Talk:World War II in Yugoslav Macedonia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Partisan

Firstly, I am not a Communist. Seconly, the term "partisan" in the article does not refer to the Yugoslav Partisans so do not attribute to them in the article and therefore do not capitalize the term partisan. Thirdly, stop adding POV information from nationalist Bulgarian websites. If you continue to vandalize the article, you will be reported. Frightner 06:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

alert

Do not nominate articles for speedy to deal with editing conflicts, as was just done for this article. I of course have declined to delete it; this is clearly illegitimate, and disrupts the operation of Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

World Investment News link

I'm not sure if we should cosider it a reliable link as there seems to be a confusion with it. Just read the article about Bulgaria and the one about Republic of Macedonia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I did not initially use the article as a point of reference, I only included it because it implements the event in the timeline of Macedonian history making it stand out as an important event. But it is okay with me if you would like to remove it because it explains that Bulgaria was forced to declare war on Germany after withdrawing from Macedonia. Frightner 11:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow

Should't we protect the article fo a while and discuss it. There is too much controversy in this one and too much nationalistic POV. I myself will refrain from editing for now and post suggestions here before adding them to the article. But it surely has to be made really balanced - presenting both POVs and not only the ethnic Macedonian one. It might turn out to be a lesson in history for all of us. --Laveol ^T 12:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Very reasonable and cool-head proposal. Lantonov 13:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I requested that this article be protected earlier. One of the IP contributors has broken the three-revert rule and has been reported but continues to revert the article. The user is a POV pusher and uses nationalist websites as sources. Frightner 13:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right, Frightner, a quick perusal of the given references and external links shows that most of the documents quoted can be identified as Macedonian nationalist. Lantonov 14:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: National Liberation War of Macedonia

This is a dispute about what should be included in the article. Should it include:

1. Short introduction about the region of Macedonia.
2. Engagement of the partisan squads of the invading German, Italian, Bulgarian forces
3. Reaction of the local population
4. Outcome

Mr. Neutron 14:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

Comments

Let's identify the causes of conflict

The topic itself is fraught with controversy because Yugoslavian and Bulgarian textbooks have carefully selected facts about this period. Yugoslavian textbooks have omitted the major fact that Macedonia, Serbia, and Hungary were liberated from Nazis mostly by the Bulgarian Army who left 130,000 dead on battlegrounds like Stracin, Strazhica, Drava-Sobolch with some help at the later stages by detachments of the Soviet III Ukrainian Army. Bulgarian textbooks have omitted the fact that in some parts of occupied Vardar Macedonia there was a resistance and organised struggle which was quenched by violence from the Bulgarian occupying force. In fact, there was organised struggle during this period against the Bulgarian government (partisans) in the whole teritory of Bulgaria and this resistance was organised by the Bulgarian Communist Party. It is hard to say where it is national Macedonian resistance and where it is anti-fascist (or communist) resistance. The truth, as always in this cases, lies somewhere in the middle. Lantonov 15:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that there were revolts in all of Greater Bulgaria is apparent but this article itself is based on the events in the Vardar Banovina from 1941-1944 by participating ethnic Macedonians. These are the issues that need to be covered in the discussion. Frightner 15:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

+ the fact that a substantial part of the population of this particular region did take part in the war on the bulgarians' side. What we should have is both views presented - that part of the people in Vardar Macedonia were resisting and part of them really welcomed Bulgaria. --Laveol ^T 15:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the article is about the "war", those welcoming the occupiers were not involved in the war, the article should be about those partaking in the resistance against Axis Powers. Frightner 15:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I didn't express myself clearly - about 40% of the Bulgarian army in Vardar Macedonia sonsisted of locals. This is what I meant should be included --Laveol ^T 15:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh okay, I misunderstood what you meant. My apologies. Frightner 15:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is clear that the resistance was political, not ethnical. The first killed Bulgarian policemen was ethnic Macedonian. Herе is part of a stenogram from Macedonian Parlament. The comments are - it was not liberation's war but a civil war. 213.130.72.22 16:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Весна Јаневска: Благодарам претседателе. Почитувани пратеници, 11 Октомври, сите сме го прифатиле во Република Македонија. И јас, со задоволство. Го славиме како Ден на востанието на македонскиот народ против фашистичката окупација. Како ден кога македонскиот народ се приклучи на Антифашистичката коалиција. Сте се прашале ли, почитувани пратеници, кој на кого пукаше? Ќе ве потсетам. Претпоставувам дека повеќето знаат. Но, ќе ве потсетам дека еден прилепски комунист пукаше на еден Македонец од Смилево, кој, облечен во жандармериска униформа стоеше на стражарско место пред Учестокот во Прилеп. Почитувани пратеници, ако ова му го кажете на били кој современ европски политиколог или социолог, ќе ви каже дека тоа беше братоубиствена војна.

Љубиша Георгиевски: Заради технички причини, барам од вас дозвола одовде да ја кажам репликата, зошто треба да контролирам и други нешта. Репликата не ја задов на излагањето на Весна Јаневска да полимизирам со нејзините ставови, а нејзините ставови се такви какви што се, туку да дополнам едне еклатантен пример кој е за мене суштествен во оваа цела неколку дневна дискусија со која таа започна, а тоа е примерот на првата пушка и примерот на тоа кој кого уби. Сакам да ви кажам јас знам од прва рака не само кој кого уби, туку и како уби. Душко Наумовски кој што го испали првиот куршум од револвер не од пушка, во нашата револуција од 1941 година, беше директор на театарот. На една проба тој интервенираше во една дискусија околу тоа што значи идеолошка свест. Тогаш ми рече вака, синко, ова го велам заради него, бог да го прости, сакам неговиот спомен да го доведам овде во ова собраниска сала, затоа што беше феноменален човек, не само рака на партијата која уби еден стражар. Вели, синко, јас ќе ми ти кажам што значи идеолошка свест. Прво, добив налог од партијата да го ликвидирам стражарот на учасникот во Прилеп. Второ, не спиев цела ноќ, затоа што стражарот, џандарот беше пријател на татко ми. Лични пријатели биле и овие го мобилизирале. Кога се приближив до џандарот, цел се тресев како мало дете и многу се плашев дека ќе промашам и настојував да се приближам многу поблизу. Участокот во Прилеп беше на една прометна улица. И, сега, што се случува? Татко му на Душан Наумовски, на нашиот херој, го молел џандарот својот пријател и да рече, кажи му на тоа моено, да не речам што рекол, да се прибира навреме во овие тешки времиња, а не да се коцка по куќите. Ти ако му згрмиш како униформиран човек, белки ќе те послуша. Душан тоа после го дознава, тој не знае за ова и се враќа. Стражарот му вика, Душко, чекај да ти кажам нешто, застани, да ти кажам татко ти што ти порача. Е, тогаш, Душко искористил, се приближил уште неколку чекори за да чуе и го застрелал. Е, тоа е вели, синко, идеолошка свест.

