Macedonia Naming Dispute: Solved?

[Alastor]

Speaking of realpolitik here is a fairly interesting article that has already caused a fair amount of controversy.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-e...-idUSKBN1JE256
Apparently Tsipras is aiming for some goodwill on the debt relief issue with this agreement. Or as some circles already argue, Greece was blackmailed into backing down, in order to get a better treatment from its debtors. Colonialism etc etc.

[Kyriakos]

Tbh, Syriza isn't likely to back down from a deal - they do need it to pass parliament, of course, which may just be impossible. But it is more likely the deal will not manage to pass the parliament/popular vote in Fyrom.
A bit sad, that the people in Fyrom seem more poised to defend their (even if utterly fake) use of the name Macedonia, than the clowns we have.

And, ok, obviously Syriza will die out in the next election and then return to the 3% of the vote it always had. But the new gov will also be some clowns, just of the more known variety (ND etc).

[Geronimo2006]

I've always found this dispute puzzling. Whats now to be called "Northern Macedonia" hasnt been Greek speaking since perhaps the 8th century or earlier. Alexander the Great was 2500 years ago. I dont think most Macedonians have territorial claims on Greek Macedonia (where Thessaloniki is located).

[AnthoniusII]

I've always found this dispute puzzling. Whats now to be called "Northern Macedonia" hasnt been Greek speaking since perhaps the 8th century or earlier. Alexander the Great was 2500 years ago. I dont think most Macedonians have territorial claims on Greek Macedonia (where Thessaloniki is located).

Unforthunatly my friend...some extremists since the end of WW2 with the help of the Croat Titto in the leadership of Yugoslavia had terirorial claims even printing maps with their "dream" about the Great Macedonia that incudes the Ottoman (i repeat the Ottoman) region with that name that now is separated in 3 parts 70% in Greece, 20% in FYROM and 10% in Bulgaria.
Maps like this one...


It was a shock for them that their 1st leader after Yugoslavia was disabled , admited that they were Slavs and came in the region 1100 after Alexander's death. Their language is 80% Bulgarian,9% Serbian and 1% a mix of Greek,Turkish and Albanic words.
Do you realise why this matter became so sensitive for Greeks. FYROM as a state is no threat militaristic speaking. But with the right "sponsors" (Turkey reached 40% of FYROM's investements) this tiny country could become an extra war front for Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria that would have to deal with enemies in their rear ! That is why Greece that prepairs for war (with the co-operation of 3 more Balkan countries) beacuse of Turkey's and Albanian's agressiveness wanted this dispute to hold and secure that country's existance. If the name would not be solved that country would be devided de facto in many places. North FYROM has Albanian population majority that asked to join Kosovo. Serbia woulld not like to see a full issolation in itssouthern borders , Bulgaria would claim western FYROM since more than 40% of the Slavic population has also Bulgarian passports. Greece would invade to secure a path of connection with Serbia and through Serbia with EU and prevent Turkey create a foothold that would connect it with Albania fully issolating Greece from the North. If FYROM stays in the side of Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece under the fear of Albanian agresivness then the only way Turkey has to send reinforcements and equipment to Albania that claims Greec lands also, is by sea that Greek Navy still dominates!

[Love Mountain]

Suffice to say, the thread did not disappoint. Goes to show the priorities of Greek people.

[Basil II the B.S]

Yeah they have already been subdued by genocidal globalists, they should stop caring about their cultural identity too, because ''it's not a priority''.

[Kyriakos]

Yeah they have already been subdued by genocidal globalists, they should stop caring about their cultural identity too, because ''it's not a priority''.

Nicely put.

[Sir Adrian]

Every big decision made by the ''international community'' in the past decade has been a complete disaster, so appealing to them to solve this issue is a way to make it worse. Just embargo Western Bulgaria until they come to more reasonable terms.

I think it would be a lot more useful to embargo Southern Macedonia. Northern Macedonia is being quite reasonable at the moment while the south is acting like a child who doesn't get his way all the time. I've seen Jobbik people get less hysterical over a name and map and they basically sleep on maps of greater hungary.

