Is the "Treaty of Bucharest" from 1913 injustice for Macedonia & Macedonians?

Question

The Treaty of Bucharest was concluded on August 10, 1913, by the delegates of Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Montenegro, and Greece. As Bulgaria had been completely isolated in the Second Balkan War, and as she was closely invested on her northern boundary by the Kingdom of Romania and on her western frontier by the allied armies of Greece and Serbia, and in the East by the Turkish Army, she was obliged, in her helplessness, to submit to such terms as her victorious enemies chose to impose upon her. All important arrangements and concessions involving the rectification of the controverted international boundary lines were perfected in a series of committee meetings, incorporated in separate protocols, and formally ratified by subsequent action of the general assembly of delegates.



1. NEGOTIATION.


The Treaty of Bucharest was concluded on August 10, 1913, by the delegates of Bulgaria, Roumania, Serbia, Montenegro, and Greece. As Bulgaria had been completely isolated in the Second Balkan War, and as she was closely invested on her northern boundary by the of Roumania on her western frontier by the allied armies of Greece and Serbia, and in the East by the Turkish Army, she was obliged, in her helplessness, to submit to such terms as her victorious enemies chose to impose upon her. All important arrangements and concessions involving the rectification of the controverted international boundary lines were perfected in a series of committee meetings, incorporated in separate protocols, and formally ratified by subsequent action of the general assembly of delegates.


2. TERMS.


By the terms of the treaty, Bulgaria ceded to Roumania all that portion of the Dobrudja lying north of a line extending from the Danube just above Turtukaia to the western shore of the Black Sea, south of Ekrene. This important territorial Concession has an approximate area of 2,687 square miles, a population of 286,000, and includes the fortress of Silistria and the cities of Turtukaia on the Danube and Baltchik on the Black Sea. In addition, Bulgaria agreed to dismantle all existing fortresses and bound herself not to construct forts at Rustchuk or at Schumla or in any of the territory between these two cities, or within a radius of 20 kilometers around Baltchick.


8. SERBIA'S GAIN IN TERRITORY.


The eastern frontier of Serbia was drawn from the summit of Patarika, on the old frontier, and followed the watershed between the Vardar and the Struma Rivers to the Greek-Bulgarian boundary, except that the upper valley of the Strumnitza remained in the possession of Bulgaria. The territory thus obtained embraced central Macedonia, including Ochrida, Monastir, Kossovo, Istib, and Kotchana, and the eastern half of the sanjak of Novi-Bazar. By this arrangement Serbia increased her territory from 18,650 to 33,891 square miles and her population by more than 1,500,000.


4. GREECE'S GAIN IN TERRITORY.


The boundary line separating Greece from Bulgaria was drawn from the crest of Mount Belashitcha to the mouth of the Mesta River, on the Aegean Sea. This important territorial concession, which Bulgaria resolutely contested, in compliance with the instructions embraced in the notes which Russia and Austria-Hungary presented to the conference, increased the area of Greece from 25,014 to 41,933 square miles and her population from 2,660,000 to 4,363,000. The territory thus annexed included Epirus, southern Macedonia, Salonika, Kavala, and the Aegean littoral as far east as the Mesta River, and restricted the Aegean seaboard of Bulgaria to an inconsiderable extent of 70 miles, extending from the Mesta to the Maritza, and giving access to the Aegean at the inferior port of Dedeagatch. Greece also extended her northwestern frontier to include the great fortress of Janina. In addition, Crete was definitely assigned to Greece and was formally taken over on December 14, 1913.


5. BULGARIA'S GAIN IN TERRITORY.


Bulgaria's share of the spoils, although greatly reduced, was not entirely negligible. Her net gains in territory, which embraced a. portion of Macedonia, including the town of Strumnitza, western Thrace, and 70 miles of the Aegean littoral, were about 9,663 square miles, and her population was increased by 129,490.


6. APPRAISEMENT OF THE TREATY.


By the terms of the Treaty of Bucharest, Roumania profited most in proportion to her sacrifices. The unredeemed Roumanians live mostly in Transylvania, the Bukovina, and Bessarabia, and therefore the Balkan wars afforded her no adequate opportunity to perfect the rectification of her boundaries on ethnographic lines.