The situation is unclear in many of these cases where local people from Vardar Macedonia (calling themselves 'anti-fascists' or 'communists') were fighting against local people (calling themselves Bulgarians and called by the former 'collaborationists', 'traitors', 'fascists', etc.). So what was it: struggle for national liberation, civil war, or a mixture of both? I think all of the struggles mentioned in the article are of this sort and they can be called national liberation, anti-fascist resistance, or civil war depending on the person who attaches names to them. Lantonov 16:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to stress the fact that the "war" is waged for the most part by partisans, numbering at a couple of thousand people at best. Given the fact that for the most part the local population readily cooperated with the Bulgarian invading forces, the distinction between ethnic Macedonians and ethnic Macedonian partisans is crucial. Mr. Neutron 17:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The "war" is about any ethnic Macedonians who referred to themselves as anti-fascists or communists who were fighting Axis forces (anyone allied with Nazi Germany, including locals of Vardar Macedonia allied with either Bulgarian, German or Italian fascists) for the liberation of any region of historic Macedonia to establish as a future and independent Macedonian state. Frightner 14:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Improvement

I see that the article has been greatly improved and written in a NPOV. I am satisfied with the contributions to the article so far as they involve both parties. One source that I am still unsatisfied with is Mak Truth. This website is administered by nationalist Bulgarians whose objective is to publicize the "truth about Macedonia" in a sense that it discloses information that ethnic Macedonians were Bulgarians. Frightner 10:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As of the moment I cannot really understand what the sentence which is referenced withthis site has to see. I think its some sort of a mismatch and I'll try to repair it, along with the link :) --Laveol ^T 10:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Laveol. Also, do you think the IP contributor's link to Balkans Campaign rather than History of the Balkans is more relevant to the article, as it took place before the Liberation War of Macedonia? Frightner 10:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say both are valid. I even thought about Invasion of Yugoslavia, but it turned out that it had nothing in it about this. Only the structure of Yugoslavian armies which had to defend the country - none of these seven armies was in Macedonia, though. --Laveol ^T 11:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The Invasion of Yugoslavia and the post-invasion offensive (Yugoslav People's Liberation War) generally refers to the revolt in Nedic's Serbia and does not collaborate information about then independant or annexed states such as Croatia and Vardar Macedonia. With that being said, the articles about Yugoslavia in 1941-1944 essentially detail the events in Serbia as Yugoslavia did not exist within this period of time. Frightner 11:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to disturb your work, but there is a huge concern with your map. How can Bulgaria occupy a part of Bulgaria? It is the nowadays Blagoevgrad province I'm talking about - at the time it was part of the Sofia province? Could you fix it, cause I'm pretty sure a country cannot possibly occupy a part of its own territory. --Laveol ^T 13:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, the thick black line outlines the countries' borders prior to the invasion of Yugoslavia, so the fact that the Blagoevgrad Province is in Bulgaria is indicated. As for your question, the map portrays the occupation of the historic Macedonia to assert the idea that there were armed detachments in those regions. Frightner 13:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove image Occupation_of_Macedonia.png

This image is not only historically untrue but it also contains territorial claims against Bulgaria because it includes Pirin Macedonia in the occupied territories.

Pirin Macedonia is a part of Bulgarian state since the Balkan wars. As such, it was not an occupied territory during WWII but was part of Bulgaria proper (within its borders). As such, it should be removed, because it does not correspond to the historical truth. Lantonov 13:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it was corrected in "location"! 213.130.72.22 13:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. As I have stated that the thick black lines are national borders and Pirin is within the Bulgarian border. The thin black lines only represent regions. Therefore the map in no way supports irredentism. Frightner 14:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw Laveol's posting after I posted the above and Frighner's answer. The answer is not satisfactory. Although the border is given, for Pirin Macedonia it says "occupied territory" which it is not because it is in the country's borders. Also, the (region) specification does not change things because the fact is that part of the Macedonia (region) was not occupied. Lantonov 14:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"Occupation" has been changed to "location" of Axis Forces. Frightner 14:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This too is not satisfactory because there were Bulgarian troops (Axis forces, though this term itself, applied to Bulgaria, is doubtful) on the whole territory of Bulgaria. Then "location" of Axis forces would mean that the whole Bulgarian army was defending Pirin Macedonia and occupying the other parts of the region of Macedonia leaving the rest of the territory of Bulgaria without troops (undefended). Lantonov 14:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, this map in the context "National Liberation of Macedonia" says that the population in Pirin Macedonia fought to liberate itself nationally, and you have to present very solid evidence to support this claim. Lantonov 14:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There are references in the article and sources to support the claim that ethnic Macedonian military detachments were formed in both Pirin and Greek Macedonia who fought for the liberation of those regions to incorporate the region of Macedonia into a future state. That is the purpose of the map; to imply that the regions Macedonians fought for the liberation of were occupied by those particular forces. The other Bulgarian contributors are fine with the map, in that context. Frightner 14:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not see a source in the article that supports this. The request for reference that I put several hours ago on that place is still unfulfilled. Lantonov 14:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the external links. Frightner 14:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference for the external links. It must be put to the appropriate place. In the external link "Кои беа партизаните во Македонија?" (Who were the partisans in Macedonia?) it is written (I just copied and pasted it):

Партизанско движење во Македонија во текот на Времето на бугарското присуство всушност немаше. Мали партизански формировки дејствуваа во италианската зона во Дабарца и во германската зона во Егејска Македонија.

