You are on page 1of 25

Writing the Nation:

The Changing Rhetoric of Minority and Refugee Experience in the Greek and
Bulgarian National Discourses, 1906-1939.

Theodora Dragostinova
Department of History
University of Florida

Paper prepared for the Fourth Annual Socrates Kokkalis Graduate Student Workshop,
John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, February 8-9, 2002.
Work in progress. Please do not cite. Any comments are welcome.

This paper is based on research supported by a travel grant from the Kokkalis Program on
Southeast and East-Central Europe, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
University, and an International Dissertation Field Research Fellowship from the Social
Sciences Research Council, with funds provided by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.
The picture of pervasive conflicts, tensions, and controversies, mainly concerning

national issues, permeates the historical literature concerning the relations between

Bulgaria and Greece in the first half of the 20th century. Historians usually discuss the

two countries in connection with the Macedonian question in the early 20th century or the

refugee problem and the struggle over minority rights in the interwar period.1 While this

focus outlines crucial topics of research, what strikes is the unquestionable acceptance of

national identity and loyalty as the primary motivation for people’s actions in the

diplomatic and military conflicts between Bulgaria and Greece. This is not to say that

sophisticated research is the exception in the two national historiographies. Yet, the

question of national identity and its constructed nature, which is the “new orthodoxy” in

contemporary historical studies elsewhere, continues to be highly politicized and

emotionally charged among scholars in the two countries.2 In this paper, I will examine in

context the interwar literature concerning the Greek minority in Bulgaria, disclose the

striking rigidity of historical narratives relating minority and refugee experience, and

explain why these histories present only a selective image of the past.

As far as the Bulgarian literature is concerned, the role of the Greek minority in

Bulgarian history is usually interpreted in the framework of the “revival of Bulgarian-

hood” and Bulgarian “struggle for complete spiritual liberty” in reaction against the

1
The literature discussed above is huge and I am not going to refer to it in detail here. Some of the works
include Georgi Dimitrov, Maltsinstveno-bezhanskiyat vâpros v bâlgaro-grâckite otnoshenia 1919-1939,
Blagoevgrad, 1982. Areti Tunta-Fergadi, Ellino-voulgarikes meionotites, Thessaloniki, IMHA, 1986.
Konstantinos Svolopoulos, I elliniki exoteriki politiki 1900-1945, Athens, Estia, 1994. Strashimir Dimitrov,
Krâstyu Manchev, Istoriya na balkanskite narodi, Sofia, Paradigma, 1999. Krâstyu Manchev,
Natsionalniyat vâpros na Balkanite, Sofia, Marin Drinov, 1999. Giannis Gianoulopoulos, I evgenis mas
tiflosis. Exoteriki politiki kai ‘ethnika themata’ apo tin itta tou 1897 eos ti Mikrasiatiki katastrofi, Athens,
Vivliografia, 1999. Veselin Traykov, Natsionalnite doktrini na balkanskite strani, Sofia, Znanie, 2000.
2
The controversial acceptance of Karakasidou’s book on Greek Macedonia in Greece is indicative for the
politicized and emotional reaction to research that does not adhere to the traditional historical paradigm.
See Thomas Gallant’s review in Slavic Review, vol. 58(4), Winter 1999, 901-902, as well as Karakasidou’s
Greek “master-like behavior.”3 The Greeks are often depicted as “Hellenized Bulgarians”

or Grâcomani (literally, “Greek zealots”), whose role is considered subversive to

Bulgarian national integrity. Consequently, the fate of the Greek minority is inscribed in

the broader movement of “consolidation” of the Bulgarian state and “purification” of the

Bulgarian nation. Even recent ethnographic studies, generally more sensitive to cultural

stereotypes, discuss the Greek minority as a “primary ethno-cultural vehicle of de-

Bulgarization.”4 While recognizing the neglect towards the Greek factor in Bulgarian

history, these studies do not explore its systematic “erasure” from the Bulgarian historical

memory.

The Greek historiography, on the other hand, examines the Greek minority in

Bulgaria in the context of systematic politics of “assimilation” and even “extermination”

of the Greeks by the Bulgarian state.5 The nation-building attempts in Bulgaria are

depicted as “Bulgarian terrorism” and a “complete catastrophe of Hellenism.”6 These

works often attack the “policies of Bulgarization” on the grounds of the continuity of the

Greek ethnic elements in Bulgaria “from the Bronze Age to the beginning of the 20th

century.” The relations between Bulgaria and Greece are represented in the “dialectical

relation Bulgarian challenge-Greek response,” and inscribed in the context of “general

last chapter in Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood. Passages to Nationhood in Greek Macedonia 1870-1990,
Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1997.
3
Petâr Stoyanov, Stara Varna na granitsata mezhdu dve stoletia, 1890-1912, Varna, Steno, 1992, 159-160.
Borislav Denchev, Varna sled osvobozhdenieto. Edno zakasnyalo vâzrazhdane na bâlgarshtinata, Plovdiv,
1998.
4
Galina Vâlchinova, Radoslava Ganeva, “Melnik mezhdu ‘Bâlgarina-orach’ i ‘sredizemnomoretsa-lozar:’
za trajnostta na edna etnokulturna harakteristika” in: Istoricheski pregled, 2, 1997, 142-159. Galia
Vâlchinova, “Gârci,” in: Anna Krâsteva, ed., Obshtnosti i identichnosti v Bâlgaria, Sofia, Petexton, 1998,
209.
5
Spiridon Sphetas, “Oi anthellinikoi diogmoi stin Anatoliki Romilia kata to etos 1906 sta plaisia tis
voulgarikis kratikis politikis,” in: Valkanika symmeikta, 5-6 (1993-94), 77-91, 77.
6
Theodosios Mavrommatis, Oi Ellines sti sinhroni Voulgaria 1878-1908, Athens, 1966. G. Liritzis, Oi
voulgarikes tromokratikes ekdiloseis kata ton Ellinon tis Phillipoupolis, Athens, 1982. Lena Divani, ed.,
Ellada kai meionotites, Athens, Nepheli, 1995, 351,353.
countering of the Slavic danger.”7 A striking feature is the fact that scholars have rarely

questioned the veracity of primary sources such as memoranda and declarations issued by

the Greek government and diplomatic services whose main purpose was to further the

Greek national cause through the projection of a negative image of Bulgaria in Europe.

