Cornell University Library
D 651.T5A5
3 1924 027 901 879
31924027901879REPLY OF THE HELLENIC DELEGATION
TO THE STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO
THE PEACE CONFERENCE BY THE BUL-
GARIAN DELEGATION WITH REGARD
TO THE POLICY OF BULGARIA AND
ITS CLAIMS TO THRACE
Translated from the French
by
CARROLL N. BROWN, Ph.D.
The College of the City of New York
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY
THEODORE F. ION, D.C.L.
AND AN APPENDIX OF SEVENTEEN MAPS
PUBLISHED FOR THE
AMERICAN HELLENIC SOCIETY, INC.
Columbia University Pobt-office, Sub-station No. 84, New York, N. Y-
BY
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS AMERICAN BRANCH
35 WEST 32nd STREET, NEW YORK
1920
1.X?
c? \
TS A S'
The expense of this publication has been borne by the
Central Committee of the Unredeemed Hellenes, repre-
sented in the United States by the Thracian Mission, con-
sisting of Sarantis Sarantides, M.D. (National Univer-
sity of Greece)*; Paleologos Georgiou, Ph.D. (National
University of Greece); Panayotis Nicolopoulos, J. D.
(University of Paris); Nicholas Kaltchas, B.A. (Robert
College, Constantinople); Angelos Constantilieris, BA.
(American International College, Smyrna), Secretary of
the Central Committee of Unredeemed Hellenes and of
the Thracian Mission to the United States.

