Bulgarian Communist and Comintern leader on the centrality of the national question to the Balkan workers’ struggle.

‘The National Question in the Balkans’ by V. Kolarov from Communist International. Vol. 2 No. 4. July-August, 1924.

The national movements in the Balkans started at the beginning of the 19th century. They arose out of the struggles of the new economic forces to liberate themselves from the shackles of the obsolete feudal relations which prevailed under the Empire of the Turkish Sultans. The movements found expression in a series of national uprisings and wars, which gradually broke the power of the Beks and the Pashirs, liberated the peasants, and resulted in the formation of the present independent Balkan States.

The national movements in the Balkans have played a revolutionary role of the greatest importance.

But at the same time they were inspired and supported by interested foreign forces which were pursuing aims of conquest in the Balkans. The movements were always the instruments of the policy of conquest of the great European powers.

The Berlin Treaty (1878), with which the Russo-Turkish war ended, created a new situation in the Balkans. But it did not put an end to the national movements. ‘Thrace, Albania, Epirus, Thessaly and Crete, remained as formerly under the despotic power of the Sultan and the economic oppression of the Turkish Beks. In these regions the national movements did not cease. Neighbouring Balkan states, as well as the great powers, interfered with these movements. Nevertheless, the occupation of Bosnia and

Herzegovina by Austria-Hungary, and the annexation of Dobrubja to Rumania and of Bessarabia to Russia gave. rise to new national questions.

It was owing to the rottenness of the economic regime and the decrepitude of the Turkish political power that the national movement in the Balkans was chiefly concentrated in the Turkish provinces, around the Macedonian, Thracian and Albanian questions. Its political programme was—state independence.

The dominant capitalist classes and dynasties in the neighbouring states naturally endeavoured to extend their territories, to acquire new markets, and to secure an outlet to the great sea routes at the expense of the Turkish Empire. They concealed the purely annexatory and egoistic character of their policy by declarations that they were fighting for the “liberation of their brothers” from the Turkish yoke and for “national unity.” Of course, “liberation” could be secured only by means of war, and the Balkan States accordingly made energetic preparations for war against Turkey. But on the other hand, “national unity” could be obtained only at the expense of each other, and therefore they prepared to fight among themselves. Up to the decisive moment, they based their “rights” upon a thousand arguments—ethnographic, geographic, historical, economic, strategic, etc.

The imperialist powers also brought pressure to bear upon the Balkans. They pursued their policy of conquest in the East under the mask of “the defence of the Christian population” and its “national rights.” At this point the paths of Russia and Germany, Russia and England, Austria and Italy crossed. In pursuit of their aims, the powers were preparing a war in the Balkans, and it was obvious that this war must inevitably be transformed into a general European war.

In this manner the revolutionary movements of the oppressed peoples within the territories of European Turkey were diverted from their direct aims under the pressure of numerous interested great powers, and small “protecting” powers, with the result that they were transformed into an instrument of imperial conquest and oppression.

The Balkan war (1912-13) was preceded by artificially provoked movements of the Albanians and Macedonians. The victories of the Balkan Union “liberated” the enslaved “brothers” from the oppression of the Sultans (the Treaty of London), but “national unity” led fatally to an inter-Union war, which resulted in the annexation of certain parts of Bulgaria and Turkey to Rumania, the division of the “liberated” territories, chiefly among Serbia and Greece, and the submission of the “brothers” to fresh national oppression (the Peace of Bukharest). However, owing to the rivalry between Austria, Italy and Serbia, a part of the Albanian people secured a political semi-independence.

But the spoliatory interests of the imperialist states drove matters further. A great war flared up, the result of which was not to decide the national problems of the Balkans but to render them still more acute and entangled.

The Treaties of St. Germain, Trianon and the Nile (1919), concluded at the expense of defeated Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria, created the multi-national states of Yugo-Slavia and “Great” Rumania. In addition, Rumania seized Soviet Bessarabia. Finally, the Nile negotiations and the Lausanne Conference (1923) set up new frontiers between Turkey, Bulgaria and Greece.

