Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
for the Greek priests became extremely arduous, since they had been left without
a livelihood. Many of them were forced either to abandon their hearths
and immigrate to the German occupational zone or to look to farming to etch
out a living for themselves and their families. But even those who opted for the
latter faced many restrictions and discriminations. The decree for the mandator
y
naturalization as Bulgarians of all inhabitants in the Bulgarian occupation zone
in Northeastern Greece, which was promulgated in August 1942, included a
chapter with special provisions for priests. According to these, those clergymen
who would accept in future to change their citizenship would also be obliged to
accede to the Bulgarian ecclesiastical schism by recognizing the Bulgarian Exarc
h as their spiritual head and to defect from the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Cons
tantinople otherwise they would be deported to the German-occupied areas. In exc
hange for the defection, they were offered posts as civil servants for the Bulga
rian State with the corresponding rank and salary, including food rationing allo
wances and privileges. In the area of Xanthi it seems that very few Greek priest
s who had remained after the expulsions in masses gave in and
accepted the change in citizenship and acceded to the Bulgarian Church, while in
the area of Serres there were even fewer priests who did so. In contrast, in th
e
region of Kavala even those who had tried to win favor with the Bulgarian
authorities did not escape expulsion.6
According to data published five years after the end of the occupation, the Bulg
arian military and political occupational authorities were held responsible
for 95.7% of the Greek priests who were abused and for 61.1% of the
Greek clerics murdered in Northern Greece. The respective apportionment
attributes to the German and Italian military forces jointly 4.3% of the clerics
abused and 38.8% of the murdered priests.7 We believe that this large dispro-
portion of clerical victims among the occupational forces is one more indication
of the explicit differentiation in their ecclesiastical policy. The target of th
e Bulgarians was to intimidate and terrorize mainly the Greek population in orde
r to transform their national conscience in the distant future, whereas the Germ
ans
and Italians wanted only to impose reprisals and to suppress just to
enforce order in the present.
At the same time when Greek priests were either expelled or exter-
minated, they were being replaced by Bulgarian counterparts, who proved to be
the most ardent supporters of the Bulgarian nationalist propaganda, even from
the pulpit. In the Greek regions that had been annexed, there were no Greek prie
sts available to join the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. However, even those
6 Á. ×ñõóï÷üïõ, Ç Êáôï÷Þ åí Ìáêåäïíßá, vol. 4, Thessaloniki 1951, pp. 26-29, 166-170.
7 Á. Ðáðáåõãåíßïõ, ÌÜñôõñåò êëçñéêïß Ìáêåäïíßáò-ÈñÜêçò. 1941-1945, pp. 10-11, 14-15.
who had been transferred there from Bulgaria were returning to their homeland
as they became disenchanted.8 For this reason many Russian priests, who had soug
ht refuge in Bulgaria after the Russian Revolution of 1917, were appointed.
Bulgarian and Bulgarian-minded priests usually chose the sermon topics from
the national claims of the government in Sofia. Among other things they tried to
praise the just cause of Bulgarian expansionism and to prove that the Macedonian
and Thracian natives were of Bulgarian descent.9 The monthly news-
paper of the Bulgarian Church Spiritual Culture , published in Sofia, moved
along the same propagandistic lines.
The Greek ecclesiastical leadership replied by employing propagandistic
actions to refute the expansionist policy of Sofia at the expense of the Greek
territories. The Metropolitan bishop of Thessaloniki, Gennadios undertook a
campaign to prove that the territorial claims of Bulgaria on Eastern Macedonia
and Western Thrace were without substance.10 This ecclesiastical leader
promoted the official views that the Greek State had formulated to use in its
diplomacy and for propagandistic consumption prior to the Second World War.
His aim was to convince the German occupational authorities quite possibly
even Berlin that injustice was being done to Greeks but also he highlighted the
risks for survival of the Greek population throughout the realm due to the
continued occupation and the possible finalization of the annexation of Eastern
Macedonia and Western Thrace to the Bulgarian state. His arguments, besides
being historical and ethnological, were also economic since these regions
contributed to the total production in Greece by 35%. The loss of these regions
from the Greek realm would constitute further decline in the standard of living
of most Greeks who already prior to the start of the War and the Occupation
were living below the poverty line.
The official protestations of the ecclesiastical leadership were most
intense and remained so even after the change in archbishops. In early June 1941
Archbishop Chryssanthos had lodged a formal protest with the Pleni-
potentiary of the Reich in Greece, Gunther Altenburg regarding the way in
which the Bulgarian occupational forces treated the Greek Church in Nort-
heastern Greece. He denounced their claim that worship be held in the
Bulgarian language and that the Holy Synod of the Church of Bulgaria be commemor
ated in all the Greek Orthodox churches, as well as denouncing the
8 Diplomatic and Historical Archives of Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Greece (
=DHAMFA), Occupational Government 1942-1944, 4 / 2 ( Bulgarian newspapers Zaria
- 30. 11. 1941 and Vecherna Posta - 1. 12. 1941)
9 Áè. É. ×ñõóï÷üïõ, Ç Êáôï÷Þ , op. cit., pp. 170, 251-252.
10 DHAMFA, Occupational Government 1941, 6.
dethronements of the Metropolitans of Sidirokastro and Zichni from their seats.