* Mr. Sarantides, the President of the Mission, was obliged to return to Athens
frem Paris on account of illness.
n v-
''H.iVHiy
i A mi i.iPREFACE
The Peace Conference at Paris has settled many
thorny questions, after discussing them from all points
of view and submitting them to a thorough scrutiny;
but none of them seemed, in the early days of the Con-
ference, to be so easily disposed of as the question of
Thrace, although the latter question is an offshoot of the
complicated Eastern problem, the solution of which has
baffled European diplomacy for over a century.
In fact it was the territorial commission ad hoc, com-
posed of American, British, French and Italian Delegates
(the latter formulating, however, certain reservations)
that agreed “ in principle to accept the Greek claims ”
with certain modifications with regard to Western Thrace
(Bulgarian Thrace. See Appendix, p. 49).
This commission also decided to recommend to the
Conference the incorporation of Eastern Thrace (Turk-
ish Thrace) with Greece on the hypothesis “ that the city
of Constantinople, the Sea of Marmora and the Straits
will be constituted into a separate zone by the Supreme
Council ” and “ that the task of fixing the northern
limits of this zone belongs to the Conference” (see
Appendix, p. 50).
In the turmoil of discussion, elaboration and signature
of the Treaty of Peace with Germany at the Congress of
Versailles, the minor questions were naturally left in
abeyance and were only taken up again for discussion
when the excitement subsequent to the great event at
Versailles had subsided and the July celebrations at
Paris of the Allied Victory had come to an end.
The Conference, on resuming its duties, again set in
motion the various commissions to which questions per-
iiiIV
PREFACE
taining to territorial adjustments had been submitted for
examination and report. When the territorial commis-
sion on the claims of Greece in Thrace again met and
made its final report, the new American Delegate entirely
reversed the views of his predecessor, who had resigned,
by opposing the cession of Thrace to Greece.
The reasons given by this new American Delegate *
for his stand on this question were as follows:
That with regard to Western Thrace, Bulgaria had
acquired a legal title to it by the Treaty of Bucharest
of 1913 and that since, as he alleged, the Greek popula-
tion is now in a minority, not only in Western Thrace, but
in Eastern Thrace as well, on account of deaths by starva-
tion, privation and deportation, the principle of self-
determination cannot be applied in their favor. Neither
of these arguments is well founded. The first could be
refuted by pointing out that the Treaty of Frankfort of
1871, by which Alsace and Lorraine were detached from
France would, according to this argument, have created
a legal right to these provinces in favor of Germany.
But the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 has rendered this
treaty null and void and has restored these provinces
again to France.
It is a truism to state that territorial or other arrange-
ments made by a treaty of peace can be superseded by a
subsequent treaty.
As to the second argument, the less said about it the
better. The Peace Conference would certainly never
sanction the doctrine that when the majority of the
people of a country is reduced to a minority by the
government of such country or its ruling class, those
who have been thus victimized should not have a control-
ling vote in the destinies of this country. Besides a large
part of the Thracian Greeks are only temporarily away
from their homes, having taken refuge in Greece, and will
* The new Delegate was Major Douglas W. Johnson, Associate Professor
of Physiography at Columbia University.PREFACE
v
soon be repatriated. From this, particularly if coupled
with the fact that the Turkish population too was reduced
in numbers during the war by deaths in military service
or otherwise, one may conclude that the discrepancy, if
there is any, between the Greek and Turkish population
of Thrace is not great.
The reply of the Greek Delegation to the Memorandum
submitted to the Peace Conference by the Bulgarian
Delegation as to the policy of Bulgaria and her claims
to Thrace, which forms the principal part of the
present publication, is so conclusive that it is hardly
necessary to dilate upon the arguments used by the
Bulgarian Delegation in support of its thesis. It may,
however, be appropriate to refer briefly in this preface
to certain points which it was not, perhaps, thought
proper to include in a state document like that of the
Greek Delegation, in which conciseness is a principal
requisite.
If the Thracian question were to be settled on his-
torical grounds, none of the disputed territorial prob-
lems presented to the Conference would have a more
solid basis than the claims of Greece upon Thrace.* But
as the Bulgarians have been indulging for some years in
historical research in support of their claim to most of
the territories of the Balkan Peninsula, including Thrace,
we are surely justified in reproducing here a selection of
the “ historical maps,” published by one of their leading
diplomats, which conclusively refute their own arguments.
Thus as these maps show, the Bulgarian people have
never in the course of their history really settled in
Thrace nor exercised their sovereignty except for one brief
period of seventeen years.
The late Mr. Rizoff, Bulgarian Minister at Berlin dur-
ing the war, published an atlas with various maps in
order to prove that the Bulgarians had, in the Balkan
* See on this point an excellent article by Diodorus in the Balkan Review,
Vol. I, No. 3, 1919.vi	PREFACE
Peninsula,* greater historical rights than any of the
neighboring nations.	1
These maps (see Appendix, Maps I-X) show, accord-
ing to the Bulgarian patriots, the epochs of Bulgarian
rule over the territories claimed as being comprised in
their Kingdom, though, as a matter of fact, this so-called
Bulgarian rule amounted to nothing but periodical in-
cursions into the territories of the Greek Empire of
Constantinople, from which the Bulgarian armies were in
every case driven out after short intervals.
But as the question at issue regards only the province
of Thrace, it is useless to meander into historical grounds
in order to prove our assertion that the territories in the
Balkan Peninsula which are shown in these maps as
having, at one time or another, formed part of Bulgaria,
were never actually under Bulgarian sovereignty. Our
object is simply to demonstrate that, even according to
the Bulgarians themselves, Thrace never formed part of
their State. The only exception to that rule was during
the occupation of Constantinople by the Crusaders, when,
as Map X indicates, the Bulgarians taking advantage of
the temporary disappearance of Byzantine authority in
Thrace, invaded the latter country and kept a great part
of it under their rule for the brief period of seventeen
years. This map was purposely introduced into the
series in order to prove their contention that even Thrace
had come under their rule. It is therefore not surprising
that this excess of “ patriotic zeal ” drew some caustic
remarks even from their very allies, the Prussians.
* See The Bulgarians in their historical, ethnological and political fron-
tiers with !)0 maps. Published in four languages by D. Rizoff, Berlin, 1917
According to Mr. Rizoff, “ the ethnologic part ” of maps I-X incl. as re-
produced in our publication, was “ entrusted to A. Ischirkoff, Professor of
Geography at the University of Sofia,” and “ the historical part was under-
taken by Dr. V. Zlatarski, Professor of History at the same university,” who,
according to the same authority, are “ names well-known among scholars for
scientific thoroughness and pre-eminent absence of bias.”
We are further told that the maps were “ executed under the observation
of Captain Armand Odle, the technical chief of the cartographical section of
the Prussian General Staff of Army.” (See Ibid. D. Rizoff, Preface, p. XVIII.)PREFACE
Vll
Thus the Berliner Tageblatt, commenting upon these
maps at the time of their publication, wrote: “ Mr.
Rizoff’s publication gives a brilliant proof of the skill
with which a Bulgarian statesman—from the Bulgarian
point of view, naturally,—constructs the past, the present
and the future of the Balkans.”'
Another German paper (the Frankfurter Zeitung)
referring to these maps said: “ The program of Mr.
Rizoff, when we consider his position, represents the of-
ficial Bulgarian program,” and it therefore condemns in
an almost brutal way Mr. Rizoff’s attempt to give to his
annexationist propaganda a scientific appearance.*
A socialist deputy of the Reichstag (Mr. Wendel) was,
however, more outspoken. “ The Bulgarian propa-
ganda,” he wrote at the time, “ is indefatigably making
every effort to show that the plans for the territorial
aggrandizement of the Government of Sofia are nothing
but dis-annexations. The last product of this tendencious
literature is an atlas which is supposed to demonstrate in
an indisputable manner that Bulgaria in her claims has
all the moral, political and historical right on her side.
. . . It is understood finally—and this should be suf-
ficient to condemn the new attempt of the Bulgarian
propaganda—that this propagandist atlas does not con-
tain a single one of the numerous maps which contradict
the Bulgarian thesis.” f
The map above referred to tries to show that the
Bulgarian people are in an overwhelming majority in
the Balkan Peninsula. It was prepared, so Mr. Rizoff
states, \ by Ischirkoff with the cooperation of four Bul-
garian professors. It was printed in Germany during
the war (1915) § in order to convince the idealists of
Europe and America as to the justice of the Bulgarian
* Quoted by V. Colocotronis in La Macedoine et VEelUnisme, p. 144.
f See on the latter Le Temps of March 23, 1918, which reproduced the com-
ments of Mr. Wendel, quoted by V. Colocotronis, Ibid. p. 144.
t Rizoff, Atlas, p. 53.
§ See Petermanns Mitteilungen, 1915, p. 44, cited by V. Colocotronis, Ibid.
p. 482.vm
PREFACE
claims proclaimed then urbe et orbe and as a justification
of their so-called war of liberation on the side of the Cen-
tral Powers and Turkey.
It is also here appropriate to quote the opinion of a
German writer (Otto Maull) who, commenting upon this
map, says: “ It is very difficult to find even in the ethno-
graphic literature of the southeast of Europe an instance
similar to what the coalition of Bulgarian ethnographers
has done in its struggle for the annihilation of the Greeks,
particularly in Thrace.” *
Nor do the other maps in this atlas, such as those of
Ami Boue, Lejean, Mackenzie and Irby, Elisee Reclus,
Kiepert, and Synvet, which the Bulgarian Minister repro-
duces in support of the claims of his country, indicate
that Thrace was at any time part of Bulgaria or in-
habited by Bulgarians. On the contrary, these maps too
clearly demonstrate the Hellenic character of the country.t
After the expulsion of the Franks from Constantinople
and the reestablishment of the Greek Empire, the Bul-
garians were compelled to withdraw northwards, leaving
Thrace to its original owners. This is clearly shown in
one of Rizoff’s own maps (see Appendix, Map No. IX)
which demonstrates the ethnology of Thrace after the
year 1355, and the coloring of which clearly indicates
that the country was not only wrested from the Bul-
garians but inhabited by Greeks.
Furthermore that the Greek element predominated for
centuries under Turkish rule, too, is proved by six
maps reproduced by Rizoff in his work (see Rizoff, op.
cit., pp. 26, 32, 38), the first drawn in 1847 by Ami Boue,
“ an explorer of French descent well qualified for scien-
tific work, who traveled in the Balkan Peninsula during
the years 1836 to 1838” (Rizoff, Ibid., p. 25); the sec-
ond that of Guillaume Lejean (drawn in 1866) who,
* Quoted by V. Colocotronis, Ibid., p. 482.
f See these maps in Rizoff, pp. 26, 32, 38, 42, 44 and 46, and published
herewith as Nos. XI-XVI.PREFACE
IX
according to Rizoff, “ was one of the most studious and
plucky of French explorers,” and twice traveled in
European Turkey (1857-58 and 1867-69), the last time
as a French Vice-Consul, the purpose of his enterprise
which was undertaken by order of the French Govern-
ment being to prepare a map of European Turkey
(Rizoff, Ibid., p. 31).
The third one, according to the same authority, was
drawn in 1867 on the basis of a book written by “ two
undaunted and well-educated ladies, Mackensie and
Irby ” who “ traveled in the years 1862 and 1863 through
a large part of the Balkan Peninsula ” (Rizoff, Ibid., p. 37.
The fourth (see Rizoff, Ibid., p. 42) was drawn by the
French geographer Elisee Reclus in 1876.
The fifth was drawn in 1876 (see Rizoff, Ibid., p. 44)
by the German geographer H. Kiepert. Rizoff tells us
that “ the numerous maps drawn by Kiepert are all dis-
tinguished by scientific value and by previously unknown
accuracy.” (Ibid. 43.)
The sixth map (see Rizoff, Ibid., p. 44) was drawn,
so Rizoff tells us, by a Frenchman A. Synvet, Professor
of Geography at the Ottoman Lyceum and was “ put to-
gether according to information given by the Greek
Patriarchate.” (Rizoff, Ibid., p. 45.) But according to
Leon Savadjian, a well-known publicist on Bulgaria and
a native of that country, Mr. Synvet got his information
from the Turkish archives, the partiality of which for the
Bulgarians is known (see Leon Savadjian “ Je denonce ”
Preface by Fernand David, 1918, pp. 28, 29, quoted
Colocotronis, Ibid,, p. 481).*
In conclusion, according to the admission of the Bul-
* See criticism of these maps in L6on Savadjian, Ibid. pp. 28-29, quoted by
Colocotronis, Ibid. pp. 480-481. For further information on this subject see
also maps of F. Bianconi, Ethnographie et statistique de la Turq-wie d’Europe,
1877; Stanfords Ethnological Map of European Turkey and Greece, 1877;
also the illuminating map of the Italian author Amadori-Virgili, La questione
rumeliota et la politica italiana, which appeared in 1908 and is reproduced
in this publication in Appendix Map XVII. As it will be seen, this map indi-
cates the number of Greek and Bulgarian schools in Thrace.X
PREFACE
garians themselves, during the whole course of the Turk-
ish rule of five centuries, Thrace has never lost its Hel-
lenic character.* So much for the so-called historical
rights of Bulgaria in Thrace.
In modern times, however, diplomacy seems to concern
itself more with the actual condition of things, for if his-
torical traditions had any weight in the settlement of
territorial questions, no other State would have a better
claim to the territories of the Balkan Peninsula than
Greece. As a matter of fact, in the settlement of terri-
torial questions mere historical traditions are not consid-
ered as being sufficient unless they are combined with a
racial affinity between the State that lays claim to such
territory and the people inhabiting it. In a word, it is by
the application of the principle of nationalities that such
questions are to be solved, if one may judge by the im-
portance given to this idea at the Peace Conference
which principle was heralded as being the corner-stone of
the foundation of the Peace Treaty.
The question of Thrace, like others of a similar nature,
may be looked at from two points of view, one, that of
Greece which wishes to incorporate a particular region,
inhabited principally by people who have a racial affinity
with her own nationals; the other that of the people them-
selves, who wish to be annexed to their motherland. In
fact, there exist in such cases centrifugal and centripetal
forces, both tending to the same object, namely, a junc-
* In regard to the preponderance of the Greek element in Thrace, see state-
ment of facts and table of statistics in present publication, pp. 11 and 14-15.
In 1878, during the sessions of the Congress of Berlin, the British pleni-
potentiary, the late Lord Salisbury, in urging upon the Congress the admis-
sion of representatives of Greece as spokesmen for their kinsmen under
Turkey, called Thrace a Greek province (see Protocol No. 3, Session of
June 19, 1878).
See also official textbook of the Turkish military schools, published in
the year 1873 (General facts regarding the Ottoman Empire, by Ahmed
Djevad, Aide-de-Camp of H.I.M. the Sultan; Constantinople (1289) 1873,
Ahmed Midhad Press—By Imperial order, the present work will be taught in
the military schools). We find on p. 138 the following information about
Thrace: “Surface 450 square geographic miles and 1,800,000 inhabitants.
The proportion of Moslems to Christians is about 2 to 3.”
According to other statistics there are in the said vilayet 453,732 Mussul-
mans and 996,268 Christians, or 1,300,000 inhabitants in all.PREFACE
xi
tion in one body politic of peoples kept apart against their
will. It is through the application of this impelling force
that great political changes were brought about in Europe
in the course of the nineteenth century. It is by virtue
of the same doctrine that the map of Europe has now
been subjected to such a remarkable transformation. It
is through the application of this doctrine that the proud
empire of the Hapsburgs has now come to an end, result-
ing in the creation of new States; that the wings, so to
speak, of the empire of the Romanoffs have been auto-
matically clipped in order to create new bodies politic;
that Rumania and Serbia have more than doubled their
territories; that Italy has realized her national aspirations
to the utmost, and lastly, that France has reannexed her
unredeemed provinces. Greece, which undoubtedly con-
tributed to the successful issue of the war at least as
much, if not more, than the lesser States * who partici-
pated in the struggle, has up to the present time unfortu-
nately not been allotted any territory, that is to say, the
Conference has not yet rendered a decision in favor of
Greece’s annexing any enemy or other territories, now
under foreign dominion, in which the Greek element
predominates.
It is true that the Greek Government did not conclude
any treaties with the Allies in order to insure for her-
self the realization of her national aspirations, but it
was always understood that the principle of nationalities
would be fully applied in her favor with regard to her
kinsmen under foreign rule.f
* Greece was the only power among the small States that had a navy and
a considerable merchant-marine which gave substantial aid to the Allies dur-
ing the late war, and suffered losses to the extent of sixty-four per cent.
t Even the United States Government promised to afford its assistance to
Greece in the peace negotiations. Thus Mr. Droppers, the American Minister,
speaking on behalf of his Government, made in April, 1918, to the Greek
people, the following statement: “The people of the United States view with
admiration the unselfishness and courage with which the Greek people, ani-
mated by that love of liberty'and devotion to right which they have inherited
from a long line of heroic ancestors, are fighting to preserve the freedom for
which their patriotic forefathers valiantly fought Claiming similar ideals
and moved by the same principles of right and justice, the Government and
people of the United States are determined that the fullest possible measureXU
PREFACE
In view of the above-mentioned facts one may well
wonder why the American Delegation, acting under in-
structions from Washington, opposed the annexation of
Thrace to Greece, although in the beginning the decision
of the Commission was unanimous on that point, recom-
mending the cession of that country to Hellas.
It appears that the argument with which the adminis-
tration at Washington was most impressed and which
resulted in the overruling even of the compromise pro-
posed to the Conference by the Chief American Delegate
(Mr. Polk) is that advanced by the advocates or cham-
pions of a Mandate or Mandates over Turkey, including
Constantinople. According to these theorists the United
States should not accept a mandate over the latter city
unless Thrace is included in it. The reason given for this
proposal is that if a mandate is taken only over Con-
stantinople, it will be difficult to defray the expenses
which would be incurred for the administration of the
city by the Mandatory Power.
This is, however, not correct. The Straits of the
Dardanelles and the Bosphorus are such a great thor-
oughfare for the world’s shipping that if a small tax
was levied on the ships that pass between the Black
Sea and the Mediterranean, this would more than defray
the expenses of the administration of Constantinople.
An example may be taken from the tolls of the Suez
and Panama Canals. It may be argued that the Bos-
phorus and the Dardanelles are not artificial highways,
permitting Constantinople to tax the shipping of various
powers, but this difficulty might be met by international
agreement.*
of assistance shall be rendered to Greece, and that her integrity shall be pre-
served and her rights secured in any final negotiations for peace that shall
take place.” (See World Almanac, 1010, p. 650
* Denmark at one time imposed a tax on ships passing through the Sound
and the Belts. The United States Government acquired a perpetual right of
passage for its ships by paying Denmark a lump sum of money, although it
had not recognized the right of that country to levy a tax.PREFACE
X1U
But these advocates of a mandate over Constantinople
including Thrace overlook the fact that the United States
Government entered the war with certain definite prin-
ciples laid down by the Pi’esident, one of them being the
doctrine of self-determination, which means that the people
of Thrace ought to have a consulting voice on this ques-
tion and that therefore no mandate can be taken by any
power without consulting the wishes of this people.
What is most important is that this principle was also
officially indorsed by the leaders of the Allied Govern-
ments and a practical application of it has been made in
the territorial settlements of Europe.
Moreover, a special provision of the Covenant of the
League of Nations deals specifically with this subject.
In fact, according to Article 22, when “ Certain com-
munities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have
reached a state of development where their existence as
independent nations can be provisionally recognized sub-
ject to the rendering of administrative advice and assist-
ance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to
stand alone, the wishes of these communities must be a
principal consideration in the selection of the Manda-
tory.” This article was inserted particularly with the
view of ascertaining the wishes of the civilized people of
the former Ottoman Empire, the administration of which,
according to this article, might temporarily be intrusted
to a Mandatory Power. According to this article, as its
first paragraph indicates in a general way and its fifth
paragraph clearly shows, it does not apply to communi-
ties or nations which are not yet civilized, and tht Turks
are undoubtedly in this category. They certainly cannot be
considered as being civilized, particularly after the horrible
crimes they committed both before and during the recent
war. According to this article people who have reached
a certain state of development cannot be placed under a
mandate unless their wishes are taken into due considera-
tion in the selection of the mandatory; therefore if ThraceXIV
PREFACE
is to be placed under a mandate instead of being annexed
to Greece, the wishes of the Greek people in Thrace have
to be considered. But the Greeks of Thrace have re-
peatedly expressed their wishes for union with Greece
and one cannot see how their country can be taken over
by a Mandatory Power when their desire is not to come
under a mandate but to be incorporated with the Hellenic
State.
Some persons may think that these people would prefer
to be governed, at least temporarily, by one of the Great
Powers of Europe or by the United States, rather than
to come under the rule of a small state like Greece.
This assumption is natural for those who may consider
the Greek nation as lacking either true patriotism or as
being entirely impregnated with commercialism and ma-
terialism generally. Without going back into the history
of modern Greece and the Greek people, its War of Inde-
pendence alone might furnish some of the best examples
of self-abnegation and sacrifice when, apart from the
sacrifice of life, private fortunes were freely dedicated to
the cause of freedom and the creation of a new Hellas.
That the Greek people, whom the late Lord Salisbury
characterized as being “ profoundly * devoted to their
faith and nationality,” under whatever rule of thraldom
they may happen to be are not satisfied and always look
forward to their national union, is attested by some char-
acteristic incidents which took place in the course of the
nineteenth century and are being repeated even now.
Thus, the people of the Seven Islands (Ionian Islands)
who were placed under the Protectorate of Great Britain
by the International arrangement of 1815, were during
the whole period of British rule, that is, for half a cen-
tury, clamoring for union with Greece. This was finally
consummated in 1863 when the British Government, with
the consent of the other powers, handed over the islands
to the Hellenic Kingdom. This proves that the Islanders
* Congress of Berlin, Protocol No. 2, Session of June 17, 1878.PREFACE
xv
were neither dazzled by the greatness and wealth of Great
Britain nor frightened by the poverty of Greece.
Equally the Greeks of Cyprus at the time of the occu-
pation of that island by England (1878) expressed their
wishes for union with Greece. In fact, when Sir Garnet
Wolseley (later Lord Wolseley) landed in Cyprus with
the British troops as High Commissioner, the Arch-
bishop of Cyprus (Mgr. Sophronius) speaking on behalf
of the people, after expressing the gratitude of the
Cypriote Greeks to Great Britain for having delivered
them from the Turkish yoke, informed the British Gen-
eral that the Islanders consider this as a first step to-
ward their union with their motherland Greece, which,
as he said, was the ardent desire of the Cypriotes. Ever
since that time the Greeks of Cyprus—who form nearly
three-fourths of the population of the island—have at
various times, either through their representatives in the
Cyprus Legislature or by holding mass-meetings, ex-
pressed the same desire and have at the present time a
Delegation in London for this self-same purpose.
Another striking example of this intense feeling of
Hellenic nationalism is that of the Dodecanesians, the in-
habitants of the Twelve Greek Islands now under the
military occupation of Italy, who immediately after the
establishment of the Italian rule in the Islands, elected
representatives who in a secret meeting in the Island of
Patmos, in June, 1912, passed resolutions for union with
Greece and have, more recently, sent Delegates to Paris
who in various Memoranda submitted to the Peace Con-
ference have repeatedly demanded the annexation of these
islands to Greece.
These instances prove conclusively that the Greek
people prefer to be united with Greece rather than to
come under the rule of any Power, it being immaterial
to them how great or wealthy such power may happen
to be or what are the benefits that may be conferred upon
them thereby.XVI
PREFACE
Quite recently, Mr. Venizelos in a speech, delivered in
Athens, in which he touched upon the Thracian question,
declared that the occupation of Western Thrace by the
Greek and Allied troops constituted the first step, as he
strongly hoped, in a recognition of the national claims of
Greece upon Thrace, a recognition, to use his own words,
“ which is supported by all the great Powers except one;
her dissent does not arise from an unfriendly disposition,
but from a misconception of the actual conditions under
which the national problem of Thrace presents itself.
This dissent will, we hope, be withdrawn just as soon as
the misconception is dissipated.”
Such being the case, it would not only be an act of
injustice to place the Greeks under any foreign rule
but a source of perennial trouble to the peace of the
world.
It is to be hoped that the Supreme Council in whose
hands the destinies of these people lie, will not commit the
political mistakes of old-time European Diplomacy in
the settlement of the Eastern Question and will not deny
what has been granted to other nations, namely, the ap-
plication of the principle of nationalities, the palladium
under which weak and small nations may take refuge and
shelter and develop their own welfare and their particular
kind of civilization. Hellenic culture is still destined to
play a large part in the history of the world, and the
Hellenic people undoubtedly are still the most efficient
factor for the spread of civilization in the Near East.
Theodore P. Ion.REPLY OF THE HELLENIC DELEGATION
TO THE STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO
THE PEACE CONFERENCE BY THE BUL-
GARIAN DELEGATION WITH REGARD TO
THE POLICY OF BULGARIA AND ITS
CLAIMS TO THRACE.
The Bulgarian Delegation, in August and September,
1919, submitted to the Conference a number of State-
ments (Exposes), some of which have reference, in whole
or in part, to the rights and interests of Greece. The
Hellenic Delegation thinks it appropriate to furnish
some brief explanations as to these matters, while refer-
ring, for questions not here dealt with, to the Memo-
randum presented to the Conference by Mr. Venizelos
in December, 1918.
The Hellenic Delegation will not stop to discuss here
the chapter in “ La Question bulgare et les Etats
balkaniques,” which is dedicated to Macedonia and to
the Greek and Bulgarian differences (pp. 68-87). It
refers as to this point to the recent work of Mr. V.
Colocotronis, “ La Macedoine et l’Hellenisme ” (Berger-
Levrault, Paris, 1919), which is hereto attached. In
this we find fully and definitely refuted all those argu-
ments which Bulgarian propagandists and the Bulgar-
ian Government have for many years persistently laid
before the world, in varying forms and by most various
courses of procedure, with an obstinate consistency which