This polarization of the historical interpretation has developed to the degree of

creating two mirror images of reality, a Bulgarian and a Greek one, each trying to defeat

the arguments of the other. The emergence of these two historiographical trends, as it is

argued in this paper, was due to a process of codification of historical narratives, both in

Bulgaria and Greece, in the interwar period. In other words, what we know about the

history of the Greek minority in Bulgaria and its repatriation is largely the result of a

massive historical enterprise that commenced shortly after World War One and

established itself as dominant with World War Two. It originated from powerful elites

who aimed at the creation of neat stories of national unity and solidarity that would

“forget” any diverging understanding of history. This historical enterprise was not, of

course, solely an intellectual process and it was only made possible in the context of

social turmoil, refugee experience, wartime exigencies, and nation-state consolidation

following World War One. The new production of history and the monopolization of

historical representation on behalf of all Greeks in Bulgaria were an important

mechanism of social placing for Bulgarian bureaucrats and educators or Greek refugee

elites. The result was the re-imagination of the past experience of shared history and

cross-community interaction between Bulgarians and Greeks, and its replacement with a

historical version that depicted rigid ethnic segregation, cultural incompatibility, and

7
Eleni Belia, Ekpaidevsi kai alitrotiki politiki. I periptosi tis Thrakis, 1856-1912, Thessaloniki, IMHA,
1995, 125, 90.
inherent racial animosity. Silencing diverging voices and removing inconvenient

historical evidence from their studies, the elites created the line of interpretation followed

by most historical studies of the Greek minority in Bulgaria for long time.

The Greeks in Bulgaria did not have one vision of their historical destiny. They

experienced and perceived their fate in a variety of ways and in fact often contested the

Greek state’s understanding about the role of the “unredeemed Greeks.” Of course, this is

an assertion that is difficult to document because the existent historical sources present an

inconsistent picture of the past. In this paper I attempt, instead of reconstructing the

historical experiences “as they really were,” to recover the contradictory and shifting

interpretations of history between 1906 and 1939. The crucial question here is the actual

social debate and the continuous “crises of representation” in the creation of the “master

fiction” of the “national order of things.” 8 This interpretation though does not examine

the events as mere discursive construction and recognizes the decisive role of human

networks, political institutions, and social linkages behind the historical experience and

its internalization in the national memory of Greeks and Bulgarians. National identity

gradually became the primary form of personal identification following World War One.

Yet, the “tyranny of the national” and the consolidation of the nation were far from

inevitable and incontestable developments. What matters in this analysis are the fluidity

of national identity and the diverse forms of its appropriation.

***

8
Lynn Hunt, Politics, Culture, and Class in the French Revolution, Berkeley, University of California
Press, 1984, 87. Liisa Malkki, “Refugees and Exile: From ‘Refugee Studies’ to the National Order of
Things.” Annual Review of Anthropology. 1995, 24: 495-524.
The Greek minority in Bulgaria at the beginning of the 20th century consisted of

approximately 80,000 people and comprised roughly two percent of the population.9

Following the establishment of the Bulgarian Principality in 1878 and especially the

Unification of the Principality with the autonomous province of Eastern Rumelia in 1885,

there emerged conflicts between the Bulgarian majority and the Greek minority in the

newly founded state.10 The Bulgarian governments strove for political predominance of

the Bulgarian ethnic element in public affairs, and once this was secured they allowed

relative autonomy in the handling of the Greek community matters. This freedom applied

mainly to the church organization and education activities of the Bulgarian citizens of

Greek origins. A loophole within the 1892 Education Statute, which required school

instruction in Bulgaria to be in Bulgarian solely, entitled the Greeks to preserve their

private schools, arranged according to the curricula in Greece proper. At the same time,

the Greeks, albeit Eastern Orthodox as the majority Bulgarians, did not recognize the

religious and administrative authority of the Bulgarian Church, but remained under the

jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople, which considered the

Bulgarian church as schismatic.

This unresolved ecclesiastical problem generated the utmost discord between

Greeks and Bulgarians over the control of the Orthodox houses of worship in Bulgaria.

The disproportionate distribution of community property, especially churches and

schools, together with the visibility and conspicuous affluence of the Greek urban elites,

caused irritation within certain Bulgarian circles. The educational system and the

9
Xantippi Kotzageorgi, “I anthropogeographia kai ta ethnika charaktiristika ton Ellinon tis Voulgarias,
1888-1934. Ta stoicheia ton Voulgarikon apographon kai o elegchos axiopistias tous,” in: Valkanika
symmeikta, 1997, 121-184.
ubiquitous rhetoric of the national propaganda often channeled animosity and cultural

stereotypes regarding the Greeks. The assimilation attempts of the Bulgarian state

towards the Greeks were certainly present. Yet the concentration of Greeks in certain

relatively autonomous and generally prosperous geographical locations, such as Plovdiv,

Stanimaka, Varna, Bourgas, Anchialos, Mesemvria, Sozopol, Kavakli, and the traditional

role of the Greek merchant and industrial capital in Bulgarian economy, assured the

social and cultural well-being of the Greeks in Bulgaria.

