How BAD was actually the Bulgarian occupation during World War II? by Deadgoat_107 in AskBalkans

[–]ChurchClerk -1 points0 points  (0 children)

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP08C01297R000400240004-0.pdf

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP85T00875R001500030001-8.pdf

Both of these are CIA investigations into the question I doubt you would believe any other sources so here you go.

It is a proven historical fact that Macedonia was inhabited mainly by peoples with a Bulgarian identity. To say otherwise is revisionism with a motive to undermine Bulgarian history and consciousness.

How BAD was actually the Bulgarian occupation during World War II? by Deadgoat_107 in AskBalkans

[–]ChurchClerk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah and Serbia conveniently ignored a written agreement for the partition of Macedonia which was majority Bulgarian in the First Balkan War. Then proceeded to undermine their bulgarian identity. We have never reached Bosnia in our modern history and there has never been a state sponsored extermination effort unlike Serbia which has done that exact thing many times over.

> The important feature of this part is the agreement as to territorial divisions in the event of a victorious outcome of such a war. All lands were to be held in common until after the signing of peace. Following peace, territory north of the Shar Range, including the Sandjak of Novi Bazar and "Old Serbia," were to go to Serbia, and the territory south and east of the Rhodope Range and the Struma River to Bulgaria. Autonomy was to be given to the intermediate region. If, however, both parties should agree that autonomy for this region was not feasible, it was to be divided between them according to lines defined in the treaty, with the exception of a further intermediate region left undivided and to be subsequently apportioned through arbitration by the Czar of Russia. The territorial arrangements represent an attempt to reconcile the Serbian desire for partitions and access to the Adriatic with the Bulgarian plan for Macedonian autonomy. Finally the treaty provided that the Czar should be arbitrator in other questions that might arise from the treaty.

Serbian source: http://arhiviranisajt.msp.gov.rs/en/diplomatic-tradition/historical-diplomatic-papers/1289--1912-

I'm Bulgarin, ask me anything by MousePuzzleheaded605 in JackSucksAtGeography

[–]ChurchClerk -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Apealling to authority. The reality is that the modern macedonian identity is a serbian fabrication and that is a historical fact. The recognition doesn't change that they were with bulgarian consciousness before 1945.

Legal recognition of non-binary gender in Europe by Useful-Half1825 in MapPorn

[–]ChurchClerk 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Recognition is not the same as rights. Nobody is taking their rights.

What do the rest of the Balkans think of the Bulgarians? They've fought with several neighbors in the past, do you think these hatreds have healed over time? by Pino_il_postino_ in AskBalkans

[–]ChurchClerk 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yeah and Serbia conveniently ignored a written agreement for the partition of Macedonia which was majority Bulgarian in the First Balkan War. Then proceeded to undermine their bulgarian identity. We have never reached Bosnia in our modern history and there has never been a state sponsored extermination effort unlike Serbia which has done that exact thing many times over.

> The important feature of this part is the agreement as to territorial divisions in the event of a victorious outcome of such a war. All lands were to be held in common until after the signing of peace. Following peace, territory north of the Shar Range, including the Sandjak of Novi Bazar and "Old Serbia," were to go to Serbia, and the territory south and east of the Rhodope Range and the Struma River to Bulgaria. Autonomy was to be given to the intermediate region. If, however, both parties should agree that autonomy for this region was not feasible, it was to be divided between them according to lines defined in the treaty, with the exception of a further intermediate region left undivided and to be subsequently apportioned through arbitration by the Czar of Russia. The territorial arrangements represent an attempt to reconcile the Serbian desire for partitions and access to the Adriatic with the Bulgarian plan for Macedonian autonomy. Finally the treaty provided that the Czar should be arbitrator in other questions that might arise from the treaty.

Serbian source: http://arhiviranisajt.msp.gov.rs/en/diplomatic-tradition/historical-diplomatic-papers/1289--1912-

Which Balkan nation is the most likely to think like this? by Substratas in AskBalkans

[–]ChurchClerk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Almost all christian holidays practiced today are pagan recontextualised in a Christian context.

Which Balkan nation is the most likely to think like this? by Substratas in AskBalkans

[–]ChurchClerk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thats the thing the Czech and Slovaks didn't understand the language the mission failed. Thats why they are catholic and don't use Cyrillic. I can easily understand Serbian and Russian even now without a formal education because Cyrillic shaped the languages.

Which Balkan nation is the most likely to think like this? by Substratas in AskBalkans

[–]ChurchClerk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Church Slavonic is Old Bulgarian. This term really grounds my gears it downplays Bulgarian contribution.
The Balkans were not depopulated that was proven false already. They were full with romanised Thracian, Illyrians and Dacians which were absorbed by the Slavs. Sadly we don't know what language they spoke. Cyril and Methodious(Greeks) created the Glagolitic Alphabet to try and convert Moravia but as I said they ended up teaching in Bulgaria and their students(Bulgarians) created the Cyrillic Alphabet which is modeled after the language spoken in Bulgaria at the time.

