Talk:Socialist Republic of Macedonia

SRM and RoM

Macedonia was not the smallest federal unit:

• macedonia 25,333 km²
• slovenia 20,273 km²
• montenegro 13,812 km²

check facts before you edit this page

Republic of Macedonia is a legal succesor of Socialist Republic of Macedonia, thats why we say SR Macedonia was the official name of Republic of Macedonia during SFRY.

Saying a "federal unit" is true, but its not good enough. its a wide term. it can mean just an admin region. SRM was far more than that. It was officialy a national state of the ethnic Macedonians, a constituent country/constituent nation similar to Scotland in the UK, Slovakia in the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, Ukrainian SSR in the USSR and so on. Some of the examples may be lousy but anyway, all of them are national countries of their respective ethnic groups. SRM was not just a historical/geographical/administrative territory (like SAP Kosovo, SAP Vojvodina). A Vojvodinian or Kosovian nations didnt exist in Yugoslavia, but Macedonian nation did. Then, I wonder why this sentence was replaced: SRM was the name of today's Republic of Macedonia whilst being a federal state in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Why we cannot claim continuity from SRM to RoM? RoM is a full succesor of SRM in every aspect (ethnic, territorial, linguistical etc.). Its the same country. RoM OFFICIALY claims continuity from ASNOM 1944, not from September 8, 1991 (SR Macedonia=Republic of Macedonia). The creation of the political state in 1944 is one thing, the act of secesion in 1991 is another thing. So, SRM was a state for around 45 years, which one day decided to become independent and to change its political system thus becoming RM. Its the same country. Its not like "some region or whatever one day decided to become a state", it was already a state prior 1991, but not completely independent Zorla 06:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Zorla, Socialist Republic of Macedonia wasn't independent state, it didn't have sovereignty unlike the present Republic of Macedonia. Although there is obvious continuity between these two entities, SRM and RoM, they are of different levels, so this has to be stated clearly in the beginning of the article about SRM. The historical existence of SRM as one of Yugoslav "constituent states" can't be hyperinterpreted as "almost independent state", which tendency is seen in your editings.

Moreover, this is article about SRM, not about RoM, therefore formula such as "The Socialist Republic of Macedonia was the name of today's Republic of Macedonia whilst being a socialist republic and one of the 6 constituent national states of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia..." creates ambiguity and confusion. The point is that the annotation of the article can't start with explanation about who is contemporary legal succesor of that historical entity. The focus has to be put on this historical entity in itself. Greetings, Wickedpedian 07:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, we need the Constitution of SRM. Second, I see you referenced a specific part of that professor's text, I checked the referenced part and I dont see how it contributes to your claims? please point me to some direct quotes. BTW i can be selective as you are and I can reference the Conclusion part only (SRM=RM) right? not nice. we should take the whole text into consideration. Third, Im not "hyperinterpretating" anything. why dont you read the Constitution which you provided yourself? Its says: Федеративна Народна Република Југославија је савезна народна држава републиканског облика, заједница равноправних народа, који су на основу права на самоопредељење, укључујући право на отцепљење, изразили своју вољу да живе заједно у федеративној држави. Федеративну Народну Републику Југославију сачињавају: Народна Република Србија, Народна Република Хрватска, Народна Република Словенија, Народна Република Босна и Херцеговина, Народна Република Македонија и Народна Република Црна Гора. <---what is this if not constitutive states, each one formed on its own (ASNOS, ZAVNOBIH, ASNOM etc.) that formed one union and (formally) had a certain degree of souveregnity (right of self-determination until secesion)? Whats wrong?

And again, federal unit is a wide term. You cannot put SR Macedonia or SR Slovenia in a same basket as lets say the States of Brazil or the US states which are more of a administrative/geographical/ historical/regional type (Brazil is a Federative state also but you cannot equate a Brazilian type of estado to SR Slovenia for example which has the Slovenian national-statehood connotation). Virginia is also a US "federal unit", but you cannot equate it to SRM. SRM has the ethnic Macedonian connotation to it beside all.

Explanation of my (reverted) edits:

• The Socialist Republic of Macedonia(...)was the name of today's Republic of Macedonia[1]

POINT: RoM claims full continuity as a state from 1944 (independent or not independent doesnt matter). For states generaly you have the article state for independent states you have the article independent state.