neither regard for historic truth, nor demonstrations to
the contrary, nor even the repeated lessons of the facts
themselves, have been able to weary.
It is, in any case, worth noticing that in the ‘ State-
ment ’ in question, dealing with Eastern Macedonia, the
Bulgarian Government is very careful not to make the
l2 REPLY OF HELLENIC DELEGATION
slightest allusion to the fate which in the course of
the war it has reserved for this unhappy province, that
it still dares to covet. The Inter-Allied Commission of
Inquiry (Rapports et enquetes de la Commission interal-
liee sur les violations du droit des gens commises en
Macedoine Orientale par les armees bulgares, Berger-
Levrault, Nancy-Paris, 1919), has fully established the
fact that Bulgaria has there pursued a systematic exter-
mination of the Orthodox Greek populations by famine
and massacre. This report concludes with the following
words: (p. 22):
“ How shall we describe a Government which evinces
so profound a spirit of dissimulation, which breaks its
word so easily, which ignores the rules of international
law and the most elementary principles of the rights of
nations, which condemns to torture thousands of inno-
cent people, which hesitates before no means, however
barbarous, in order to satisfy its appetites, its greed and
its ambitions?
“We content ourselves with saying that this people is
not only dangerous to its immediate neighbors but even
to civilized humanity as a whole.
“ It must be condemned to reparation of the evil that
it has caused, in so far as this reparation is possible. As
for the punishment which it deserves, it will consist,
above all, in the application of measures adapted to
hinder it from renewing its criminal enterprises.”
Never has a severer condemnation or one more de-
served been uttered against a Government. No one can,
from now on, forget it in thinking of Eastern Mace-
donia. It is only at this price that it is permissible to
the Government of Bulgaria to continue to speak of this
province where, for a long time, everything will recall
her crimes and bear witness to her barbarity.
The Hellenic Delegation limits itself to replying to
two points: (I) the general policy of Bulgaria and
(II) her claims upon Thrace.I
THE BULGARIAN POLICY
In his letter of August 29, 1919, addressed to Mr.
G. Clemenceau, Mr. Theodoroff, the leader of the Bul-
garian Delegation, in his desire to prove that, in spite of
the war which she waged upon them, Bulgaria has not
ceased to be attached to the Powers of the Entente,
makes every effort to demonstrate that the entire respon-
sibility for the Bulgarian cooperation with the Central
Empires must be cast, not upon the Bulgarian people,
but upon its former sovereign and the Government of
Mr. Radoslavoff. His boldness in argument leads him
to compare the attitude of Bulgaria to that of the other
Balkan countries, whose fidelity to the cause of the
Entente does not seem to him “ more meritorious than
the sufferings of the Bulgarian people.” In his desire
to make this comparison entirely to the advantage of
his own country he does not hesitate to write that “ Bul-
garia cannot be confounded with the nations which, since
August 1, 1914, have thought only of satisfying their
imperialistic desires.”
In order to appreciate the value of these arguments,
it is enough to recall that Bulgarian territory was pro-
tected from all invasions and from every hardship at the
time when the neighboring countries, exposed to a war
which had been long planned against them by Bulgaria,
saw their soil ravaged by her act, and their population
decimated by crimes, famine and deportation. As
against the pretended imperialistic views of the other
Balkan countries, we must place that keen desire for
hegemony, the satisfaction of which Bulgaria has un-
weariedly pursued,—that hegemony which she thought
34 REPLY OF HELLENIC DELEGATION
she could at last obtain in the course of the war; the Bul-
garian people as a whole finally came to believe that
Bulgaria was the nation chosen to command in the
Balkans and that the other peoples were made to obey
her; in delirious joy over the crimes and devastations
committed by her armies, it proclaimed the end of Serbia,
Rumania and Greece; in the House of Parliament, in the
press, in public gatherings, with a unanimous voice and
in the intoxication of a victory which was accounted final,
it demanded the annexation of the district of the Morava,
of Serbian and Greek Macedonia, of Dobrudja, of all
the iEgean coast, including even a part of Albania.
Mr. Theodoroff complacently recalls the political, eco-
nomic and intellectual relations entered into since the crea-
tion of the Bulgarian State with the principal Allied and
Associated Powers. He even presents, as a title to their
friendship, the financial aid which Bulgaria has received
from them, but he says nothing of the commercial and
intellectual relations which Bulgaria has always had with
Germany; they have been developed to such an extent
that they have finally fashioned the Bulgarian mentality
in the exact likeness of that of Prussia.
It was in this militaristic and imperialistic frame of
mind that Bulgaria must have committed the two grave
crimes of 1913 and 1915 which Mr. Theodoroff qualifies
as “ sad departures ” from what he calls “ the liberal
traditions of the Bulgarian people.”
Speaking at length of the circumstances which pushed
Bulgaria into the war against the Entente, he commits
an error of fact when he says, with regard to the nego-
tiations of the spring of 1915, that Mr. Venizelos had
become the echo, in Greece, of the ideas of the Entente:
Mr. Venizelos was not at that time in power.
Mr. Theodoroff undertakes to prove that the coalition
of the opposition had struggled desperately against the
project of an alliance with the Central Powers. In
reality, the struggle entered into against the Govern-TO BULGARIAN MEMORANDUM
5
ment was less due to a divergence of views as to the policy
to be followed, than to personal hostility against Mr.
Radoslavoff. What proves conclusively that the Bul-
garian nation approved the policy of the Government is
that it made not the slightest effort to resist. If there
are any circumstances in which popular resistance may
be expected to rise against an arbitrary Government, it
is surely in the case of a question of war or of peace,
which puts at stake the future, nay even the existence,
of the country. In Greece the people rose against their
king in order to wage a war that they deemed indispen-
sable to the safety of the State. In Bulgaria the people
needed less courage in order to resist a war which they
did not desire. But far from being contrary to the will
of the nation, the policy of the Government accorded with
the people’s sincerest wish. The Avar Avas received with
joy; the soldiers departed for the front Avith enthusiasm,
to the cries of “ Down with Serbia, down with France,
down with England! ” In the Sobranie all the deputies,
including Mr. Theodoroff, rose to their feet and acclaimed
the war and the prospect of a Greater Bulgaria. And
this was no passing sentiment. It persisted throughout
the war; the party of the opposition served constantly as
a valued auxiliary to Mr. Radoslavoff in his Ger-
manophile policy. On July 18, 1916, Mr. Theodoroff
himself intervened to urge the Bulgarian people to fol-
low the war to the very end on the side of Prussia. One
of the colleagues of Mr. Theodoroff today, Mr. Sakaroff,
declared on April 24, 1917, to the Neue Freie Presse
that the Bulgarian Social-Democratic party desired eco-
nomically and politically the closest bonds with the
Central Powers. Mr. Malinoff, leader of the pretended
“ Coalition of the Opposition ” against the policy of Mr.
Radoslavoff assured Count Hertling of the Bulgarian
fidelity to the German cause. The Bulgarian poet, Mr.
Ivan Vazoff, wrote poems every day that were full of
insults for the Powers of the Entente. At the moment6 REPLY OF HELLENIC DELEGATION
that German victory appeared in Bulgaria to be certain,
Mr. Guechoff wrote with pride that the Bulgarian people
would contribute to the determination of the future fate
of the world. Finally, if one needs to be assured of the
popularity of the war and of the firm belief of the masses
in the victory of Germany and the sure gains anticipated
by Bulgaria, one needs only to turn the leaves of the
illustrated Bulgarian journal (Je sais tout), which up
to the last moment (September, 1918) published colored
illustrations in which coarseness disputed the field with
ridicule, but in which, in a striking manner, the mentality
of an entire nation was revealed.
One must likewise suppose an equal desire, from now
on, on the part of other peoples to forget the effects of
the war, in order to be able to affirm, with Mr.
Theodoroff, that the Bulgarian army, in fighting against
the Allied armies of the Orient, was a prey to “ a violent
moral crisis,” that this crisis, upon the announcement of
the peace program of President Wilson was transformed
“ into a latent revolt,” and that from that time on “ the
Bulgarian war against the Entente was virtually fin-
ished.” It is, on the contrary, universally known that
up to the last moment the Bulgarian army fought des-
perately to keep the territories which it had occupied and
that the Bulgarian war was only ended by the defeat and
submission of Bulgaria.
Hoping, thus, that the past may be forgotten, Mr.
Theodoroff dismisses all idea of punishment and demands
a peace of justice and equity.
The appeal to the clemency of the conquerors was
needless; it has never entered into the purposes of the
Allies to abuse their victory in a spirit of base vengeance,
as Bulgaria and her allies would surely have done, and
the conditions of peace which were offered on Septem-
ber 19th are characterized by the greatest magnanimity.
But the concept of justice would be dangerously per-
verted if crimes committed are simply to be condemnedTO BULGARIAN MEMORANDUM
7"
without exacting the necessary reparation for wrongs
endured, and without taking the precautions demanded
by elementary prudence against the future repetition
of the criminal enterprises of which Bulgaria has so often
in the past given us an example.II
BULGARIAN CLAIMS TO THRACE
In several of its notes, the Bulgarian Delegation has
developed a whole series of historical, ethnographical,
political and economical arguments in support of its
claims to Western and Eastern Thrace.
1. Historical Arguments
It is a surprise to see the Bulgarians invoking “ his-
torical rights ” to Thrace.
Everybody knows that this province was completely
Hellenized at the time of the establishment of the East-
ern Empire * and that it never ceased to remain in the
hands of the Greeks of Byzantium up to the time of
the Turkish conquest.
It is enough, furthermore, to consult historical maps,t
even though these are the falsified maps published by
Mr. Rizoff and reproduced in part at the end of the
Memorandum of the Government at Sofia on La Ques-
tion bulgare et les JEtats balkaniques, in order to become
convinced that the frontiers of the Greek Empire not
only went beyond the limits of Thrace but that they
often extended as far as the Balkans (so up to the end
of the eighth century and going on from the year 961)
and during two entire centuries (the eleventh and twelfth)
they extended up to the Danube.J
* See the celebrated memoir of Albert Dumont, Rapport sur un voyage
arch6ologique en Thrace. (In Melanges d’Archgologie et d’Epigraphie, Paris,
1892). See also a recent study accompanied by a full bibliography published
in the Balkan Review of April, 1919, under the title “ Thrace ” and signed
Diodorus.
t E.g. those drawn up by Charles Diehl in L’Atlas historique de Schrader.
j See Les Bulgares by Rizoff, Minister of Bulgaria at Berlin (Berlin, 1917).
8REPLY OF HELLENIC DELEGATION 9
Nevertheless, the Bulgarian Delegation believes that
it can continue to bank upon the ignorance in which Mr.
Rizoff tries to keep the Conference as to Oriental history.
It shows, furthermore, extreme cunning, for, after having
put at the head of paragraph 3 of its exposition of the
question of Eastern Thrace, in capital letters, the words
“ Historical Considerations ” the text of this section is
singularly brief and vague.
“ We will limit ourselves,” so it says, “ to recalling that
again and again Bulgarian Czars have been masters of
Eastern Thrace,” and citations are there given of three
names and three dates, Kroum (813), Simeon (927),
Ivan-Assen II (1218).
The Bulgarians pretend to be ignorant of the fact that
the wars started by Kroum and Simeon were ended by
two great treaties, those of 815 and of 927, and that
these two treaties have been carefully studied by the
greatest contemporary Byzantine scholars of France and
England. Now Bury and Rambaud—for it is of these
two that I am speaking—have clearly established the fact
that the southern frontier of the Bulgarian Empire, in
the century of its greatest glory, was not beyond, but
was on this side of the Turko-Bulgarian frontier of
1912*
Kroum and Simeon were able to make incursions into
Thrace that were marked by atrocities which have been
only too well remembered in Bulgarian traditions; but
they never were able to “ make themselves masters of
Thrace.” Rambaud even takes pains to show that the
Byzantine frontier of 927, far from including Bulgarians,
left in the power of the latter important Greek popula-
tions on the shores of the Black Sea as well as in the
vicinity of Philippopoli.t
The Bulgarian Memorandum also makes allusion
* See J. B. Bury, A History of the Eastern Roman Empire from 802 to
867 (London, 1912, pp. 361-362), and Alfred Rambaud, Constantin Porphyro-
gendte ou I’Empire Byzantin aw dixieme sidcle (Paris, 1870, p. 317).
t Op. cit., p. 319.10 REPLY OF HELLENIC DELEGATION
(p. 4) to the chroniclers of the Fourth Crusade. This
was again a bad blunder; the full chronicle of the Cru-
sades, that of Villehardouin, treats at full length the cam-
paigns of the Crusaders in Thrace, which was at that
time in a very flourishing condition; it speaks of numer-
ous cities, Adrianople, Arcadioupolis, Didymotichos, Ro-
dosto, Nekise, Blama, etc., etc.;* now everywhere, from
Philippopoli to the sea, Villehardouin found only Greeks
whom he called Griex or Grieux; he found Bulgarians
(Boulgres) there only once and this was several hours
north of Messinopolis in the district known today as Ahi-
Tchelebi.f
It is to be noted that Villehardouin describes Jean
Assen as King of Vlachia and his men generally as
Vlachs. In fact, the kingdom of the Assenides, whose
ephemeral glory coincides with the capture of Constan-
tinople by the Crusaders and is due to this was more
truly Wallachian than Bulgarian.:):
This, however, does not prevent the Bulgarian Memo-
randum from glorying in the conquests of Ivan Assen II
in Thrace. But here, too, it is a question of invasions
similar to those of Kroum and Simeon which were only
capable of realization because the Greek Empire of
Nicea was combating the Latins of Constantinople as
well as the Assenides. As soon as the Greeks regained
their footing in tho Balkan Peninsula they made quick
work of expelling the intruder and even delivered Thrace
completely before they retook Constantinople (1261).
The great battle of Beroe, which in 1257 sealed the
victory of the Greeks, took place not in Thrace but in
Eastern Rumelia. It was in this province that the sub-
sequent wars took place. So the historian Jirecek, re-
membering that it was between Anchialos and Philip-
popoli that the battles of the ninth century took place,
* See the edition N. de Wailly (Paris, 1874), pp. 198, 200, 204, 22, 264.
f See p. 298.
{This kingdom is also claimed by the Rumanians. See Al. Xenopol:
Biatoire de la Grande Valachie (in Rumanian), Bucharest, 1883.TO BULGARIAN MEMORANDUM 11
characterized this region as “ the lists of the perpetual
Greco-Bulgarian duel.” *
This characterization which emanates from a historian,
who is nothing if not Bulgarophile, is to be remembered.
It implies not only that Thrace, as being and remaining
Greek was left beyond dispute, but also that the province
the possession of which might be disputed on historical
grounds by Greeks and Bulgarians is not Thrace but
Eastern Rumelia.
This region,, which extends from the Thracian frontier
to the Balkans, was before the Roman conquest almost
as fully Hellenized as Thrace proper.f It remained
Greek up to the end of the eighth century; the Byzan-
tines occupied it in part from 800-960 and as a whole
from 961 up to the time of the Fourth Crusade. When,
at the end of the twelfth century, the Vlach-Bulgarian
Empire was founded, Eastern Rumelia was so thor-
oughly Greek that Assen I, the founder of the new State,
was obliged to content himself with Bulgaria proper, and
when his brother and successor took advantage of the
capture of Constantinople by the Crusaders to extend his
empire toward the south, he treated the inhabitants of
Eastern Rumelia not as compatriots but as Greeks and
therefore enemies. This monarch, called on account of
his cruelty “John, the Dog” (Skyloyannis) or, euphem-
istically, “The Good John” (Kaloyannis) showed even
for an heir of Kroum a surprising savageness J and faith-
lessness. Now among the very first cities that he de-
stroyed, leaving hardly one stone upon another, was the
very capital of Eastern Rumelia, Philippopoli, which was
then rich and prosperous and a favorite place of abode
for Byzantine princes. §
* Geschichte der Bulgaren, p. 377.
f See the memoir of Dumont cited above.
t Villehardouin laments that he destroyed all the towns and castles, which
had surrendered to him only after receiving his “ assurances,” and that,
again violating the capitulations, he had deported all their inhabitants into
Wallaehia (op. cit., p. 250).
§ See Acropolite, edition Heisenberg, p. 23.12 REPLY OF HELLENIC DELEGATION
But as we have just seen, the successes of the As-
senides were of no long duration. As soon as the Greeks
recovered a little from the blows that the Crusades
had dealt them, a part of Eastern Rumelia became
Greek. And when toward the middle of the fourteenth
century the Turks finally put an end to the struggles
between Christians by conquering the country, Eastern
Rumelia was not a Bulgarian province but contained a
mixture of Bulgarians, Greeks, Vlachs and various other
races, notably of schismatic Armenians; these latter,
called Paulianites, had been brought in from Asia Minor
several centuries before.
This situation is indicated by the names given to places
by the Turkish administration; for them, the country of
the Bulgarians (Bulgar-Ili) lies north of the Balkans
while to the south of the Hamms is the country of the
Roums (Greeks): Roum-Ili.
The conversion of the greater part of these schis-
matics and of the boyards (Bulgarians)* to Moham-
medanism, as well as the influx of Turkish immigrants
soon gave Eastern Rumelia its tripartite Turco-Bulgaro-
Greek character which is recognized by the Treaty of
Berlin. We must, therefore, emphasize that the relative
supremacy of the Bulgarian element, which is admitted
by this treaty, dates only from the nineteenth century.
From the fifteenth to the eighteenth centuries the
coasts and many of the villages were Greek. The towns,
too, were mostly Greek. Philippopoli in particular was
economically and intellectually a Greek center of the
first order.f
In the villages and in the country the Turks were
also very numerous. On the contrary, the Bulgarians
there are negligible on the coast and in the cities but are
concentrated in the mountain region. It was only at
* Thes« became converted in order to preserve a part of their ancient
privileges. (Jirecek, p. 393.)
f f.ady Montague, in her famous journey to Constantinople across the
Balkans says that Philippopoli was the city where there was the largest
number of wealthy Greeks.TO BULGARIAN MEMORANDUM 13
the close of the nineteenth century that a constant influx
of Balkan mountaineers into the plains finally gave the
Bulgarians the predominance.
This demographic phenomenon is of considerable im-
portance for the study of the problem of Thrace. It is,
in fact, clear that if the Bulgarians were up to the last
century in a decided minority in this Eastern Rumelia
which they occupied on several occasions, how could they
have been numerous in Thrace, into which they made
only cruel but short incursions?
This important fact is perhaps little known but it has
never been contested. It has been especially emphasized
not only by foreigners like Robert Walsh * but by Slavs
like Professor Viederle.
Walsh, whose testimony cannot be disputed by the
Bulgarians, for they have repeated it themselves,t ex-
plains the reason for this extension: “ The Bulgarian
emigrants,” he says, “ are replacing the population of
this country which has disappeared in the encounters of
the Turks and Greeks.”
He alludes to the massacres and persecutions to which
the Greeks of Philippopoli and Eastern Rumelia were
subjected in the course of the War for Greek Inde-
pendence.
In fact, the Turks looked favorably upon these emi-
grations. Filled with distrust of the Greeks and Serbs,
who had been constantly in revolt, and who had in the
early part of the nineteenth century gained their inde-
pendence by force of arms, they had entire confidence in
the Bulgarians who, ever since the Turkish conquest, had
opposed only a weak resistance,f and had since then to
such a degree astonished their conquerors by their servil-
* Voyage en Turquie et a Constantinople, Paris, 1828, pp. 147-8.
fThe passage alluded to has been reproduced by Mickoff (/.a Bulgarie et
son Peuple d’apr&s les temoignages etrangers), Lausanne, 1918, p. 12.
{Father Songeon, so partial to the Lulgarians, recognizes that, at the
first attack of the Turks, “ the king of Bulgaria, John III, hastened to kneel
before the Grand Vizier and to beg for pardon.” (Histoire de la Bulgarie,
p. 292; cf. Jirecek, p. 342.) How different from the heroic death of the
Emperor Constantine!14 REPLY OF HELLENIC DELEGATION
ity that a Turkish proverb says: “A Serb becomes
angry, while a Bulgarian cries.” *
Furthermore, if this pressure toward the south, which
was favored by the Turks, greatly improved the situa-
tion of the Bulgarians in Eastern Rumelia, it did not give
them an absolute majority there. In 1878 this majority
was purely relative, and a necessary result of this was
that the Congress of Berlin limited the new principality
to Bulgaria, properly so-called, and created to the south
an autonomous province called Eastern Rumelia, the
administration of which was obliged to furnish to the
Turks and to the numerous t Greeks satisfactory guar-
antees.^:
*Launay: La Bulgarie d’hier et de demain (Paris, 1907, p. 314).
Testimonies as to the more than passive attitude of the Bulgarians toward
the Turks abound even in the writers who are most sympathetic to them and
whose testimonies Mickoff has, on this account, taken pains to gather. Among
these one may name Albert Dumont (Le Balkan et TAdriatique, 2 edit.,
Paris, 1874, p. 130-131), and Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu: Les Reformes de la
Turquie (Revue des Deux-Mondes, t. XVII, 1876, p. 521).
Captain Lamouclie himself, who has always been glad to act as the advo-
cate of Bulgaria, writes: “The Bulgarians have been subjected to the Turkish
yoke a longer time and more patiently than the other peoples of the Penin-
sula.” (La Bulgarie dans le passe et dans la present, Paris, 1892, p. 136.)
f As to the strength of the Greek element see:
(a)	The report which the second British Delegate Donougmore ad-
dressed to the first British Delegate, Sir Drummond Wolf, on the situa-
tion of the different nationalities in Eastern Kumelia, September 27, 1878
(Blue Book Turkey, 1880) ;
(b)	The decree which established Eastern Kumelia, Article 22 of which
established the Greek language as an official language of the country, along
with the Turkish and Bulgarian languages;
(c)	The report of Mr. Brophy, the British Consul at Bourgas, dated
September 20/October 2, 1878, and addressed to Layard, the Ambassador
of Her Britannic Majesty at Constantinople, in which the persecutions
against the Greeks in Eastern Rumelia are dealt with (Blue Book Turkey,
1880, p. 18).
t These guarantees were at once violated. Compare as to this point the
report of Lieutenant-Colonel W. Wilson, charged by the British Govern-
ment with an inquest in Eastern Rumelia, which was addressed on August
26, 1880, to the Ambassador, George J. Goschen (Blue Book Turkey, No. 19,
1880, pp. 139 to 156). Colonel Wilson notes that in the province of
Anchialos where, according to official statistics, there were 7,426 Greeks,
5,292 Mohammedans and 3,321 Bulgarians, the gendarmery was composed of
49 Bulgarians, 7 Mohammedans and 5 Greeks; that in the province of
Karakli, where official statistics gave 11,848 Greeks, there were only 10
Greek gendarmes, adding that in the province of Bourgas there were 39,889
Greeks. He stigmatizes the manner in which the Bulgarians acted toward
the Greeks and considers it regrettable that this attitude was due to Pan-
Bulgarian ideas.TO BULGARIAN MEMORANDUM 15
The fact that the Bulgarians had only a relative
majority did not keep Europe from sanctioning the coup-
d’etat of 1886, but it is remarkable that in spite of this
act of violence and in spite of the Bulgarian regime, thus
inaugurated more than thirty years ago, Eastern Rumelia
is far from having become today an entirely Bulgarian
country.
This fact is admitted by the Bulgarians themselves in
publications which have been translated, with their
authorization, in a foreign language. Thus, in 1910, the
Bulgarian Professor Ischirkoff published under the title
“ La Bulgarie,” a work portions of which have been
reproduced in Petermanns Mitteilungen of 1911.
It is there stated in so many words: “ The Bulgarian
element is weak in southeast Bulgaria where, besides the
Turks, Greeks also live. Here the Bulgarians do not
even form half of the population, but their situation has
been greatly improved in these latter years by the de-
parture of Turks and of Greeks and the incoming of
Bulgarians.”
Nevertheless, the Bulgarians who, by their own
avowal, possess an enormous territory which is still half
Greek or Turkish do not hesitate to lay claim to a
province like Thrace, which is purely Greek and Turkish.
How do they dare to do it, especially after having
treated the minorities in Eastern Rumelia as they have?
Mr. Ischirkoff implicitly acknowledges the persecutions
of these minorities and even congratulates himself
thereon, because they have resulted in “ considerable
gains ” to the advantage of the Bulgarian element, but
naturally he does not press the point. There is, besides,
no need for him to do so, for the civilized world has not
forgotten the way in which the privileges recognized as
belonging to the Greek communities were suppressed one
after another, nor has it, above all, forgotten the terrible
pogroms of 1906, which were marked by the confiscation
of Greek schools, churches and hospitals, by the pillaging16 REPLY OF HELLENIC DELEGATION
and unspeakable outrages committed in the principal
cities and towns of Rumelia and the coast, and finally the
burning of Anchialos. People remember all too well the
distress of about forty thousand Greeks who were obliged
to leave their homes and seek refuge in Greece.
Undoubtedly these misdeeds pale into insignificance
before the atrocities committed in Eastern Macedonia
from 1916 to 1918. They do, none the less, constitute
an additional reason for absolutely refusing to intrust
to the Bulgarians territories where they form only a weak
minority and territories which have never belonged to
them in the past.
The Bulgarian Memorandum is forced to recognize
that the political, commercial and spiritual center of
Thrace is Adrianople. But since, in this city, even be-
fore the wars of 1912, the number of the Bulgarians did
not surpass three hundred* (of whom the greater part
were not natives), and all the economic or spiritual life
is concentrated in the hands of the other elements, espe-
cially of the Greeks, the Bulgarian Memorandum wisely
slurs over these demographic questions and enumerates
a series of “ manifestations of national life ” which suf-
fice to prove, so it believes, that Adrianople is a Bul-
garian center.
Some of these facts adduced are enough to provoke a
smile. Thus it is alleged that at the beginning of the
nineteenth century the most notable bourgeois of
Adrianople was Necho Kerekof and that another Bul-
garian, Tsifout-Stoyan (sic) was a man of considerable
importance. In a city of one hundred thousand inhabi-
tants containing large numbers of Greek families, dis-
tinguished for their wealth and their culture, the presence
of two Bulgarian notables does not mean very much.
But if the presence of bourgeois notables is of such im-
portance, how does it happen that in the twentieth cen-
tury there were none of these either in Adrianople or in
* It has since then even diminished.TO BULGARIAN MEMORANDUM 17
any other city of Thrace, and that in particular at Kirk-
Kilisse (Forty Churches), the town which is nearest to
the Bulgarian frontier, King Ferdinand, the Queen, and
the dignitaries of their court were obliged, in 1912, to
rely on the hospitality of the Greeks?
The claim is also made that from 1866 the Bulgarians
had a Gymnasium there and from 1867 a newspaper.
But apart from the fact that the school was a uniate
and not a Bulgarian school, the creation of a school,
church, or newspaper proves only one thing: that money
was at hand for these purposes. Bulgarian propaganda,
strongly supported by the Pan-Slavists, had from 1848
a newspaper and a church at Constantinople, which, for
the present, the Bulgarians have ceased to consider as
necessarily belonging to Bulgaria.* Now the number
of native Bulgarians in Adrianople is just as small as the
number of Bulgarians born on the shores of the Golden
Horn.
The Bulgarian national assemblies, held at Adrianople
in the years 1829 and 1878, to which the Bulgarian
Memorandum twice refers, are even less convincing as
arguments. Both took place during Russian occupa-
tions and the people of Adrianople took part in neither
of them. The fact that they were held on the shores of
