Talk:Independent Macedonia (1944)

Image copyright problem with Image:SocialstMacedonia1944-1946.gif
The image Image:SocialstMacedonia1944-1946.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --03:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Stubbing back
I'm stubbing back this article to the status before the recent large-scale expansion by Jingiby. Jingiby has a habit of copy-and-pasting text around from other sources, sometimes from within Wikipedia and sometimes, I fear, copied/plagiarised/translated from elsewhere. The results are: (1) incoherently jumbled-together articles, (2) massive POV issues, (3) proliferation of content forks through multiple treatment of the same historical material in multiple articles, often with almost identical wording; (4) problematic copyright situation, since the ultimate sources of the material (within Wikipedia or outside) get obscured.

Jingiby, I know you aren't writing all this text yourself; your English wouldn't be up to it. If you want to expand articles, you need to provide a full account of where you are getting each bit of text from. And avoid those redundant "background" etc sections, they are basically all just POV forks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, but you are getting a bit extreme. What means ...you need to provide a full account of where you are getting each bit of text from... All my texts are referenced. Even so I try every way to change the concrete text from the source before pasting its content here. Regards. Jingby (talk) 10:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: article moved to Independent Macedonia (1944) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0  12:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Macedonia (independent state) → Independent Macedonia (proposed state) – or a variant thereof. First, from a search in GBooks, the term "independent state of Macedonia" in English, Bulgarian and Macedonian, seems to refer mostly to the Republic of Macedonia, while the 1944 project is usually termed simply "Independent Macedonia" ("независна Македонија", , , , ). Second, the current name is not a good solution because a) because "Macedonia (independent state)" can equally mean the Republic of Macedonia or the ancient kingdom, but is misleading for a state that was neither truly independent nor ever existed in a meaningful form, b) it is best to use the official name, especially since the common name "Macedonia" conflicts, just as in the case with the Republic of Macedonia, with Greek and Bulgarian Macedonia. Constantine  ✍  20:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support there have been several independant states of Macedonia, including one existing right now. The most obvious use would be the current country. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support a move to some other title. Current title is highly ambiguous, and should probably redirect to Republic of Macedonia. Now, what title? "Independent State of Macedonia" is also a bit ambiguous, although we could tack on a "(proposed)" at the end. Something along the lines of "Proposed Axis state in Macedonia" might be alright...further thoughts?  I ♦  A  07:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support a move to something else per the nominator's rationale, i.e. that the term seems to refer to the current Republic of Macedonia. I'm not crazy about Independent Macedonia (proposed state) because it also seems a bit ambiguous but it's better than the current title.  What about a disambiguator referring to the date: Independent Macedonia (1944)?  This is what we do with other similar states such as Slovak Republic (1939–1945), Hellenic State (1941–1944), and Albanian Kingdom (1943–1944).  "Proposed" doesn't necessarily need to be in the disambiguator.  We have Duchy of Courland and Semigallia (1918), Kingdom of Finland (1918), and the United Baltic Duchy which were merely proposals.  —  AjaxSmack   20:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I support Independent Macedonia (1944) per AjaxSmack's rationale. Constantine  ✍  09:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reminder about ARBMAC
G'day all, just a reminder that edit-warring in ARBMAC-land can get ugly quickly. Can we get some discussion here about what it is you are arguing the toss about? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Bilingualism
Please stop vandalizing. The proposed state would have been bilingual, both languages are included in the infobox and the motto and the anthem should be bilingual. Remember that at that time the anthem was rewritten in modern Macedonian in 1943 by the Macedonian poet Koco Racin.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:CITE
It seems that much of this article is based on the assumptions of Wikipedia editors. Are there any reliable sources that speak of the flag, motto, anthem, capital, language, currency, etc.? --WavesSaid (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox changes