Yes someone ought to teach those petulant children a lesson, quick call the adults. What a comment. And then people say that colonialism is dead and buried. Dude, seriously, what kind of a comment is that? Who is this international community that will put it's foot down? The UN? On what legal grounds? I'm sure there are powers, inside and outside Greece, that have reasons to want this deal to happen, or it wouldn't even be on the table. But they are not "the international community" and they are more concerned with economic/geopolitical realities than your anti-Greek feelings.

You would most certainly be better off if you were colonized by Romania at least once in your history. At least you would understand that names do not give people claims to your land and sharing national figures with other countries is not the second fall of Constantinople.

[Alastor]

I think it would be a lot more useful to embargo Southern Macedonia. Northern Macedonia is being quite reasonable at the moment while the south is acting like a child who doesn't get his way all the time. I've seen Jobbik people get less hysterical over a name and map and they basically sleep on maps of greater hungary.

What are you even talking about? There have been numerous protests in Skopje just like in Athens. Many times now it has been mentioned that the FYROM side is the one most likely to blow the deal for various reason that have been outlined throughout this thread. Yet you keep insisting on this incomprehensible drivel. What is this if not a sorry attempt to bait people?

You would most certainly be better off if you were colonized by Romania at least once in your history. At least you would understand that names do not give people claims to your land and sharing national figures with other countries is not the second fall of Constantinople.

I would be better off if I was colonized by the Romanian master race? Me? You seriously just said that? What am I saying of course you did. Expecting you to say even one reasonable thing by this point is one thing too many. For the record I actually have Romanians in my fairly multi-ethnic family. Guess where they stand on the Macedonia dispute. Hint, not on your side.

[Kyriakos]

Hm, ok, "the mudpit"; aka a subforum where there is no requirement at all so as to post on a subject.
Certainly seems honest

Tldr*: no, Settra, the above isn't at all accurate as a synopsis of what is going on. And "south macedonian" is ridiculous; why should i share my identify with some people who have zero ties to it in the first place. Just cause the timeline of important events is far more distant in this region it doesn't mean this is a free for all. Furthermore, why bother naming your country (your in the general sense; not you) as "Macedonia" when you are slavs, which at any rate the ancient macedonians were not, and when you don't even have any cultural sites of even ancient Macedonia. It is not enough to do so just cause Serbia wanted to try to keep the region it annexed in the first balkan war, by trying to make its citizens forget they were just bulgarians; their language is still 99,9% bulgarian. Fyrom is, basically, a made-up country, with a made-up identity, in a degree more extreme than the norm for that in either the region or elsewhere.

*ok it was longer, but tfy not

Moreover, Greece isn't named Macedonia, which creates further issues with identity. Maybe a parallel would be some part of northern Poland (theoretical; won't happen) getting independent, naming itself "Prussia", AND then circulating all sorts of funny books where they claim they actually are the successors and offspring of Prussia of the pre-1870 period.
Or (less theoretical) some northern italian state breaking off and calling itself "Tyrolia" (though who cares about Tyrol, tbh (ancient) Macedonia is very known, on the other hand.).

[Abdülmecid I]

In reality, there was of course not a single Ottoman province named Macedonia. The term was reinvented by Western observers in the 19th century, probably because it sounded more romantic and appealing to the poets and students of Heidelberg than Vardar valley or Vilayet of Selanik. So much for the hilarious ramblings of oversensitive nationalists about cultural genocide or the continuous and uninterrupted memory of the ancient kingdom. The entire dispute can basically be described as a tragicomic fight about who is going exclusively play with the best toy, Alexander and his military reputation. It's the only figure of the region that can be recognized by the European and American audiences, for whose approval and compliments Macedonian and Greek tribalists so desperately crave for. Indeed, a perfect combination of comedy and sadness.

Speaking of realpolitik here is a fairly interesting article that has already caused a fair amount of controversy.