The situation of the Greek minority became increasingly precarious only after the

arrival in Bulgaria of numerous refugees from Macedonia after the Ilinden uprising in

1903 and the outbreak of the “Macedonian struggle” between Bulgaria and Greece in

1904. In July 1906, numerous anti-Greek demonstrations erupted in Bulgaria following

Greek atrocities towards Bulgarian civilians in Macedonia. The “people’s revolution”

expropriated Greek communal property, such as churches, hospitals, and schools, and

transformed them into “institutions for the use of the whole people.”11 Declarations

demanded the dismissal of Greek civil servants and their replacement with Bulgarians.

Printed materials urged all Bulgarians to boycott Greek goods and prohibited the public

use of Greek language. Pogroms occurred in certain places. In Plovdiv, the anti-Greek

demonstrations degenerated in the looting of Greek stores, houses, churches, and schools.

10
Divani, ed., Ellada kai meionotites. Zhorzheta Nazârska, Bâlgarskata dârzhava i nejnite malcinstva,
1879-1885, Sofia, Lik, 1999.
11
For the reconstruction of the events of 1906, I have used the main newspapers in Bulgaria and Greece as
well government memoranda and memoirs. Such are the Bulgarian newspapers Nov vek (pro-government),
Vecherna poshta, Den, Mir (pro-Greek), and the Greek Akropolis and Estia. Also Patriarchat
Oecuménique, Memorandums adressés aux représentants des Grandes Puissances a Constantinople et
autres documents relatifs aux récents évènements de Bulgarie et de Roumélie Orientale, Constantinople,
1906. Polozhenieto na gârcite v Bâlgaria. Otgovor na memoara na Carigradskia patriarh ot 14 avgust 1906
do poslanitsite na Velikite dârzavi v Tsarigrad, Sofia, Dârzhavna pechatnitsa, 1906. Pavel Deliradev,
Antigrâckoto dvizhenie. S istoricheski ocherk na bâlgaro-grâtskite otnoshenia, Sofia, Izdatelstvo na
knizharnica “Proletarij,” 1906. I am not going to refer to a specific source unless I use a direct quotation
On July 31, in the overwhelmingly Greek Anchialo, after an attempted anti-Greek

demonstration, shootings occurred. Under unclear circumstances, the city was set on fire

and burnt down almost completely. The public opinion was indignant and the protests

gradually abated. The Bulgarian government investigated into the incident and subsidized

the re-building of the city. Yet, 20,000 Greeks left Bulgaria over the next months, many

supported by the Greek government.

Both Bulgarian and Greek public opinion were ignited by what the Bulgarian

authorities called “incidents” and the Greek diplomatic services “terrorism.” Through its

diplomatic missions, the Greek government, as well as the Ecumenical Patriarchate in

Constantinople, attacked the veracity of the Bulgarian demands in Macedonia and

represented the “beloved child of Europe” as an uncivilized horde of primitive

barbarians. The Bulgarian government defied all assertions of state support for the anti-

Greek events and concurrently intensified Bulgarian propaganda for conspicuous reforms

in Macedonia.

Immigrants in both countries were the main participants in the events. The

nationalistic organization Bâlgarski rodolyubets, representing Bulgarian refugees from

Macedonia, coordinated the rallies and petitions in Bulgaria. The Councils of the Cretan,

Thracian, and Macedonian immigrations in Greece, as well as the ultra-nationalistic

organization Ellinismos of Neoklis Kazazis, oversaw the protests and speeches in Athens.

The immigrants composed memoranda to the Great Powers, published materials in

European newspapers, and demanded termination of the diplomatic relations with the

enemy country.

from it and some of the sources will be discussed in detail later in the paper. The quotation here is from the
government daily Den, July 11, 1906.
The Greek public opinion, besides the spontaneous support for the refugees,

focused on earnest anti-government propaganda. The criticism of Georgios Theotokis

government policies and a desire for a “peaceful revolution” prevailed at the protests. The

public debate on the future of Greece often superceded the anti-Bulgarian objectives of

the demonstrations. Comparisons with the superior economic handling, administrative

organization, and diplomatic achievements of Bulgaria pointed to the need for reform in

the Greek national polity. The priorities included improvement of the bureaucratic

apparatuses and especially the financial administration, strengthening of the military, and

overcoming of the international isolation. The discontent with the diplomatic services

was omnipresent, and the corruption and sluggishness of the state bureaucracy was

recognized as a factor for the general decline of Greece.12

Protests in Greece paralleled the indignation within opposition circles in Bulgaria

who criticized the incompetence of the Racho Petrov government in handling the national

priorities of Bulgaria. There were fears that the chauvinistic excesses of the anti-Greek

demonstrations could jeopardize the successful completion of the unification of all

Bulgarian lands. The main criticism concentrated on the fact that the manipulation of the

decrepit situation of the Macedonian immigration by ultra-nationalistic groups allowed

the utilization of the Macedonian cause for the physical abuse and economic exhaustion

of the socially prominent Greek minority and its replacement by corrupt Bulgarian

cliques.13

In both countries, there existed certain weariness towards the demands and

premises of the immigration. The accommodation of refugees, who fled from the

12
See the dispatches of Akropolis in early August 1906 under the title “I gnomi tou laou” (The People’s
Opinion).
provinces of the Ottoman Empire, presented crucial problems with an immediate effect

on the everyday life of the “locals.” The two countries preferred to utilize their

“unredeemed compatriots” as bargaining chips for the respective nation-state’s

aspirations to the Ottoman provinces rather than accommodate them as “new citizens” in

the free homeland. In Bulgaria, the immigrants from Macedonia and Thrace after 1903

were often perceived as a source of internal conflicts and social tensions. In 1906, some

placed the blame for the anti-Greek pogroms on the homeless, hungry refugees from

Macedonia. Greece, besides the Macedonian struggle, also dealt with the Cretan question

and the Thracian Greeks in the Ottoman Empire. After an initial intense propaganda for

“reunification with the motherland” among the Greek communities in Bulgaria, the

Theotokis government stripped the new citizens from their refugee status as of August

1907 and started to discourage migration.

