Volume 1 / Athens 1999 "The Refuge of History" by Angelos Vlachos Review of Ioannis Koliopoulos, The plundering of allegations Vol. I: The Macedonian Question in occupied West Macedonia (1941-1944), Thessaloniki, Vanias, 1994 (a), 1995 Vol. 2: The Macedonian Question in the period of the Civil War (1945-1949) in West Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Vanias, 1995 (b) It is rather a commonplace to repeat that the Macedonian Question, in its different versions, constitutes a chief area of political conflict as much as an arena of academic dispute. Within the context of Balkan Studies, the Macedonian Question is precisely the privileged field in which analytical categories and mental tools are being tested. From this perspective the analysis of aspects and different moments of the Macedonian history of the last centuries continues to be of extreme topicality. The rise of nationalist movements in the contemporary Balkans is not unrelated to these developments. The modern national 'realities' require modern approaches or re-evaluation, a fact linked with the case in review. The unequal and various difficulties involved in any such attempt originate in the nature of the research, the accessibility of the available material, and the identity of the author, as much as the intellectual environment he or she works in. In the first volume of the present work, there is an attempt to explore the fundamental components which define the admittedly rough and in many ways obscure subject, i.e. the history of an area-mosaic of ethno-cultural groups for at least the first half of our century. The second volume focuses on the developments of the civil war, a clash which was tragically felt in this part of Greek territory, as well as on the detailed narration of the careers of leading figures and armed groups and the politics influencing them. What makes this book stand out is the exemplary pattern it follows, highlighting the borderline where the discipline converges with subjectivity. This matter is stressed by the author in his lengthy introductions [vol. I, pp. xvii, xx, especially xxii]. This noteworthy aspect motivated me to comment on this very important study. Although written according to every academic standard, it carries in full the predjudices, sympathies and experiences of the author. The personal experience of the historian/narrator sheds light on his double identity, rendering him not only the subject but also a participant, even if an inconspicuous one, in the history he is dealing with. This, it seems to me, is what the presence of the evaluative discourse predominant in the narrative (and highlighted as much by present developments as the wider 'public discourse') should be attributed to. The introductory notes of this work are of particular interest and are rather revealing to the degree that they reflect the fluid intellectual climate of the period in which the book was written as well as describe aspects of the politics of the day. The enthusiastic award of a prize to this work by the Academy of Athens (special session of 24/3/1994) surely belongs in this context. I am under the impression that the immense dimensions the Macedonian issue took on in the conjucture of 1991-1995 in Greece, and the susceptibility of a large part of Greek intellectuals to what was widely experienced as a national threat, are genuinely reflected in the demand for such a work being written in addition to and alongside its very context. After all, what else might have intervened in the period between March 1994 (vol. I, p. xii) and October 1995 (vol. II, p. xv), such that the initially explicitly chosen term "Slavophone Greeks" was replaced by the term "Slavomacedonians"? Interestingly enough, this contradiction has been effaced in the second edition of the study in question. The ethnic dimensions of the double conflict in Greece during the critical decade of 1940 (occupation and civil war) are central to this study. Despite the plethora of subsidiary material, the study does not achieve - perhaps it does not even attempt- to articulate a novel argument on the issue, other than discussing designs against Greek Macedonia by neighboring countries with and through the participation of Greek subjects. The core of the legitimising claims of historiographies in the Balkans (in the form of 'national narratives') concerning the greater area of Macedonia is centered around the traditional point of view of the creation of the state by the nation. In the study under consideration, there is an oxymoron. Although it indirectly accepts - i.e. theoretically accepts - the modern problematic on the 'creation of the nation' (which includes a wide range of disparate contributions, from E. Hobsbawm to B. Anderson), it has not come to the position of accepting their conclusions. Much less, it must not be considered accidental that the first - and last - reference to terms, such as the above-mentioned one, is done in the last endnote of volume I (p.268), in a work which treats par excellence the dynamics of concepts such as 