Some Problems of the Peace ConferenceHaskins, Charles Homer
History
Some Problems of the Peace Conference
Haskins, Charles Homer
Paris Peace Conference (1919-1920); World War, 1914-1918 -- Territorial questions
What are the rights and wrongs in the case? Has the Peace Conference
simply perpetuated a great injustice, repeated the mistake of the
Congress of Berlin, deprived the Bulgarians of a province which is
theirs by right of nationality and without which they can never rest?
The Macedonian question has been before the world a sufficiently long
time to have thoroughly wearied most people of it, perhaps, but not
long enough to produce a clear understanding or any real unanimity
of opinion about it. It presents, on the one hand, such a medley
of jarring races, long-standing animosities, and ever-recurring
atrocities, and, on the other hand, such a jumble of ethnographic
riddles, philological controversies, psychological uncertainties,
unreliable statistics, assertions and counter-assertions flatly
contradictory on every point, that one almost despairs of an idea as
to how it ought to be settled, or of the hope of ever seeing it settled
at all.
Macedonia contained in 1910--nobody knows what it contains now, after
the last three wars--over two million people, including about 1,300,000
Slavs, 300,000 Greeks, and scattered minorities of Turks, Albanians,
Vlachs, Jews, and Gypsies. The Greeks predominate in the south and
southeast, and can make out a very good claim on ethnographic grounds
to most of that part of Macedonia which they acquired in 1913. The
dispute turns much more upon central and northern Macedonia, where the
Slavs predominate, and upon the question whether these Slavs ought to
be considered as mainly Bulgarians or Serbs.
For the elucidation of this question, it is necessary to go very far
afield. When the Southern Slavs first settled in the Balkans, they
formed a great, undifferentiated mass, stretching from the Alps and the
Adriatic to the Aegean and the Black Sea--a mass of ethnographic raw
material out of which almost any number of ‘nations’ and ‘languages’
might have been developed in accordance with the accidents of history.
As it turned out, two centres of political crystallization arose--a
northeastern centre, in the region between the Balkan Mountains and
the Danube, where a Turanian people called Bulgars organized the Slavs
into a state to which they--the original Bulgars--contributed little
except the name and the ruling class; and a northwestern centre of
crystallization in Serbia and Montenegro. The modern Serb and the
modern Bulgarian nations are closely akin in language and in blood,
although the Bulgars have a certain Turanian strain in them, while the
Serbs boast of being ‘pure Slavs.’ Sprung from substantially the same
stock, the two nations have throughout their history vied with each
other in trying to draw to themselves as large as possible a part of
their kinsmen; and it is not surprising if the Macedonian Slavs, lying
midway between the two centres of gravitation, have been attracted,
now to the one and now to the other, without ever apparently taking on
completely the imprint of either.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account