Before the war Serbia had a population of less than three millions, but there are now in Yugo-Slavia about 2,000,000 people belonging to national minorities (Germans, Hungarians, Italians, Rumanians, Albanians, Bulgarians, etc.), and about 7,000,000 Croatians, Slovenians, Bosnians, Montenegrans and Macedonians, who regard themselves as separate nations. The national minorities, who are frequently subjected to a brutal regime, are naturally drawn towards their free brothers, and irridentism is accordingly growing among them. But of still greater significance is the struggle between the compact national groups.

The Serbian bourgeoisie, basing itself upon monarchism and militarism, and supported by French capitalism, is endeavouring to establish its hegemony over the former Austro-Hungarian provinces, which from the point of view of capitalist relations are far more developed. Owing to this there is developing a conflict between Serbia, on the one hand, and Croatia, Slovenia and partly Bosnia, on the other. The numerical inferiority of the Serbian population as compared with the Croatians, Slovenians and Bosnians together, compels the White Guard rulers to be indiscriminately brutal in their relation towards the latter peoples, as a result of which not only the bourgeois sections, but also the masses of the population are being drawn into the struggle and the conflict is becoming more extensive and more acute. The unreliable parliamentary basis for the government obliges it to seek the support of the Turkish and Bosnian Beks (landowners), whereby it is evoking the opposition of the landless peasants and the peasants with little land. Yugo-Slavia is thus being transformed into a field of intense conflict, in which the broad masses of the population are participating, and which is assuming a nationalist character. It should be stated that the leadership of the masses is actually in the hands of the bourgeoisie. The latter has succeeded in lending its class aims a national character and thus secured the support of the masses. In 1919-1920 the Communist Party had behind it not only the proletariat, but also large sections of the toiling peasantry, but in the last few years it has become isolated from the masses. The latter, however, have not gone over to the Social-Democrats. The national parties (of Radich, Koroshetz and Spakho) have been strengthened at the expense of the Communists, which indicates that the Communist Party failed to estimate at its true worth the national factor in the struggle of the toiling masses. A direct rejection of the national question in Yugo-Slavia, or a concealed rejection (the belief, for instance, that it is merely a question of constitution), will both react equally unfavourably upon the development of the Party. The Party will run the risk of losing the sympathy of the Macedonian peasants, which is as strong as it was in 1919-1920, if it does not actively take up a correct position with regard to the national question.

The Macedonian question is of extremely great importance. The possession of the valley of the River Varder (Macedonia) would mean a free outlet to the Aegean Sea (Salonika). This is the object of the ambitions of the former Austro-Hungarian monarchy and its southern successor–Yugo-Slavia. The possession of Macedonia would serve as a base for the conquest of Salonika. Macedonia is of equal importance for the Bulgarian and the Greek bourgeoisie.

In Macedonia the annexatory aims of the three Balkan states are again crossing. Sooner or later, if capitalism continues its domination, the Macedonian question will lead to a new Balkan War.

The outlines of this war are already defining themselves. The Bulgarian Government has come to an agreement with the Italian Government over the Adriatic question, in order to be able to concentrate its attention on the South. It is exerting great efforts to secure its domination over Macedonia to shut her off from the ambitions of Bulgaria, either by means of a military expedition into Bulgaria, or by means of an agreement at the expense of Greece on the following basis: Macedonia and Salonika to be given to Yugo-Slavia, and Western Thrace and Dadeagatch (and Kovalla) to be given to Bulgaria. The defeat of Greece in Asia Minor, and the expulsion of the crowned brother-in-law of King Alexander from Athens, have only served to sharpen the appetites of the capitalist plunderers.