The humiliating terms imposed on Bulgaria were due to her own impatience and intemperate folly. The territory she secured was relatively circumscribed; she had failed to emancipate Macedonia, which was her avowed purpose in entering the war; she lost the districts of Ochrida and Monastir, which she especially coveted; she was assigned only a small line on the Aegean, with the wretched port of Dedeagatch; and she was obliged to forfeit her ambition as the leader of the Balkan hegemony.

Greece, though gaining much, was greatly dissatisfied. The acquisition of Saloniki was a triumph; she was assigned the port of Kavala and the territory eastward at the insistence of the King and the army and contrary to the advice of Venizelos; in the northwest Greece encountered the opposition of Italy by urging her claims to southern Albania; in the assignment of the Aegean Islands she was profoundly dissatisfied; and she still claims 3,000,000 unredeemed conationals.

The fundamental defects of the Treaty of Bucharest were that (1) the boundaries which it drew bore little relation to the nationality of the inhabitants of the districts affected, and that (2) the punishment meted out to Bulgaria, while perhaps deserved in the light of her great offense in bringing on the, Second Balkan War, was so severe that she could not accept the treaty as a permanent settlement. While Serbia, Greece, and Roumania can not escape a large share of the blame for the character of the treaty, it should not be forgotten that their action at Bucharest was in large measure due to the settlement forced upon the Balkan States by the great powers at the London conferences.

http://historyofmacedonia.org

Answer 1

That was big Tragedy for Macedonians. After Ottoman Empire they tough that they finally had freedom, but what happened, they fall in new tragedy, bigger than first.
Look at this sites:
http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9356444
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011972
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Balkan_Wars_Boundaries.jpg
For Greeks answers that Macedonians nation is after Tito: After Second World War Macedonians who were for independent Macedonia were closed in prison and Macedonians Tito send on Sream Front, In SFRY every Macedonian who claimed for independent and whole Macedonia was prisoned in Goli Otok.
In Greece "Macedonians" are after1989 year, before that if someone say that he is Macedonian was killed, that "Macedonians" are Greeks from Athens who stolen Macedonian lend.There is Real Macedonians in Greece who safed own self with silence, other was banished and killed in 1946.

Answer 2

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
Is the "Treaty of Bucharest" from 1913 injustice for Macedonia & Macedonians?
The Treaty of Bucharest was concluded on August 10, 1913, by the delegates of Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Montenegro, and Greece. As Bulgaria had been completely isolated in the Second Balkan War, and as she was closely invested on her northern boundary by the Kingdom of Romania and on her western...

Answer 3

Treaty Of Bucharest

Answer 4

That was big Tragedy for Macedonians.

Depends if you are refering to majority Greeks! For them it was a great victory. Over 400 years of ensalvement ends! The Turkish minority did pay a price. One of those Turks was Kamal (Ataturk).

Answer 5

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/PartitionedMacedonia/Bucharest.html

Answer 6

I can't answer that.