The infobox of this article is currently subject to a lot of mucking about which is not consistent with the template. This is on the back of some infobox-related ARBMAC edit-warring that occurred only a week or so ago. Given the obscurity of the subject, this strikes me as more than a little suspicious. In order to alleviate my concerns, can I ask that involved editors actually look at Template:Infobox_Former_Country before editing the infobox? I will commence restoring it in line with the template forthwith. If you have an issue with my edits, please bring it here. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I recently removed quite a few of the details in the infobox. Have I (inadvertently) mucked anything up? --WavesSaid (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I realise the issue of native name is fraught, but we should attempt to address it properly, taking all perspectives into consideration. I have put a nocat field in to stop automatic but inappropriate categorisations. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it absolutely necessary that the "native name" be included in the infobox? By the way, nice work on the lead paragraph. --WavesSaid (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I should be able to at least rm the c/e tag shortly. As far as the native name is concerned, Tomasevich 2001 p.157 says that there was no unifying language, and that the Macedonians spoke a variety of dialects related to both Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian. I propose we use both languages. Macedonian itself did not become the official language until after the war, so we should not use that. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely that Serbo-Croatian would have been allowed in any way, shape or form. The IMRO faction of "autonomists" of which Mihailov was the leader were extremely hostile towards Serbia (or rather Yugoslavia). A supradialectal Macedonian norm had already become stable by the 1940s (used in the interwar period as well as by the Partisans), but it's certain that these "autonomists" would have attempted to suppress it. We can deduce that Standard Bulgarian would have been imposed, but any speculation with regard to the official language would be just that: speculation. I think the safest course of action would be to omit it entirely, unless someone comes across a source in the meantime. --WavesSaid (talk) 08:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Does the article even need an infobox..? --WavesSaid (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, it probably doesn't. Regardless, not using a native name seems like a sensible approach. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The next sentence is nonsence: By 1944 much of the modern-day Republic of Macedonia was occupied by the Germans who were actively supporting Macedonian nationalists. Jingiby (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What about it is nonsense? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The sentence is unclear and incorrect. Firstly, Bulgaria withdrew from Macedonia in the period from September 8 to September 10. Until then, most of the area was under Bulgarian administration. Second, the so-called Macedonian nationalist were actually pro-Bulgarian oriented activists, who supported the Bulgarian authorities and were mostly supporters of the right wing of the IMRO. Later, they all were tried in Yugoslavia as Bulgarophiles and collaborators. Jingiby (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Being a Macedonian nationalist doesn't necessarily entail being an ethnic Macedonian. Since its founding and in every incarnation, the IMRO had pursued Macedonian independence. This makes them Macedonian nationalists. Bear in mind that there were many Aromanians in the IMRO. They [anti-Partisans] were not tried as anything-philes, but as collaborators. The source you provided for that claim (Chris Kostov) would not meet WP:RELIABLE requirements. --WavesSaid (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, please try and correct the spelling and grammatical errors from your last edits. I understand English may not be your first language (it isn't mine either), but judging by your English from the talk page it seems like you made those errors in haste. Most browsers have spell checker add-ons. --WavesSaid (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't help noticing that Minahan equates the assassins of King Alexander of Yugoslavia to Macedonian nationalists as well. Vlado Chernozemski and his associates, however, were exactly that - right-wing IMRO members, thus supporters of the Bulgarian cause. They were not even leftist IMRO activist that are closer to the term Macedonian nationalists. I am not sure from where Minahan's confusion comes in the first place, but the terminology is clearly not correct. Plus, I'm not sure how a Dictionary is supposed to be helpful for this article. -- L a v e o l  T 23:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

"Switzerland on the Balkans"
There is a reference to "Switzerland on the Balkans" in the lead. The grammar and sentence construction doesn't really make any sense, and the phrase is not explained. I propose removing it as I don't see what it adds. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The recent edits haven't improved the article at all (quite the contrary). These editors copy/paste the same pieces of text in tens of articles, and they don't even bother to read the sources they're citing: the expression "a Switzerland in the Balkans" is attributed to Kočo Racin, not Mihailov who also admired the Swiss model. --WavesSaid (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is the interview done in 1989 by the Macedonian journalist Boris Vishinsky translated in English:

B.V.: The Macedonian poet Kocho Razin (1908-1943) in a speech of his on the glorification of Ilinden in 1940 says that he would like Macedonia to become a Switzerland in the Balkans. You are in favor of the idea as well. Do you think this is an accidental coincidence, or was this the motto of the Macedonian liberation movement? What is your opinion?