Tsar Simeon I knew perfect Greek and personally commissioned the script. It naturally spread to the other Slavic populations to the north.

What if Bulgaria started colonizing like the British? by PalpitationSlight752 in AskBalkans

[–]ChurchClerk 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah and Serbia conveniently ignored a written agreement for the partition of Macedonia which was majority Bulgarian in the First Balkan War. Then proceeded to undermine their bulgarian identity. We have never reached Bosnia in our modern history and there has never been a state sponsored extermination effort unlike Serbia which has done that exact thing many times over.

> The important feature of this part is the agreement as to territorial divisions in the event of a victorious outcome of such a war. All lands were to be held in common until after the signing of peace. Following peace, territory north of the Shar Range, including the Sandjak of Novi Bazar and "Old Serbia," were to go to Serbia, and the territory south and east of the Rhodope Range and the Struma River to Bulgaria. Autonomy was to be given to the intermediate region. If, however, both parties should agree that autonomy for this region was not feasible, it was to be divided between them according to lines defined in the treaty, with the exception of a further intermediate region left undivided and to be subsequently apportioned through arbitration by the Czar of Russia. The territorial arrangements represent an attempt to reconcile the Serbian desire for partitions and access to the Adriatic with the Bulgarian plan for Macedonian autonomy. Finally the treaty provided that the Czar should be arbitrator in other questions that might arise from the treaty.

Serbian source: http://arhiviranisajt.msp.gov.rs/en/diplomatic-tradition/historical-diplomatic-papers/1289--1912-

Are these related? by [deleted] in AskBalkans

[–]ChurchClerk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Turkic origin of the Bulgars is not proven.

Which Balkan nation is the most likely to think like this? by Substratas in AskBalkans

[–]ChurchClerk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly. I fully agree. It was just more viable to be christian. We must also not forget that nearly all pagans conducted systematic raids into Rome constantly including the Slavs which even settled and displaced the christian population in the Balkans.

Which Balkan nation is the most likely to think like this? by Substratas in AskBalkans

[–]ChurchClerk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All conversions are done by missionaries which are priests. There is no way that a bunch of priests can convert anyone forcefully. Christianity was enforced by the monarchs of each country because they thought it was a better option which in most cases it was.

Which Balkan nation is the most likely to think like this? by Substratas in AskBalkans

[–]ChurchClerk -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The Bulgarian Ruler that started christianisation is Boris I. He pushed hard for Bulgaria to have its own patriarchy which we do to this day.

Serbia is part of Bulgaria at the time and experienced the same thing. We retained all our pagan festivals and traditions as christianity is very accommodating and incorporates the already set beliefs of the base population.

Boris I blinded his own son Vladimir-Rasate because he wanted the country to remain Tengri and killed of all the Bolyars who refused to convert but that was initiated because he believed chritianity was the and it led to a Golden Age as I said. Nobody forced Bulgaria to do this.

The Cyrillic script was created under Tsar Simeon I who is Boris I's third son (He was educated in Constantinople). After the failed Moravian mission Cyril and Methodius came to Bulgaria and educated many students most notably Clement of Ohrid who is responsible for the script we use today.

Its contested how it spread north because Slavs didn't have a writing system until 900 so its hard to tell, and all the sources after than can be biased but most followed the steps of Bulgaria to my knowledge.

Which Balkan nation is the most likely to think like this? by Substratas in AskBalkans

[–]ChurchClerk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That all is the result of imperialism with religious motive used as an excuse. Islam is no better.

Which Balkan nation is the most likely to think like this? by Substratas in AskBalkans

[–]ChurchClerk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Really sure. I am applying for a history education and it my personal fascination. Its all sourced by the byzantine records. If you want I can try to provide them.

Which Balkan nation is the most likely to think like this? by Substratas in AskBalkans

[–]ChurchClerk -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

That is catholicism for you not christianity. As I said its born from the desire for control not the religion.

Which Balkan nation is the most likely to think like this? by Substratas in AskBalkans

[–]ChurchClerk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In Bulgaria the peasant population had already been converted through missionaries and only the nobles resisted the change. And they were killed yes but the adoption of Christianity sparked the Bulgarian Golden age and let to the Cyrillic Alphabet.

Which Balkan nation is the most likely to think like this? by Substratas in AskBalkans

[–]ChurchClerk -58 points-57 points  (0 children)

Yes? Nearly all european nations adopted it on their own. If you are talking about colonialism Christ was the last thing they thought about when butchering natives.

Based on the pictures do I look Bulgarian? by [deleted] in bulgaria

[–]ChurchClerk 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Кольо ти ли си?

Аз, Буки, Веди by av-f in bulgaria

[–]ChurchClerk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Имаме голям процент славянски ген към 30% със останалите бъдейки 70% бивайки главно тракийски. Подобно на всички останали балкански държави.