What do you think?
Rate this book
The Macedonian Slavs in the Greek Civil War, 1944–1949
In this study of Macedonian Slavs in the Greek Civil War, the author examines how their participation in the conflict, and the attempts by other groups to manipulate them, gave rise to modern issues that continue to affect politics in the region today. The Macedonian Question has confounded academics, politicians and the people of the Balkans since the nineteenth century. While the countries have resolved the territorial component of the Macedonian Question, the critical and confusing question surrounding the ethnic and linguistic identity of the people of the region continues to be the source of international debate. Part of the reason for this confusion is because the history of the Macedonian Question is shrouded in nationalist polemics. The role of the Macedonian Slavs involvement in the Greek Civil War is particularly contentious and embedded in nationalist polemics, which has impacted academic inquiry. This book argues that the preponderance of Macedonian Slavs within the communist forces during the Greek Civil War influenced the actions of all the major actors involved, and is a significant factor in shaping the modern Macedonian national identity.
442 pages, Kindle Edition
Published June 3, 2019
5 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
January 26, 2023
I haven't quite finished the book yet, but I'm almost there and ready to put some thoughts down. If I have any updates when I make it through, I'll update this review.
Firstly, let me say that this is not an academic review. I haven't combed the citations, and with few exceptions, I'm not critiquing them.
I eagerly sought out this book because I am eager to learn more about the subject matter of this book, I wanted to know more about The Macedonian Slavs in the Greek Civil War. I was excited to find that this book existed and was very recent.
The book begins with a very bizarre, cartoonish, and almost certainly apocryphal private exchange between Stalin and a few others. The reason for including it, I suppose, was to set the stage for the "Macedonian Question" within communist parties. I groaned when seeing it, as, for me, it set the stage in a much different way. It is a completely unnecessary, uninformative, and all together useless exchange. All it really does do is make Stalin appear to be some kind of childish idiot. Why is that given such a prominent place in his book? Sure, they are talking about Macedonia, and they are communists, but other than that, I cannot fathom why the author found it so important as to make it the very first words of his book.
Following this, the book provides a literature review, and largely critiques previous works on the subject as being biased in some way, by stating that they are either pro-Greek or pro-Macedonian (in the chauvinist nationalist sense). I haven't read these other books, so I cannot comment on that. I have little reason to doubt that such works exist and have those biases. I am familiar with the chauvinist Greek line on the subject, for example, and am sure it has been immortalized in a number of histories. In reading this literature review and his awareness of bias, I was hopeful that the author would himself be conscious of bias and would refrain from it, however I quickly found that this book has little substance beyond its bias. Not a bias for or against Greeks, or Macedonians, or Bulgarians, or whoever; instead the author's bias is absurdly anti-communist. Its approach is very familiar to those who have read liberals writing about communist history - claim to be above bias, in a purely academic sense, but spend all of your efforts trying to make the communists in your history appear to have nothing but negative characteristics, to such an absurd degree that you barely tell a history at all. Walter Rodney's analysis of liberal histories in "The Russian Revolution: A View from the Third World" is helpful for understanding this approach to history.
Before I elaborate further on that, this book also has a bizarre take on Macedonians in general. The author often portrays them as nothing but a minority - a minority in Yugoslavia (rather than the majority of Vardar Macedonia), a minority in Greece, and even a minority in Aegean Macedonia. The last claim is an absurdity, unless one is intentionally misleading with numbers or definitions. Often times that fact is clear within the text of the book, when the author talks about events or conversations that would not make any sense unless the Macedonians were the majority of Aegean Macedonia. Nonetheless, although Horncastle's Macedonians are a minority everywhere, he is very clear and explicit that almost every conflict revolves around what they want. Hornecastle's Tito is always tiptoeing around the Macedonians. Hornecastle's KKE is always tiptoeing around the Macedonians. The Macedonians are a minority that somehow control the debate from every angle.
The author attempts to explain how and why that is, however it is not convincing. The author gives the historical context for how Macedonia was split, how their identity was actively and brutally suppressed both North and South by the Serbian and Greek governments, but in the following chapters repeatedly dismisses or belittles their cause, desires for autonomy, etc., in very strange ways. They go from being brutally oppressed to just this annoying minority that makes their superiors cater to their every whim at every corner, in a few short years. Hornecastle's Macedonians seem to have the weak/strong paradox.