I.M.: I am very happy that Kocho Razin liked the political structure of Switzerland. I did not know him personally. But I am pleased that he had also embraced the belief that Macedonia should become something like a Switzerland in the Balkans. As far as I am concerned, I have dreamed about the Swiss political structure long before 1940, and I do not remember – whether in speeches to our people or some time in an article – having spoken about the idea or wished for Macedonia to be structured in the same way. I have not read anything written by a Bulgarian public figure on the same idea. The motto of the Macedonian liberation movement was not based on the copying of the Swiss formula. The motto of the Macedonian liberation movement was a free and independent Macedonia. You ask me what I think “a Switzerland in the Balkans” means. I think I have answered this question in greater detail in my book Macedonia – the Switzerland in the Balkans. I wrote this book right after the end of World War II as a refugee in a village in the Alps. But I will answer the question here in short: I think this means what I think all peoples would desire most. In Switzerland even the smallest ethnic group was recognized legally and within the society – and this ethnic group could not have become more than 50 thousand people. But it is naturally given all rights, and all laws in the country respect it...

By the way the book of Mihailov is originally translated as:Macedonia: a Switzerland of the Balkans. According to the Macedonian Academician Ivan Katardzhiev the policy of Mihailov for establishment of an independent Macedonian state meant a Macedonian state of the Bulgarians in Macedonia, i.e. a second Bulgarian state, but not a national ethnic Macedonian state.Beсник "Вест", Година:1 Број:215 Сабота 3/24/2001 On the other hand, I have found that on 12 February 1933, the Great Macedonian Assembly of IMRO revised and reformulated its program in today Blagoevgrad (then Gorna Dzhumaia). They decided to abandon the minimal aim and to reformulate the maximal one into a ‘‘Free and Independent United Macedonia—the Switzerland of the Balkans.’’ One formula captured its essence: ‘‘To be under no-one. To be ourselves. To govern ourselves.’’Andrew Rossos Macedonian Nationalism: From Right to Left (1920s and 1930s) p. 160. Jingiby (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You're unbelievable. If you had the information that Mihailov also used that expression, why would you then misrepresent a source?! Those are not the same thing: there's the aspirations of the IMRO (< 1930s) and there's Nazi Germany's proposal (1944). --WavesSaid (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Both ideas are reliable and related to the article. The IMRO, (and Mihailov himself) one, for a second Bulgarian state on the Balkans, using the multiethnic model of the Switzerland, and the last moment Nazi idea for Macedonian puppet-state, backing the German withdrawal from the Balkans. Jingiby (talk) 07:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What? --WavesSaid (talk) 08:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * They're not related to the proposed state discussed in this article, they're related to the aspirations of the IMRO in the interwar period. If you insist on their inclusion, then please make sure you make that distinction clear. --WavesSaid (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