the Hebrus River constituted one of those transparently
malicious tricks, like that much more bloody one which,
alas, at the time of the invasion of Macedonia by the
Bulgarian comitadjis in 1903, formed the beginning of
the operations in the district of Castoria (the Greek char-
acter of which Mr. Belinkoff himself recognizes), and in
the non-Bulgarian villages of Komhovo and Klissoura,
which even after they had been ransomed by the Bul-
garian comitadjis were pillaged and in part burned by
the Turks.
* It will be recalled that this was not so in 1912, and that King Ferdi-
nand had in his baggage a Byzantine Emperor’s costume which he intended
to wear at the celebration of the Te Deurn in St. Sophia.18 REPLY OF HELLENIC DELEGATION
If, furthermore, such “ manifestations of national life ”
are to form the basis for the assignment of territories,
there are few towns in Eastern Rumelia which should be
left to Bulgaria, for very numerous manifestations of
the nature of those advanced in the Bulgarian Memo-
randum, could be adduced in the cities of the interior,
such as Philippopoli, Stenimachos, etc., and in those of
the coast, such as Messemvria, Anchialos, Pyrgos, etc.
But to limit ourselves to Adrianople, the Hellenic
character of this city can be established by an incalculable
number of facts.
Thus, as far as schools are concerned, a well-known
traveler, the Comte de Marcellus, who visited the city in
1820 (see Souvenirs de VOrient, Paris, 1839, p. 538)
states that the Patriarch Cyrillus, a distinguished man,
had taught in this college in his youth (that is to say, in
the eighteenth century). It is a well-known fact that
this prelate who retired to Adrianople, his birth-place,
was massacred there in 1821 as was also the Archbishop
Proi'os, of whom Marcellus also speaks in highest terms.
The massacres of 1821 at Adrianople were truly ter-
rible and are an additional proof of the Hellenic char-
acter of the city, for it is well known that the Bulgarians
profited by the persecutions which accompanied the Greek
War of Independence far more than they suffered from
them.
The Comte de Marcellus informs us how general
was education in Adrianople. Primary instruction was
free. In college, besides ancient Greek, poetry, rhetoric
and philosophy were taught. The college at Adrianople
has existed from time immemorial. The man to whom
the Louvre owes the Venus de Milo adds: “From these
details we may conclude that the education of the Greeks
was not neglected in these barbarous regions; is there not,
perhaps today, some country of civilized Europe which is
far behind Adrianople?”
When Marcellus visited Adrianople, the direction ofTO BULGARIAN MEMORANDUM 19
the Gymnasium was in the hands of another Adriano-
politan, Stephen Karatheodory, the famous Greek phy-
sician and writer, who was the first president of the
Greek Philological Society of Constantinople.
The first rector of the University of Athens, Schinas,
son-in-law of the great Romanist Savigny was, like
Karatheodory, a native of Adrianople. In this city, and
at about the same time, was also born another splendid
example of Greek learning, Professor Koumanoudis,
whose scholarly works are still consulted by foreign
archeologists.
The references to Greeks of Adrianople who were
distinguished in literature or commerce, anterior to 1821,
might easily be multiplied, but how can we compare the
Patriarch Cyrillus or Professors Schinas and Kouma-
noudis and Dr. Karatheodory with Tsifout-Stoyan,*
whose illustrious name is found in the Bulgarian
Memorandum ?
II. Ethnographic and Political Arguments
In its exposition of the question of Eastern Thrace,
the Bulgarian Delegation, in order to establish the eth-
nology of the population of this province, takes advan-
tage of certain citations of authors, for the most part
Pan-Slavists, from which it draws the boldest conclusions.
Authorities.—To these doubtful or suspicious tes-
timonies it is easy to oppose not only the formal asser-
tions of many foreign authors and statesmen but the very
declarations of the Bulgarians themselves.
Elisee Reclus in 1876 wrote ks follows in his Nouvelle
Geographic Universelle (p. 161):
“ The population of the villages and country districts
of Thrace is composed almost exclusively of Greeks.
* The epithet Tsifout is a derisory term applied in the East to the Jews,
and evidently indicates that Stoyan was of Jewish origin.20 REPLY OF HELLENIC DELEGATION
They own the soil and cultivate it. By a strange para-
dox it is exactly over against Asia, in the part of the
Balkan Peninsula where the Turks have been installed
for the longest time, that the Greeks have, north of the
Pindos range, their most extensive ethnologic domain.
There they occupy not only the littoral, but also the
whole interior of the country, except for the large cities
and some Bulgarian villages scattered here and there.
All Eastern Thrace belongs to them; from the Bosphorus
to Adrianople, from the Dardanelles to the Gulf of
Bourgas, the traveler finds himself everywhere on Greek
sod.”
Another writer, Ami Boue, who is even better dis-
posed to the Bulgarians than Reclus, and who has made
statements about the Greeks that are almost insulting,
is nevertheless obliged to write (La Turquie d’Europe,
Paris, 1840, t. II, p. 20) :
“The Greeks inhabit all the southern plain of Thrace
and the chain of the Black Sea. They are to be found in
Tekir-Dagh, on the borders of the Maritza, below
Adrianople and in this great city itself, as well as in
Philippopoli and Eski-Zagra. Mingled with Bulgarians
and Asiatics they form the population south of the
Rhodope Mountains (Recueil d’itineraires en Turquie
d’Europe, Vienna, 1854, t. I, p. 163).
In another work he adds:
“ The population of Mt. Rhodope is very sparse and
varied. If it includes Bulgarians in the north it appears
essentially Greek in the south.”
Thus Ami Boue yields to Hellenism territories more
extended than those that Greece today claims.
Likewise, Blanqui, describing the region from Bul-
garia to Constantinople, extending across Thrace, wroteTO BULGARIAN MEMORANDUM 21
(Voyage en Bulgarie pendant Vannee 1841, Paris 1843,
p. 209):
“ What especially impresses the traveler in Turkey is
the sparseness of the Turks. Almost all the country
populations are Christian . . . but the Christian family
is divided into two distinct branches, the Greeks and the
Slavs. The former inhabit the southern part of the
Empire resting upon the shores of the Mediterranean
and extending into the great valley which crosses from
Nissa to Constantinople. Mt. Rhodope is their interior
frontier. The Slavs rest upon the Danube as their base
and extend as far as the foot of the Balkan Mountains
Grisebach states that Thrace is a Greek province
where very few Turks are to be found (Reise durch
Rumelien und nach Brussa ini Jalire 1839, Gottingen,
1841, t. I, p. 123):
“ As in the Greek provinces of Rumelia there are
relatively few Turks, it follows that the number of regu-
lar troops there is very small.” *
Lejean (Ethnographie de la Turquie d’Europe,
Gotha, 1861, p. 14) notes that the Greeks inhabit south-
ern Thrace, while the Bulgarians live in the mountains.
F. Bianconi (Ethnographie et statistique de la Tur-
quie d’Europe et de la Grece, Paris, 1877) observes that
if in the provinces north of Philippopoli and Yamboli
“the Bulgarian and Greek races are so closely mingled
that it is absolutely impossible to find on the map a real
and, above all, exact boundary” (p. 38), south of these
regions there are only to be found Bulgarian colonies in
a country which is purely Greek. Despoiled of their
lands by the Turks, the Bulgarians were compelled to
* “ Da nun in den griecliischen Provinzen von Rumelien verhaltnissmiissig
wenig Turken wohnen, go war die Folge, dass die Anzahl der reguliiren
Truppen in Rumelien sehr achwach blieb.”22 REPLY OF HELLENIC DELEGATION
seek their fortune beyond the Balkans: “Hence these
peregrinations in neighboring lands; today, even, we
find a certain number of colonies of this race in parts
that are purely Greek. At Pherae, at Demotika, on the
fertile but unhealthy banks of the Delta of the Maritza,
on the slopes of Uskub-Istib-Stroumitza, the Bulgarians,
driven out of their own country, live, in consequence of
the numerous exactions of the administration, in great
poverty, in spite of the relatively greater fertility of these
alluvial lands. These populations which have preserved
their Bulgarian character are unfortunately scattered in
these regions which are foreign to them " (p. 37).
Impressed by the strength of Hellenism in Thrace and
by its preponderance there, Lorenz Diefenbach (Volker-
kunde Ost-Europas, Darmstadt, 1880, t. I, p. 191) de-
clares that “ in Thrace, Hellenism is, from the point of
view of quality as well as of quantity, of considerable
importance.*
The same statement is made by Amadori-Virgili (La
questione rumeliota et la politica italiana, Bitonto, 1908,
p. 323): “ Also in Thrace, and especially in the southern
cazas, the element which prevails in numbers, intelligence,
and wealth is the Greco-Hellenic.” So, too, Charles
Vellay (L’irredentisme hellenique, Paris, 1913, p. 100):
“ Thus neither from the point of view of numbers, nor
of the importance of the role that it plays, nor from the
point of view of its schools, is Hellenic predominance in
Macedonia and Thrace to be disputed.”
This preponderance of Hellenism was officially recog-
nized at the Congress of Berlin, where, in the session of
May 19, 1878, Lord Salisbury formally declared that
“ Macedonia and Thrace are provinces as Greek as
Crete.”
But the Bulgarians themselves have again and again
acknowledged their inferiority in Thrace.
* In Thrakien iat das Griechenthum quantitativ und qualitativ sehr
bedeutend.TO BULGARIAN MEMORANDUM 23
In 1905 the Prime Minister, General Petroff, in a
circular reprinted in the Courrier de Sofia, July 19, 1905,
draws the following conclusion:
“ Naturally, because of those ethnic groups in the vilayet
of Adrianople in which the Bulgarian element occupies,
from the point of view of numbers, the second or even
the third place, our claims must be limited to an effective
control of the acts of the local authorities with which
the consuls in this vilayet may for the present be
charged.”
Speaking, after the Peace of Bucharest, to Mr.
Guechoff, and alluding to Thrace, Mr. Sazonoff said to
him, “ You have annexed territories peopled by
Greeks ” (Guechoff, La folie criminelle, published in
Bulgarian, Sofia, 1914, p. 78).
Mr. Malinoff said to Mr. Rivet, the correspondent of
Le Temps, “What have we to do with Thrace?” (Le
Temps, November 27, 1914).
Mr. Guechoff (as above, pp. 104 and 132) stated that
Bulgaria had incorporated thousands of Greeks in Thrace
and that the regions of Gumuldjina and Kirdjali were
non-Bulgarian territories.
Maps.—Another admission, no less significant, is fur-
nished by the maps published or utilized by the Bul-
garian propaganda. They prove that Thrace has always
been, and is today, an essentially Greek land. This is
the case with all the maps reproduced in the atlas of
Rizoff (Les Bulgares dans leur limites historiques, ethno-
graphiques et politiques, 679-1917, Berlin, 1917), with
the exception of one prepared in all its details by five
Bulgarian professors at the beginning of the European
War, which was first published in Petermanm Mittei-
lungen (1915, p. 44) and is reproduced in Rizoff’s
atlas (p. 54). This map even astonished the Germans
themselves by its bare-faced setting forth of Bulgarian24 REPLY OF HELLENIC DELEGATION
megalomania and rapacity: Otto Maull (Mitteilungen
der geographischen Gesellschaft, Munich, t. I, fasc. 2,
December, 1915) was able to write, in speaking of it,
that “ it is very difficult to find, even in the ethnographic
literature of southeastern Europe an example analogous
to what the coalition of Bulgarian ethnologists has done,
in the struggle for the annihilation, especially in Thrace,
of the Greeks.”
Statistics.—The Bulgarian Delegation was not sat-
isfied with getting together, to suit the exigencies of
the case, supposed proofs in the shape of books and maps;
it has done the same with statistics.
Wishing to make people believe in the existence in
Thrace of a numerous Bulgarian population, but know-
ing that this would be sought for in vain in Thrace itself,
it has discovered in Bulgaria important groups of “ Bul-
garian refugees from Eastern Thrace,” composed of
31,176 families whose heads are said to have signed the
petition which the Bulgarian Delegation on August 8
last, addressed to the Conference.
The Greek Delegation denounced this Bulgarian man-
euver to the Conference in good time (in the note dated
August 1, 1919).
In searching for statistics adapted to support its
thesis, the Bulgarian Delegation had recourse to a Con-
stantinople journal, the Courrier d’Orient, of the year
1878. This had published some statistics of obscure
origin, dating from the time when the Pan-Slavists were
putting forth every effort, in order to bring about the
creation of a Greater Bulgaria, to the great indignation
of public opinion in Western Europe. Such statistics
could have no value. It is enough to call_ attention to
the fact that they indicated a population of 12,585 Bul-
garians in the sandjak of Gallipoli alone, although it is a
notorious fact, admitted by the Bulgarians themselves,
that they form there a totally insignificant minority.
We thus find once more confirmed the judgment of aTO BULGARIAN MEMORANDUM 25
foreign scholar, who in speaking of Bulgarian statistics
declared that “ they are all worthless, having been drawn
up for a predetermined end, and in a spirit of hostility
against particular nationalities.” *
These mysterious old statistics are, moreover, deprived
of all significance in the presence of much more recent
statistics, which are based on well-known Greek and
Turkish sources, and which, in spite of differences of
detail, reach, when taken all together, conclusions which
pretty nearly agree as to the proportions existent be-
tween the principal elements of the population of Thrace.
The Turkish statistics date from 1894 and are taken
from the Official Almanach (Salname) of the Imperial
Ottoman Press at Adrianople.
The Greek statistics are those of the year 1912, and
were drawn up under the direction of the Ecumenical
Patriarch on the basis of information furnished by the
Greek Metropolitans.
They give us the following figures for the parts of
Western and Eastern Thrace whose fate, omitting the
districts left to Bulgaria by the conditions of the Peace
of the 19th of September, is to be decided by the
Supreme Council of the Peace Conference.
It is to be noticed always that the Turkish statistics
do not give the facts village by village. It is, therefore,
impossible to establish, on the basis of these statistics, the
population of the portions of cazas which, by virtue of
the frontiers laid down by the Peace of the 19th of
September, lie outside of the Bulgarian State.
Furthermore, the Turkish statistics give only the
total number of inhabitants in the caza of Xanthi
(30,600) without indicating the numerical strength of
each nationality there. Consequently, in the table drawn
up on these data, and by analogy, in that drawn up on
* Karl Oestreich, in the Geographische Zeitschrift, t. XI. 1905, p. 285:
Sie sind alle werthlos, alle zu einem bestimmten Zweck und aus Feindschaft
gegen ganz bestimmte Nationalitaten zuaammengestellt.26 REPLY OF HELLENIC DELEGATION
the data of the Greek statistics, we must omit the caza
of Xanthi, which according to the Greek statistics com-
prises 33,970 inhabitants, of whom 22,000 are Turks,
10,275 Greeks and 1,695 Bulgarians,
The tables based on these statistics are as follows:
Ethnological status of the parts of Thrace whose fate is
to be settled by the Supreme Coimcil
I. TURKISH STATISTICS
Sandjak of Gumuldjina:	Greeks	Turks	Bulgarians
Caza of Gumuldjina 	 Sandjak of Adrianople:	8,325	32,676	7,042
1. Caza of Adrianople 		28,256	36,597	9,289
2. ” ” Orta-Kioi 		10,356	15,681	3,955
3. ” ” Ouzoun Kieupru ..	15,698	13,398	5,473
4. ” ” Hafsa 		5,650	6,830	1,310
5. ” ” Demotika 		16,805	7,504	1,243
	76,765	80,010	21,270
Sandjak of Dedeagatch 		34,097	28,427	12,899
Sandjak of Gallipoli 		64,029	25,889	909
Sandjak of Rodosto 	 Sandjak of Kirk-Kilisse (minus the cazas of Trynovo and	35,569	41,729	3,430
Agathoupolis) 		49,232	40,308	21,221
The official Turkish statistics of the year 1897, published at Con- stantinople in 1900, give the fol- lowing figures for the sandjak	268,017	249,049	66,771
of Tchataldja 		36,520	16,320	5,987
Total 		304,537	265,369	72,758TO BULGARIAN MEMORANDUM 27
II. GREEK STATISTICS
Sandjak of Gumuldjina:	Greeks	Turks	Bulgarians
Caza of Gumuldjina 		9,160	50,000	10,550
Sandjak of Adrianople:			
Caza of Adrianople 		41,285	44,953	7,000
” ” Orta-Kioi 		14,562	15,273	4,060
” ” Ouzoun Kieupru 		19,197	10,610	5,600 730
” ” Hafsa 		9,160	8,235	
” ” Demotika 		22,080	6,315	1,460
	106,284	85,386	18,850
Sandjak of Dedeagatch 		28,851	46,400	16,738
Sandjak of Gallipoli 		70,431	32,613	2,000
Sandjak of Rodosto 	 Sandjak of Kirk-Kilisse (minus the cazas of Tyrnovo and	55,550	63,725	2,980
Agathoupolis) 		68,452	49,787	16,725
	338,728	327,911	67,593
Sandjak of Tchataldja 		54,787	16,100	
Total 		393,515	344,011	67,593
It is evident that both sets of statistics establish the
numerical superiority of the Greek element, not only
over the Bulgarians but also over the Turks.
According to the Turkish statistics the Greeks sur-
pass the Mussulmans by 39,000 and the Bulgarians
by 232,000, while according to the Greek statistics
they surpass the former by 49,000 and the latter by
326,000.
The Pomaks.—In order to make up for their nu-
merical inferiority in Thrace, the Bulgarians do not hesi-
tate to put down to their credit as an element of their
national strength the Slavo-phone Turkish populations
who are known as Pomaks.
Now the Slav origin of these peoples is disputed.
There are, as a matter of fact, authorities who claim that
the Pomaks are indigenous, that they are, that is to say,
descendants of the Agrianes who have inherited their28 REPLY OF HELLENIC DELEGATION
language from the Slavs, and their religion and national
consciousness from the Turks. In favor of this thesis
is the fact that they are in some regions called Achrianes.
Professor Jirecek, in his work, Das Fiirstenthum Bul-
gariens (Vienna, 1891, p. 115), in writing about the
Pomaks says: “ In the Rhodope mountains, apart from
the Greeks of Stenimachos, are to be found other remains
of the ancient Byzantine populations. Among the
Mohammedan Bulgarians there are also to be found in
these mountains Mohammedan Greeks. According to
the statements of the Turkish gendarmes who accom-
panied me the large village Ljabovo (90 houses), situ-
ated south of the town of Nevrokopi, is inhabited by
Greeks who profess the Mohammedan religion; likewise
the neighboring villages, Loznik and Kornik, seem to
have a similar population which has been, however,
Bulgarized in consequence of its trade with the neigh-
boring Pomaks. According to tradition there is Greek
blood (une veine Grecque) in the Pomaks of Tmros;
so, too, near the small village of Perustica, which is
today Bulgarian, in the midst of a mountainous country,
we have heard some names of villages which are manifestly
Greek (Mavroghy, Kokkino, etc).”
The Pomaks have a national consciousness that is
Turkish. Mr. Guechoff, in a memoire cited below, notes
that the Greco-Bulgarian electoral agreement of 1912,
perforce, took this sentiment into account. It manifested
itself, moreover, not only at these elections. In 1877-1878
the Pomaks fought against the Bulgarians and against
the Russians. Since 1913 they have persistently mani-
fested sentiments hostile to Bulgarian domination, to
such an extent that Mr. A. Strasimiroff was able to
write, July 18, 1915, in the Dnevnik of Sofia that “ it
is absolutely necessary to disarm the Pomaks, who as
long as they keep their guns, consider the Bulgarian
regime as temporary.”
Since the armistice the Pomaks have presented severalTO BULGARIAN MEMORANDUM 29
petitions to the Conference protesting against the Bul-
garian regime.
In any case the new frontiers of Bulgaria, as estab-
lished by the conditions of the peace of September 19
of last year, have put an end to the discussion as to the
Pomaks, for from now on the Pomaks of Thrace belong
to Bulgaria.
This is confirmed by the exposition of Mr. Theodoroff
who distributes the Pomaks as follows:
Cazas included in Bulgaria:
Pomaks
Dari-Dere.............................................16,990
Kouchi-Kanak ......................................... 3,755
Acki-Tselepi .......................................... 35,000
Egri-Dere ............................................. 20,000
Doevlen (Sultan Yeni) ................................ 24,610
100,355
Mr. Theodoroff claims, it is true, that there are, be-
sides, 18,000 Pomaks in the cazas of Gumuldjina,
Xanthi, Ortakioi and Soufli; this is, however, more than
doubtful.
A brochure published at Constantinople in 1913 by
the Committee of Mussulman refugees and entitled
“ Unhappy Pomaks,” says that the following regions are
inhabited by them: Razloc, Stroumitza, Djoumaja-Raha,
Rouptchous in Bulgarian Macedonia and Achi-Tselepi
in Western Thrace. (See also Cvijic, La Peninsule
Balkanique, Paris, 1918, p. 475, as well as the ethno-
graphic chart appended to this work.)
Thus the Bulgarians in Thrace form only a very small
minority, while the Greeks are five or six times more
numerous. If the population of the region around Con-
stantinople be added to the parts of Thrace whose fate
is to be decided by the Conference, the disproportion
between the two elements is shown to be far greater: the
Greeks are nearly ten times as numerous as the Bul-
garians.
The Electoral Agreement of 1912.—The proof30 REPLY OF HELLENIC DELEGATION
furnished as to this point by the concordant testimony
of the Turkish and Greek statistics finds a striking con-
firmation in the Greco-Bulgarian electoral compromise
of 1912, which made provision for seven Greek deputies
in Thrace as against a single Bulgarian.
The facts are well-known, but since the Bulgarian
Delegation in its exposition of the question of Eastern
Thrace dares to say (p. 15) that “this constitutes a
flagrant alteration of the truth ” we must insist upon
the point.
The truth, according to the Bulgarian Delegation
(Letter No. 30, of August 1, 1919, p. 8), was that the
agreement in question made provision only for the elec-
tion of three deputies of whom two were to be Greeks
and one Bulgarian. This fact is established, so they
claim, by the following passage of the Protocol which
was signed at Constantinople on January 18/31, 1912:
“ In the vilayet of Adrianople, apart from the sandjak
of Gallipoli, there shall be elected at least three Christian
deputies two of whom are to be Greeks and one Bul-
garian, this latter being elected preferably at Kirk-
Kilisse in combination with a Greek deputy. In case
the three Christian deputies, elected as stipulated, happen
to be Greeks, one of them shall be obliged to resign in
favor of a Bulgarian. With the above-mentioned end
in view, and in order to assure in this vilayet, too (apart
from the sandjak of Gallipoli) the success of more than
two Greek deputies, the Bulgarian people will add their
strength to that of the Greeks in favor of the political
combinations of these latter.”
The bearing of this clause is, however, quite clear:
The two parties desired to establish, not the number of
Greek and Bulgarian deputies who were to be elected
in all Thrace, but to arrange conditions according to
which the election of one Bulgarian deputy was to beTO BULGARIAN MEMORANDUM 31
assured; this accounts for the fact that the two con-
tracting parties limited their agreement to the five
sandjaks of the vilayet of Adrianople (Adrianople,
Kirk-Kilisse, Gumuldjina, Dedeagatch, Rodosto) and
they agreed that the election of a Bulgarian deputy was
assured only in case they succceeded in having elected
in the five sandjaks (not in all Thrace), at least three
Christian deputies. If there were more than three, the
Bulgarians still had the right of being represented only
by one.
On the contrary, if the Christian deputies elected in
this sandjak were two, the Bulgarians had no claim, even
in case one or more other Greek deputies were elected
in the rest of Thrace, that is to say, in the vilayet of
Constantinople, the independent sandjak of Tchatalja
and the sixth sandjak of the vilayet of Adrianople, that
of Gallipoli.
Under the conditions cited above, the Bulgarian
deputy was to be chosen by preference in the sandjak
of Kirk-Kilisse, not alone but in combination with a
Greek deputy, and this provision was made in order to
mark clearly the ethnical strength of the Greeks in this
same sandjak. But as the Bulgarians in Thrace were
nowhere sufficient in number to assure the election of
one deputy, even in the sandjak of Kirk-Kilisse (to
which their views were limited) they had insisted on the
insertion of a special clause, according to which, in case
more than two Greek deputies were elected in the five
sandjaks, one of them was expected to resign in favor
of a Bulgarian deputy.
From this agreement, furthermore, it is apparent that
the Bulgarians did not advance any claims to the
sandjaks of Gumuldjina and Dedeagatch (Western
Thrace), fully recognizing there the preponderance of
the Greek element.
But the Bulgarian Delegation (p. 9 of the letter cited
above) felt itself compelled to add: “Besides, this elec-32 REPLY OF HELLENIC DELEGATION
toral compromise was never recognized by the Bul-
garians of Thrace, and the Protocol here in question
remained a dead letter, having never been put into
execution.”
The fact that one of the contracting parties denies the
validity of an agreement officially signed by him under
the pretext that he has refused to execute it, certainly
does not testify to an excessive good faith, but more
astonishing yet is the insertion, in an official document
addressed to the Peace Conference, of statements the
inexactness of which can easily be proved.
How can it actually be disputed that the agreement
of 1912 was ratified and executed? We should have to
forget that its conclusion was followed up by the pub-
lication in the Turkish press of communiques announc-
ing the cooperation of the two elements; and also the
fact that this information was reproduced by the press
of Sofia, as well as by that of Athens. Le Temps of
August 19, 1913, even gave the translation of certain
articles in the Bulgarian journals which set forth the
high significance of the event.
This was not all: the Greco-Bulgarian agreement was
followed up by an agreement with the Turkish r Entente
LiberateJ Party, with a view to community of action
throughout the whole Ottoman Empire. For the parts
of Macedonia and Thrace where the Bulgarians were to
have candidates, the number of places for each nationality
was fixed by common agreement among the three parties.
The Bulgarians were represented by Mr. Daltchef, their
deputy in the Turkish Parliament. The ticket for
Thrace was as follows:
Greek candidates: Zafiropoulos, Narlis, Sarantidis,
Efklidis, Kirkos, Voutiadis, Kallivoulos;
Mohammedan candidates:	Emin, Ismail Hakki,
Ahmet, Riza Tewfik, Djaver;
Bulgarian candidate: Bouriloff.TO BULGARIAN MEMORANDUM 33
That is to say, 7 Greek candidates, as against 5
Mohammedan and 1 Bulgarian.
That this arrangement corresponded closely to the
respective electoral strength of the three parties and even
secured for Bulgaria a privileged situation, was proved
at the elections which took place after the Balkan Wars
when three Greek deputies were elected in the part of
the vilayet of Adrianople which remained to Turkey
and three others in the vilayet of Constantinople. Their
names were Thukydides, Photos, Efklidis, Haralampidis,
Orfanidis, Tzorbatsoglou.
On the contrary, not a single Bulgarian deputy was
elected.
It is true that in the elections of 1912 the shameless
pressure exerted by the Young Turk administration re-
sulted in the complete shutting out of the mixed ticket of
the Entente Liberate. But the scandalous attitude of
the “ Committee of Union and Progress ” cannot pos-
sibly be invoked by the Bulgarians against the electoral
agreement of 1912, especially since the Christian electors
of the two nationalities remained faithful to it, insofar
as was in their power.
Furthermore, this governmental intervention aroused
such protests that it brought on the dissolution of the
Parliament almost as soon as it was elected, and was one
of the principal reasons for the war of 1912.
As to the Balkan coalition established at that time,
it is impossible to forget that the agreement of 1912
played a considerable role in it and had far greater im-
port than it seemed to have at first sight. In fact the
first overtures for a Balkan understanding were trans-
mitted from Athens to Sofia in April, 1911, through
Mr. Bourchier, the correspondent of the London Times,
as intermediary. It was subsequent to this event that a
rapprochement between the Greek and the Bulgarian
elements in Turkey was sought at Constantinople.34 REPLY OF HELLENIC DELEGATION
It is significant that the reply of the Bulgarian Gov-
ernment was communicated to Athens only after the
conclusion of the electoral agreement which, in fact,
regulated the zones of Greek and Bulgarian influence
in European Turkey; there were districts where the Bul-
garians recognized Greek preponderance; there were
others where the Greeks recognized Bulgarian influence,
and finally there were some of mixed character where
the proportion of deputies fixed the respective spheres
of influence that fell to each of the two nationalities.
Thus we see to what extent the agreement of 1912
remained a dead letter.
It is necessary to recall these facts for they cannot
be sufficiently dwelt upon. Besides, in order to counter
the affirmation of Mr. Theodoroff it is enough to refer
to the memorandum which was sent to the Conference
from Geneva by Mr. Guechoff. We read there:
"If the Bulgarian# agreed, in 1912, that 7 Greek can-
didates should he presented as against a single Bulgarian
candidate in the elections in Thrace, it was because the
six contingent seats were assigned to the regions of