In view of this, the workers and peasants of the Balkan countries in their struggle against the imperialist ambitions of the Balkan bourgeoisie, and against the new wars which they are so zealously preparing, have an ally in the toiling population of Macedonia, which is fighting for unity and independence. A united and autonomous Macedonia (and Thrace) would only serve to strengthen the anti-militarist front. The Balkan Communist parties, by supporting the Macedonian national revolutionary movement, will facilitate this and will extend and strengthen their own struggle against the imperialist bourgeoisie. Their chief task, dependent upon circumstances, will be to find concrete methods of co-operation with the Macedonian mass national organisations. A no less important task is at all costs to defeat the attempts of the bourgeoisie of the Balkan countries, in whatever form they are made, to seize control of the Macedonian national movement, and to exploit it for their own aims of conquest and counter-revolution.

Very much the same part is played by the Thracian question in the relations between Turkey, Bulgaria and Greece; and therefore, a similar attitude on the part of the Balkan Communist Parties is necessary both towards the national liberation movement and towards the national movements in Thrace.

Rumania before the war had a population of eight millions, which since the war has been doubled, and in addition, it has absorbed no less than three million Hungarians, Germans, Russians, Bulgarians, and others living in compact groups in Transylvania, Bukovina, Bessarabia, Dobrudja, etc. As a consequence the national question in Rumania has assumed very acute forms. The bourgeoisie of old Rumania, who like the Serbian bourgeoisie depend upon the support of the court and the army, are trying to establish its hegemony over the annexed provinces. But it is meeting with great resistance in Transylvania, where a stronger and more developed Hungarian capitalism exists; there has there been formed a National Hungarian Party which is striving to embrace the whole of its Hungarian population. In Bessarabia, Rumanian violence is coming into collision with the irrepressible urge of the peasant masses towards Soviet Russia. In Southern Dobrudja the nationalism of the Bulgarian peasants remains unshaken, in spite of the terrorist methods employed by the Bukharest landowners. Thus, the whole political life of the country is strongly influenced by the national struggle. In these circumstances it is obvious that the national question is of great and immediate importance for the Rumanian Communist Party. To neglect it, to attempt to conduct the struggle solely on the basis of class contradictions, would be to deprive oneself of a powerful instrument for gaining influence over the masses and for establishing contacts with them.

The Bessarabian question, like the Macedonian question, conceals within itself the germ of a new war. The refusal of the U.S.S.R. to consent to the seizure of Bessarabia makes the position of the Rumanian landowners in this region very uncertain. In order to retain Bessarabia, they are obliged to expend continually huge sums of the national resources on armaments, and to seek costly patrons and protectors. Yet, in spite of all this, the population is faced with the constant menace of war. To confirm for the population of these regions the right of self-determination would be not only to satisfy Bessarabia, but also to save the whole of Rumania from the frightful menace of fresh upheavals and catastrophes.

The national problem in the Balkans varies considerably.

When the oppressed nations live as foreign minorities distributed among the dominant nations, the national question takes the form of the demand for political and civil equality, cultural and national rights, etc. Owing to the national diversity of the Balkan States, and to secular hostility and intolerance, the question of securing the rights of the national minorities is of first-class importance. All international treaties regarding Balkan affairs are concerned with this question. The Balkan Communist Parties are here presented with a favourable opportunity to come forward as the defender of the oppressed and disfranchised and as a peacemaker between the Balkan nations.

As regards, however, the compact national groups, the question is much more difficult. When these groups are indisputably of a different nationality (the Hungarians in Transylvania, the Bulgarians in Dobrudja, the Albanians in Serbia, etc.), their right to self-determination is indisputable.

But when they are of a different race (the Croatians, Solvenians, Bosnians and Montenegrans in respect to the Serbs) doubt arises. The bourgeois slogan of “national unity,” etc., which serves to conceal the annexatory ambitions of the capitalists, only obscures the question. And it is here more than anywhere else that revolutionary clarity and not bourgeois nationalist pedantry is required.