WavesSaid, your last edid resembles vandalism. Please stop deletind sourced info, only because you do not like the facts. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 09:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Stubbornness is not vandalism. You are not rebutting any of my arguments. You are also misrepresenting sources. The claim you added and cited states "Bulgaria officially annexed the occupied areas", but the source states "[...] Hitler did not allow the Bulgarians to formally annex the parts they now controlled [...]". This isn't the only instance where you've misrepresented. --WavesSaid (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Both statements are true. Bulgaria officially annexed the occupied areas with a resolution of its Parliament. However, Hitler did not allow the Bulgarians entirelly to annex the parts they now controlled. According to the Agreement Cloudius-Popov the Germans imposed limited sovereignty of Bulgaria over the annexed territories. Jingiby (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP cannot be used as a source per WP:CIRCULAR. Tomasevich p.161 specifically states that "The Bulgarian government... treated the newly acquired areas as 'liberated territory'. Without making any formal proclamation, it simply extended Bulgarian military, administrative, police, and judicial organisations and legislation to these regions." Peacemaker67  (send... over) 11:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Glasnik na Institutot za nacionalna istorija, Том 25, Броеве 2–3 (Skopje, Macedonia), 1981, стр. 15. ;

България и Беломорието (октомври 1940 - 9 септември 1944 г.), Военнополитически аспекти, Димитър Йончев ;
 * these are not in English. I can't read them or even look at the reliability of the sources. There is a significant issue here though, we have a highly respected historian published by Stanford saying one thing, and your sources apparently saying something else. Doesn't look like a clear cut issue to me. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I think, this 7 sources may be enough:


 * "Bulgaria During the Second World War", Marshall Lee Miller, Stanford University Press, 1975, ISBN 0804708703, p. 128: When Bulgaria formally annexed the occupied portions of Macedonia on May 14, 1941, however, Germany raised no strong objections.


 * "Axis Forces in Yugoslavia 1941-45", Nigel Thomas, Osprey Publishing, 1995, ISBN 1855324733, p. 24: On 19 April 1941, Bulgaria occupied Macedonia and some districts of Eastern Serbia, which, with Western Thrace and Eastern Greek Macedonia (the Aegean Province), were annexed by Bulgaria on 14 May.


 * "Balkan Studies": Biannual Publication of the Institute for Balkan Studies, Hidryma Meletōn Chersonēsou tou Haimou (Thessalonikē, Greece) The Institute, 1994, p. 83: On 14 May 1941 Bulgaria announced the official annexation of the occupied areas, the newly acquired lands of Western Thrace and Eastern Macedonia, (1941-1944).


 * "The Last Ottomans: The Muslim Minority of Greece 1941-1949", Kevin Featherstone, Dimitris Papadimitriou, Argyris Mamarelis, Georgios Niarchos, Palgrave MacMillan, 2011, ISBN 0230232515. p. 93: The Bulgarians lost no time: at a plenary session of the Bulgarian Parliament (Sobranje) in Sofia on 14 May 1941, the union of the new acquisitions with the rest of the nation was proclaimed.


 * "Partisan Warfare 1941-45" Nigel Thomas, Osprey Publishing, 2010, ISBN 0850455138, p. 23: In April 1941 the newly formed Bulgarian 5th Army (ist Cavalry Bde.; i4th, 15th and initially 6th Divs.) occupied most of Yugoslav Macedonia. The territory was formally annexed in May.


 * "Local Government in Occupied Europe (1939-1945)", Bruno De Wever, Herman Van Goethem, Nico Wouters, Academia Press, 2006, ISBN 9038208928, pp. 205-206: Bulgaria annexed officially the “new territories in May 1941. Berlin did not react to this unilateral decision but considered this development temporary.


 * "The A to Z of Bulgaria" G - Reference, Raymond Detrez, Scarecrow Press, 2010, ISBN 0810872021, p. 273: In 1941, during World War II, Bulgaria was allowed by the Nazis to occupy and administer Yugoslav Macedonia and parts of Greek Macedonia; these territories were actually annexed by Bulgaria. Jingiby (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way this is the Decree with which all inhabitants of the newly liberated lands, who are of Bulgarian origin are given Bulgarian citizenship. The document explicitly refers to these areas (annexed from Greece and Yugoslavia), as they are under the jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Bulgaria. Jingiby (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No issue with Miller, but you can forget the Osprey books for this type of thing. They are patchy in terms of reliability and their focus is on military aspects, not political ones. Websites purporting to show primary sources too. No idea about Scarecrow Press, but I have my doubts just based on its name. But on face value, Miller, Featherstone et al and probably de Wever et al look ok reliability-wise. I note that Pavlowitch also describes it as an occupation, and does not mention annexation. The sources will need to be balanced in the text. I will check Lemkin after which I will propose some text to cover this appropriately. Lemkin says Yugoslav Macedonia was occupied and treated as liberated territory, and Greek eastern Macedonia was annexed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