Constantinople and the Dardanelles (which were included
in Thrace), and because the Pomaks were considered
Turks.”
How is this contradiction between the two Bulgarian
authorities to be explained? Very easily. In the in-
terval, the arguments by which Mr. Guechoff undertook
to weaken the importance of the agreement, as far as
Thrace was concerned, had been proved unfounded by
Mr. Venizelos, who had demonstrated indisputably be-
fore the Territorial Commission, first, that the Treaty
of Bucharest had assigned to Greece in Macedonia noth-
ing more than the agreement of 1912 gave her the right
to; second, that as far as Thrace was concerned, this
treaty bore witness to the incontestable superiority ofTO BULGARIAN MEMORANDUM 35
the Greek element, even outside of the region of Con-
stantinople and the Dardanelles.
Since Mr. Guechoff’s blunder made it impossible to
justify the agreement, Mr. Theodoroff found it more
simple to deny it.
The Bulgarian Exarchate.—If the above demon-
stration of the insignificance of the Bulgarian element in
Thrace needed any further confirmation, this could be
found in the constitution of the Bulgarian Exarchate
which, in this province, has not a single Bishop.
Everybody knows, however, the propagandist idea
which was predominant at the time of the creation of
the Exarchate. “ All the efforts of the Bulgarian
patriots,” writes Professor J. Cvijic (La Peninsule
balkanique, Paris, 1918, p. 484) “were concentrated
toward 1870 in the struggle against the Greek Church
and Hellenism with the object of assuring the prevalence
of the Slav liturgy and a Slav clergy. From this epoch
dates the real Bulgarian awakening. Charles Eliot has
very truly stated (Turkey in Europe, 2nd edit., London,
1908), that this awakening was neither romantic nor
historic; it took the form of a religious quarrel between
the Slavs that were left under Turkish domination and
the Greeks. This movement was effectively supported
by Russia and also by Serbia. Desirous, above all, to
make a deep gulf between the Slavs and the Greeks,
Turkey in the firman of February 28, 1870, consented
to the creation of a church independent of the Greek
Patriarchate, and this took the name of Exarchate
Now the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian Exarchate,
established by Article X of the said firman, not only
did not comprise any part of Thrace, but even excluded
some districts of Eastern Rumelia where five Greek
dioceses were maintained. It excluded, first, the town
of Varna and twenty of the villages on the coast; second,
the district of Anchialos and Messembria; third, the
shore villages of the caza of Sozopolis; fourth, the town36 REPLY OF HELLENIC DELEGATION
of Philippopoli, the district of Stenimachos and ten
villages of the sandjak of Philippopoli.
At the end of 1871 and at the beginning of 1872 nego-
tiations were undertaken between the Greek Patriarchate
and the Bulgarians (through the intervention of Count
Ignatieff) in order to bring about a reconciliation. The
Bulgarian Professor, Ischirkoff, in his work " La Mace-
doine et VExarchat bulgare” (Lausanne, 1918), wrote
with regard to these negotiations (p. 26): “Like his
predecessors, Anthimus, the Greek Patriarch, proposed
a definition of the boundaries between the Patriarchate
and the Exarchate by giving to the latter, among the
western Bulgarian dioceses, those of Nisch, Nichave
(Pirot) Skopia, Veles, Ochrida and the northern part
of the diocese of Vitolia. The moderates among the Bul-
garians were satisfied with this concession, but Dr.
Tschomenkoff opposed this, claiming for the Exarchate
the whole city of Philippopoli and the dioceses of
Stroumitza and Moglena in Macedonia, while the Bul-
garian Metropolitan Panaretos demanded the whole
diocese of Vitolia.”
Thus, even after the creation of the Exarchate, the
most chauvinistic of the Bulgarians in matters that con-
cerned Thrace demanded nothing, for Philippopoli,
which had been claimed by them, is part of Eastern
Rumelia. Apart from Dr. Tschomenkoff, who extended
his claims as far as Moglena (Fiorina), they did not
demand any of the Macedonian provinces attributed to
Greece by the Treaty of Bucharest, either. After a
plebiscite held in Macedonia, two dioceses were made sub-
ject to the Bulgarian Exarchate in 1874, that of Uskub
and that of Ochrida, both of which are on the Serbian
and Albanian borders of Macedonia, and are situated at
quite a distance from the present frontier of the kingdom
of Greece.
Under the regime of Stambouloff, Charilaos Tricoupis,
who intended to give practical expression to the tend-TO BULGARIAN MEMORANDUM 37
encies of Greece’s policy for a rapprochement with
Sofia and Belgrade, made a political journey to these
two capitals. “ This eminent man,” Mr. Bourchier tells
us (one of the most notorious English Bulgarophiles)
“ did not hesitate to propose that Greece, Serbia and
Bulgaria should sign an alliance to divide Macedonia.
He thought that the Great Powers would not intervene
if the Christian states took arms simultaneously in order
to expel the Turks. The plan found favor at Belgrade,
but was rejected at Sofia. Stambouloff, impelled, per-
haps, by one of the Powers, went so far as to denounce
the plan to Sultan Abdul-Hamid and obtained as recom-
pense certain concessions in Macedonia” (Bourchier,
in The Balkan Question, edited by L. Villari, London,
1905, p. 88). Stambouloff had, in fact, obtained impe-
rial berats (patents) for the Bishoprics of Veles and
Nevrokop.
“In 1897,” Professor Ischirkoff (as cited above,
p. 33) continues, “during the Greco-Turkish war, with
the support of Russia, three new berats were issued for
the dioceses of Vitolia, Dibra and Stroumitza. After
that no new berat was obtained.”
In what precedes we see an ethnographic indication
of great importance, namely that in spite of the support
of the Turkish Government, the jurisdiction of the
Exarchate was not only not extended in the districts of
Macedonia which were annexed to Greece by virtue of
the Treaty of Bucharest, but that the Bulgarians have
never raised any pretensions to the dioceses of Thrace.
Quite to the contrary, the contest between Greeks and
Bulgarians went on at Philippopoli and Messembria,
that is to say, in Eastern Rumelia, a territory which is
now a part of Bulgaria, and also in Central Macedonia.
The Bulgarian Professor Ischirkoff, in accounting for
the bearing of this fact saw fit to claim that there were
Bulgarian vicariates in Thrace and in southern Mace-
donia. We must, therefore, note that these vicariates38 REPLY OF HELLENIC DELEGATION
have never been recognized; they cannot, then, be invoked
in favor of the Bulgarian thesis. But we may go fur-
ther: of all the regions which were subject to these
vicars, that to which the Bulgarians have most often ad-
vanced claims is probably Castoria. Now, Mr. Ischirkoff
(p. 34) declares that this province is inhabited by 34,484
Bulgarians as against 59,781 Greeks (as a matter of
fact, the preponderance of the Greeks is much greater).
There are regions where the Bulgarians had vicars even
though the Bulgarians formed a really negligible part
of the population; (for instance, in all the coast region,
Saloniki, Cavalla, etc.). In fact, the berats granted in
1894-1897 in this region which is today Serbian or Bul-
garian, since they did not, like those of 1874, come into
existence from the will of the populations interested, but
from an act of the Turkish administration, did not carry
with them any modification of the Greek ecclesiastical
regime. Bishops and Greek Metropolitans continued to
function at the side of the Bulgarian religious institu-
tions, and in several districts, notably at Monastir, these
show a number of adherents superior to the number
of Bulgarian adherents.
Apart from this first indication, which is of immediate
ethnographic importance, the study of the history of the
Exarchate brings into prominence two other features of
Bulgarian policy which must not be lost sight of.
The Bulgarians affect a love, which is as passionate
as it is platonic, for the plebiscite principle. In 1913
and 1915 they felt no scruple of this kind in annexing
or claiming territories where they were manifestly in a
minority. So, too, before 1872 they appealed to the
right of peoples to dispose of themselves, in order to
obtain the expansion of the Exarchate over central and
southern Macedonia. Consultations of the popular will
were prescribed in the act which constituted the Exarchist
Church. The referendum was applied to regions where
Bulgarism, or to speak more exactly Slavism, evidentlyTO BULGARIAN MEMORANDUM 39
prevailed, that is to say, at Uskub or Ochrida. But when
it became a matter of extending these frontier regions
to the south the principle of the plebiscite was forgotten.
The berats of 1894 and 1897 were due not to a consulta-
tion of the popular will, but to the good pleasure of
Abdul-Hamid and that is the reason why there was no
substitution of the Bulgarian Church for the Greek
Church, as happened in lands that were really Bul-
garian, but simply a juxtaposition of the two churches.
The modifications in the firman of 1870 in favor of
Bulgaria nevertheless constituted an extreme favor on
the part of Abdul-Hamid. The admissions of Mr.
Bourchier, a notorious Bulgarophile, or of Mr. Ischirkoff,
a Bulgarian, have shown what caused this partiality on
the part of the Sultan. Stambouloff had obtained berats
by betraying the political plans of Tricoupis. His suc-
cessors obtained them by trying to sell Bulgaria’s neu-
trality during the war of 1897 to the higher bidder.
These were, furthermore, only applications of a policy
which dated far back. Mr. Ischirkoff does not hesitate
(p. 19-20) to narrate, as the most natural thing in the
world, how, before their constitution as a principality,
the Bulgarians profited by the great Cretan revolution
of 1866-1868 in order to come to an agreement with the
Sublime Porte and to have it reject a project of the
Patriarch Gregory VI, that gave Bulgaria a complete
religious autonomy, which Count Ignatieff himself re-
garded as satisfactory. We find here, for a second time,
Mr. Ischirkoff admitting that the Greek Patriarchs had
proposed Exarchate projects, which the “ Bulgarian
moderates ” or the most ardent Bulgarophiles judged
equitable; in spite of every contrary allegation the fact
is thus established that the Ecumenical Patriarchate did
not refuse to grant the Bulgarians an autonomous
church; it simply wished to protect itself against all
danger of tyranny over non-Bulgarian populations on
the part of this church.40 REPLY OF HELLENIC DELEGATION
This admission proves, too, that from the time of their
appearance in the Balkan Peninsula as an ethnic unit,
the Bulgarians endeavored to come to terms with the
Turks at the expense of the Christians, and especially
of the Greeks. This policy culminated in 1915 when, in
exchange for the Greek districts of Didymoticho and
Souffli, the Turks, under German instigation, obtained
from the Bulgarians a declaration of war against the
two nations to whom they owed their liberty; that is to
say, Russia and England. Thus the study of the history
of the Exarchate establishes as a second political indica-
tion the persistent tendency of the Bulgarians to enter
into formal agreements with the Turks against the other
nationalities of the Balkans.
The Wishes of the Inhabitants.—Not only have
the Bulgarians no ethnological title to Thrace, but they
are detested by the two important elements of the popu-
lation, the Greeks and the Mohammedans, who, having
had to suffer equally under Bulgarian domination, desire
nothing more keenly than to be delivered from them
forever.
The sentiments of the Greeks do not need to be proved.
Those of the Mohammedans have been expressed in the
most formal manner by their deputies in the Bulgarian
Sobranie. The Conference has received a whole series
of petitions which bear their signatures. The most sig-
nificant is that by which eight of them on December 31,
1918, begged General Franchet d’Esperey, the Com-
mander-in-Chief of the Allied Armies in the Orient, to
free their compatriots from the Bulgarians “ by any
means whatsoever,” taking military measures, even
though provisional, “ to ameliorate their intolerable con-
dition.” In stating the reasons for their request they
formulated a crushing arraignment of the Bulgarian
regime. “ The Bulgarian outrages and abuses against
our compatriots,” they said, “ are increasing and mul-
tiplying every day; a sullen irritation against the Bui-TO BULGARIAN MEMORANDUM 41
garians is making itself felt in Thrace, and it is probable
that it will break out some day or other against these
oppressors. We have more than once in the Sobranie
interpellated the Bulgarian Ministers with regard to
their impossible administration in Western Thrace, but
the Government refuses to give us any satisfaction. It
has even gone so far as to seek to demolish the only
Turkish mosque in Sofia and this is enough to prove its
intolerance.” At the same time that they thus expressed
their aversion for the Bulgarians, they indicated their
sympathy for the Greeks. In their request to General
Franchet d’Esperey to proceed to occupy Western
Thrace they said:
“ It would be desirable for Greek troops to take part
in this occupation since the Greeks in Thrace are endur-
ing the same outrages as ourselves and the Greeks have
always shown themselves liberal toward us and are a
nation with which we can very well come to an under-
standing and since they can, at the same time that they
protect their compatriots, protect us, who are living
under the same conditions, against Bulgarian outrages
and abuses.”
As soon as it was published, this petition seriously
disturbed the government at Sofia, which sought to
minimize the bad impression produced by it, through its
customary means, deceit and violence.
In fact, it caused statements to be published in its
newspapers that the Greeks pretended that the Moham-
medans of Western Thrace had signed a demand for
annexation to Greece and that no such petition had ever
appeared. The Greeks have never made any such claim
nor does any such petition exist. But what is undeniable,
since the original text of the document is in the archives
of the Conference, is that eight Mohammedan deputies
in the Sobranie, on the 31st of December, 1918, formu-42 REPLY OF HELLENIC DELEGATION
lated the above-mentioned arraignment of the Bulgarian
regime. This does not hinder the Bulgarian Delegation
(see the letter of Aug. 1st, p. 12) from repeating
before the Conference the same deceitful version and
from affirming, against all evidence, that “ the Turks
enjoy in Bulgaria rights and liberties such as no Balkan
State has as yet accorded them.”
Since this first means djd not appear sufficient, the
Bulgarian Government terrorized five deputies in the
Sobranie into signing a declaration, on the 5th of March,
1919, testifying that they were tranquilly living “ in
their Bulgarian fatherland ” while the Mohammedans of
Greece had been obliged to abandon their homes.
Unhappily for Bulgaria, the Mohammedan deputies
in the Sobranie have continued to protest, before the
Allies, against the tyranny of the Bulgarian administra-
tion and ever since March, 1919, they have laid before
the Conference numerous petitions conceived in the
came spirit as that of December, 1918.
III. Economic Arguments
After having vainly invoked history and ethnography
to support their claims to Thrace, the Bulgarian Dele-
gation has felt it necessary to add certain arguments of
an economic nature: first, that Bulgaria needs Thrace
in order to have access to the iEgean; second, that the
land of Thrace ought to return to the Bulgarians, be-
cause it is they that cultivate it and represent there
the most stable element and the principal productive
factor.
1. Access to the Aegean.—The Bulgarian Delega-
tion (see letter No. 30, p. 14) endeavors to represent
this access to the sea as indispensable to Bulgaria, and
as being effectively assured to her only through her domi-
nation over Thrace.
It claims that it will be indispensable to her becauseTO BULGARIAN MEMORANDUM 43
the iEgean is the only free sea by which she can come
into direct contact with the great maritime powers, and
that if she is deprived of this, she will be obliged to make
use exclusively of the Black Sea and the Danube; that
this would make her commerce dependent on the states
that control the mouths of this river and the Dardanelles,
and would, to a marked degree, lengthen the transporta-
tion of Bulgarian products to other lands.
The weakness of this argument is at once apparent.
Compared with the situation of numerous European
states, such as Switzerland, Austria, Hungary and
Czecho-Slovakia, which have no exit to the sea through
their own territory, the position of Bulgaria which has
two excellent ports on the Black Sea, Bourgas and
Varna, is certainly far more advantageous. Its situation
is even better than that of Rumania which has only a
single port on this sea. Yet the prosperity of Rumania
has in no way suffered because of this fact. Bulgaria
may, then, perfectly well develop without having a port
of her own on the iEgean. Under the international con-
trol to which the Straits will surely be subjected, Bul-
garia, like every other nation, will have the free use of
these and will not be exposed to the slightest danger of
seeing her commerce depend upon the State which pos-
sesses this road of communication.
Without doubt, the use of a port on the iEgean, though
not indispensable to Bulgaria, may offer her certain
real advantages. She can obtain this, however, without,
to this end, subjecting to her domination a country which
is in no way Bulgarian. Far from refusing such a
request, Greece, of her own accord, proposed the con-
cession of this facility.
The Bulgarian Delegation (see letter No. 30, p. 15)
contents itself with raising the objection to this ar-
rangement that, in the present state of feeling in the
Balkans, Bulgaria could not make use of a Greek port
in the iEgean, for, even with the best will in the44 REPLY OF HELLENIC DELEGATION
world, Greece would often find herself unable to treat
the commerce of Bulgaria on the same footing as her
own.
She pretends to forget that Greece did not content
herself with simply putting one of her ports at the dis-
position of Bulgarian commerce, but accepted in advance
that the use of this facility should be placed under the
control of the Society of Nations and should be guar-
anteed by it.
Thus Bulgaria would obtain a favor that she could
never have hoped to secure, and will have every assurance
of being able to enjoy it.
2. The Economic Condition of Thrace.—With
a boldness many examples of which have been fur-
nished by its formal statements, the Bulgarian Delega-
tion (see letter No. 30, p. 15) dares to affirm “that
the Bulgarians form (in Thrace) an ethnical element
which is essentially stable and strongly attached to the
soil that they cultivate,” while “ the Greeks who immi-
grated into the country later, devote themselves by pref-
erence to professions relatively easier and more lucrative,
which are subordinated to agriculture.”
“ In Thrace, agriculture is almost exclusively in the
hands of the Bulgarians and only in part in those of
the Turks. The Greek element plays a very small role
in the economic life of this region. Foreigners who have
traversed the Balkan Peninsula are unanimous in recog-
nizing the real virtues of the Bulgarians as cultivators
of the soil and they do not hesitate to give them the
first place in this regard.”
Compare with this what those authors whom the Bul-
garian Delegation took good care not to quote say:
“ In the provinces comprised between the iEgean to
the south and the great transversal arteries of the center
of European Turkey, they alone (the Greeks) busy
themselves with the commerce in cereals which goes onTO BULGARIAN MEMORANDUM 45
in the rich province on the banks of the Maritza, of the
Karassou and the Varda; they are also in exclusive con-
trol of the export business of Turkey on the shores of
the Black Sea and the iEgean. The ports of Salonika,
Volo, Rodosto, etc., are supported only by the commodi-
ties that they cause to be grown on their own lands, or
that they purchase in the plains of Bulgaria itself. Their
preponderance is greater, and their vitality more vigorous
than that of the other peoples.” (Bianconi, as cited
above, p. 40.)
“ Hellenism in Thrace is, from the point of view of
quality as well as of quantity, of considerable importance
(Lorenz Diefenbach, op. cit., p. 191).
“ The superiority of Hellenism from the social and
economic point of view is unquestioned. (Amadori-
Virgili, op. cit., p. 34).
“ They (the Greeks) are in truth the masters of all
this region (Macedonia and Thrace) from the intellectual
and economic point of view” (Charles Vellay, op. cit.,
p. 93).
The Bulgarian Delegation, with all too great disin-
genuousness, has reversed the roles in representing the
Bulgarians as the element which is essentially stable and
the Greeks as merely immigrants.
It is, on the contrary, a notorious fact that in Thrace
the Bulgarians, coming in from the north, form only
scattered colonies in a strange land. (Cf. Bianconi, as
cited above.) This is recognized, too, by Slav writers,
even Bulgarian Slavs, who state that the Bulgarians left
in Northern Thrace (Eastern Rumelia) after the inva-
sions of the ninth, tenth and thirteenth centuries, were
compelled, in consequence of the Turkish conquest, to
take refuge in the mountains whence at a recent epoch
.they have begun anew to spread out into the plains. (A.
Ischirkoff in Petermanns Mitteihmgen, 1911, II, p. 119.)
J. Cvijic in particular writes (Die ethnographische Ab-46 REPLY OF HELLENIC DELEGATION
grenzung der Volker auf der Balkanhalbinsel, in PHer-
manns Mitteilungen, 1913, p. 246): “ The Bulgarian
population was in great part Mohammedanized, while the
rest emigrated so that at the beginning of the nineteenth
century Eastern Bulgaria was, from the ethnographic
point of view, a Turkish land.” *
As to the role of the Greeks in the economic life of
Thrace, this has been established methodically and pre-
cisely on the basis of the most recent statistical data in
a very well substantiated Memorandum presented to the
Conference (La Puissance de I’Hellenisme et le role
economique des Grecs en Thrace, by A. Antoniades,
Engineer of Arts and Manufactures, Paris, 1919).
The Greeks of Thrace not only hold the first rank in
commerce and the liberal professions; they show special
aptitude for cattle-raising and agriculture.
The proportions of the different ethnical elements in
the various categories of economic life may be repre-
sented as follows:
In the vilayet of Adrianople the agricultural industries
are in the hands of the Greeks to the extent of 50 per
cent, in those of the Mohammedans to 40 per cent, and
in those of the other elements to 10 per cent. Manufac-
turing and commercial industries are 70 per cent in the
hands of the Greeks, 20 per cent in the hands of the
Mussulmans and 10 per cent in those of the other
elements.
In the vilayet of Constantinople the proportion is the
same for the Greeks; it is 40 per cent for the Mussul-
mans in agricultural industries and only 10 per cent in
the others; but in the manufacturing and commercial
industries the part of the third element is 20 per cent and
these elements are, above all, the Armenians and the
Israelites.
* “ Die bulgarische Bevolkerung wurde grosstenteils islamisiert, wahrend
tin Teil auswanderte, so dass am Amfang des 19 Jahrhunderts die ostliche
Bulgarien ethnographisch tiirkisches Gebiet war.”TO BULGARIAN MEMORANDUM 47
The result is that in both vilayets, in every manifesta-
tion of economic activity, even in agriculture, the part of
the Bulgarian element is proportionately more insignifi-
cant than its numerical strength, which is very low.SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENT: BEING A
REPRINT OF AN OFFICIAL REPORT
OF THE TERRITORIAL COMMIS-
SION ON THRACE
A. Western Thrace (Bulgarian Thrace).
The American, British and French Delegations agree
in principle to accept the Greek claims, making however
slight modifications as indicated on Map I.
The Italian Delegation agrees in principle, but with
certain reservations (Annex II).
After a careful examination of the statistics in its pos-
session, the Commission acknowledges that the non-
Mussulman population of Western Thrace is certainly to
a larger extent Greek than Bulgarian, and that the
ethnical claims of Greece are therefore more valid than
those of Bulgaria.
According to the information acquired by the Com-
mission, it seems that the Turkish population of Western
Thrace would, by preference, accept the Sovereignty of
Greece over that of Bulgaria.
The Commission examined also the question as to
whether the cession of Western Thrace to Greece would
constitute an economic enslavement for Bulgaria. In the
presence of the formal engagement, however, undertaken
before the Commission by Mr. Venizelos to the effect
that the Hellenic Government will acord to Bulgaria a
guaranteed outlet to the Aegean Sea, either through
Cavalla or Salonika or even through Dedeagatch, and that
in addition—should Bulgaria desire it—the Hellenic
Government will construct a railway from Cavalla to the
4950
SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENT
Bulgarian frontier,* the American, British and French
Delegations agree that the union of Western Thrace with
Greece will not vitally harm the economic interests of
Bulgaria. It seems equally established that the geo-
graphical situation and the natural conditions of the
Dedeagatch line are such that it can never be placed
in a condition which will prove of real commercial value
to Bulgaria, and that on the other hand the opening of
the Straits will assure in the future a free passage to the
commerce of Bulgaria carried on through the ports of
Varna and Bourgas.
Under these conditions, the Commission comes to a
unanimous agreement in favor of the cession of Western
Thrace to Greece. The Italian Delegation formulates,
nevertheless, special reservations contained in Annex III.
The American, British and French Delegations have
also agreed to fix the Greco-Bulgarian frontier in this
district as indicated on Map II.
The British and French Delegations accept the assur-
ance given to them by the Delegates of the United States,
that the slight modifications proposed by the latter in
the frontier line indicated by Mr. Venizelos (marked in
green on the map) are not of such a nature as to cut the
economic communications in the valley of the Arda.
B. Eastern Thrace.
In formulating its proposition, the Commission takes
into consideration the hypothesis that the City of Con-
stantinople, the Sea of Marmora and the Straits will be
constituted into a separate zone by the Supreme Council
and that the task of fixing the northern limits of this zone
belongs to the Conference.
* The proposed frontiers for Eastern as well as for Western Thrace neces-
sarily depend on the extent to be given to the state of which Constantinople
will be the capital, and are subject to revision and unlimited modifications
when the area of that state shall be determined. The American Delegation
reserves the right to modify the frontier which it shall approve according to
the disposition that shall be made of the territory of Eastern Thrace.SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENT
51
Consequently, the frontier recommended by this Com-
mission does not necessarily affect the question whether
the Greeks should have access to the Black Sea, because
in case the Conference decides that such an access is not
desirable, it could exclude Greece from the littoral of the
Black Sea by placing the northern terminus of the Enos-
Midia line at some point of the southern frontier of Bul-
garia and not at Midia itself.
On the basis of the above supposition, the Commission
agrees unanimously that the claims of Greece to that
part of Turkish Thrace which might be left outside the
separate zone of Constantinople, are justified. The
American, British and French Delegations are of the
opinion that the frontier should be fixed as indicated on
Map II.
The Italian Delegation agrees in principle but with
special reservations contained in Annex IV.
At the same time the Commission considers it its duty
to state that it has obtained from Mr. Venizelos formal
and definite assurances that the Hellenic Government will
scrupulously maintain and protect the religious, school
and civil rights of the Mussulman communities and will
accord every necessary protection to the mosques and
holy places of Islam. These same assurances will be
given to all the communities professing any other re-
ligion than the Greek Orthodox. All these assurances
shall be mentioned in adequate stipulations to be inserted
in the Peace Treaty.*
* The Maps and Appendixes mentioned in this report are not reproduced in
this publication.die; bulgaren
in ihren historischen, ethnographischen und politischen Grenzen.
(Atlas mit 40 Landkarten.)
Vorwort
von
D. RIZOFF
Koniglichen Bulgarischen Gesa/idten in Berlin.
THE BULGARIANS
in their historical, ethnographical and political frontiers.
(Atlas with 40 maps.)
Preface
by
D. RIZOFF
Minister of Bulgaria in Berlin.
LES BELGARES
dans leurs frontieres historiques, ethnographiques et politiques.
(Atlas contenant 40 cartes.)
Preface
de
D. RIZOFF
Ministre de Bulgarie d Berlin.
B'bJiriPHT'B
T'feXHHT'fe HCTOpHMeCKH, eTHOrpaOHHeCKM H IIOJIHTHHeKH TpaHHUH.
(A t ji a c t ctfl/ip hc am.-b 4 0 kaptb.)
flpeArOBopi.
orb
P H 3 0 B T,
UapcKH m»JiHOMomeHT» mhhhctpt> b* Bep.niHt.
BERLIN
Konigliche H of 1 i th o gra p h i e, Hof-Buch- und -S te i n d r u c k e r e i
WILHELM GREVE
1917.j :St39 t*( n zq'(r;
.Kecskemet
Beke'scsatoa
Lee wo
i ,, S'iftktfij UdjJrMty)
?Unft<'irc/‘gn
%* /:%^
^C^LjSze^sn (b^rjnaaa^)/
MonjCV
'Zombor,
C**3 8\?Iqs vet'
Ismail ^
Foqaras
oWerscheljZ.
$u!iflSr.
O Wetwhrc&eq
fi 'irr n k a/- Yt Ice 9 '/
j^Tirgul- Jiulu'r':
t§s^ lurnu-Sever/n -i
LGRAD
[ab&c
Semen'dria
yJ.vofoi
Cer>i**
BuKAkEST
N Slatino Jr/
ValjevQ
t$dpjet/s&
H \ Kuatendza
*mUHons tent a)
6iurgevo
7i/tr&k&n
]^/fyyari9aii*
’afofaiu
Turtra- Mayyrete
7jye*<5>;
A fen $irie.
SvistoV-
to*/,?/-