Back to my main critique. The author is not so interested in telling the history of events (which is fair, it is not intended as a narrative history), however his major interest seems to be in showing all of the main characters in the inter-communist relationships (between the CPY, CPM, KKE, BKP, NOF, etc.) to be duplicitous, self-serving, lacking in any consistent principles, and any other negative traits you can think of. Of course, humans, communist or otherwise, can exhibit these traits, but this book is obsessed. I came to this book to learn about the Macedonian Slavs in the Greek Civil War, and I got a series of quotes, sometimes from party leaders, sometimes from newspapers, sometimes from anyone else, which "proves the party reversed its position." The author uses the word "proves" very liberally in this book. He also makes other strange statements to flatter the reader into agreeing with his conclusions. I can recall a passage where the author provides a quotation, and follows it by saying something along the lines of "an objective reader will see the obvious contradiction." The contradiction was not obvious, however, if you fancy yourself an objective reader, you must believe that there is a contradiction, and that furthermore it is obvious!
The book portrays everything as an act of duplicitousness. The CPSU screws over the CPY. The CPY screws over the CPM. The CPY screws over the KKE. The KKE screws over the NOF. The NOF in turn screws over the KKE, the CPM, who are screwing over the CPY, who screw over the CPSU. Every quote is proof of one party's duplicity to the next. Usually the duplicity goes down the chain, with the larger party victimizing the smaller. Since the Macedonian parties are the smallest, that would always make them the victims. However, the author has the paradoxically powerful Macedonian parties at his disposal, who always manage to reverse the direction and screw upward. The book seems to think this is "unbiased," because it does not take "the side" of one particular party, but all it really does is portray a certain part of history as little more than a series of selfish and duplicitous moves between a few communist parties. That part of history is, of course, the struggle of partisans against the German Nazis occupation and their collaborators, and the struggle of the same partisans against the UK/US backed army of fascist collaborators in the post-occupation period.
On occasion, the author attempts to cite "marxist doctrine," humorously showing that he is not equipped to talk about Marxism at all. One passage amused me, page 145:
"Instead, the KKE opposed the tactics that had been employed by the English. As the resolution noted, England's goal was "to defame the Communist Party and to sow discord amongst the Balkan countries." "
Before reading this passage, I didn't think too much about the author's very English surname. However, in many ways, this English author continues the English tradition that the KKE identified in this passage.
I'd feel a little bad about this review, however the book is quite sharp in criticizing the biases of the existing literature. Therefore I think it's reasonable to comment on the bias in this book.
Firstly, let me say that this is not an academic review. I haven't combed the citations, and with few exceptions, I'm not critiquing them.
I eagerly sought out this book because I am eager to learn more about the subject matter of this book, I wanted to know more about The Macedonian Slavs in the Greek Civil War. I was excited to find that this book existed and was very recent.
The book begins with a very bizarre, cartoonish, and almost certainly apocryphal private exchange between Stalin and a few others. The reason for including it, I suppose, was to set the stage for the "Macedonian Question" within communist parties. I groaned when seeing it, as, for me, it set the stage in a much different way. It is a completely unnecessary, uninformative, and all together useless exchange. All it really does do is make Stalin appear to be some kind of childish idiot. Why is that given such a prominent place in his book? Sure, they are talking about Macedonia, and they are communists, but other than that, I cannot fathom why the author found it so important as to make it the very first words of his book.
Following this, the book provides a literature review, and largely critiques previous works on the subject as being biased in some way, by stating that they are either pro-Greek or pro-Macedonian (in the chauvinist nationalist sense). I haven't read these other books, so I cannot comment on that. I have little reason to doubt that such works exist and have those biases. I am familiar with the chauvinist Greek line on the subject, for example, and am sure it has been immortalized in a number of histories. In reading this literature review and his awareness of bias, I was hopeful that the author would himself be conscious of bias and would refrain from it, however I quickly found that this book has little substance beyond its bias. Not a bias for or against Greeks, or Macedonians, or Bulgarians, or whoever; instead the author's bias is absurdly anti-communist. Its approach is very familiar to those who have read liberals writing about communist history - claim to be above bias, in a purely academic sense, but spend all of your efforts trying to make the communists in your history appear to have nothing but negative characteristics, to such an absurd degree that you barely tell a history at all. Walter Rodney's analysis of liberal histories in "The Russian Revolution: A View from the Third World" is helpful for understanding this approach to history.