"Bulgaria During the Second World War", Marshall Lee Miller, Stanford University Press is a specialized and reliable as well as "Local Government in Occupied Europe (1939-1945)", Academia Press and "The A to Z of Bulgaria", Scarecrow Press. Bulgarian sources are clear. The situation was complex: firstly it was an occupation with German permission, afterwards an official annexation was proclaimed in the Parliament and then the Germans made some obstructions and limited the Bulgarian sovereignty in the annexed areas with the Cloudius-Popov agreement. Jingiby (talk)

P.S. Check also here: Bulgarian campaign committes in Macedonia 1941, Dimitre Mičev, Macedonian Scientific Institute 1995, Political situation prior to the Appearance of the Campaign Committees.
 * So you say. However, I said I had no problem with Miller and Featherstone et al and probably not with de Wever either. I've asked for confirmation at WP:RSN as to whether Scarecrow Press meets the reliability criteria, Detrez is a professor and I would think he is reliable as an author. Frankly, website sources are pointless (I got a 404 on the one you linked, which is a page on a website/blog by a post doctoral research associate in geophysics - quite what that has to do with history is beyond me). The Biannual Publication of the Institute for Balkan Studies is clearly referring to Greek eastern Macedonia, not Yugoslav Macedonia. The Bulgarian sources may be clear to you, but they are (after all) Bulgarian sources, and need to be carefully used when dealing with an area as controversial as Macedonia. So we have Miller, Featherstone et al, de Wever and probably Detrez, and Tomasevich, Pavlowitch and Lemkin. As I say, three reliable English language sources that don't even mention annexation regarding Yugoslav Macedonia, and they will need to be reflected in the article as well as the sources that use the term "annexation" to refer to areas of Yugoslav Macedonia. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hm. What about:


 * "Nationalities Papers: The Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity" Volume 14, Issue 1-2, Taylor & Francis, 1986, Hans‐Joachim Hoppe, pages 89-100, "Bulgarian nationalities policy in occupied Thrace and Macedonia": Although Bulgaria annexed the "new territories" on 14 May 1941 by a formal act, tolerated by Berlin, the regulations remained provisional. 


 * "Das makedonische Jahrhundert: von den Anfängen der nationalrevolutionären Bewegung zum Abkommen von Ohrid 1893-2001", Stefan Troebst, Oldenbourg Verlag, 2007, ISBN 3486580507, S. 228.: Zwei Drittel mit dem Hauptort Skopje waren 1941 von Bulgarien okkupiert und 1942 dann annektiert worden.


 * "Im Schatten des Krieges: Besatzung oder Anschluss - Befreiung oder Unterdrückung?"; eine komparative Untersuchung über die bulgarische Herrschaft in Vardar-Makedonien 1915-1918 und 1941-1944, Björn Opfer, LIT Verlag Münster, 2005, ISBN 3825879976, S 212.: 14 Mai 1941 proklamierte die bulgarische Regierung formell die Annexion der „neuen Gebiete". Jingiby (talk)