Translated (my translation):

In fact, a partisan movement in Macedonia did not exist during the time of the Bulgarian presence. Small partisan units operated in the Italian zone in Dabarca and in the German zone in the Aegean Macedonia. Lantonov 15:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, the above reference is probably an excerpt of the book of the Macedonian historian Nikola Petrov, published in Skopje, 1998, which is also given in the references as ref [4]. This reference gives very concrete facts connected directly with the topic of this article. I am reading it now as excerpt on the Web but I would like to have the whole book because the facts given are very interesting for me. Lantonov 15:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

One source by one man does not account for other sources who claim otherwise. Read the "external links" this time. Frightner

What I cited before was an "EXTERNAL LINK". The first external link is a site that has no original historically referenced material, and in the third EXTERNAL LINK, it it is written (again copy and paste):

Така, полтронските Македончиња послушни и верни на својот вожд ја формираа Македонско-косовската бригада, забравајќи при тоа да формираат барем еден Вардарско-пирински или Вардарско-егејски партизански одред (!!!). Translation: "So, the poltron(?) Macedonians, which were loyal to their leader, formed a Macedonian-Kosovo brigade, forgetting to form at least one Vardar-Pirin or Vardar-Aegean partisan unit ...

So, the "external links" unambiguously show that there was not a national Macedonian partisan movement in Pirin Macedonia. Lantonov 16:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There are all proves from your Soros' site:

....The decisions being made at the I Session of ASNOM, at which participated the representatives from the Pirin part of Macedonia, have been accepted by the respective population. The wish for the union with Democratic Federal Macedonia has always been present in Macedonians from this part of Macedonia.!?!? Jingby 18:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Macedonian historical documents

Another interesting Macedonian source of that time with photo:

ИЛИНДЕН 1941 ГОДИНА. ЖИВИТЕ УЧЕСНИЦИ ВО ИЛИНДЕНСКОТО ВОСТАНИЕ ПРАЗНУВАА ВО СЛОБОДНА БИТОЛА.

Напред вдесно е членот на Главниот штаб на востанието Анастас Лозанчев. Роден во Битола во 1870 година. Еден од првите дејци на ВМОРО во Битола. Член на Битолскиот окружен комитет. На Смилевскиот конгрес е избран за член на Главниот штаб на востанието заедно со Даме Груев и Борис Сарафов. После востанието живее во Софија до 1908 година кога се враќа во Битола. При српската окупација во 1912 е принуден одново да се врати во Бугарија. Во 1941 заедно со другите живи илинденци активно учествува во востановувањето на бугарско управување во Вардарска Македонија. Умира во Софија во 1945 година.

Lantonov 16:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Aim of the "Liberation War"

As user Frightner points out above, he initiated this article in order to include any struggle in the "historic Macedonian region" during WWII which had for its aim "establishing of independent Macedonian state". Let's analyse the aims of the struggles described in the article:

As pointed out in the article and supported by sources, the struggle against Axis powers in Vardar Macedonia was mostly organised by representatives of Yugoslavian Communist Party and emissaries of Tito like Tempo and other Serbian and Montenegrin nationals who formed ASNOM. The struggle took place mostly in the Italian-occupied zone with isolated cases in the Bulgarian-occupied zone. As is also pointed out, ASNOM changed its original aim (independent Macedonia) to "Macedonia as a part of Yugoslavia", that is, not independent. Therefore, the partisan struggle organised by ASNOM does not fulfil the aim of this article. As also pointed out in the sources, part of the IMRO members who collaborated with the Bulgarian occupying force also had the aim of "liberating Macedonia from Serbian rule and making it independent", in fact, independent Macedonia. So, the struggle of this pro-fascist individuals (not necessarily pro-Bulgarian but pro-panMacedonian) against ASNOM also can be listed as a struggle for national liberation.

In Pirin Macedonia, the partisan movement was totally organised by the Bulgarian Communist Party. The aim of this movement was devoid of any nationalistic elements and was to depose the pro-fascist monarchist government of Bulgaria and substitute it with "dictatorship of the proletariat" that is, a communist regime of Soviet type. This is supported by ample historical documentation, including the given documents in the Soros site.

In Aegean Macedonia, the population was with mixed ethnicity - part Slav and part Greek. The Slav population of the German and Italian-occupied territories there enlisted in the partisan movement organised and led by two Greek parties who had partly nationalistic aims (liberating Greece from the foreign occupation) and partly ideological aims (anti-fascist and pro-communist). The Slav population in the Bulgarian occupied territories supported in masse the Bulgarian troops and enlisted as volunteers to fight against the Greek-led anti-fascist resistance in these territories. Part of those volunteers had the aim of "independent Macedonia" and the larger part had the aim of uniting all Bulgarian ethnic elements from the 3 Bulgarian regions: Moesia, Tracia, and Macedonia. There is some historical evidence to support that local volunteer Slav brigades were formed at this time with the aim of "independent Macedonia", however, most of the documentation for this was destroyed by Greeks during and after their Civil War following WWII.