Such inconsistent policies towards the Greek Diaspora influenced the decision for

immigration of many Bulgarian Greeks. One can discern a variety of reactions to the

1906 anti-Greek events among the Greeks in Bulgaria. A few departed from Bulgaria,

became Greek citizens, and settled in Greece instantly. Others repudiated publicly their

Greek origin, adopted Bulgarian names, accepted the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian

Exarchate, welcomed the educational reform with obligatory Bulgarian language

instruction, and preserved their Bulgarian citizenship and residency.14 In between these

two opposite reactions, other Greeks lingered until the pacification of the events and

continued their life in the Greek communities in Bulgaria. Alternatively, many liquidated

their property titles in Bulgaria and collected their agricultural production before they

13
The newspapers Mir and Den, and Deliradev in Antigrâckoto dvizhenie are especially critical.
departed for good. Considerable number chose as asylum not Greece proper but

neighboring Greek communities, such as Istanbul and Edirne in the Ottoman Empire,

Constantsa in Romania, and Alexandria in Egypt, or another European state and the

United States. This wave of Greek migration lasted until 1910, comprised mainly of

inhabitants of the urban centers and the Black Sea communities, and finally reached

20,000 people. Yet, the substantial part of the Greeks did not feel motivated enough to

migrate and in effect 75% of the minority population remained in Bulgaria.

Even for the Anchialo inhabitants migration decisions did not constitute

unconstrained result and impulsive manifestation of one’s national identity. The Greeks

in Bulgaria, anticipating the hardships of migration, often considered factors others than

national allegiances, so that more than half of the Greeks of Anchialo remained in

Bulgaria in 1906. Most of the ethnic Greeks were Bulgarian citizens born in Bulgaria and

their cultural “Greekness” did not clash with a feeling of a diasporic destiny that

sometimes proved more flexible than national identity. In addition, the interests of the

Greek governments did not always coincide with that of the Greek Diaspora. Local

loyalties and considerations other that national allegiance, such as economic incitements,

established ties of communication, or even attachment to their way of life, were of

paramount importance in the Greek minority’s motivation to leave or stay in Bulgaria.

Part of those who emigrated immediately, assisted by the Greek diplomatic

missions in Bulgaria, was transported to the port of Piraeus by ships the Greek

government had commissioned in early August 1906. Solely from Anchialo, some 2,000

people relocated in the next couple of years. A Central Committee in Athens assumed the

14
Letters and ads with such content are found everyday in every major Bulgarian newspaper in the summer
of 1906.
responsibility of refugee relief, and public charity donations contributed some of the

financial support.15 In late 1906, the government declared the immigrants Greek citizens

and promised land in Thessaly for them.16 In April 1907, some 500 repatriates gathered in

front of the Greek Parliament in order to express their gratitude to the Greek motherland.

Yet there were many more who protested and reprimanded the government for not taking

care of them properly.17

After two years of state welfare and supervision, the immigrants were allotted

estates in Thessaly, where they established the towns Nea Anchialos and Evxinoupolis.

Some of the more affluent refugees, who never relied on state welfare and avoided the

initial communal residence, vigorously participated in the negotiation of the new order of

things. As a sign of appreciation for their efforts, the elite activists received preferential

treatment in the land allotment.18 Yet, the initial estimate of the land appeared to be

inaccurate, and many refugees did not receive the shares for which they had hoped.

Because of the existing swamps, the land was insufficient and unproductive, and the lack

of fresh water resulted in malarial outbreaks and increased death rate. Some immigrants

lost their entire families, a terrible symbol of which was the second cemetery built in Nea

Anchialos.19

These difficult circumstances led many to retreat to Thessaloniki in the Ottoman

Empire or even return to their places of birth in Bulgaria. In addition, some inhabitants of

Greek communities in Bulgaria, who had initially declared interest to resettle in Greece,

15
I en Elladi perithalpsis ton prosfigon ex Anatolikis Romilias kai Voulgarias to 1906, 1907 kai 1908,
Athens, 1909.
16
Parartima tis efimeridas tis voulis, Athens, 1906, 80-88, 107-9.
17
This is an omnipresent theme in the Greek press from the end of 1906 and the whole 1907 and 1908, and
the main criticism was directed against the Theotokis government.
18
Konstantinos Emmanouilidis, I anthelliniki diogmoi en Voulgaria, Athens, 1956, 48-9.
19
Mavrommatis, I Anhialos mes’ apo tis floges, Athens, 1930, 65-81.
cancelled their migration plans and remained in Bulgaria.20 The deplorable state of Nea

Anchialos and Evxinoupolis created a strained situation among the refugees, in which the

access to the limited resources for national integration assumed a greater weight over

national identity in the struggle for everyday survival. The fact that numerous refugees,

more than 5,000 according to the available data from Bulgarian sources, returned to

Bulgaria revealed the various expectations of national assimilation within the ethnic

homeland.