Look, I don't read German either, but really, so what? I could probably dig up articles that say the territory wasn't annexed. We have more than enough sources already to balance what the sources say about this issue. Alongside the sources you have produced we have at least three reliable scholarly sources that either explicitly say they weren't annexed or don't even mention the word and talk about the Bulgarians just "Bulgarising" the occupied zone. That's not the same as annexing. I will be starting to incorporate what Tomasevich, Pavlowitch and Lemkin say into the article in the next little while. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Look, I do not produce sources. We have at least three reliable scholarly secondary sources that explicitly say - those territories were annexed and even the exact date of the event: 14 May 1941. More, we know the place: at a plenary session of the Bulgarian Parliament in Sofia. Jingiby (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So what are you saying, Tomasevich, Pavlowitch and Lemkin are all wrong? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Look, it is a complicated issue. The Bulgarian government officially proclaimed the annexation of the occupied areas, on 14 May 1941, at a plenary session of the Bulgarian Parliament in Sofia. However, the Germans regarded this annexation as inconclusive and imposed limited sovereignty of Bulgaria over the occupied territories, especially on the issue of the the exploitation of the mineral resources. The issue of the borders, also was not definitively resolved. There had been several military clashes between Bulgarians and the Italians in Western Macedonia. Therefore, the question of the borders was left to be resolved finally after the war. Nevertheless, Bulgaria granted Bulgarian citizenship to all Bulgarians fron the newly liberated lands in June 1942. But the non-Bulgarians - Jews, Turks, and others did not get a citizenship. Jingiby (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * too right it's a complicated issue. That's why we use a range of sources. I am aware of the Bulgarisation, the expulsion of the Serbs and Albanians etc etc, but really this article is about a very short-lived and ineffectual "independent" Macedonia. We just need to explain briefly what the occupation/annexation situation was and move on. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. Jingiby (talk) 11:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, Peacemaker67. I have found a movie on Youtube on the official proclaimation on 14 May 1941, in the Bulgarian Parliament in Sofia. Jingiby (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S. As per Tomashevich, he on 40 places confirms as the Bulgarian annexation, as well as on 3 places the limitation of its souvereignity through the Clodius - Popov protocol. Jingiby (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC) .
 * You are right, not 40 places, but he does refer to Macedonia as Bulgarian-annexed. I withdraw my objection. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

No problems. The situation with the occupation/annexation was very complicated. Jingiby (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources
I'm specifically referring to this. The IMRO had disbanded a decade earlier. Minahan (1998) does not suggest that independence was declared by former members of the IMRO, but by "nationalist leaders". Explicitly labeling them members of the right-wing faction of the IMRO is—apart from being a misrepresentation of the source—anachronistic and speculative. --WavesSaid (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You could have commented in the section where the topic was discussed. Why do you start a new section? -- L a v e o l  T 00:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't derail another section. If you wish to make a comment, respond to what I wrote above. --WavesSaid (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have left my comment where the topic was discussed. Why you chose to ignore my comment and start a new section is beyond me. Really. -- L a v e o l  T 00:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The sections 'Infobox changes', 'Sources' and '"Switzerland on the Balkans"' were not appropriate. If you wish to make a comment, respond to what I wrote above. --WavesSaid (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand you Peacemaker, what do you do. On one, its became clear that Mihailov wanted an independent Macedonia and refused any cooperation with Bulgaria. On the other hand, the article says, that would be an independent Macedonia with predominantly Bulgarian population. At the same time, you insists that he was for joining of Macedonia to Bulgaria. More, you wiped also obvious facts as for example, that Bulgaria maintained diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union during the war, and the name of Ohrana, and then you even have threaten me with ARBCOM?!? Could you provide a single source Mihailov was against independent Macedonia, but for its annexation from Bulgaria? Jingiby (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * YOU can't understand ME? Give me a break. Your English is so tortured you make a Guantanamo inmate look like an ascetic. Just stop changing the meaning of sourced material. If you have a contrary reliable source, cite it. Just don't change the meaning of sources that have already been cited. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Look, Tomachevich is not an expert neither in the Macedonian issue, nor in the IMRO-history. The period when IMRO sought an incorporation of Macedonia into Bulgaria was during the wars 1912-1919 and shortly after, until 1923. Afterwards, no one from its different factions wanted it. As per Mihailov and his opinion please, read "Collective Memory, National Identity, and Ethnic Conflict: Greece, Bulgaria, and the Macedonian Question, Victor Roudometof, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002, ISBN 0275976483, p. 99:

''... In the aftermatch of the WWI the conservative (pro-Bulgarian) fraction of the IMRO was reconstructed under the leadership of Todor Alexandrov... This IMRO developed an agenda for an autonomous Macedonia, as it was a way for an unification with Bulgaria... Ivan Mihailov and Alexander Protogerov, who assumed IMRO's leadership in the wake of Todor Alexandrov's death (1924), retracted their support for an independent Macedonia and moved toward that would be their old position of autonomy. By 1928, Mihailov, who had emerged as the key leader of the group proposed a new plan calling for unification of a pre-1913 Macedonia into a single state, that would be autonomous from Bulgaria. By 1931, Mihailov, with Italian support, broke his ties with the Bulgarian government and began to operate as a semi-autonomous agent, wishing to create a Macedonian state that would be under his personal control.'' Jingiby (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Excuse me for my linguistic mistakes. This with the Guantanamo inmates was a good idea, regards! Jingiby (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Where does that excerpt mention anything about Nazi Germany's attempts at creating a puppet state in Macedonia during WWII? --WavesSaid (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The sources support categorically the view that in the early 1940s the Macedonian national identity was still not well developed and the pro-Bulgarian feelings were still prevailing among the locals in Vardar Macedonia, including as national sentiments. Jingiby (talk)


 * I must be speaking Martian because that has zero to do with what I asked you. --WavesSaid (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A real state?
I'm struggling to understand the article. Can someone explain what's said on this matter in the cited source, Stefan Troebst's book, which is cited regarding the event of the proclamation of the state. Who exactly proclaimed it, how was it proclaimed? Did they issue a document, what was its content? And what happened on 13 November, when, according to the infobox, the "state", which the introduction says did not become a reality, was "disbanded"? The first two sentences in the "Aftermath" section give the impression that the "state" were in fact some "new-formed "Macedonian committees".

Regarding the mentioned committees: When questioned by Yugoslav authorities in January 1945, Dimitar Gjuzelov (who in this Wikipedia article is presented as part of this state) said (See p. 393 here): 1) that on the day of the withdrawal of the Bulgarian officials from Skopje, General Pop Dimitrov told Gjuzelov, Chkatrov and Klenkov not to leave Macedonia, but "so that nothing happens in the city, a committee should be formed", to which the Bulgarian authorities will leave the "care of the population". Chkatrov told the general to stay in Macedonia, but he said that he could not sacrifice his career, and the meeting ended with that. 2) that a few days after the withdrawal of the Bulgarian officials from Skopje, Dirigel proposed to create a committee that will take care of the sustenance of Skopje. Then Gjuzelov uncertainly says that an assembly may have been called to form such a committee, but he and Dimitar Chkatrov did not attend. Even if this committee was formed, it seems that it was civil organization formed by people who were part of the city's administration under Bulgarian rule, and whose purpose was to take care of the basic needs of the residents of Skopje in a time of anarchy - but from the presented, it can be concluded that, if it was formed, it was a committee limited to Skopje. Do we know of committees in other cities and places and can we say that they acted as organs of the reportedly proclaimed "Independent State of Macedonia"?