It must be stressed, however, that all the described nationalistic aims were secondary and subservient to the ideological aims which can be (somewhat simplistically) described as communist against fascist. Lantonov 10:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

All individual sources in the article have different opinions on what the war was about, but before the majority of contributions using Bulgarian sources change the context of the article the article was about one thing and did not contain contradictions. This matter will have to be taken care of in time. There is not enough personal will to read all of every source available to undo contradictions and solve conflicting POV issues. You seem to be stressed over the contents of the article, I suggest, temporarily, that contributing information to the article is absent and the format and grammar issues are resolved first. This will allow more time later to solve any issues there are about the contents of the article. Frightner 12:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I also try to read as much sources as I can and glean information. The problem with the sources is that one doesn't know what to believe and what not. Also in many of them the info is contradictory. I don't have time for now to work on this article and will return when I have more time and will. In addition, there are other wiki articles that I edit and I must do something about them. I read a little from reference [6]. It is in English and speaks about a Macedonian brigade composed of IMRO members and operating in south-west Macedonia (around the town of Kostur) which appears to have some nationalistic aims. Also ref [2] by Dimitre Michev is in English and has many releveant data from this time. Good day and have fun. Lantonov 12:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

the CREDIBILITY of our SOURCES

this is one of the worst articles ive ever had a missopportunity to see . however it doesnt suprise me, wikipedia lost its reliability long time ago. why dont you just call it "the official Bulgarian point of view on the National Liberation War of Macedonia"? ;)

and those "sources" you provide, ah "impressing" indeed. That Nikola Petrov , who is he? What are his academic credentials? are his works regarded reliable and non-partisan source?

and now some words of wisdom from your article:

As the Bulgarian army entered Vardar Macedonia on April 19, 1941, it was greeted by most of the population as liberators[1]

re: the "source" is not only Bulgarian but moreover its published in 1941 :)))) (МАКЕДОНИЯ 1941, "Възкресението" - С. Нанев, 1941 г.)
This is like quoting a Nazi German source claiming "when we occupied the Netherlanders they greeted us as liberators" :))) NPOV? "Reliable" sources? sure, sure ;)

On October 15, 1944, Macedonian partisans liberated Ohrid from Italian occupants for a short period of time.

re: Fascist Italy capitulated in 1943. And moreover, Ohrid belonged to the Bulgarian occupation zone :)). The Italian occupation zone (given to Albania) included the line: Tetovo- Gostivar- Debar- Kichevo- Struga. This starts to be quite entertaining.

Quote: 1944 when the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was established.

re: SFRY was formally established on November 29 1943 in the town of Jajce, Bosnia and Herzegovina at AVNOJ not in 1944. The Macedonian Republic that became a part of it had its official name(s) Democratic Macedonia, People's Republic of Macedonia and finally Socialist Republic of Macedonia which is not mentioned at all.

It was not important that thеse party members had declared Bulgarian origin during the war, along with Kiro Gligorov and Lazar Koliševski.

re: Fascist Bulgaria was not a democratic country and it was imposing a policy of Bulgarian nationalism as the other fascist countries did too, such as Italy (in occupied Dalmatia) or Hungary (in occupied Vojvodina) . The state regarded ethnic Macedonians as Bulgarians. Kiro couldnt freely declare any other origin than Bulgarian, in a same way he couldnt freely declare any other origin than Serbian during the previous Serbian occupation (until 1941). Statements given in such specific circumstances, under a regime internationaly regarded as totalitarian and fascist can not be accepted.

Quote: However, under pro-Serbian pressure a decision was later reached that Vardar Macedonia will become a part of new Communist Yugoslavia.

If the Serbian "lobby" was so strong, how come Tito recognized a Macedonian nation established on a territory formerly controled by Serbia (Vardar Banovina)? If Tito was pro-Serbian how come he later granted wide autonomy to parts of Serbia such as SAP Kosovo and SAP Vojvodina? If Tito was pro-serbian how come he recognized a separate Montenegrian ethnicity and later a separate Muslim ethnicity? Btw he was not even a Serb but half Croat, half Slovene.

Quote: According to official sources the number of Macedonian communist partisan's victims against the Bulgarian army during WWII was 539 men, which is not a high level.

RE: How can you put such an infantile statement in an encyclopedia and sleep calm afterwards? what is a "high level" for you then?? 100 000? 1 milion? 6 milions? 20 milions? You are not on a vegetable market in Pazardzhik and you are not counting potatoes.
And what are those official sources btw? The military of Axis Bulgaria?

Quote: Many people went throughout the concentration camps of Idrizovo and Goli Otok for pro-Bulgarian sympathies or an independent or united Macedonia ideology in the late 1940s.

Re: Idrizovo is not a concentration camp but a prison dont be silly. Then, the majority of prisoners at Goli Otok were not charged with pro-Bulgarian symphaties but with pro-soviet activities after the Tito-Stalin split (Cominform), 1948. After all what Vlado Dapčević has to do with Bulgaria? he was one of the notable prisoners on G.O.

the whole article is an utter rubish

ps. one more quote: НародноослободителнаТА Борба во Македонија (НОБ). Why with -TA? and why "IN" Macedonia? There's no such thing. Macedonian schoolbooks name it: NA Makedonija without that -TA. Thats not the way its called in macedonian language. it should be Narodnoosloboditelna only. Oh dear, you are writting encyclopedia or what? disaster

I have a Macedonian history book that says Нородноослободителната Борба во Македонија. More so, the lines you quoted were contributed by Bulgarian POV pushers. POV pushers contributing to this article are trying to turn it into an article entirely about Bulgarians in Macedonia between 41 and 41. The article is about Macedonian partisans who fought for the liberation of Macedonia from FASCIST BULGARIANS, ITALIANS AND GERMANS. Whenever I remove POV information from sources which cannot merely be considered credible, POV pushers revert my edits and claim "Macedonians viewed the fascists as liberators". If that was the point of the article, it would not be called the NATIONAL LIBERATION WAR. The Bulgarian POV pushers should create a seperate POV article titled Bulgarian POV on the occupation of Macedonia in World War II. Bulgarian POV is undermining the aim of the article. Also, User: Jingiby, stop reverting my edits about towns that were liberated by Macedonian partisans. Frightner