Stolac
.; t•. !:
M/lroijcs:
qnTENEGAO
cgTiNJE,,,v>
'finhiafos
PntiUne
1 fsmfX$adomir
o \iesfOndU '3o
u Dupnice
yasMko
Pnzrvn
SpiZ23^\
Antiv3r‘‘
TKriva Palahka.
pHilippopoi
AaikundeJen
0u!c'9nol>-
Medw
7i6ttlAN0PEL
H^skovq
jxy
Cori(^%mj<^3fa :utia'
SXftNT l?TC
Prj/epj
Olj/rrunqziis.
mm
cpr.?/
g^5itQ<lj(^ayA;
^ '\ ' fli' T^f0^
karats
VSALONi K ^
5#?Wv • ,1 X
, 6 Orphan,
Samofhraki
WaLorn
'^.pfussa
|r*"'
~V\ ' Arjirokaatro,' \
Jmbroj
>trente $
{/.itochocj
Lemnos
■f'faahafe
La'T'is^l
Bulgarien
zur Zeit des
Asparuch und Tervel
2. Halfte des Vll.u.Anfang
des VIII. Jahrhunderts.
\orion
tilene
[Photographic reproduction from the original!fPS psL
Beno/er
'Leo *o
Akermap^
*Funfkirchen
WAN-,
Tatar-Bu/
HDtsgei/
Afohacy.
Temasvsr
'2ombor
laras
j &™rpuiUn& „
M/noKuFy;/<
reusar:
,Sulina\
To lea >
Faurei
o WsM/rcfisr.
»j \/vTirgul-JiuJvi
s. Turnu-Sheerin S
Ploesfi
Zcnnu/
Orr>ovc
.. .2/ ■'•
S>»bac
\9hifndria
\>2*ornik
bukarest
§ ”
ye
s Kustendza
yk’onstanra)
Kragujeva*
Sarajevo
Julrakan
WungaJia
M£gurc/c
x______w
Krus* vb% ^%^AfQk$rne,cJ
cOobric
S,	FftQZjrad.
/	x o^
Somery-^
Ttrn&'o- &%-'!
$yi8iov>
;Siam cJ
Pro hope
Mi 1retries'.
b Or/t&stji
^.V'fe ONTENEGRO
ETINJ E^,**V ♦'V
fpdi^c.,
^"’‘^'■CV'lSkutari.
vV'v ^
Du/ctgnfH'’V.
/ A less/or,
S
PrtifinE
An hi a/os
\Ha^on»i'rx^
Jt/Bit/df)
Wjakora
Prizren
b&si/iko
Kr/\a Pa/anka.
0$*3nimakv,
PaJkandr/en
Bzumoji
^S^nmsnh
ho
adrjanope:
ifasmakli Kirctzi'.
Mevrokoo
'Ura as \
^ taj^JhTo pe l
D/mot'ka
Srrumica
pPri/ep\
haj/'ibo!
Fj~ Bodostl
Gumorctzinsi
F/fraSan
f. Be rat.
V-SAIONIK /</.
V *•< i. to ?/ * f \» p h:
\Vodan
Samothraki
fka/o/?aV
ChimBra.
*tr on to
Jmbro^r-^)
’tochor/
J. * rjirokas tro)	<
eXr;,.Z„ -z
—.~Vj^n'	-J 3 n i	ji‘
h'f 'Fr-p/rd d?( ?'
'.rpetete/,
Isriss’a
■Yi rcchor ion
Air ad/a
"t>et<ehIll
pGrbftikp rdein
( Bes>T^rcta(Gisir: ut~ ,
/ ■ '
dlozyyer^lavSerbOfpj{
lekescsaba
Mop* Sr
\Leo*o
Afermt
'PFun fkirchen
i /*1$ * > |
Nagy szeijen (
i Hejdi-Vaspf)
MahJcs)
lesvar
'Botgrai
Yombor
|6taS5d{»jltW>,s‘*f/
:V
J Ompu/urnJ,,- ^
c 'wHr
‘«.	'.	: i
'ftirnnicuJ'Yilcea
So Una]
oWer«chefz’
fi/Zcsr
faurei
oWei&tdrchen