Before I elaborate further on that, this book also has a bizarre take on Macedonians in general. The author often portrays them as nothing but a minority - a minority in Yugoslavia (rather than the majority of Vardar Macedonia), a minority in Greece, and even a minority in Aegean Macedonia. The last claim is an absurdity, unless one is intentionally misleading with numbers or definitions. Often times that fact is clear within the text of the book, when the author talks about events or conversations that would not make any sense unless the Macedonians were the majority of Aegean Macedonia. Nonetheless, although Horncastle's Macedonians are a minority everywhere, he is very clear and explicit that almost every conflict revolves around what they want. Hornecastle's Tito is always tiptoeing around the Macedonians. Hornecastle's KKE is always tiptoeing around the Macedonians. The Macedonians are a minority that somehow control the debate from every angle.
The author attempts to explain how and why that is, however it is not convincing. The author gives the historical context for how Macedonia was split, how their identity was actively and brutally suppressed both North and South by the Serbian and Greek governments, but in the following chapters repeatedly dismisses or belittles their cause, desires for autonomy, etc., in very strange ways. They go from being brutally oppressed to just this annoying minority that makes their superiors cater to their every whim at every corner, in a few short years. Hornecastle's Macedonians seem to have the weak/strong paradox.
Back to my main critique. The author is not so interested in telling the history of events (which is fair, it is not intended as a narrative history), however his major interest seems to be in showing all of the main characters in the inter-communist relationships (between the CPY, CPM, KKE, BKP, NOF, etc.) to be duplicitous, self-serving, lacking in any consistent principles, and any other negative traits you can think of. Of course, humans, communist or otherwise, can exhibit these traits, but this book is obsessed. I came to this book to learn about the Macedonian Slavs in the Greek Civil War, and I got a series of quotes, sometimes from party leaders, sometimes from newspapers, sometimes from anyone else, which "proves the party reversed its position." The author uses the word "proves" very liberally in this book. He also makes other strange statements to flatter the reader into agreeing with his conclusions. I can recall a passage where the author provides a quotation, and follows it by saying something along the lines of "an objective reader will see the obvious contradiction." The contradiction was not obvious, however, if you fancy yourself an objective reader, you must believe that there is a contradiction, and that furthermore it is obvious!
The book portrays everything as an act of duplicitousness. The CPSU screws over the CPY. The CPY screws over the CPM. The CPY screws over the KKE. The KKE screws over the NOF. The NOF in turn screws over the KKE, the CPM, who are screwing over the CPY, who screw over the CPSU. Every quote is proof of one party's duplicity to the next. Usually the duplicity goes down the chain, with the larger party victimizing the smaller. Since the Macedonian parties are the smallest, that would always make them the victims. However, the author has the paradoxically powerful Macedonian parties at his disposal, who always manage to reverse the direction and screw upward. The book seems to think this is "unbiased," because it does not take "the side" of one particular party, but all it really does is portray a certain part of history as little more than a series of selfish and duplicitous moves between a few communist parties. That part of history is, of course, the struggle of partisans against the German Nazis occupation and their collaborators, and the struggle of the same partisans against the UK/US backed army of fascist collaborators in the post-occupation period.
On occasion, the author attempts to cite "marxist doctrine," humorously showing that he is not equipped to talk about Marxism at all. One passage amused me, page 145:
"Instead, the KKE opposed the tactics that had been employed by the English. As the resolution noted, England's goal was "to defame the Communist Party and to sow discord amongst the Balkan countries." "
Before reading this passage, I didn't think too much about the author's very English surname. However, in many ways, this English author continues the English tradition that the KKE identified in this passage.
I'd feel a little bad about this review, however the book is quite sharp in criticizing the biases of the existing literature. Therefore I think it's reasonable to comment on the bias in this book.
Displaying 1 of 1 review