The separation of POV's is a violation of Wikipedia:POV fork. The article is not about the Macedonian partisans, it is about a war, and how that war was or was not fought. Mr. Neutron 15:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So why exactly is Bulgaria inserted into every sentence? "As the Bulgarian army..." how about the German and Italian armies? The ones that were there first. This whole article is based on nationalist Bulgarian sources and Bulgarian propaganda. Frightner 15:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is you are advocating a violation of the policies. Of course Bulgarian forces desereve the most space out of all forces, because it was them that occupied the region of the most part. Every source is a POV, including the once that you provide. Mr. Neutron 15:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And? At least they talk about Macedonia not "Blah Blah Blah Bulgaria Blah Bulgarian Blah Blah etc". Bulgarian contributors are talking in a 1st person perspective as if they were there. I keep my perspective neutral ie "The Bulgarian army entered Vardar Macedonia" no one wants to hear no crap about them being seen as liberators by some pro-Fascist ass-kissing dissidents. Frightner 15:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Watch your language and do not make personal attacks, as well as monopolize the content. Mr. Neutron 16:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks against people who may have died decades ago? STFU! Frightner 16:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I am reporting you for personal attacks, 3RR and incivility. Mr. Neutron 16:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, good luck. Better make it a long block too, might relieve me of the metaphorical gangrene you call "Bulgaria". Frightner 16:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I am truly sorry you have such negative feelings for Bulgarians and you let them affect your edits in such a way. Mr. Neutron 16:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't be, every Macedonian feels this way. I tried to keep my composure, allowing fair discussion from both parties. But then comes a time when a Bulgarian pisses you off, like with my friend User:Namajkati that got banned for speaking out. I hope Wikipedia can keep the slightest bit of dignity when more things like this happen in the future. Frightner 16:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Frightner, I get the point very well and not only me ;) Just a glimpse at their "sources" and certain statements is sufficient for everyone to see the "encyclopedity" and the "maturity" of the whole thing ;) Moreover its quite funny that all these citizens of a formerly defeated nazi country are now rewriting the history :)) Imagine today's neonazis from lets say Germany now rewriting an article about the Soviet Great Patriotic War for instance :)) Neuron, a "separation of POV's" was a violation? O Really? How come they are clearly separated within the Krste Misirkov article? After all why should we care about the Bulgarian POV anyway? Should we now include the Nazi Germany POV too in the Soviet Great Patriotic War article?. Should we now add the Ottoman Turkish POV in an article about Ilinden Uprising?! LOL :) Why should we be obliged to "satisfy" all the defeated sides in this war? :))) Then, Neuron, Bulgarian forces actually deserve less space, i dont see this article being named Military history of Bulgaria during World War II. This war was actually fought against them and thats the main point like it or not. After all why am i explaining all this to you, the sources and the statements you support have no credibility whatsoever. this is a pure joke. you still use that mysterious Nikola Petrov (?!) no one in the world knows who he is. pure WP:BOLLOCKS :) I beleive that even you dont know who he is. The fact that he published a book means nothing, cause everyone can do that these days. And most bizzare thing is, i see the article was protected by some japanese oceanographer (?!) What is his or her's competence over the particular subject in this article?! To judge whether certain edits are vandalism or genuine contribution, one must have certain knowledge on the subject. Hah, if this is encyclopedia I'll eat my hat (fortunatelly its not)

ps. Frightner: the name in the macedonian schoolbooks is "NARODNOOSLOBODITELNA VOJNA NA MAKEDONIJA" and that was used everywhere. Books, encyclopedias, tv documentaries etc. I dont know what book you have but check in which context that is written. Macwedonian language gramatic rules say you add -TA suffix (членување, I suppose its called article in engliosh) when you want to say THE National Liberation war. In this case, -TA should be removed. The Macedonian form should be: Народноослободителна војна на Македонија. without -TA on the first word. And its not "IN" Macedonia but "OF" Macedonia. Macedonian schoolbooks say "OF" Macedonia. dont tell me, im here in mac. :)--Detubug 16:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There was any state or nationality named Macedonia or Macedonians before 1944. This region and the people ware part of Bulgaria, not of Yugoslavia! Because of that we have not interest to read your Communist, pro- Yugoslav, Titoist propaganda about the history of Bulgaraia! Jingby 17:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Jingybingy, we have absolutely no interest in reading your neo-nazi propagandha either, nor we are impressed by your "sources" but what can we do. Its a public secret that certain centers in Bulgaria (notably the nationalist party VMRO-BND) are spending large amounts of money for recruiting kids for internet propagandha, with lot of the money being donated to Wikimedia Foundation. VMRO-BND's president Karakacanov publicly claims Macedonian territories[1][2] so that doesnt suprise me at all. Otherwise why would someone sit 24h in front of the monitor abusing Macedonian articles in the middle of summer? There must be a good motivation (money makes the world go round). But back to the subject: The forcible annexation of territories by Fascist states in WWII was not recognized by the Allies, (this includes: USA, Great Britain, USSR, De Gaul's French resistance and so on). They were bombing Sofia in World War II certainly not because they liked your policy lol :)). On the other hand, the allied countries officialy recognized the Macedonian antifascist movement by sending various military missions, for example the British SOE mission in 1943, the US one in 1944 led by major Dickenson and so on. If you want us to justify the Bulgarian fascist occupation, that would mean recognizing German souveregnity over Austria, Poland and other countries in WWII. Of course that is not possible by any standard. The antifascist resistance in France belongs to the History of France and not to the History of Germany, ELAS belongs to History of Greece not to History of Italy or Bulgaria although these states anexed parts of Grece and so on. If you dont want that, then be consistent and say that the resistance against Ottomans in Bulgaria belong to History of Turkey only and not History of Bulgaria :)))) And for a third time" who's Nikola Petrov and what are his academic credentials?:)) Detubug 18:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Alex - I see you're finally back. --Laveol ^T 21:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

and hi to you Laveol, Mr. Neutron's meatpuppet (or vice versa, who cares) :-D

So you are Alex? Or Amacos? Or Namajkati? I see great similiarity between what you say and what Amacos and ALex said. --Laveol ^T 10:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

New title of the article

I have two concerns.