It definitely looks plausible and confirms my early suspicions. Initially I was a bit surprised that the notoriously populist government of Greece managed to accept a compromise, but at least the leadership, contrary to the 70%, is capable of maturely evaluating its priorities. The main reason about why the controversy has remained unsolved for so long is that there is hardly any potential gain for Athens. The trade benefits are minimal (especially after the collapse of the embargo) and easily overshadowed by the enormous political cost. The perpetuation of the tension allowed officials to distract society from more pressing problems and gave an excellent chance to "patriotic" opportunists, from major opposition leaders to Nazis and book-salesmen to financially and politically profit from the anger of the mob. Obviously, SYRIZA is a center-left party, so it's less dependent on the triggered clowns protesting somewhere around an isolated lake, but still, the party will experience some losses. They were probably promised a gift concerning the country's huge debt as a compensation. Of course, that's called negotiation, not colonialism, because nobody forced a specific option to Greece. It's the use of grossly emotional vocabulary like that for why so many refuse to take the Greek position seriously.

Everyone has the right to identify him self AS LONG AS:
Does not steal any other nation's historical heritage.
Does not use that stealing to promote agggresive stance against other nation.

Historical heritage is not owned. It's not like Greece has the copyright for the Argeads, no matter what some racist bloggers may say in the Internet. This is why Macedonia abandoned the Vergina Sun, which was indeed copyrighted by Greece, as a flag symbol, but is not legally obligated to change its name. Secondly, the accusation that the Macedonian authorities use the name as a justification for an imperialist foreign policy has already been debunked numerous times, so there's no need to repeat it, in the futile hope of convincing an innocent reader. There's not a single instance of Skopje officially endorsing irredentism, because the modern mindset has evolved a lot the 19th century hysterics about wars, tribes, racial purity, exceptionalism and conquests. That's what the Macedonian Constitution says about the matter:

The Republic of Macedonia has no territorial pretensions towards any neighboring state.

Question: You mentioned that Greeks stolen a heritage earlier. Can you become more spesific?

Umm, I didn't. I'm not a tribalist and the use of the verb "stealing" would be inaccurate, for the reasons I cited above. What I really said was "arbitrarily identified". For the complete list, you probably need to consult the history books of the elementary school. I suppose that it begins from the Cycladic culture and ends around the Palaeologean dynasty. We are lucky that no other nation decided to identify itself with the Minoan civilization. Just imagine the outrage if Malta built a statue of a topless woman next to a bull. We would be talking about the unprovoked hostility of the Maltese war-hawks and how that piece of art is, in reality, an elaborate part of the cunning Maltese plan to annex Rhodes, reestablishing the hated Order of Hospitallers, by exploiting its strategic alliance and economic investment in Cyprus, together with a massive uprising of the persecuted Maltese minority in the Dodecanese. Third Balkan War would be too little to describe this unprecedented holocaust.

[Kyriakos]

It is good that care about culture never was a priority in some other states, else Lord Elgyn and similar thieves (eg from France etc) wouldn't have looted so many ancient statues. Come to think of it, general lack of care for culture by some states in the region was why the Parthenon got blown to bits. So your point, Abdul, on such issues... remains rather short-sighted. Sometimes it isn't a bonus to just not care about any cultural tie - nor can it be used to somehow present such a side as positive in contrast to another one.
Moreover: it is a bit strange to lecture others on caring so much about heritage, when you are tied to a country which literally did "steal" (as well as loot, kill, massacre and burn) to get its entire territory from others, and literally has not founded a single city in its current territory (yet wants to think of itself as the new Sublime Porte or whatever ).
Not all sentences fit each paragraph, but sometimes a sentence can stick to mind and be arbitrarily used. Personally i think that in your very own thread you could help defend against misuse of such a type, rather than arguably promote it.