tr£j/«»r<5^®v
\0 Turpu~$hverin
Csmai
BUKA REST
>>♦2 *orn 11
fasten dza
' (Konst ante)

Tutrakan
[Mangali?.

turpu- Magore/s
V ;\ ;C •'
O/eho^o
Svi Slov-, ^
Sumer
Tirnoto Ppki~I)iofr>aJ
fBarkavidt}
f^istolac
ipazar.T'v
*Qrh#nijei •/	,\
* ^
tfjtsorifr'-'.' i-fa
j' Jotiman	^v.
■4M)^0NTEN£GR°
“*V%yj|Y IN j E s < '• 'X
Anhialoe
Uriitira
'■f\fp»dorpir' \ ^
^Undit S3mp
\Bupn^3 / .r'
<orice
■ Vssiiiko
SpiiiS^
A pH* am
1 °. v> /
AV/Va Palank.
nj&Skutari
PPGPOL
^Piorriej
Undia
'	id is
^ ,? /• %
AtmiANOPEL
Medui
d*<±j
KtrdzaJ’
f R 3 do V'S
.,CONSTANT I NO !^E L
Ginwftk
Sd/nop>ii:no'
£/fat#np
fava!?.
itg^?«Cnas.'.0
X*-
•v-	yep (7a
.Brindisi ?
Sa«r!Otnreki
Jmbroljg3
+ranfo &)
lemr.os
far a my}ft.
‘ r-crd or ton
Pr^vess^r'Xi\s
•om the original]IV
Bende>
.	ff ■ '%££> fto man
%^.5mK	<
W^Xvr"'
''* |,vte!N\ 'V*
Kecskemet
Bekescsabp
W$S?h
' Leo wo