'allegation'. So, at the same time that "the national communities are and have been imagined communities, self-defined and differentiated...on the grounds of national myths, historical rights and other such arbitrary criteria" (vol. I, p. 209), the viewpoints of "journalists and anthropologists dealing with Macedonia", including - rather flatly - scientists such as L. Danforth and A. Karakasidou - said to regard the 'Macedonian' ethnic identity of the Slavomacedonians of Greece as "given, self-proved and indisputable" (vol. II, p. 278) - are scornfully denounced. By extension, the contribution of anthropological thought to the highlighting of processes in microscale is rejected, whereas the importance of cultural (being in a position to remain particular) and economic (land disputes) factors in the final formatting and choice of conviction, is underestimated. It is impressive, however, that there is no allusion to, or discrimination between the terms 'ethnic' and 'national' identity, in this otherwise extremely rich collection of relevant material; whereas, the further quest of evidence revealing the preferences of the Greek Slavophones beyond those described by the author is considered 'vain' (vol. I, p. 209). At this point, the following inconsistency may be noted. It is rather obvious that primary written sources (acclaimed to be the fetishes of academic historiography) do not usually give direct answers to a number of critical questions, often being self-evident to their authors. However, despite the importance of the character of orality in rural societies like the ones described, nothing is stated by the author regarding the pattern of their incorporation in the text, other than the a priori declared deviation from these sources (vol. I, p.xviii). In my opinion, the claim of the historian to be distanced from his subject is disrupted in this work. The balance and clarity, which Koliopoulos has exhibited in the past with remarkable consistency, is lost here. This can be observed as much in the polarising characterisations attributed to the subjects of his study as in the explanatory framework he uses; the dichotomy between the ''few traitors" and the ''ones who sided with the Persians" (as he calls the Slavomacedonian activists) and the wider mass of non-participants in the various autonomist attempts, no longer constitutes an adequate interpretative form for the facts. On the other hand, if, as M. Mazower claims "wars and guerilla struggles, civil wars and police repression in peacetime constitute the most obvious dangers for polarising the local politics", West Macedonia lived with these for at least half a century (1900-1950) and with obvious results. However, what is interesting in Koliopoulos' study is the composition of an elegantly written narrative, which in a predetermined manner attempts a posteriori to embrace the explosive and eventful course of developments in the area. In this direction, the importance of the structure of the argument as well as the use of archive and secondary sources are decisive. As far as the first element is concerned, the invocation - unfortunate, according to my view - of examples from the 19th century (e.g. exile as a method of dealing with banditry, with reference to the band of T. Arvanitakes) and its indirect leveling (characterising it in the 'traditional' and 'familiar' ways) of the systematic methods of repression which were practiced at Makronisos (the primary site of mass confinement in post-war Europe of a whole section of Greeks who constituted during the war one of the most massive resistance movements against the Axis). Regarding the second element, the indisputable knowledge and methodical coverage of the sources by the author are moderated by the way these sources are being used. This occurs due to the often inconsiderate (or imbalanced) acceptance of sources friendly to the government (e.g. the newspaper Hellinikon Aima) or of doubtful reliability (Athan. Chrisohoou), for crucial issues such as the issue of the effect of EAM on the rural population. The implications of more recent works, like the one by D. Close and Th. Sfikas, for issues like the causes of the outbreak of the Civil War of 1946-1949, remain unexploited by Koliopoulos, thus diminishing noticeably the range of his conclusions. We have gone a long way since the 'Dekembriana' were simply considered a "communist-driven mutiny" stemming merely from the "repudiation of liberal democracy by the communists". In conclusion, one wonders if in statements which emphasise "the liberation from stereotypes promoted by winners and losers of Civil War" with reference "to scientific ethics and its standards" practiced by new scientists (vol I, p.xix) there lies a perception of an ideologically 'pure' science. It could be noted here that the sources, contrary to what follows from the whole work (see also vol. II, p.xiii), do not speak by themselves; they give answers to the questions one poses. And it is the questions one poses to his material that will determine the final -all but naive- answers. Return to Top