In contrast to the unambiguous elite patriots, letters of Greeks who wanted to

return to Bulgaria depicted a situation of “false promises” and “financial and moral

corruption” in Greece. Some refugees established a “Counter Committee” striving to

contact the “fatherly government of our homeland” and negotiate their “return in our

dearest fatherland,” where they promised to become “the best and most loyal citizens of

mother Bulgaria.” Disappointed with the encounter with the Greek reality, the danger of

“Bulgarization” was not an issue for them. A Greek refugee, obviously well educated,

wrote from Athens in February 1907: “If the Greeks are such, we are not Greeks but

Thracians…We have been Danaides, Thracians, Slavs, Bulgarians, but never Greeks. We

are local citizens of Thrace…The real Hellenes are in Thrace, but the Hellenes are not

Greeks.”21

It is difficult to verify how widespread such an attitude was at the time of its

publication in a local Bulgarian newspaper but it is likely to suppose that some of the

5,000 people who eventually returned to Bulgaria shared a similar disappointment with

the Greek reality. The prospect that such opinions were openly opportunistic or produced

20
Mavrommatis, I Anhialos, 80.
21
All quotes are from the local Anchialo newspaper Kraj, 5 February 1907.
under pressure is, of course, extremely likely. Still, they are a testimony for the

importance of local allegiances, which could supercede national identity, in a strained

situation such as refugee experience. The person who wrote the above letter also

challenged the orthodox Greek national myth of continuity with the ancient Greeks and

created an alternative “mythico-history” of the Greeks in Bulgaria.22 In effect, the letter

denied that the Greeks in Old Greece were heirs of the ancient Hellenes and claimed this

heritage for the Greek communities in Bulgaria. In this historical version, a common

ancestry with the Bulgarians in Thrace was more important than a mythical brotherhood

of all Greeks.

***

The first mass departure of Greeks from Bulgaria in 1906 was only a precursor to

later migration processes in the 20th century. Population movements between Bulgaria

and Greece occurred during the Second Balkan War and World War One. Mass

resettlement of Greeks arose in the areas of Macedonia and Thrace administered by the

Bulgarian army after 1913. During World War One, there were minor displacements in

the bordering areas of Bulgaria and Greece. The Neuilly Peace Treaty and the

“Convention for the Reciprocal and Voluntary Population Exchange between Bulgaria

and Greece” of 27 November 1919 sanctioned the official process of population

exchange. The resettlement of the Bulgarian Greeks accelerated after the creation of the

Mixed Committee in 1920 and culminated in 1925-26. The new immigrants numbered

between 45,000 and 50,000.

22
This is a term used by Liisa Malkki, Purity and Exile: Violence, Memory, and National Cosmology
Among Hutu Refugees in Tanzania, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1995.
The 1920s were full of tension between Bulgaria and Greece. Among other

incidents, there were punitive actions of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary

Organization (IMRO) against Greeks in Bulgaria, especially around Melnik, Nevrokop,

and Asenovgrad. The Kalfov-Politis “Protocol for the Protection of the Bulgarian

Minority in Greece” signed in October 1924, but later repudiated by the Greek

Parliament, was another source of anxiety. Bitter controversy arose in connection to

compensations for the expropriated property of the respective minorities in both

countries. A temporary arrangement was achieved with the Mollov-Kaphandaris

Settlement of December 1927, which Bulgaria and Greece ratified by the end of 1928.23

The influx of more than a million refugees in Greece following the National

Catastrophe in Asia Minor in 1923 transformed the situation of the 1906 refugees who

did not constitute anymore the crucial task in front of the Greek state. The Greek refugees

from Asia Minor were settled in Greek Thrace and Macedonia in lands with abundant

Bulgarian population that was forced to immigrate to Bulgaria. This development

influenced the fate of the Greek minority in Bulgaria since the accelerated arrival of

Bulgarian refugees from the newly incorporated Greek territories created an unfavorable

climate against Greece in Bulgaria. Numerous Greeks were de facto compelled to flee

Bulgaria.

In the middle 1920s, Greece was striving with poverty, hunger, and social

upheaval. The East Thracian, Pontic, and Asia Minor refugees, often unfamiliar with the

Greek language and encountering the local inhabitants’ animosity, led a miserable

existence full of nostalgia for their lost homelands. Only a minority managed to transfer

23
For a summary of the events see Stephen .P. Ladas, The Exchange of Minorities. Bulgaria, Greece and
Turkey, New York, 1932.
property into Greece, and The Refugee Settlement Committee (RSC), under the auspices

of the League of Nations, attempted to raise loans and secure land for them. These new

impoverished refugees, and not the old 1906 refugees or the even more affluent recent

immigrants from Bulgaria, constituted its priority.

In June 1923, a vine-growing colony was inaugurated near Thessaloniki in Greek

Macedonia under the name Anchialos Makedonias, and the enrollment of numerous

Bulgarian Greeks dispersed around Greece, or still in Bulgaria, started immediately. Yet,

the soil appeared to be poor, the land holdings too small, and the summer droughts not

suitable for vine production. Conflict over land emerged with the neighboring villages of

Boulgarievo (Nea Mesemvria) and Topsin (Gephira), founded respectively by exchange

population from Mesemvria and Sozopol in Bulgaria.24 The limited state resources for

national integration forced the former inhabitants of the three Black Sea Greek

communities, who had shared solidarity during the 1906 events, to become rivals in their

recovered homeland in the 1920s.