Bit'lBdj,
Brunfk ir chert
■-y'v /" £r ,p - '
‘fck*n (bfmacs^cB)/
<r _
-///,'"■ ttgfTBS
v ax**'4
r*-fe£,- V"\/^
-11 [tfnlpp/u/r^^
MohBcs)
'BofgraoS
’ 2o m bo i
>CS3r>{\
,$vti-0&\
o Wefschelgy '■{
o WePZliircfiert*
fdure>
P.lijcsti
iftimn iurJ-.y/icea
L6RAD
Hirsow
Xrerhiorpva
Turnu-Seyerin
BUKAREST
5 la tin a
^ Xustendza
) (fans tan fa)
^adujevac
'.raiov$'-

Tutrakan
Y	Gi urge vo
Turn's-Aid goreie
^/Nikopol	^
/ V Svistov^-,
Pleven /
'Catafalu
-rW. " NAv-1
xvi?' 0 N 1^6 »
An hi a Jos
Gjakova
(asifiko
SpizzaJS
Anfhars
Kriva Palank&d,
ynoitX
Afedual
■9. B3Clovis
,C Dknolfka
rjWZ; i; i&&£>kiz3
~^ySih4vr/&^^'

GyjiorbjJ^
SACntti
iBrindisi
Samothraki
Thasos
i
Jp*eteni
Jmbn^r^j
itronro
[UtochOrJ
Lemnos
Corfu
Zarfum Bulgarien
nach demTode des
Zar Simeon
927. Jahr.
Brevei
'iroeAorion
jjyadtaT»»ev
BeHescitjt) v
•ir'A irchen
MJ ihe’ CS:O'
Afar as c.
,eb?n t
renrjGSV.3r
rqaaras
Ctmpuhnj
feusatz
oV/erschel;
aimnith
C,	oWei&fa'rc/wri- A
ELGRAD	\
0rr">,
xSfjmentjfna ( >’rrr*'lf*\	/*
ZemoO
Turnu- Sever in
Cemavgcfa
RAREST
Statin*
^ Kustenclza
\(eons ta nta)

'»Ve
Kragujevoi
raiovd’

\ Tutrston
V\
Catafotu
iom
oiurqcvO
M&nqaha
Jurr-u
Za/trdrt
AtekSint.cJ
'.S/e/itca
fir okupc
/	■ SuTnen^
r-PTiryfi^ tiskiI
J.
•ZiQr!:ovic9 0
Noyipam-
'\'VS
Mi trgvfCS'.
' J '
T£ N EGRO
*£**?# oig^V-
CfttsrtK S • *'
AntivanZ^ -v '^Sku
Dutcignol.j^
■ i	t“"v	X'Khtur3 -
^	i
ii’M parts , f7~'\p>fer-Paz&ro'zfM
HrltsPs^nka-.,.^»4 ^	Vs5i0:«.-t
%WH 1
AnhiaJos
,6Djakeva
<^io • ,
/A 3ndohjn''£>§ .
:dia
Midia
■nimaJia SStv ♦
HermsnliSy,
teovo	■ jn
iADRlANOPfL'

IjwToiika
Tirana
’, SirOeriica


d'oddP/
.Brindisi
r?2S>
■/er/jc
\G °fpS.
fSor/Zi'*-
^ '
V
Samofhra.^
^hasos
y^u’*/.0>A
Ga'i'ipoli:
Teveteni ^'hMdftits^
'ftcusSi
-Irnbrc.;
Wa* ro oJ	Chi‘ns OJ.
\LitQChor,
Lemnos
r
fz	f'vKfycn'cn
> " ^
•	k^vf t
Vi* j
;raphie reproduction from the original]VI
8^ndc
[Roman
\cr&';24'/Q/fbwy£ «?
. * ! : . 3*k
)dac3u
Leo*o
' BirleUt
Tatar-Burtar
■chen
’Bo /gr a crii
fipcsaritx
ZoniLtOi
/hq
Clnpp’j/Ui
To Ka V
Figure'

cHbitih. rCfban
[BELGPAD
Temuri
prova
7umu-$b*erjn
OF$oy3\
nov&Ba
, KusttnrfH
J forts t&nra)
cJujevoc

Tutrakan J
T9/0V3'

'6iurqe*o

hjrnu - Maq/j

Ore ho to
SviStOv^
t/ye%
Baguzaf^J*

Lj^ vC-j'
o
7>ri£pPt\,


V_> ■lC^ :*p	/ fa/KfnJfe/^n
^FFusf:. - ;,r l| f r i/tft
■ ■ h^nnMm
Spte£\
Anlivon\
UPPQPOl
F frpskph'q	'X'
’nc't'e
ismp>fh
^	*2- N i"\ j\evrok'o»
bijritfJka
Qur&lJO
■ S
■_ , ,
Gu/rofhtFny,
VS^NH*
tf&ar/- ■?••„%,
,Brj/Wi$7
Samothraki
Thasos
walon&<^%
^'ye^e/eni
Jmbroi
Iran to ^ Ch/m,
\LitochocJ

Lemnoj
/lar.i^sa^
Corfu'
Mytilena
FtrocForion
Frew
Theb&FVII
iszym'ev
*-* •.>* f , >>•»*._ Ji'( ,'■
■bzsyeril!.^U'C;, -mW’ * ,
Bender
aGto>
’iff? Rom an
'met
.Kecak,
dekescsaba
/Boca u
Momir
Leo*0
J i e/tely Udxjrtial't 1
fFOnfkirchen
jsi^gy3ze^n( H^rxcauirarff)/
*Bo/grad\
Mohgcii
re s vs r
^3/7\
r.v
$vi/r,s\
Tulcd V
oWefSch$t*j
fthnnkubji Ice a
pi TtrgO.
:rchen-
EL6RAD
Zernuri
+ Kfr/-4><J/<S i
O/sori
Turnu-Se*er
Si;mendn\
Buka rest
S la Una
^ Hasten dia
yPoostanraJ
ujevac
<gujevacj
j! urge vo
TuTrgkan
y\ ■ ■
Caiafalu
■ ^Menga/ia
Turnu - Magurde \
1 . i9	■
Ore ho vo
1Nikopol
SvistOv'.
P *£*fc>k
Pro kupe
/	-- >.,	oum Bnp~.
'! f.
|Loved

fXs/c>/3C
y*Jtt-ovJca\
i*'
HoNfe^E6f^^v.
OT?L ® FFodW1* v*
•i 'Or^htja •
Anhiaios
Pfiiljna
' \ 5
Ti? far-Pazardxik
rfy- ' ymuRPoPOL
,	0\	nJ?4»p n	(,\f
Knva Palank^Zy\, y
o
^3,, ;
.'%pg«fvvr
&asiHk,
Antivari^F' $
_.-y •'	/
/5'RiA^pn ,V'W,
U ’	'
Ikopie
sMffkubJ
oStarypiaAOj, ■ -
V ‘ S, %«*
. rFcpel(
, y --r.- -'v	,:_
9 Qndia
pM'die	J
!J0fJ*5bigG2fr !ct*a
OShsrAKfPjfXi
Dutcign ol 3
AteJusl

0 Psdoris 'f'	-.V-
,	-J	•■ rj
T/rohlf-
DvraljQ '^r~p'F-
/& ■‘3jr>bot
■
{PJ&%:8PnW
:iglj3 (Pcp2 i^1
^VSA'CNiK (
Be rat?
.Brindisi
i Voden
Samothraki
walomt
, ...........;•
^ejifokd&irdA A Vjf „ f> . *,, SerFrdif-.
■ ■ -*	Alttsovprri.-Per/role	?
Chi maral
.Litochori
Le m nos
Delvih&n.
/'' lLarjsjs
Corf u\\ jE
Bulgarien
zur Zeit des
Assenl.und Kalojan
Ende des XII. und Anfang
des XIII. Jahrhunderts.

lytiiene
I	1 /tas£/? 1-
I	I KoJojan
ihod/s[Photographic reproduction from the original]Das Bulgarentum auf der Balkanhalbinsel im Jahre 1912
Von Prof. Dr. A. Iichirkoff unter Mitvirkung von Prof. Dr. L MJIetifseb, Prof. Dr. B. ZonefT, Prof. J. Iwaaoff, Prof. Dr. St RmumU-
X
ErkISrung des effmographlBchen
Plflcherrkolorits'
MaSslab 1:3330000

[Photographic reproduction from the original]
ETHNOLOGICAL
MAP BY THE BULGARIAN PROFESSORS (1915).HrrToi
ij&finB;
Ajfcf


■*!/"> V,
tST -*'*•'*’£■
i.ivVirvX^

^VXlsr?i[EX|tEjrfiLS
eVLropftisciien T!ieiisl7^-^
GRTEC BTK2$X1ajs7I>
ITurkuchr i eUl'
[Photographic reproduction from the original]
\Ll t: $400000
*Wxn
[L^Vl iw7]

[Photograph®
reproduction from the original]
l ETHNOLOGICAL MAP BY LEJEAN (1861).
E l bulgur.",
T-y. v,
I1TT. «»**■

PAR G. IE JEAN.
ZSl _____aE

CARTE ETHNOCRAPHIQUE
T u R 0 tie' J)’E trope
V
ET DBS ETATS VASSACX ATTONOMES
d'aprei Lojean. Kamt* .de Cioenr^.	Imp. Frailleiy 3.r, Fontane
KB. CrUk Carte ngpeat avoir- gu'unr ualeur Lout approszimatiuc. -hi. p Lupus l
tiespopulations tie rarer cl etc loopues dtoeryer soni en/remtinrs cl nonju.vtnposirs.
.Echclle df **,166,000
5tf,	»<»o ‘	' 2oo K|jXIII
«tSf9®r &yckT■
fki^rlL^SSteL -4w< Sv	\ %	( J$	J^^^vpfgo
-	1 ^ N-ev v.”^
,y, ■•*
i \ / .
& i %
\T
£
kg/^^Tf^y ^ (i, c
^ \ Jk	jp s w kk? y~
V.v> n	f U X- !	'"; l /^n/ L-v-^, 0 j \1 : - r-.ji r -, vw“' y?p< A;
**,
iTTXT f i
j \
* V■*/y•'“"
.^ Sx":
,	iLkUL
^ \
M A l>
of fh<-
S©UJTM 3LAY©MC
COUNTRIES.
Scale of bullish Miles
/iV/*/m/i:< stiouic (hi
through Vortber-n. Albania* A. Try etherprrjonj ueej\uunted wnA cAc e/ninerj Staumu ,
extend teronde thstlfraue,. but (hat-riser, from the Eihti (WBU.ieh. to the paint where. U >
karsihe below Csjeh ’-'Of hr raj A to part the nm.s of die South Sleuoruh popuLatesen ffran, the
fiirtnan unit Jlagyor Front Villach tote/An arii to theddnretie. there u nanoerbcujULnjy 1-
the. neighbour of Vue-Slat ij the. KoeelKxrdr -Tt/ietran ThrltJte of the /toman Viet. Egnei£*a.,is\ dure
P't.r-1 of it which. nine bexmeat Fair rat a *. ocAnAn. mag Ire LaAenas a. rough trhnagra/hie.ijl
tr'enFory thetir/h tj lettuce earn/ Atdr/areem ooutm f to the scotch and so’'IT irneh settlements
to the (tenth It. would, be mere ctsjVLcsU/, to Arm* a situth. ersatejnr. boundary from. the occurs oe
'■he JHarheSia. to 'Ac thilA of Solcnaen* tor the. Sim e lo note of. arts weir, touch cfie£aspheric/
or the MO rC Morrru'ra. (n Thrace AJnaJUfl6 mot betaken as a. benuuiarn acy furche. Suhjar-
Southeyu S(o.is
l In Thrkr,.	l.bcJiLstrxa .
BiUteurmne mnoujlrsteued thnu+.oouooo Co G.ooOoen>	Croats Serbs
■ In Mciitensejis from, lit} OOP ,
160,000 SuLforiahs
[Photographic reproduction from the original]
ETHNOLOGICAL MAP BY MACKENSIE AND IRBY (1867).N. 2*f _ Nouvelle Cd^raphie Universe)!
POPULATIONS DE LA TURQU1E D'EUROPE
Hachette et C‘5 Paris.
XIV
[Photographic reproduction from the original]
ETHNOLOGICAL MAP BY £lIs£e RECLUS (1876).■ETHROCRAPHiSCHE UBERSICWT act EUROPAISCHER ORIENTS
xuoonimengestellt von H • KIEPERT , Berlin im Mai 1876.
XV

■ \	fi.., +	;v/i VV-AjgK
■V >Ah %y* %
~ '■ aR-
-.wv‘ -'

ifi.r .	-.w™ Vvy.. -cWSCfi •	r"^'V‘V\	•,.	•'{
-VAs» r > '•••,
„. r
^pw«=te6
V- < V
---J CHILIM
i V W Y> S .••AfAvi:t
[V..M	.--... -.
P. A\
1 .i_*	x	=
1 ! -;:aa;	....
J3 !v v*: # ‘N«/'' ;	'ix&x ' ' <
..,: .V
^ ,v*
- \
X11

• K."'Vr-j^SEte
C3 T RKE.\-
Tc4'.vn\‘lt \ „» -^yfrtJB___________1
s m
[Photographic reproduction from the original]
ETHNOLOGICAL MAP BY KIEPERT (1876).i
i
I
!

riaju4Wc>r>«	?4*'-
i:

ct ': - - ^
'-T	*~N	aab^^-
.Xa*r'*	1 • \ ' •
ftf«H>aOSv .-fc >•', ..,:
& ->A...	.	, '-. , ✓
....	' T/M^fka '	^ T
»•»- % - , % >'
rv.6V„,	’ ««W^......
h' - Y"
X*	•
J-^^t . C+*» L±L
YM™y
J lM<-
Us.i/tii ‘
% £,nvK

a>f"-ii5.:-‘- '■'•,	^
fcy'- •• ••'■ *,&< <£,
l»a'U^W|LU? Xj^
H-'ril.
brtvTJui'
■T-^v=59r:
A' •»*«?«/»••• ifit.rJS&/-\
?•?<*£' '-"'a^fJ
■>	«’ $ 14
V X. . 1', JTiwvi^Bm
;Ui2
Jii'iml
X)MtiruH‘
CARTE ETHNOGRAPH IQU £
rle la
tl' RQ I’ IE TEI HOPE
ApJ
V


TNVE
***? s,»A
fex £
Uhsinctdf(mslamii»|)lf B.Vil.ivr! d ‘.'dine Bi Vibti’tiilrTwMrfr Sophia
BYilaypfciHtosnarl de Her^rk V.Viiarri <1? Monastic V! dr I.irnII
VH.Viiai'rtdeSebmk YlUVjUvrtdpiihind II TjlaviilrlV^air IVahn S.*uu
I CcpIia'lfliiriiVVv.*
' t - - A ■
' •!£ t-*' '"V
*?•
uuuljiiaiu

[Photographic reproauction from the original]	ETHNOLOGICAL MAP BY SYNVET (1877).
L'th. E. Oli»ier, ConstanTinopiei 1877
E dtParis
^Edition,VVILAYET D’ANDRINOPL
SANDJAK INDEPENDANT DE TCHATALDJA ET PARTIE EUROPEENNE DU VII
(CABTE DES ^COLES GEECQUE8 ET BULGABES ET DES fiGLISES GRECQ
REPRODUCED FROM LA QUESTIONE RUMELIOTA, BY AMADORI-VT/ILAYET D’ANDRINOPLE
: TCHATALDJA ET PARTIE EUROPEENNE DU VILAYET DE CONSTANTINOPLE
EXE EES ^COLES GEECQUES ET BULGAKES ET DES &GLISES GEECQUES)
XVII
ED FROM LA QUESTIONE RUMELIOTA, BY AMADORI-VIRGILI.