• whilst being a socialist republic

POINT: the political system was socialist (communism is something else, an utopian classless society). it was not parliamentary democracy, absolute monarchism or theocracy, it was socialist republic. I think its useful to have this i dont know why u removed it.

• And one of the 6 constituent national states of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia[2][3]. The state declared independence on September 8, 1991 and changed its name to Republic of Macedonia.

POINT: the constitution says the Yugoslav narodi (literaly: "peoples") had joined forces by free will to create a common federation. In the yugoslav terminology narodi=constitutive nations (SErbs, Croats, Macedonians etc), while narodnosti=ethnic minorities. Only the narodi could have national states (Republics), while the others were granted cultural authonomy (Albanians-SAP KOsovo, Hungarians, Slovaks, Ruthenians-SAP Vojvodina etc.)

I really dont see whats wrong. After all why dont you check Ukrainian SSR. It doesnt say just "federal unit" but an Ukrainian communist state (Ukrainian- the national component, socialism- the political system component). See also Republics of the Soviet Union. It says constituent republics of the Soviet Union. Why Macedonians are not allowed to refer to SRM as a constituent country of SFRY? Again double standards? Im afraid I smell tendency here Zorla 08:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm tired of your blatant POV. According to its own constitution Yugoslavia (not SRM itself!) was independent sovereign state:

• "Члан 1. Федеративна Народна Република Југославија је савезна народна држава републиканског облика, заједница равноправних народа, који су на основу права на самоопредељење, укључујући право на отцепљење, изразили своју вољу да живе заједно у федеративној држави."

The 6 constituent republics weren't independent sovereign states and the term "држава" (in English namely "state" or "country"!) wasn't used for them. They were called "republics":

• " Члан 2. Федеративну Народну Републику Југославију сачињавају: Народна Република Србија, Народна Република Хрватска, Народна Република Словенија, Народна Република Босна и Херцеговина, Народна Република Македонија и Народна Република Црна Гора. Народна Република Србија има у свом саставу Аутономну покрајину Војводину и Аутономну косовско-метохијску област."

Source: Устав Федеративне Народне Републике Југославије (1946). The conclusion is that the word "republic" in this case didn't mean "independent sovereign state". Zorla, don't use ambiguous formulation and reverced order of explanation. SRM wasn't sovereign state but exactly federal unit of Yugoslavia and the fact of existence of present-day sovereign Republic of Macedonia as its legal successor has to be mentioned in the final of the annotation, not in the beginning. - Wickedpedian 09:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's see what is written in the articles about other former Yugoslav federal units.

• Socialist Republic of Croatia: Socialist Republic of Croatia was the official name of Croatia as a federal unit in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It became part of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia in 1944, then run by Josip Broz Tito's Communist Party of Yugoslavia.

• Socialist Republic of Montenegro: Socialist Republic of Montenegro (Serbo-Croat: Socijalistička republika Crna Gora, Социјалистичка република Црна Гора) or SR Montenegro in short was the official name of Montenegro as a socialist state, a federal unit (constitutive republic) in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

• Socialist Republic of Slovenia: The Socialist Republic of Slovenia was the official name of Slovenia as a federal unit in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, from 1963 until Slovenia gained independence in 1991.

• Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina: Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Serbo-Croat: Socijalistička Republika Bosna i Hercegovina/Социјалистичка Pепублика Босна и Херцеговина) was one of the six republics which composed the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

• Socialist Republic of Serbia: Socialist Republic of Serbia (Serbo-Croatian: Социјалистичка Република Србија, Socijalistička Republika Srbija) was one of the six republics of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Its capital was Belgrade.

Zorla, you must accept that logical pattern of explanation of Yugoslav state structure, used in all other cases, and the term "federal unit". Don't put Macedonian nationalist claims for imaginary pseudo-independence before 1991! - Wickedpedian 09:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment -- If you notice the histories of the various pages, they have all been created/expanded by the same few people, so they all (understandably) follow the same basic pattern. This doesn't necessarily mean that it is the best wording, the best format, the best summary, or the best anything else, just that it's easier to make articles about similar things also be similar, rather than to make each one different. I do, however, agree that consistency is a very useful goal, and to that end, I would suggest that whatever term is deemed the best/most accurate ("federal unit", "constituent state", or whatever else; I have no opinion) be used in all the articles.