Anxieties over property compensations in the late 1920s and the 1930s stimulated

the refugee elites to compose the first “expert” histories of the Bulgarian Greek

experience. Between 1919 and 1934, there were numerous attempts to resolve the

financial requests for liquidated or confiscated property in Bulgaria and Greece. Several

regional organizations of the Bulgarian Greeks, aiming at cooperation in the property

liquidation procedures, were established in Greece immediately after World War One and

demanded compensations for the churches and schools expropriated in 1906. Following

the decision of Bulgaria in January 1930 to reimburse private but not communal property,

numerous articles of indignation emerged in the Greek mass media. In August 1931, the
International Tribunal in Hague recommended the reimbursement of religious

communities for property expropriated before World War One, including the real estate

the Greeks had left in Bulgaria in 1906. Based on a second opinion of March 1932, which

postulated that the 1906 and the post-WWI property issues were of a different nature,

Bulgaria suspended the indemnification of Greek communities for the 1906

expropriations.25 The property negotiations continued through 1934. The former 1906

refugees energetically participated in the enlightenment of the public opinion for the

importance of these negotiations, and the master text of the 1906 episodes, Drakos

Mavrommatis’ Anhialos mes’ apo tis floges (“Anchialos Out of the Flames”), was

published in 1930.

There was a direct link between Greek property negotiations and the histories

compiled in the 1930s, which were utilized to legitimize property compensation

demands.26 These histories were mainly “eyewitness accounts” of local leaders that

forged a picture of the unified historical destiny of all Greeks from Bulgaria. The

recovered motherland’s struggle to accommodate her ravaged and squandered children as

well as the egalitarian, communal spirit of all refugee enterprises after the departure in

1906 were the most common representation of the past refugee experience. These stories

silenced the existence of conflicting perceptions of national identity in 1906, ignored the

fact that many Greeks had preferred to stay in Bulgaria rather than migrate to Greece, and

overlooked the sympathy of some Bulgarians for the Greeks’ misfortunes. Occasional

24
Mavrommatis, I Anhialos, 85-6. Emanouilidis, I anthelliniki diogmoi , 97.
25
Kiril Popov, Konventsiata za vzaimno izselvane mezdu Bâlgaria i Gârcia i sporât ni s gârcite za cherkvi,
uchilishta i manastiri, Sofia, Pechatnitsa Dobrinov, 1935. Manchev, Nacionalniyat vâpros na Balkanite,
223-4. Penkov, Mezdunarodni dogovori na Bâlgaria 681-1947, Sofia-Paris, Georges Naef, 1992, 263.
26
Works with similar objectives were Konstantinos Amantios, Oi Voreioi geitones tis Ellados, Athens,
1923, Bulgares! Qu-avez-vous fait de vos minorités Grecques?, Athens, 1930, and Konstantinos
Papaioannidou, Istoria tis en Ponto Apollonias-Sozopoleos, Thessaloniki, 1933.
reference to the Greeks who had remained in Bulgaria depicted them as victims of

Bulgarian manipulation, facing “the danger of Bulgarization” and “slow racial death.” At

the same time, the repatriates exemplified the “elements of progress” in Greece.

These narratives served to situate the experience of the Bulgarian Greek refugees

within the historical destiny of the Greek nation, and they embraced the discourse of the

most cathartic vision of refugee experience, that of the Asia Minor refugees’ forced

uprooting and repatriation. Therefore, the history-makers in 1930s employed the

apocalyptic rhetoric of the Asia Minor Catastrophe in their accounts, and depicted an

illusionary reality of premeditated destruction, dreadful holocaust, and conscious national

martyrdom of all Greeks in 1906. The immigrants were presented as sacrificing their

mundane existence for the spiritual benefit of devotion to their motherland. In contrast to

their patriotic dedication, the image of the bloodthirsty, non-human, uncivilized

Bulgarian was promoted among the Greek public opinion.

The establishment of different local immigrant organizations and scientific

journals such as Thrakika and Archeion tou Thrakikou glossikou kai laografikou

thisavrou, specifically designed with the purpose of reconstructing the history of the

Greek element in Thrace, also influenced the interpretation of the events of 1906.

Poludoros Papahristodoulou, Drakos Mavrommatis, Konstantinos Panaioannidis,

Konstantinos Emmanouilidis, Margaritis Konstantinidis, and Myrtilos Apostolidis, all

former refugees and prominent members of their communities, were the leading figures

of such historical enterprises. These were the people who exclusively wrote all the
histories of the Greek communities in Bulgaria, including Anchialo, Mesemvria, Sozopol,

Stanimaka, Plovdiv, Kavakli, between the 1930s and the 1950s.27

Patriotism was an indisputable motivation for their engagement in the “production

of history” in the way they did. Yet, the legitimization of the elite and the creation of a

favorable public opinion for the property compensation negotiations with Bulgaria

undeniably influenced rendering the 1906 histories in the specific manner. These

historical writings clearly tended to “forget” and “silence” certain aspects of the historical

experience. They served the difficult circumstances of the present and selectively

interpreted the past, creating an emotional bridge with a vision of an inevitably

triumphant future that the glorious national heritage guaranteed. The construction of such

historical versions aimed at “re-imagining” of a common refugee saga, which would

allow the Bulgarian Greeks to enter the pantheon of persecution, sacrifice, and eternal

glory of the Greek nation. Such interpretations reflected the mentality of the interwar

period but were completely alien to the past historical experience.