[Alastor]

It definitely looks plausible and confirms my early suspicions. Initially I was a bit surprised that the notoriously populist government of Greece managed to accept a compromise, but at least the leadership, contrary to the 70%, is capable of maturely evaluating its priorities. The main reason about why the controversy has remained unsolved for so long is that there is hardly any potential gain for Athens. The trade benefits are minimal (especially after the collapse of the embargo) and easily overshadowed by the enormous political cost. The perpetuation of the tension allowed officials to distract society from more pressing problems and gave an excellent chance to "patriotic" opportunists, from major opposition leaders to Nazis and book-salesmen to financially and politically profit from the anger of the mob. Obviously, SYRIZA is a center-left party, so it's less dependent on the triggered clowns protesting somewhere around an isolated lake, but still, the party will experience some losses. They were probably promised a gift concerning the country's huge debt as a compensation. Of course, that's called negotiation, not colonialism, because nobody forced a specific option to Greece. It's the use of grossly emotional vocabulary like that for why so many refuse to take the Greek position seriously.

That was my initial reason to suspect sth behind the scenes also. There is no visible pragmatic benefit for the Greek government in accepting this deal. And since the public is being kept in the dark, they wouldn't see one either. This article came as no surprise. Of course SYRIZA has been consistently betraying it's base and is by now on borrowed time. They need sth big and they need it quick, if they want to stay in power. The economy would make the most sense. Hence this. And yes it is called colonialism, when first you bleed a country for money and once it can't resist anymore you start dictating its policies for scraps. But I believe Tsipras has overplayed his hand. Whatever benefit he might gain won't do him much good if he can't hold his government together until people can see the results. And he can never come out and say publicly that he entered into this Macedonia agreement because of pressure from Greece's financial overlords. Ah wouldn't it be so deliciously ironic, if Tsipras actually succeeds in getting Greece a good deal (and he won't) only to be ousted and have his political rivals sweep in and reap the rewards.

[Sir Adrian]

Tldr*: no, Settra, the above isn't at all accurate as a synopsis of what is going on. And "south macedonian" is ridiculous; why should i share my identify with some people who have zero ties to it in the first place. Just cause the timeline of important events is far more distant in this region it doesn't mean this is a free for all. Furthermore, why bother naming your country (your in the general sense; not you) as "Macedonia" when you are slavs, which at any rate the ancient macedonians were not, and when you don't even have any cultural sites of even ancient Macedonia. It is not enough to do so just cause Serbia wanted to try to keep the region it annexed in the first balkan war, by trying to make its citizens forget they were just bulgarians; their language is still 99,9% bulgarian. Fyrom is, basically, a made-up country, with a made-up identity, in a degree more extreme than the norm for that in either the region or elsewhere.

Because they do have ties to it. Macedonia was not some barren landscape that got suddenly populated by slavs. The people there were culturally assimilated by slavs over many centuries but they still maintain a link to the ancient Macedonians and Thracians and whatever just like every other people in the Balkans. You view the history of the region in extremely simplistic terms when it is anything but simple. We are talking about a people who have been Hellenised, Latinised and Slavicised all in the span of ~1200 years. The only reason you speak Greek today instead of Macedo-Romanian or Slavic is because of a few battles that happened 1000-1500 years ago (assuming your family is from the region and has not moved there). Whether you like or not those people are just as Macedonian as you and the macedo-romanians are and you have a lot more in common with them than somebody from Laconia or Arcadia (again, assuming your family is from the region).

As for the name same reason slavic Bulgaria is named after the Bulgars, France is named after the Franks, Albania uses a latin name, Belgium is named after the Belgae, Ukraine is called "border provcince" and countless others.


Moreover your heritage as a Greek from Thessaly is no defined solely by some guy who burned cities 2300 years ago. Your heritage is defined by everything that went on before and since. Greek history has so many more characters 1000 times better than a drunk general who destroyed his own kingdom. Why do you people have to be so fixated on him?