And in the meantime, all this bickering and reverting back and forth is silly, and is pushing you both close to breaking WP:3RR, for little to no useful purpose. -Bbik^★ 10:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right, this quarrel is inappropriate. I think the better solution is to cite the exact terms from the Yugoslav Constitutions. In Устав Федеративне Народне Републике Југославије (1946) the term for federal units is "people's republic" (in the meaning of "constituent republic", but not "state", only the whole federal Yugoslavia is defined as "state" or "држава" in Serbo-Croatian), and in Устав Социјалистичке Федеративне Републике Југославије (1963) the term is "socialist republic" (different from "state" in the same meaning as in the Constitution from 1946). I'm afraifd that the Zorla's formula "constituent national states" is ambiguous and leads to confusion about the difference between "(sovereign) state" and "(constituent) people's/socialist republic" in this particular case. Greetings, Wickedpedian 16:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the debate is appropriate, since Wickedpedian is obviously very confused or I may say tendencious in his or her interpretation of the ex-yu constitution. Im absolutely sure he or she has a personal problem with the Macedonian statehood, considering the fact that he or she is often involved in a blatant pov pushing specificaly in the Macedonian articles.
He or she says something like:

• "republic, not a state". Well, Republic is a state that is not led by a hereditary monarch.
• Then, Wickedpedian mentions a difference between "a (sovereign) state" and "(constituent) people's/socialist republic". Of course there is a difference between a souvereign and constituent, so what? That does not deny SRM's statehood. Dependent or independent, who cares, its a state. When you call an entity "republic" that means that is not a municipality, a district or a geographic or administrative region, but a state. France, Italy, Bulgaria, Greece are all republics, as Ukrainian SSR, SR Slovenia or Virginia are also republics- states.

And more: the terms socialist republic or people's republic both mean a state. A non-monarchical state with a socialist/communist political system. Dependent or independent, again, who cares. Let me remind you Wickedpedian that your motherland People's Republic of Bulgaria was also a people's republic but it was a souvereign state unlike lets say the Slovak Socialist Republic. The adjective "people's" or "socialist" does not imply that an entity is or is not independent, its just an information about the political system. But, it also an information that the particular entity is a state.
Speaking of the other ex-yu rep artcles, not all of them are sourced properly so you cant represent them as a sort of role-model. To make them good articles, the respective constitutions of each of the republics are needed, and more. And then dont forget one more important thing: the yugoslav constitution(s) both federal and for each republic went through several severe changes during the half century of sfry's existence, you cannot just quote what has been said in 1946(!) and consider your homework done. GreetingsU prolazu 13:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Second Yugoslavia was 'born' in 1943 on AVNOJ so you should check the wording in the documents from that period. Start of the document says: With the basis of the right of any nation on self-determination, including the right of secession from and unification with other nations ...we accept this decree... and quoting from the AVNOJ page (with a little additional translation from the document on that page): The resolutions of the second AVNOJ conference were: - to create a federal Yugoslavia, based on the right of self-determination, in which the Serbs, Croats, Slovenians, Macedonians, and Montenegrins and the peoples of Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Bosnia and Hercegovina, were planned to live in constituent republics with equal rights.... It follows that all the republics of the ex-Yu were constituent states - they were considered independent - souvereign - states which united together in the federation and within that union they retained the right for secession, which was the legal instrument Slovenia used when seceding from Yugoslavia. This legal instrument remained in all of the subsequent constitusions of Yugoslavia. Secondly: all people Yugoslavia firstly had the citisenship of the apropriate republic, Slovene, Croatian, ..., and only then citizenship of Yugoslavia. That is why in Slovenia we have this problem of the erased, the people living in Slovenia which had citizenship of other republics (economic migration), who were after the secession required to apply for the Slovene citizenship or register as a foreign citizen, working in Slovenia. Some didn't do that and the then government made a mistake, erasing them from all state registries regarding social and other rights (pension plans, etc...), instead of changing their status to foreigner automatically. All this evidently shows that each republic, and of course also Macedonia was a souvereign state within federation. I don't think one can compare the republics of Yugoslavia (and Czechoslovakia and USSR) with the administrative units of for instance UK or USA. The most appropriate comparison would be the today EU, which is volontary union of independent states, where each has a legal right to seceed at any given moment. NikNovi (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Surpringly little content