Where a national movement actually exists and is a mass movement, disputes as to whether the particular national group concerned is a separate nation, or only a separate race of the same nation, have not the slightest practical significance. The group itself must determine to which state it should belong.

Certain national groups strive to be united with states from which they have been violently severed (irridentism), as for instance, the Hungarians in Yugo-Slavia and Rumania with Hungary, the Bulgarians in Dobrudja with Bulgaria, etc.; or they strive to constitute themselves separate states, as for instance, the Macedonians, Montenegrans, etc., or to enter into federal relations with other national groups, as for instance the Croatians, Slovenians and the Bessarabians, are undoubtedly striving to federate with the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics.

The Communist Parties should determine their relations towards these various movements and strivings concretely in each individual case, basing themselves on the right of every nation to self-determination and guiding themselves by the interests of the revolutionary movement of the toiling masses.

The emigrant question in the Balkan States is another phase of the national problem. In the regions where the war was fought, huge sections of the national population (Thrace, Macedonia, etc.), fled before the advancing armies. The Balkan government very often violently drove foreign national populations out of the conquered territories (the Greeks out of Asia Minor, the Bulgarians out of Thrace, etc.). The rule of emergency law in the annexed territories is driving large masses into neighbouring countries (Macedonians are fleeing into Bulgaria, etc.). The Treaty of the Nile provided for the “exchange” of populations between Greece and Bulgaria. A large amount of emigration has thus been created in the Balkan countries, and this naturally reacts upon the national movement in various ways. The emigrants are a tremendous material burden upon the countries in which they settle, and moreover constitute a perpetual source of conflict between the Balkan states. In addition, the bourgeoisie and the dynasties are trying to exploit them as instruments in their policy of annexation and oppression. The Communist Party, by taking the emigrants under their protection and endeavouring to lighten their lot, should strive to save them from the influence of the bourgeoisie and the dynasties and to co-ordinate their struggle with the struggle of the toiling masses.

The methods of the national struggle in the Balkans also vary considerably, from purely legal and parliamentary defence, from semi-legal mass pressure, up to the creation of illegal organisations, insurrections, the organisation of armed uprisings, intervention in foreign states and incitement to war.

Of the social classes participating in the national movement, the most numerous and most important is the peasantry. In Bosnia, Macedonia, Thrace, Bessarabia and Transylvania, the agrarian question plays an important part in the national movement. The proletariat participates in the movement because national oppression is a source of greater exploitation and prevents the development of the class struggle. The large bourgeoisie in certain regions (Croatia, Slovenia and Transylvania) is also nationally minded, since the Serbian and Rumanian bourgeoisie are attempting to subordinate it to their own interests. This diversity of class interests in the national movement still further complicates the work of the Communist Party. It confronts the party with the following tasks: to make a profound study of agrarian relations prevailing in their own country, to estimate the influence of the national oppression upon the development of the class struggle of the workers, and at all costs to snatch the leadership of the struggles of the town and peasant masses out of the hands of the nationalist bourgeoisie.

The Balkan Communist Parties, united in the Balkan Communist Federation, quite rightly regard the solution of the national question to be a Balkan Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. But in order to secure this general aim the most careful and all-embracing study of the complex national problems is demanded, and the most careful attention must be given to all manifestations of the national movement.

The ECCI published the magazine ‘Communist International’ edited by Zinoviev and Karl Radek from 1919 until 1926 irregularly in German, French, Russian, and English. Restarting in 1927 until 1934. Unlike, Inprecorr, CI contained long-form articles by the leading figures of the International as well as proceedings, statements, and notices of the Comintern. No complete run of Communist International is available in English. Both were largely published outside of Soviet territory, with Communist International printed in London, to facilitate distribution and both were major contributors to the Communist press in the U.S. Communist International and Inprecorr are an invaluable English-language source on the history of the Communist International and its sections.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/ci/new_series/v02-n04-jul-aug-1924-new-series-CI-grn-riaz-orig-cov-r2.pdf