[Abdülmecid I]

It is good that care about culture never was a priority in some other states, else Lord Elgyn and similar thieves (eg from France etc) wouldn't have looted so many ancient statues. Come to think of it, general lack of care for culture by some states in the region was why the Parthenon got blown to bits. So your point, Abdul, on such issues... remains rather short-sighted. Sometimes it isn't a bonus to just not care about any cultural tie - nor can it be used to somehow present such a side as positive in contrast to another one.
Moreover: it is a bit strange to lecture others on caring so much about heritage, when you are tied to a country which literally did "steal" (as well as loot, kill, massacre and burn) to get its entire territory from others, and literally has not founded a single city in its current territory (yet wants to think of itself as the new Sublime Porte or whatever ).
Not all sentences fit each paragraph, but sometimes a sentence can stick to mind and be arbitrarily used. Personally i think that in your very own thread you could help defend against misuse of such a type, rather than arguably promote it.

I don't think that nationalism is necessary for the protection of cultural heritage. Quite the contrary, considering how casually monuments get destroyed, when they don't fit the tribalist narrative. Here is an interesting article of a Greek professor about the negative influence of chauvinism upon the cultural heritage, regarding a familiar example. Usually, some minimal respect is all that is required. Anyway, your line of arguments demonstrates the problems of nationalist dogma. Firstly, my nationality is a red herring, completely irrelevant to the debate. Secondly, hasty conclusions from Internet usernames are rarely accurate. Thirdly, it's deeply stained with hatred. Your last paragraph is an aggressive attempt at dehumanizing the "other". Macedonian nationalist could do the same about their opponent, highlight the land stolen from the Ottomans and the Bulgarians, insist on the massacres from Tripolitsa to Anatolia and Rhodope, mention that not a single city was founded and laugh at how they still think they are Alexander's offspring or whatever. The obviously hypocritical nature of nationalist disputes to the objective observer is why I personally find them fascinatingly informative about human nature. Unfortunately, it's a hardly productive attitude, unless we take into consideration the interests of nation-state propaganda and ruthless opportunists. I'm afraid that the backwards mindset of hatred, exceptionalism, persecution complex and supremacy is responsible for the misfortunes of the Balkans the continuation of this laughable controversy. At least, British comedians and local Nazis are happy, I guess, Macedonian and Greek hysterics has definitely helped them a lot, by providing them with an immense amount of original material and a large mob of easily manipulated fanatics.

Why do you people have to be so fixated on him?

Nationalists don't like to admit it, but the determining factor is the opinion of the West. After all, nationalism is an imported ideology (especially in the Balkans, where everyone identified himself along religious lines) adopted by immigrated merchants and intellectuals, who wished to imitate the West, in an attempt to match its prosperity. Nationalism is decisively influenced and shaped by inferiority complexes. Alexander is famous for quickly capturing Western Asia and he deeply marked his contemporaries and their descendants. It's expected that Balkan nationalists will quibble with each other over who will be entitled to be considered by Europeans as the true heir of Alexander.

[Basil II the B.S]

I think it would be a lot more useful to embargo Southern Macedonia. Northern Macedonia is being quite reasonable at the moment while the south is acting like a child who doesn't get his way all the time. I've seen Jobbik people get less hysterical over a name and map and they basically sleep on maps of greater hungary.

Go for it. Anything that destabilizes the liberal order is desiderable.

[Sir Adrian]

True. Greece cannot continue as it is right now.

Nationalists don't like to admit it, but the determining factor is the opinion of the West. After all, nationalism is an imported ideology (especially in the Balkans, where everyone identified himself along religious lines) adopted by immigrated merchants and intellectuals, who wished to imitate the West, in an attempt to match its prosperity. Nationalism is decisively influenced and shaped by inferiority complexes. Alexander is famous for quickly capturing Western Asia and he deeply marked his contemporaries and their descendants. It's expected that Balkan nationalists will quibble with each other over who will be entitled to be considered by Europeans as the true heir of Alexander.

I agree about nationalism with the caveat that patriotism is actually constructive and good as opposed to nationalism but you are fundamentally wrong about Balkan nationalists.

Balkan nationalism (and this includes Italy, Turkey, Hungary and Romania despite them not being Balkan countries) is focused entirely on the semi-mythological past when the country reigned supreme and none could challenge it. Often that nationalism is grounded in historical truth but it is deeply romanticized to the point of being a Mel Gibson movie. It's basically a vestigial element of the ancient greek and roman age system (the golden age, the silver age, etc), the glorious past one must strive to return to. Western appreciation is either viewed as irrelevant or downright insulting as the west was backwards and poor at the time (which it was).