1. There is a period "." in the end of the current name, please remove it.
2. The Republic of Macedonia was established in 1991, so during WW2 there was the Socialist Republic of Macedonia, or maybe Vardar Banovina in transition to SRM. Mr. Neutron 18:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to see that the attempt of civilised discussion turned in such an ugly anti-Bulgarian slandering campaign. Probably to be expected but still, a pity. Lantonov 06:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As an afterthought, maybe a probably better title of the article will be "(Military) History of the region of Macedonia during WWII" and talk about the whole region without trying to separate communist-fascist and national movements. Lantonov 06:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I support Neutron that we cannot talk about history of Republic of Macedonia during WWII because it did not exist at that time. Also in the template "History of Republic of Macedonia" this history goes as far back as 681 AD when the Bulgarian state was formed. It is, mildly said, historically incorrect. History of the Republic of Macedonia starts with the beginning of this Republic (September 8, 1991). Everything else is a history of Macedonia as a region. Lantonov 11:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"Jingibingy"

Jingiby keeps spreading fascist propaganda on this article, he doesn't even make any decent contributions.. I mean, let's face it, the guy can't even spell. What's the deal with the picture of the small pro-Fascist population waiting to greet the homosexual Boris III and his f**k buddy, Hitler? If all Macedonians were pro-fascist at the time, there wouldn't have been a war, would there? Use that expired organ you call a brain. Frightner 09:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I see you have a sense of humor Lantonov. Frightner 10:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with my version of the article, it's completely sourced and neutral. The only problem here is Jingiby, he has made way more reverts than me without providing any reason but "political propaganda", he is the only propagandist here. Why is it OK for him to delete my sourced information yet it is unfair for me to, since another Bulgarian contributor is quick to defend him. Frightner 10:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

And where are your sources, Frightner. Please, list them, so people may have a look. Every source I look at, you say it is Bulgarian propaganda, including official books from Skopie, book from a former president of Macedonia, and speeches before the Macedonian parliament. It is exasperating. I put in the talk a section on "Macedonian historical documents". If you put a list there, people can take a look and discuss them. Lantonov 10:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't spell Skopje like a Greek nationalist again. Frightner 10:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not deliberate about Skopje.Lantonov 10:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Greeks spell Skopje as "Skopia" (Σκόπια), nationalists or otherwise, and please refrain from racial slurs. Calling all Greeks nationalists for minor adaptations on the name according to the clitics and cases of their language does not help. This is your first WP:NPA warning by me, Frightner, and I also don't like your comment here, which I can perfectly understand ("death to Bulgarians, Greeks, Albanians" etc). Normally you should have been blocked for these, not to mention your userbox in the same diff. NikoSilver 11:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, excellent translation, one of my favorite quotes too. Why does Jingiby keep removing sourced information, especially "By the end of the war the Macedonian National Liberation Army numbered over 56,000 combatants in the Vardar Banovina and this region alone produced some 25,000 victims. German, Italian and Bulgarian occupiers of the region had over 60,000 military and administrative police personnel.[9]", from a Serbian source? Frightner 11:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I heard a Greek coach of a local soccer club call their opposing team this weekend (who happened to be ethnic Macedonians) Skops, so don't tell me who and who not to call nationalist. Frightner 11:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Just refrain from making racial slurs and read the policy I linked. No childish excuses necessary. NikoSilver 12:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There was no 'Republic of Macedonia' in WWII

Are we being a bit silly? The boundaries of the 'Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Macedonia' were created in 1945, as a Socialist Yugoslavia was taking shape - that is after the end of the war. This title makes no sense, historically. We might as well have an article, Military history of 'Western Bulgaria' during World War II, or, indeed, of Vardar Banovina, or Southern Serbia.Politis 14:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, shouldn't the title be "Military history of the Republic of Macedonia"? Besides that which is a mere neglect, I think that Politis' remarks have a basis. I read from the Republic of Macedonia article: "Its current borders were fixed shortly after World War II when the government of the then People's Federal Republic of Yugoslavia established the People's Republic of Macedonia, recognizing the region as a separate nation within Yugoslavia."--Yannismarou 14:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

We could dodge all these semantics by using either Vardar Banovina that Politis proposed -or- I have another idea for consideration: We could merge this article to either Yugoslavia#Yugoslavia during the Second World War or Invasion of Yugoslavia or Yugoslav People's Liberation War (or all three depending on timeframe and location). Then, we can title the particular relevant section(s) as "Resistance of ethnic Macedonians during World War II" and even expand the section to make it a separate article.

• Pros: The ethnic Macedonians will have an article/section dealing with them despite the fact that they were not a separate nation then.
• Cons: To my knowledge there aren't any similar articles for subnational entities such as Vardar Banovina or People's RoM (i.e. there's no article on "Military history of Texas during WWII" lol). Therefore, probably the content should probably stay within the Yugoslavian parent articles.

Thoughts? NikoSilver 15:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what Neutron, myself and (anyone else?) say above. Part of the people of the region of Macedonia usurping and revising the history of all the people that live and have lived in this region is silly but not only silly. Therefore all my appeals to compare sources and separate (or not) ideological (communist, fascist, anti-fascist) from national goals (liberation of Macedonia, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania - from whom?). Macedonians against fascism - what is this? A whole nation rises against an ideology and becomes communist overnight. Then what to say about Greeks that fought in ELAS in Aegean Macedonia, and Macedonian Slavs that fought against ELAS in the same region. Or about Ivan Kozarev - the Bulgarian from Pirin Macedonia who fought against Bulgarian fascist government and was the first partisan in Bulgaria? Or the partisan movement in Pirin Macedonia that was completely organised and led by the Bulgarian Communist Party. Or the liberation of the Eastern part of Yugoslavia and Hungary by the Bulgarian army at the end of 1944 acting by the orders of the Bulgarian Communist government. History is very complicated even without people pushing their views about how it should have been. Lantonov 15:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