Before going into naming issues, a more important problem is obvious in this article: You read it all and you virtually take nothing other than it is the predecessor of FYR Macedonia. Is that reallhy the best possible? Aren't there sources on it? What was going on in it from the 40s till the 90s. --Leladax (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

SR Bosnia and Herzegovina, SR Slovenia and SR Montenegro have the same problems. Most of the Yugoslav editors aren't active any more, or are too busy with petty ethnic disputes. BalkanFever 10:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of Yugoslavia or Kingdom of Bulgaria?

Which country did precede the Socialist Republic of Macedonia till September 1944? Hitler ordered the invasion of Yugoslavia on 6 April 1941 and on 17 April, the weak Yugoslav Army capitulated. The Yugoslav government surrendered. The Bulgarians occupied much of what is today the Republic of Macedonia as well as parts of Southern Serbia and Northern Greece. It officially annexed the occupied areas, which had long been a target of Bulgarian nationalism on 14 May 1941. Bulgaria ordered its troops to prepare for withdrawal from former Yugoslavia and on 8 September 1944, when the Bulgarians changed sides and joined the Soviet Union. Jingiby (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Anthem of the Republic of Macedonia (Instrumental).ogg

File:Anthem of the Republic of Macedonia (Instrumental).ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Socialist Republic of Macedonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080125143657/http://www.mia.com.mk/portal/page?_pageid=113,160569&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&prikaz=22&VestID=18237491 to http://www.mia.com.mk/portal/page?_pageid=113,160569&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&prikaz=22&VestID=18237491
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081116045739/http://www.mfa.gov.mk/default1.aspx?ItemID=301 to http://www.mfa.gov.mk/default1.aspx?ItemID=301
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010221106/http://www.morm.gov.mk:8080/morm/en/ARM/History/History4.html to http://www.morm.gov.mk:8080/morm/en/ARM/History/History4.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120630064900/http://www.pf.ukim.edu.mk/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=0&tabid=213 to http://www.pf.ukim.edu.mk/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=0&tabid=213

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

That break-up republic of Yugoslavia, should not be associated with the term "Macedonia" in any way.

Associating, or informally recognizing this break-up republic of old Yugoslavia, at any level and in any syntax of a name with the word "Macedonia" is an embarrassing anachronism, which Wikipedia at least, should have no interest to perpetuate, or support. Supporting such association, as the page in reference reveals, implies that people who live in that territory, are somehow or in part descendants of ancient Macedonia of King Philippe and Alexander the Great, a claim that is quite nebulous, at best. The majority of the people who live in this break-up republic (the result of the break-up of Yugoslavia) are of Slavic descent, a race that appeared in the Balkan peninsula eons later than the ancient Macedonians of King Philippe, and Alexander the Great. And, as far as the real, current-date Greeks that do live in the province of Macedonia-Greece are concerned, the mere utter of the word Macedonia in any name such as "Socialist Republic of Macedonia" or "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or even "Old MacDonald Had a Farm, Macedonia, Eeeiaieeeaiooo" creates EXTREME SOCIAL UNREST AND UPHEAVAL within the Greeks of Northern Greece, who live in the Province of Macedonia, AND SPEAK THE GREEK LANGUAGE (for example, see: <ref>http://www.stoxos.gr/2017/11/blog-post_249.html). In addition, the mere mention in the Wikipedia page with the title "Socialist Republic of Macedonia" contributes to the already tense relations between the two neighboring countries of Greece, and Turkey (see: http://voiceofmacedonia.blogspot.com/2018/02/blog-post_66.html). Therefore, if Wikipedia wants to perpetuate this historical error, as well as further intensify the relations of Greece with its neighbors, then by all means, let Wikipedia support this lie, that the peoples living in this, basically unnamed break-up republic from the old Yugoslavia, are somehow related or associated, with the name "Macedonia." Please, don't do it. Please take down the page, with title "Socialist Republic of Macedonia." The only peoples who call themselves that, are the peoples who live in that territory. It would be like Quebec, for example, calling themselves "Former Canadian Republic of New York" if Canada broke up. Though, in the case of Macedonia, the error is even more severe, based on known historical records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.9.207 (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Please no agenda pushing