For the Macedonains this automatically defaults to Alexander since that is the only period when the region dominated its neighbors. Greece on the hand has many more appealing options and Greek nationalists ignoring the glory of the classical period or the achievements of the medieval Roman Empire in favor of an ephemeral empire is absolutely mind boggling.

[Kyriakos]

Because they do have ties to it. Macedonia was not some barren landscape that got suddenly populated by slavs. The people there were culturally assimilated by slavs over many centuries but they still maintain a link to the ancient Macedonians and Thracians and whatever just like every other people in the Balkans. You view the history of the region in extremely simplistic terms when it is anything but simple. We are talking about a people who have been Hellenised, Latinised and Slavicised all in the span of ~1200 years. The only reason you speak Greek today instead of Macedo-Romanian or Slavic is because of a few battles that happened 1000-1500 years ago (assuming your family is from the region and has not moved there). Whether you like or not those people are just as Macedonian as you and the macedo-romanians are and you have a lot more in common with them than somebody from Laconia or Arcadia (again, assuming your family is from the region).

As for the name same reason slavic Bulgaria is named after the Bulgars, France is named after the Franks, Albania uses a latin name, Belgium is named after the Belgae, Ukraine is called "border provcince" and countless others.


Moreover your heritage as a Greek from Thessaly is no defined solely by some guy who burned cities 2300 years ago. Your heritage is defined by everything that went on before and since. Greek history has so many more characters 1000 times better than a drunk general who destroyed his own kingdom. Why do you people have to be so fixated on him?

Alex wasn't the only one from Macedonia. Aristotle is also somewhat famous. Besides, don't let my imperial clothing fool you; i am just a man of the people (just want to keep my distance when possible)

While some posters obviously want to stick to their lines, i think you aren't one of them. At any rate, as a fellow dehumanized collection of words typed on a subforum ( ) fwiw i note to you that i care about high culture, don't like the wild sentiments often shown by the many, but just cause many people can support a position for wrong views it obviously does not follow the position itself is always false to support.

@Abdul: i did no such thing (including against you). I like you as a poster, and as you know i already noted many times that i am sure you don't express an unbiased view on this issue. Doesn't matter; no one is without bias, but no need to claim i phrase this as some strong attack Afaik you won't decide what happens, so it would be rather strange of me to actually try to attack you.

[goro]

For the Macedonains this automatically defaults to Alexander since that is the only period when the region dominated its neighbors. Greece on the hand has many more appealing options and Greek nationalists ignoring the glory of the classical period or the achievements of the medieval Roman Empire in favor of an ephemeral empire is absolutely mind boggling.

That is because the majority are drawn to "heroes" and their glorious achievements : Defending the nation from a great enemy, overcoming great odds, doing great conquests etc. It's not a surprise that the most known figures from ancient times and recent as well became immortalized during war times. Napoleon, Julius Caesar, Leonidas, Nelson. One could say if Nazi Germany was successful in WWII, Hitler would be considered a national hero.

[Alastor]

Moreover your heritage as a Greek from Thessaly is no defined solely by some guy who burned cities 2300 years ago. Your heritage is defined by everything that went on before and since. Greek history has so many more characters 1000 times better than a drunk general who destroyed his own kingdom. Why do you people have to be so fixated on him?

That is a beautiful argument. Alex sucks and Macedonia has an unimportant legacy, why does Greece want it when it has such a rich heritage, it can afford to give some away. Well, maybe you are right. But it's not right to give those poor Slavs such garbage. Let Greece keep Macedonia and have FYROM pick another part of Greek heritage to claim, a better one this time. I hear Sparta is pretty popular lately, how about that one? If anything, it would bring some variety to this, by now, rather stale drama. I'm already envisioning Tsipras signing that North Sparta deal.