeks.

It is a fact that in the 19 century, the Macedonians fought to re-establish their church, even as part of the Catholic church. For some reason the Bulgarian/Serbian/Greek historiography is silent on this point.

The hisghest Bulgarian agent sent by their Church to Macedonia, Petko Slaveikov, has noted on several ocasions in 1871-74:

" In speaking with some Macedonian "patriots" I understood that this movement, which only until several years ago consisted only of words, today is a clearly defined thought: 'The Macedonians are not Bulgarians, and they uncompromisingly try to reestablish their own church regardless of the price.' "

[Tsontos]

The hisghest Bulgarian agent sent by their Church to Macedonia, Petko Slaveikov, has noted on several ocasions in 1871-74:

" In speaking with some Macedonian "patriots" I understood that this movement, which only until several years ago consisted only of words, today is a clearly defined thought: 'The Macedonians are not Bulgarians, and they uncompromisingly try to reestablish their own church regardless of the price.' "

Yep...for more information about the earliest origins of Macedonism and exactly what proportion of the Slavic population of Macedonia espoused the idea of being of uniquely 'Macedonian' ilk see this thread:

http://www.macedoniaontheweb.com/for...an-nation.html

It is a fact that in the 19 century, the Macedonians fought to re-establish their church

re-establish or establish?