Answer 7

It was a great success for the Macedonians!
They were liberated and they manage to unite with mother Greece!
The entire historical region of the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedonia was returned to Greece and the Macedonians finally reached to a victory after a long strangle against the Turks and the Bulgarians.
There were Greek cities such as Monastery that weren’t liberated but in general it was a success.
Note that the majority of the population at the Ottoman province of Macedonia was Greek and the second largest was Muslim and the third Bulgarian.
(There wasn’t of course a non Greek Macedonian nation since that idea was an invention of the communist military rule of Tito!)
The region was further identified as predominantly Greek by French F. Bianconi in 1877 and by Englishman Edward Stanford in 1877. He maintained that the urban population of Macedonia was entirely Greek, whereas the peasantry was of mixed, Bulgarian-Greek origin and had Greek consciousness but had not yet mastered the Greek language. European ethnographs and linguists until the Congress of Berlin usually regarded the language of the Slavic population of Macedonia as Bulgarian. French scholars Ami Boué in 1840 and Guillaume Lejean in 1861, Germans August Heinrich Rudolf Griesebach in 1841, J. Hahn in 1858 and 1863, August Heinrich Petermann in 1869 and Heinrich Kiepert in 1876, Slovak Pavel Jozef Safarik in 1842 and the Czechs J. Erben in 1868 and F. Brodaska in 1869, Englishmen James Wyld in 1877 and Georgina Muir Mackenzie and Adeline Paulina Irby in 1863, Serbians Davidovitch in 1848, Constant Desjardins in 1853 and Stefan I. Verković in 1860, Russians Viktor I. Grigorovič in 1848, Vinkenty Makushev and M.F. Mirkovitch in 1867, as well as Austrian Karl Sax in 1878 published ethnography or linguistic books, or travel notes, which defined the Slavic population of Macedonia as Bulgarian. Austrian doctor Josef Müller published travel notes in 1844 where he regarded the Slavic population of Macedonia as Serbian.
The predominant view of a Bulgarian character of the Slavs in Macedonia was reflected in the borders of future autonomous Bulgaria as drawn by the Constantinople Conference in 1876 and by the Treaty of San Stefano in 1878. Bulgaria according to the Constantinople Conference included present-day Vardar and Pirin Macedonia and excluded the predominantly “patriarchist” southern Macedonia. The Treaty of San Stefano, which reflected the maximum desired by Russian expansionist policy, gave Bulgaria the whole of Macedonia except Thessaloniki, the Chalcidice peninsula and the valley of the Aliakmon.
Independent sources in Europe between 1878 and 1918 generally tended to view the Slavic population of Macedonia in two ways: as Bulgarians and as Macedonian Slavs.
German scholar Gustav Weigand was one of the most prominent representatives of the first trend with the books Ethnography of Macedonia (1924, written 1919) and partially with The Aromanians (1905). The author described all ethnic groups living in Macedonia, showed empirically the close connection between the western Bulgarian dialects and the Macedonian dialects and defined the latter as Bulgarian. The International Commission constituted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in 1913 to inquire into causes and conduct of the Balkan Wars also talked about the Slavs of Macedonia as about Bulgarians in its report published in 1914. The Commission had eight members from Great Britain, France, Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia and the United States.
The term "Macedonian Slavs" was used by scholars and publicists in three general meanings:
as a politically convenient term to define the Slavs of Macedonia without offending Serbian and Bulgarian nationalism;
as a distinct group of Slavs different from both Serbs and Bulgarians, yet closer to the Bulgarians and having predominantly Bulgarian ethnical and political affinities;
as a distinct group of Slavs different from both Serbs and Bulgarians having no developed national consciousness and no fast ethnical and political affinities (the definition of Cvijic).
An instance of the use of the first meaning of the term was, for example, the ethnographic map of the Slavic peoples published in (1890) by Russian scholar Zarjanko, which identified the Slavs of Macedonia as Bulgarians. Following an official protest from Serbia the map was later reprinted identifying them under the politically correct name "Macedonian Slavs".
The term was used in a completely different sense by British journalist Henry Brailsford in Macedonia, its races and their future (1906). The book contains Brailford's impressions from a five-month stay in Macedonia shortly after the suppression of the Ilinden Uprising and represents an ethnographic report. Brailford defines the dialect of Macedonia as neither Serbian, nor Bulgarian, yet closer to the second one. An opinion is delivered that any Slavic nation could "win" Macedonia if it is to use the needed tact and resources, yet it is claimed that the Bulgarians have already done that. Brailsford uses synonymously the terms "Macedonian Slavs" and "Bulgarians", the "Slavic language" and the "Bulgarian language". The chapter on the Macedonians Slavs/the Bulgarians is titled the "Bulgarian movement", the IMRO activists are called "bulgarophile Macedonians".
The third use of the term can be noted among scholars from the allied countries (above all France and the United Kingdom) after 1915 and is roughly equal to the definition given by Cvijic (see above).
The Ottoman census of Hilmi Pasha (1904) gave the following results:
Vilaeti of Thessaloniki Greeks: 373,227 Bulgarians: 207,317
Vilaeti of Monastiri Greeks: 261,283 Bulgarians: 178,412
Santzaki of Scopje Greeks: 13,452 Bulgarians: 172,735
No non Greek Macedonian nation!
That should answer the asker’s question but unfortunetelly he will chose a propaganda answer for a propaganda question!