The imposition of the Bulgarian language, he maintained, was violating law and
the freedom of religious conscience since Bulgarian was completely unknown
to the clergy and the faithful who were all Greek as was their mother tongue. Th
e commemoration of the Bulgarian Holy Synod was entirely contrary to
Canon Law because neither the Bulgarian Church was schismatic and was not
in spiritual communion with any of the other Orthodox Churches nor did it have a
dministrative relations with the Ecumenical Patriarchate.11 The central admi-
nistration of the Greek Church acknowledged that the essence of the matter was
primarily political. That is why at first, even in the matter of the persecution
s
against the Greek Church in the Bulgarian occupational zone, they did not consid
er it to be their responsibility but rather it was a secular matter, namely to be
dealt with by the Greek occupational government in Athens.
In about the middle of August 1941 the new Archbishop, Damaskinos, in official s
tatements praised the ecclesiastical policy of the German authorities
in Northeastern Greece and denounced the respective policy of the Bulgarians.
He continued with the same denunciations as his predecessor, in other words,
the Bulgarians had quite openly begun efforts to adulterate the ethnological
composition and change the national conscience of the population but also to
uproot the Greek Church from the Bulgarian occupational zone. To achieve
their goal the Bulgarians imposed a series of measures of suppression. Among
these measures was the commemoration of the Bulgarian Exarch, the Holy
Synod in Sofia and the Bulgarian Bishops who had been appointed in the
region, the mandatory participation of Bulgarian priests in the liturgies in the
churches, the replacement of Greek inscriptions with Bulgarian ones in all
churches, and the abolition of the licenses issued by the Greek metropolitans fo
r
marriages to be performed. Then, all churches without exception and the
diocesan residences were confiscated and finally, all Greek metropolitans and cl
ergy were expelled. In June 1942 the Archbishop of Athens Damaskinos
stopped denouncing the measures taken by the Bulgarian authorities at the
expense of the Greek Church, not because the ecclesiastical policy of the
conquerors of Northeastern Greece had changed or improved, but because, in his e
stimation, the Greek Church ceased to exist in the regions under Bulgarian
occupation.12
When the Bulgarian occupational forces displaced six metropolitans of
the Greek Church from April until June 1941 from their dioceses, they
incorporated the latter into the Bulgarian Church and appointed hierarchal 11 È. ÓôñÜãêáò,
1972, pp. 2327-2328.
12 HAHS , RoHS, 16. 6. 1942.
wardens for their administration. By the end of the summer of 1942 all churches
and the majority of monasteries had been seized, ecclesiastical property had
been confiscated, and Greek ecclesiastical books had been burned. In all reli-
gious rites the Bulgarian ritual was imposed and the Bulgarian church calendar w
as established, which observed the Julian Calendar13, although the Greek
Church had adhered to the Gregorian Calendar since the 1920s.
When in 1943 the Bulgarian army entered Central Macedonia which
was under the German sphere of administrative responsibility, the Archbishop
of Athens launched an anti-Bulgarian diatribe using arguments based on the histo
rical rivalry and the mutual distrust of the Balkan nationalisms since each
was claiming from the other frontier areas that were inhabited by populations wi
th questionable or vacillating national conscience and mixed national compo-
sition. He warned that Bulgarian provocations were likely to be demonstrated at
the expense of the Greek population, with chain reactions taking the form of con
flicts between the inhabitants and the German authorities and then followed
by retaliation by the latter. He therefore asked the German occupational
authorities to maintain the existing Greek ecclesiastical status and to reject c
ategorically all relevant Bulgarian requests to alter it.
In October of 1943 the Archbishop of Athens, the president of the
Academy of Athens, the rectors of the University and Polytechnic of Athens, the
presidents of the Chambers of Industry, Commerce and Professions and the
General Confederation of Workers in Greece lodged a formal complaint with the Pl
enipotentiaries of Germany and Italy as well as with the representatives of the
International Red Cross. In this protest they denounced the Bulgarian policy of
ethnic cleansing suffered by a population of over seven hundred thousand
Greeks; in Macedonia and Thrace resulting in there being more than 150
thousand refugees. At the same time the representatives of the more significant
institutions of Greek society declared their support and agreement with the
entire policy followed in the previous two years by the ecclesiastical leadershi
p
concerning this major matter of ethnic cleansing that the Bulgarian occupational
forces tried to impose at the expense of the Northeastern Greek population. In
fact, they indirectly declared their intense disapproval of the nerveless reacti
ons of the occupational governments in Athens against the Bulgarian policy in No
rthern Greece. However, they overlooked the fact that the policy of Greek Church
regarding national matters was essentially encouraged by the first two occupati
onal governments until early 1943 since these two believed that the
appeals of the ecclesiastical leadership to the authorities of the occupational
13 Áè. É. ×ñõóï÷üïõ, Ç êáôï÷Þ , op. cit., pp. 29 and 170.
forces were more effective with the conquerors than were the appeals made by the
ir own political associates.14
In any event, the German occupational forces adopted the viewpoint of
the advisor on ecclesiastical matters of the German Foreign Ministry, Eugen
Gerstenmaier, who considered the anti-Bulgarian denunciations by the Greek
ecclesiastical leadership rather exaggerated but basically sound. He even sub-
mitted a proposal to his department that recommendations be made to Berlin s
Bulgarian allies to display, at least regarding ecclesiastical matters, leniency
and
tolerance.15