The text under the first image was a complete misrepresentation of reality. WW2 monuments everywhere around the world are NOT communist propaganda. The Macedonian Partisans were mostly non-communists, only 20% of them were associated with the CPM. In Macedonia today they are celebrated and honored even by anti-communist anti-fascists. Also, the text under the picture of the Kolishevski monument included mentions of his anti-Bulgarian line, which although correct, does not belong under that image on this specific article. Blesingri (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Typo

A typo error, It’s actually Vardar Banovina. Please rename it from Vardar Macedonia which is not the official name it is a nick name. And it’s not in the info box as the predecessor state

Where is says “Vardar Macedonia was de facto liberated from the Germans and their collaborationists in late November 1944, so the ASNOM became operational in December, shortly after the German retreat. Nevertheless, in December anti-communist Albanian nationalists in Western Macedonia tried to remain in control of the region after the Yugoslav Partisans announced victory.[14] They aimed to resist incorporation of the area into communist Yugoslavia and it was only in early 1945 that the Yugoslav Partisans were able to establish their control over the mountainous area.”

Antiquisation

Hi, there is a separate article called Antiquisation on Wikipedia, concerning this issue. Macedonian antiquization is regarded as a rather young phenomenon that developed its full potential for political mobilization in the early 2000s, as a substantial element of the political agenda of the then ruling party VMRO-DPMNE. Some see the background of antiquization in the nineteenth and early twentieth century and the “myth of ancient descent among Orthodox Slavic speakers in Macedonia, adopted partially due to Greek cultural inputs. However there was not such process in SR Macedonia at all. After the Second World War, Macedonian and Serbian scholars usually defined the ancient local tribes in the area of the Central Balkans as Daco-Moesian. The leading research goal in the SR Macedonia during Yugoslav times was to prove the establishment of some kind of Paionian identity and to separate it from the western "Illyrian" and the eastern "Thracian" entities. The idea of Paionian identity was constructed to conceptualize that Vardar Macedonia was neither Illyrian nor Thracian, favouring a more complex division, contrary to scientific claims about strict Thraco-Illyrian Balkan separation in neighbouring Bulgaria and Albania. Yugoslav Macedonian historiography argued also that the plausible link between the Slav Macedonians and their ancient namesakes was, at best, accidental. Jingiby (talk) 08:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes i understand thank you for the info but what i was trying to say is that how Vardar Banovina switched its name to Macedonia if you know what i mean.Bradley 789 (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Bradley 789, more info on your question about the name issue, you can find here: North Macedonia. Names and etymology. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 08:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Currency

The quote provided from the first source for the assertion "Yugoslav dinar (1945-1992)" is: "In April 1945 war - time and pre - war currencies were called in and replaced by a new dinar with an exchange rate of one new to ten old dinars." The old dinar is likely still referring to the Yugoslav dinar of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Thus, it does not support that the dinar only began to be used in 1945, just that the new dinar became used in 1945. The second source for this assertion states that the Yugoslav dinar was legal in Macedonia until 1993, however SR Macedonia ceased to exist in 1991 so the termination year should be given as 1991 (not 1992).

The quote provided from the second source for the assertion "Bulgarian lev (1944-1945)" does not support that the lev was in circulation after the liberation of Skopje, just an unrelated fact that Macedonian authorities refused to hand over funds to Bulgaria. The third source supports that Bulgarian currency was in circulation during occupation only. --Local hero ^talk 19:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it's about some absolute misunderstanding or just a blind bias. There is not a single piece of evidence that, until April 1945, a currency other than the Bulgarian lev circulated in Vardar Macedonia. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to address the points above. It's not a major content issue but I'm not comfortable leaving a claim up that isn't appropriately backed up. --Local hero ^talk 03:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)