OK for merging contents with, Yugoslavia#Yugoslavia during the Second World War or Invasion of Yugoslavia or Yugoslav People's Liberation War (or all three depending on timeframe and location). As I told Frightner, his inventions and interventions often go against the efforts of the new generation of good historians in Skopje who see the absurdity of trying to constantly identify Fyrom/RoM with a 'greater Macedonia' across the ages. Politis 15:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with "Resistance of ethnic Macedonians during WWII" is that it is hard to describe who is ethnic Macedonian during this time. As I see from the thrust of the article, it describes mainly anti-fascist resistance in Vardar Macedonia, trying to push the thesis that it was a national struggle for independent Macedonia (region), including also Pirin, and Aegean Macedonia, as seen in the map of the region, included in it. Lantonov 15:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I have (what I think is) an even better idea - a merge with History of the Republic of Macedonia. This is where this article/section really belongs. It can show the origins of the later Communist substate and the nowadays Republic. The period of 1940-1944 is now within the 1912-1944 section. So a new section alongside a great expansion of the others should make it look a lot better. And if the length of the new section seems to much we can always expand it (as Niko said above) to a new article - I don't think we'll come to this pretty soon, though. --Laveol ^T 15:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I partly concur with Laveol, though I still feel unease about a Republic of Macedonia going back to 7th century. We have History of Bulgaria, History of Greece, History of Serbia, and History of Yugoslavia, but all those are for periods when such states, and nations existed. Lantonov 15:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Lantonov and Laveol. Also, I think there might be grounds to create an article for Bulgarian policies towards 'geographic Macedonia' from 1903(?) to 1945 or 1947 (when these policies were abandoned). Politis 15:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree. Merging it with RoM's history will not change anything, as RoM wasn't even formed then. I stick to my original proposal about merging with Yugo related articles. The 'ethnic' dab is the furthest I could go, and this only in a subsection as this area became even a subnational entity after 1945 (when the war ended)! So given that we have no separate articles on subnational entities, let alone subnational-entities-to-be, I'm afraid there's no choice. NikoSilver 16:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Then History of the Republic of Macedonia should be rewritten, too. I've lways thought it to be rather useless as most of the info should be (or already is) included in the region's history. All prior to 1945 or even to 1991 even. --Laveol ^T 17:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we stick to this 'article' for the moment :-) I am happy with whatever you editors in the current discussion decide because, overall, I share your unhappy opinion of this article. Politis 17:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello all. To Lantonov I must say that he is misunderstanding the nature of the "history of xxx (nation)" articles. These articles serve to provide a complete survey of the history of a state's territory and of the people that have lived there; to put it clearly, for example History of Belgium starts a lot earlier then the creation of Belgium in 1830, beginning with prehistory; and also History of Greece starts with prehistory, speaking of a non-hellenic people, the minoans, and History of Bulgaria has a section on the Thracians. But the problem is that the article has expanded to much to be merged with History of Republic of Macedonia; maybe a rename like Bulgarian occupation in Yugoslavia during WWII or, better, Yugoslav People's Liberation War in Macedonia, as a subarticle of Yugoslav People's Liberation War. The use of "Macedonia" in this context shouldn't worry anybody, because the word "Yugoslav" disambiguates enough to avoid any confusion. Ciao,--Aldux 20:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we being a bit silly?- yes you are politis, good that u asked, but here's a wise solution: Since Greeks have spent 400 years under the Turks, the History of Greece during that period should be properly renamed to History of Turkey (or History of Western Turkey) while the article about the modern greek state should be renamed to The Former Turkish Colony of Greece. The greek anthropological characteristics are Turkish (tanned faces, black hair, unibrow), the greek cuisine is Turkish (donner kebap = giro, shishkebap = souvlaki, greek baklava = turkish baklava, you drink turkish coffee etc.), your music is mostly modernized arabesque turbofolk (basicaly turkish-influenced) and therefore you are Turks without moustaches. I think its a great solution 69.64.87.42 23:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Aldux on the principle that a nation's history begins a lot earlier than creating the state but with Republic of Macedonia the situation is much different. Macedonia is a region and not a nation. To pick up the example given with Belgium: In the History of Belgium it is written: "The earliest inhabitants of Belgium were Belgae after which Belgium is named". Let us write: "The earliest inhabitants of Macedonia were Macedonians after which the Republic of Macedonia is named" and we will have the whole population of Greece knocking on your door with death threats. Another hypothetical example is closer to the situation with the Republic of Macedonia: Suppose that Alsace becomes a republic and starts to claim the history of France, Germany, Belgium, and Luxemburg and call the population of these counntries Alsatian and the languages they speak Alsatian language and the history of the whole western Europe Alsatian history. Is this history true and worthy to be included in an encyclopedia? As for Bulgarian occupation of Yugoslavia in WWII and Yugoslav People's Liberation War in Macedonia, I agree to have such articles if there is a need for them providing that they are historically truthful taking into account available sources and not put there for the sole purpose of being a tribunal of alleged Bulgarian attrocities and genocide against the innocent and well meaning population of Yugoslavia. As for Thracians and Minoans, those are people that have existed in history but no longer exist and the closest descendants to them are the inhabitants of, respectively, Bulgaria and Greece. This is why they are included in the histories of those countries.Lantonov 05:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel that the written by 69.64.87.42 23:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC) deserves any comment but it is a good example of the abuse that rewriting and misinterpretation of history causes. In fact, the writer abuses his/her own roots because the whole region was under Turkish slavery for a long time. Lantonov 06:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Lantonov, regarding the post before your last one, if u are suggesting that ethnic Macedonians are sort of "artificial nation" first take a look at your own, cause its "artificial" too like every other nation in the world (this includes the modern post-1820s Greeks too, they were invented during the time of Romanticism, see Schliemann and all those pseudo-scientists). Nations dont grow on trees, people make them. Modern Bulgarians are some mix of mostly Bulgars who came from Bulgaristan an ancient name for Tatarstan (thats why you're called Bulgar-ians, not English or French), then your language is south slavic which you took from the Slavs already living in the area (the Bulgars spoke Turkic before) and now you even claim Thracian ancestry? What is your identity then? After all, OK, fine, you can be Thracian if you insist, but in that case ethnic Macedonians can claim Ancient Macedonian ancestry, they can say, well ok, the Slavs came and mixed with the local Ancient Macedonians. Cause you see, despite all the tensions, both RoM and Greece agree that areas such as Bitola, Ohrid, Gevgelija and Stobi were part of Ancient Macedonia (at least during a certain period), right? Ok, now tell me, who's NIKOLA PETROV and what are his academic credentials so that you put him in an encyclopedia? (i bet you dont have a clue and that you will not answer)

