In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

360 Reviews and Itzkowitz fall into the former category, while those by Theofanous and Chrysostomides fall into the latter. I hope that Chrysostomides and Theofanous can bring out English translations of their work soon so that a wider audience can benefit from their insights. Van Coufoudakis Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne Evangelos Kofos, Nationalism and Communism in Macedonia: Civil Conflict, Politics of Mutation, National Identity. New Rochelle, New York: Caratzas. 1993. Pp. xxi + 336. 8 maps. $40.00. Disputed lands have disputed histories. Add intense nationalist feelings, an ethnically diverse population, terrorism, wars, political intrigue, and communist manipulation and it is easy to see how historical events in Macedonia can be reinterpreted or misinterpreted for reasons of political expediency. Kofos's work aims in the opposite direction. His book traces the historical evolution of the Macedonian Question from the mid-nineteenth century to the late 1980s. The author's successful effort makes this book indispensable reading for both the seasoned historian and the uninitiated reader who wishes to gain a solid background to the current dispute in Southeastern Europe. The book is divided into two parts and three appendices. The first part details events from the mid-nineteenth century to the end of World War I. It traces, among others things, the terrorist beginnings of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization, the armed struggle between Bulgarian, Greek, and—to a lesser extent—Serbian bands in Ottoman-ruled Macedonia, and the post-World War I territorial settlement. The second part covers a lot of ground. It recounts communist plans for an autonomous Macedonia under Bulgarian hegemony, the repressive Bulgarian occupation of Macedonia during the Nazi reign in the Balkans, the deleterious support by Yugoslav partisans of communist guerrillas during the Greek Civil War, and the resultant plight of Slavophones in Greece. Finally, the book looks at the postwar settlement, the initial BulgaroYugoslav reconciliation and the subsequent feud, and the increasingly warming Greek-Yugoslav relations in the name of fighting the global cold war. Each of the three appendices deals with a separate topic. The first reexamines the impact of the Greek Civil War on Macedonia. The second analyzes the efforts by the federal government in Belgrade to create a distinct Macedonian nation, and the third provides an overview of the effects of politically-minded historical memories on the formation of national identity in the region. Macedonia is unfortunately one of those cases where fiction has been turned into fact, myth transformed into reality, and "propaganda ... elevated to the rank of scholarship" (1). Some studies of the issue have found shelter in the language of the postmodernist relativism that is currently prevalent in several Reviews 361 social science circles. History has been reduced to storytelling and events have been interpreted and (de) constructed to suit academic or political expediency. The search for trudi has been replaced by the need to include the view of the "oppressed." In practice, pluralism of interpretation radier than value-free and critical scrutiny has ended up being the most important analytical tool for these studies. How else can analysts like Loring Danforth justify dividing perspectives on the Macedonian issue into "nationalist" and "moderate" camps and then cavalierly dismiss the "nationalists" as biased ("Claims to Macedonian Identity: The Macedonian Question and the Breakup of Yugoslavia," Anthropology Today 9 (4) August 1993:3-10)? This book is different. In contrast to relativist studies, it makes sense of the complex and controversial Macedonian issue by trying to separate fact from fiction. In many ways it is an exemplar of scholarship—lucid, convincing, welldocumented , and evenly balanced. The study addresses the three disputes that comprise the Macedonian Question: (1) What territory constitutes Macedonia? (2) What are the ethnic origins of Slavs in the region? (3) To whom should Macedonia belong? There are no easy answers to these seemingly innocent questions because die three suitors—Greece, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria—have traditionally offered conflicting views. To add to the confusion, Yugoslav opinion has recently been split into two rival camps: whereas many historians in today's Yugoslavia have moved closer to Greek and Bulgarian interpretations, most historians in the newly formed Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia steadfasdy adhere to the old Yugoslav communist...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 360-364
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.