In Bulgaria, most of the Bulgarian refugees who arrived from Greek Thrace and

Macedonia after World War One were settled in the Bourgas district, including the

vicinities of Anchialo where a whole new refugee neighborhood was built.28 The people

originated mainly from agricultural areas and the insufficient land necessitated

27
Some of their works, apart from the ones concerning Anchialos and mentioned previously, include K.
Mirtilos Apostolidis, Simvoli is tin istorian tou en ti Voreiou Thraki ellinismou. Diafora engrafa, Athens,
1950. Apostolidis, Voulgaroi I Ellines isan oi Kariotai?, Athens, 1940. Apostolidis, I tis Philippoupoleos
istoria apo ton arhaiotaton mehri ton kath’imas hronon, Athens, 1959. Margaritis Konstantinidis, I
Mesemvria tou Evxinou. Istoria, Athens, 1945. Konstantinidis, I Mesemvria par’ Evxinou, Athens, 1956.
Konstantinidis, I Apolonia par’ Evxinou (Sozopolin nin). Apo ton hronon tis apikiseos avtis mexri ton
1913-14, Athens, 1957.Drakos Mavrommatis, I martiriki Anchialos, Thessaloniki, 1988. Theodosios
Mavrommatis (the son of Drakos), Oi Ellines sti sinhroni Voulgaria 1878-1908, Athens, 1966. Theodosios
Mavrommatis, I astiki kai agrotiki zoi tis koinonias Anhialou. Laografiki meleti, Athens, 1958.
28
Selskostopanskoto nastaniavane na bezancite, Sofia, 1930s. Todor Kosatev, “Nastaniavane na bezancite
v Bourgaski okrâg 1919-1932,” in: Istoricheski pregled, 1975, 2.
participation in the traditional salt production and fishing industry, previously

monopolized by the Greek minority. Generally in Bulgaria, there emerged a growing

appreciation of the resources of Black Sea Coast, important for the economic revival of

the country that was deprived from the Aegean coast after the disaster of World War

One.29 These efforts were practically oriented and were based on the need to develop

Bourgas and Varna as major ports and sea resorts, as well as to exploit the salt and fish

assets of Anchialo and Sozopol.

On the other hand, the issue of “Bulgarization” of these areas was also in hand.

The goal of most histories created in Bulgaria in the 1930s was to make aware the public

opinion that the coast was and has always been a true part of the Bulgarian national

community.30 The Ancient City and Byzantine churches of Mesemvria, for example,

became one of the archaeological priorities of the Ministry of Education. The newly

emerging histories of the area demonstrated that the coastline, before being colonized by

the ancient Greeks, emerged as a Thracian hinterland, thus emphasized the priority of

local, and not Greek, inhabitants and cultures. Even the Greek inhabitants were claimed

to be heirs not of the ancient or Byzantine Greeks but of the Thracians. Interestingly, the

Greek colonists’ past was not denied but somehow inscribed in the “internationalism”

and “cosmopolitanism” of historical experience on the Black Sea Coast, including

Phoenician, Illyrian, Thracian, Roman, Byzantine, Slavic, Italian, and Bulgarian

29
Dr. St. Popov, Kurortna Varna, Varna, 1925. V.P. Gochev, Varna, Sofia, izdatelstvo “Hr. G. Danov,”
1931. P. Bianov, Varna- moderen grad i moderno letoviste! Varna, 1933. Aleksi pop Marinov, Moreto i
nasheto kraibrezie, Varna, 1937. Al. Nedialkov, Klimatât na Varna i Chernomorskoto ni krajbrezie, Varna,
1937. N. Dermishkov, Perlite na slanchevia grad Varna i okolnostite i, Varna, 1938. Tsvetan Tsviatkov, L.
Popov, Istoria na pristanishte Bourgas, 1903-1963, Bourgas, 1963.
30
Anastas Razbojnikov, Grad Sozopol i letuvaneto na plovdivskata detska kolonia, Plovdiv, 1927. Anastas
Razboinikov, Cherno more.Geogravsko opisanie. (Knizka za kursisti i uchiteli), Plovdiv, 1931. Ivan
Batakliev, Nashiat chernomorski braig. Geografski pregled, Varna, 1932. Aleksi pop Marinov, Moreto i
nasheto kraibrezie. Kosta Trajanov, Rodnoto more. ( Ot Kaliakra do Ropotamo), Varna, 1938.
historical presence. Of course, a beloved metaphor remained the reference to Kroum, the

Bulgarian king who beheaded the Byzantine emperor and celebrated his victory with a

golden tumbler made from the royal scull in the early 9th century, and his attempts to

establish Bulgarian rule on the seacoast.

The ruins of the Greek monastery St. George that was set on fire in 1906 still

stood intact in Anchialo in the 1930s and constituted a macabre monument of the tragedy

twenty years ago. Yet the Greek presence in Bulgaria was disregarded in every history or

popular pamphlet concerning the Black Sea region, and Anchialo, renamed Pomorie in

1934, was in effect stripped from its history. The authors prioritized the urgency of

Bulgarization and the potential for development of the seashore. The Black Sea was

eulogized in a poetic and patriotic manner that, instead of the bitter knowledge for the

past, stressed the romanticism of the Bulgarian progress in the area. Hatreds between

Greeks and Bulgarians were mentioned sporadically and in an abstract manner within the

story of the progressive consolidation of the Bulgarian state. The cohabitation of the two

nations was referred to as something immemorial and distant that was not real and

tangible anymore. Thus recent human tragedies were trivialized and the experience of the

local Greek inhabitants of Anchialo and elsewhere diminished in significance. The

remaining Greeks in Bulgaria in the interwar period were ostracized from the Bulgarian

nation, marginalized through silence in the public space of social debate, and excluded as

foreign elements from the common history of Greeks and Bulgarians throughout the

centuries.

Yet there is evidence for the continuing co-existence and cooperation between

Bulgarians and Greeks in the interwar period. Even during the Second Balkan War, when
Greece and Bulgaria fought against each other and official anti-Greek propaganda

abounded in Bulgaria, there were “friendly Bulgarian houses” that assisted the Greeks

and prevented wartime excesses against them. The arrival of numerous Bulgarian

refugees from Thrace and Macedonia during and after the wars complicated the situation

of the Greeks in Bulgaria. Bulgarian refugees were quartered in Greek houses, the local

authorities tolerated cases of refugee illegalities, and malefactors endeavored to extort

prosperous Greeks. Undoubtedly, many Greeks’ decisions to immigrate to Greece were

dictated by their complicated situation after the arrival of the refugees in Bulgaria. Still,

there remained cities with compact Greek population. In the 1930s, in Anchialo in

Bulgaria, the so-called “small Greece,” there were 2,000 Greeks out of the initial Greek

population of 6,000.