I think the article needs to be revised in this regard. Идеологист (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles should be based on the prevailing opinion expressed in modern secondary sources, i.e. historical researches, published by authoritative historians in peer reviewed articles during the last 3 decades. Jingiby (talk) 11:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, are you replying to me? Do I need to repeat myself, that the article is contradictory – in one instance it tells the reader that there was a German proposal for an Independent State of Macedonia, which did not materialize, then that such a state was proclaimed, even giving a period of its existence – 8 September to 13 November – but then saying there were no means to make the state a reality. It even speaks about organs of such a state – new-formed "Macedonian committees". What were these committees? In which places did they exist, who was part of them, what was their activity...? The article does not speak about any of this. Now, can you tell me which secondary sources referenced in the article speak about the existence of such a state, except Miniature Empires, which is a summary of countries and does not go into any detail regarding this topic, except that it was declared and that it was virtually defenseless without the retreating German troops. So, my question is – does this article rely on only one summary source and everything else in it is just a summary of the events in the period in question – 8 September to 13 November? If not, please direct me. And, as I stated above, if you can, please write down what is in Troebst's book, the only source cited for the sentence which says that such a state was proclaimed on 8 September. Идеологист (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The map.
@Jingiby How is related to this article? There are no cited sources on which this map is based on, ie. I question its historicity. Why should we have it in the article? Can you explain what this map is supposed to depict? Идеологист (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sure this map was made years ago by an editor from Serbia and uploaded here An old German map from 1944 with the same borders was linked as a source. Subsequently, different editors began to practice with this map and to make different files from it. The first map had inscriptions in Serbo-Croatian, but it later disappeared. I'm trying to find it. Jingiby (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, waiting for the source to see what this map is all about. Идеологист (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have found it. Check here, please. However, there are 2 links to the original German map below, but they did not work longer. Jingiby (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, I found it here, let me see what it is. Идеологист (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jingiby So, the source for the map is not listed on the web-site. The map is basically that this are the borders of "Macedonia", and the parts "occupied by the enemy" as of 28 October. We don't even know for sure what "Macedonia" means here. I propose that we remove the map as ambiguous. Идеологист (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * On a contrary. The context is clear: In September 1944 the Bulgarian surrender caused a political vacuum in Macedonia, which the Germans filled with a local puppet government. Jingiby (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems that is the blogger's impression, well, he doesn't cite anything or I'm not seeing it. Either way, what are the sources on this "local puppet government"? A blog is not a source. How was it structured, who was part of this "government," what were its activities other than helping the retreating Germans? Was it recognized by someone? How did it function on terrain? Did it have security forces? A lot of questions raised by a few unsourced words. Идеологист (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Gotta agree with Идеологист here. Per the archived site's disclaimer: Disclaimer: The contents of this Homepage contains some Third Reich militaria. We wish to stress that we are collectors and hobby historians, and not neo-nazis. This is not a site for neo-nazis or their views. Nor are we responsible for the content of any websites linked to this Homepage. I am expected by German Law to place this disclaimer on every page in the German language where certain Third Reich symbols can be seen. Based on this disclaimer, this does not appear to be a reliable source. The site was operated by a guy who does not have any academic credentials. So, I support removing the map. In the absence of a reliable source, it should not remain. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed it. I don't have anything against if we actually find the source of this map (as the blogger says, he is just a collector, ie. he got it from somewhere, a book or something else) and then see if we can understand better what the original source says about this map. "Borders of Macedonia" (as the legend on the map says) seems very vague to me, that is why I don't agree with the interpretation that this map is talking about the borders of a Macedonian state that existed between September and November, aside my reservations that such a state ever existed, as I already argued on other sections of this talk page. Идеологист (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Kitinchev was not in Macedonia during the period in question
In the interrogation by the Yugoslav services, Kitinchev, who in the current version of the article is presented as the "Government Chairman" of this "Independent State of Macedonia", stated that when the Bulgarian authorities withdrew from Skopje, he also left Macedonia. "I arrived in Kyustendil on 8 September in the morning. I stayed there until 8 October, on which date I was arrested." In other words, Kitinchev could neither have participated in the alleged proclamation of a Macedonian state on 8 September 1944, nor to have participated in any committees that existed during the retreat of the German military to the north until mid-November. [Source: p. 435] What should we do? I say the article needs serious revision. Идеологист (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Then this statement must be changed. Jingiby (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)