Take your Medicine and go sleeping! Jingby 09:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The above anonymous falsity, of course, does not deserve any comment. I only want to point out that Schliemann, who discovered ancient Troya, is characterised as 'pseudo-scientist'. Then what this ultimate anonymous authority will say about Nikola Petrov, the humble historian from Skopje, who in 1998 published there 10000 copies of his book "Кои беа партизаните во Македониjа" based on the investigation of his group in the Macedonian Institute of History.Lantonov 09:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

aha, I see. well, Alexander Donski is also humble we will put him in the article too. Im also humble. Really. you can put me as a source too. jingis, perhaps you are the one who will need medicines soon, you never know what may happen[3]

You are anything but humble, probably 'slinking' is a better description. BTW, the link you give is worth seeing and discussing. Lantonov 10:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Should we take this a threat? So you are Namajkati after all. --Laveol ^T 11:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Crkny" in Serbian means "Die". Lantonov 11:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Only Bulgarian and Greek contributors editing and deciding what to do with the article? How precious. The title makes no sense, Jingiby, one of the most bias contributors to this article is a moron. I don't wanna hear any comments of "personal attacks" 'cause I don't give a shit. Frightner 12:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

I agree with Aldux and Jingiby made the right move. NikoSilver 12:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What part of I don't give a shit don't you understand? First people like Lantonov were claiming Macedonia wasn't occupied as it was a part of Bulgaria yet now the article is called "Occupation of Yugoslav Macedonia during World War II" and there was no such thing as "Yugoslavia" between 41 and 43. Jeez, wake up and smell the coffee, no wonder this site's full of it. Frightner 12:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Frightner, please do not put words in my mouth. I said (more exactly, repeated after another contributor) that Pirin Macedonia was not occupied because it was inside the borders of Bulgaria before WWII. I have always said in all my contributions (you can check this) that Vardar Macedonia and Aegean Macedonia were occupied by Bulgaria. Lantonov 12:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As for Occupation of Yugoslav Macedonia during World War II I agree with Frightner that it is incorrect to speak of Yugoslav Macedonia 1941-1943 because such state did not exist then. It is incorrect to speak of Vardar Banovina because it also did not exist at that time. I propose to drop state designations and speak about this territory in neutral terms as part of the region of Macedonia, namely, Vardar Macedonia, Occupation of Vardar Macedonia during World War II. Lantonov 12:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I oughta kick Politis' ass, stop calling Macedonia Skopje, go back to Ethiopia you "malaka". Frightner 12:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

For reviewing admin: See Malakas please. NikoSilver 13:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

'National Liberation War of Macedonia' seems to be a cliche left over from communist Yugoslavia, the same as 'Fatherland War' as was called WWII in Communist Bulgaria, although the main part of this war Bulgarians fought far from the borders of Bulgaria, as far as eastern Austria. Lantonov 13:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Good, no need to involve them in the article then. Let's talk about Germany and Italy now. Frightner 13:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, fine with me. What do you like to talk about them? Lantonov 13:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

How partisans were involved in battles with them, the article is not just about Macedonian-Bulgarian battles. Aegean and Italian-occupied zones detachments should be discussed a little more thoroughly. Note; why would I add citation to a picture? Frightner 14:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that they deserve more discussion because the partisan movement was more intensive there, strenghtened by ethnic differences that lack in the Bulgarian-occupied zone. The citation to the picture is needed to see where this picture is taken from. As it is now, it can be from anywhere, for instance, Kurds killed by Turkish soldiers near the border of Iraq or whatever.Lantonov 14:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

One editor, Frightner, has started swearing at editors (malaka = wa*ker); for this reason alone, can the gentleman be banned from editing for a while?

Politis 15:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there is no point to chew over things said in countless other places. If there is a new original material as sources, it is better be put in the respective places - Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania during WWII, for instance. Lantonov 15:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia is not even mentioned.. god, it's like talking to a brick wall. Latanov, I got the picture from a Macedonian-Bulgarian discussion forum, I can give you the link to the forum but I doubt I can recover the exact thread. I think some of the other picture have a link to the forum. Also, Jingibingy is still undoing my edits, he has made tons of reverts and has never been blocked for it, I got mine, how about an admin give him his for a change. P.S. Politis, I would be more than happy to get banned from wikipedia, permanently would make me even happier so еби се. Frightner 15:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If we will discuss something, let's discuss concrete material on the basis of sources given:

1. Is this material sourced
2. Is this source reliable (I say 'no' you say 'yes' or vice versa)
3. Arguments pro and con
4. Additional material augmenting or contradicting arguments

For instance, it is not pleasant for me to see in the article that Bulgarian soldiers in Macedonia killed 12 young persons in a village but I accept it and try to live with it because it is sourced material and therefore a proven fact. Lantonov 15:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Who cares anymore, I'm getting tried in some form of nerdy online case. I got a bunch of Greeks and Bulgarians to hate me, what more could a Maco guy ask for? XD Frightner 15:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol [4] *shifts eyes* Frightner 15:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a picture of a German (King Boris) shaking the hand of an Austrian (Hitler). So the German royal family was sympathetic to Germans... That is for another article, German royal houses and Nazi GermanyPolitis 15:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not among the people who hate you, Frightner, in fact I am sorry that you did not listen to my well-intentioned advice and took such a turn. I would like to discuss things with you because it seems you have information that I lack or have learnt wrongly in school. What I really want is to sift truth from lies. Lantonov 15:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That [5] is a picture of a German (King Boris) shaking the hand of an Austrian (Hitler). So the German royal family of Bulgaria was sympathetic to the Nazis... That is for another article, German royal houses and Nazi Germany. The German royal houses of Belgium, British, Greek, Romanian, Bulgarian, etc... were sympathetic to Germany at some time during WWI and WWII. P.S. Lantonov, the guy is taking advantage of your good nature. Politis 15:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody denies that Hitler was sympathetic to Boris III and listened to him with respect. This fact was overstressed in our history textbooks during totalitarism, and now after it, it is supported by additional material and pictures. Bogdan Filov in his diary describes even by the minute all the appointments of tsar Boris, his words and thoughts during this period. The reverse is also true: in some sense tsar Boris was sympathetic to Germany and he used the mutual sympathy and respect in the interest of Bulgaria. Lantonov 16:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)