When a Greek from Anchialos Makedonias visited Anchialo in Bulgaria in 1928,

he encountered the cordial attitude and nostalgia of the local Bulgarians towards the

Greeks. The dictum some Bulgarians uttered, “We expelled the Bulgarians and now we

have to deal with the Greeks,” was indicative; here, “Bulgarians” referred to the Greeks

who had left Bulgaria and “Greeks” signified the Bulgarian refugees from Greece.31 The

phrase revealed the strained relations of the “local” Bulgarians to the “outside”

Bulgarians who, arriving in huge numbers as refugees, comprised disruptive elements

within the postwar turbulence. This manner of thinking also underlined the common

experience of Greeks and Bulgarians as compatriots who shared certain features beyond

national allegiances.

Such an attitude motivated some Greeks to remain in Bulgaria even after World

War One and the Convention for Voluntary Population Exchange. It is true that,
according to the official Bulgarian statistics, in the period 1905-1934 the Greek

inhabitants in Bulgaria diminished from 69,820 in 1905 to 9,601 in 1934. However, it

should be pointed out that the remaining Greeks lived in compact groups mainly in

Pomorie, Sozopol, Mesemvria, and Plovdiv where their ethnic difference was not under

the immediate threat of assimilation. Following the World War One, there was also a

widening disparity between people declaring Greek nationality and reporting Greek as

their primary language, and this was another indicator of the integrative process

underway.32 The gradual adherence to Bulgarian nationality constituted a logical

consequence of the decision of this tiny group of ethnic Greeks to remain in Bulgaria.

The freedom to preserve the most conspicuous element of their distinct ethnic heritage,

the language, comprised a reasonable compromise for them.

Economic considerations also constituted a powerful factor for the Greeks’

resettlement choices and nationality policies. In the early 1920s, numerous Bulgarian

Greeks who had always been Bulgarian citizens applied for Greek citizenship after the

institution of obligatory labor training for all Bulgarian citizens by the Stambolijski

government. At the same time, others shifted to Bulgarian citizenship after the Greek

army’s mobilization during the Asia Minor enterprise. In the interwar period property

issues were often solved with the acquisition of the required citizenship or nationality

certificate.33 With the beginning of World War Two and the Bulgarian occupation of

Northern Greece in 1941, a prohibition against the navigation of Greek fishing and trade

vessels in the Black Sea triggered a wave of applications for Bulgarian origin certificates

31
Marvommatis, memories of Argiris Korakas in I Anhialos, 145.
32
Xantippi Kotzageorgi, ed., I ellines tis Voulgarias. Ena istoriko tmima tou perifereiakou ellinismou,
Thessaloniki, IMHA, 2000, 134.
33
This observation is based on archival work that is still in progress and will be part of my dissertation.
by Greek fisherman in the Black Sea communities.34 Mixed marriages favored the

peaceful integration of Greeks into the interwar situation even though Greek notables

decried this practice as an assimilation strategy on the part of the Bulgarian majority.35

Yet, the reverse process of “Hellenization” of Bulgarians continued to exist. A marital

strategy, based on the transfer of real estate by the Greek wife in exchange of Greek

language usage in the family, was still practiced after World War One.36 Here, economic

and family strategies played a role beyond the exclusive adherence to national loyalty.

In the 1930s, however, due to the legacy of two wars, the economic constraints of

the postwar reality, and the influence of powerful interest groups, the espousal of a clear-

cut national identity was gradually becoming a basic requirement of the “good citizen.”

The remaining Greek minority did not comprise a problem for the national unity of

Bulgaria since it was numerically small and economically well integrated. Yet the arrival

of the Bulgarian refugees from Greece created a “spirit of reciprocity” and sometimes

reprisal in the Bulgarian policies towards the minority. Thus the Greeks were encouraged

to emigrate and gradually erased from Bulgarian national memory through silences and

marginalization from the public space.

The urgency of the national cause was clearer in Greek where the need to assure

national homogeneity in the newly acquired lands with significant Muslim and Bulgarian

minorities dictated the execution of a harsh national project.37 The official national

policies in Greece aimed at the assimilation of the remaining “Slavic-speakers.” The

danger of Pan-Slavism became a major threat, and, since the Bulgarians were primarily

34
These are the results of some oral history interviews in: Vâlchinova, “Gârci,” 212.
35
Diamantopoulou, I Anhialos,136, Kotzageorgi, Oi ellines tis Voulgarias, 168.
36
Galia Vâlchinova, “Melnik,” refers to data for Plovdiv, Sozopol, and Melnik, 147-8.
associated with it, “Bulgarization” acquired a negative undertone. A portrayal of the

historical experience of the Greek in Bulgaria as full of diverse connotations and

implications seemed impractical in the context of the 1930s. The Bulgarian Greeks in the

1930s needed a unified, though anachronistic, discursive representation of a shared

history of collective heroism and sacrifice to the Greek nation. So, they created it through

the codification of a selective national memory.

37
Peter Mackridge, Eleni Yannaki, eds., Ourselves and Others. The Development of a Greek Macedonian
Cultural Identity Since 1912, Oxford, Berg, 1997. Tasos Kostopoulos, I apagorevmenni glossa. Kratiki
katastoli tov slavikon dialekton stin elliniki Makedonia, Athens, Mavri lista, 2000.

You might also like