Taisiya Belyakova

Constructing National Identity in the Socialist Yugoslavia and the Issue of Macedonian Church

Taisiya Belyakova - Graduate Student at Gutenberg-University in Mainz; Fellow at the Institute for European History (Mainz, Germany). belta88@list.ru

The article focuses on the influence of the religious factor on the national identity in the post-war Yugoslavia. The main attention is paid to the state policy of supporting some religious institutions with an aim to affect the national question. The other aspect of research is the representation of the religious policy in the context of national memory as reflected in historiography. As a case study the article examines the issue of separation of Macedonian Orthodox Church and proclamation of its autocephaly from the Serbian Orthodox Church in the context of forming the socialist Yugoslavian society and Cold War discourse.

Keywords: national identity, Yugoslavia, autocephaly, Macedonian Orthodox Church, Serbian Orthodox Church, Josip Broz Tito, national question.

In RECENT decades, there has been an unprecedented interest in studying the phenomenon of "Balkan religions" and nationalism in connection with the civil war that accompanied the breakup of Yugoslavia.1
The study was prepared within the framework of the Fundamental Research Program of the Russian Academy of Sciences "Nations and the State in World History "project" Religion and constructs of national Identity in Eastern Europe in the XX century".

1. On the perception of the Balkans in the Western press through the prism of nationalism after the events of the 1990s, see Hatzopoulos, P. (2008) Balkans beyond Nationalism and Identity.

page 62
The State of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia was proclaimed on November 29, 1945. The tasks of the de facto head of state Josip Broz Tito (who served as the country's president until his death on May 4, 1980) were to overcome the split in society caused by the horrific events of World War II, implement the course of "state atheism" and "the final solution of the national question" on the Soviet model. It was precisely the absence of interethnic contradictions in a single Yugoslav nation that was an ideologically important achievement of socialist Yugoslavia, used both in internal and external propaganda. The divergence of ideology from reality was most clearly manifested during the breakup of Yugoslavia, which was accompanied by military operations and a de facto civil war with the active use of religious and national rhetoric.

In the national policy of socialist Yugoslavia, there was a fundamental discrepancy between the socialist Marxist doctrine of nations and religion, which underlies the legal framework of the state, and the atheist and "internationalist" theories borrowed from the USSR in the first post-war years, 2 and the real situation in the country. This contradiction is one of the fundamental problems in the study of the role of the religious factor in the national policy of Yugoslavia. The article is supposed to focus on the issue of support for individual religious and national groups

International Relations and Ideologym pp. 41 - 69. London; Velikonja, M. (2003) Religious Separation and Political Intolerance in Bosnia Herzegovina. Texas; Gallagher, T. (2005) The Balkans in the New Millenium. In the Shadow of War and Peace. New York. For a complete bibliography of studies on the national question in socialist Yugoslavia, see: Milinkovic, B. (1992) Bibliografija radova o nacionalnom pitanju i medunacionalnim odnosima. Zagreb. For a study of the religious aspect of the national question, see Ibid., pp. 69-78. For a bibliography of studies on the religious situation in Yugoslavia, see: Mojzes, R. (1987) Church and State in Postwar Eastern Europe. A Bibliographical Survey, pp. 81 - 85. New York: Greenwood Press.

2. The Yugoslav politician and later dissident Milan Djilas wrote about the Yugoslav Communists ' adherence to the Soviet model in everything. From his point of view, the CPYU was "not only ideologically united, like the Soviet one, but also loyal to the Soviet leadership, which was one of its main creative elements <...> This deification of Stalin's personality and unconditional acceptance of everything that happened in the Soviet Union took on irrational forms and scales. Any action of the Soviet government - for example, an attack on Finland, everything negative in the Soviet Union, for example, judicial reprisals and purges-was justified in Yugoslavia " (Djilas M. The Face of totalitarianism, Moscow, 1992, pp. 15-16).

page 63
Tito's government. First of all, the "Macedonian issue" will be considered. The study presents the historiographical discourse as a reflection of public reaction to state policy towards religious leaders and the church in general, taking into account that this state policy, in turn, was the basis for dissident reaction in the diaspora. At the same time, the author analyzes the role of the religious factor in the constructs of national identity: the common Yugoslav identity as the main goal of the CPY's national policy, and the identities of individual nations in the formation of the ideology of self-governing socialism in Yugoslavia.

When studying the issue of national identity, it is also necessary to take into account the peculiarities of communist ideology, which implies the substitution of historical memory for ideology. One of the directions of Tito's ideological policy was to overcome conflicts in the collective memory of the Second World War, which threatened the possibility of coexistence in a single state of peoples who fought against each other. In accordance with the new ideology, the memory of the war was to be reduced to the image of a joint heroic confrontation with an external threat (most fully embodied in the form of a partisan movement). At the same time, in the emigrant dissident environment, there was a different process of interpreting history in the context of historically justified interethnic confrontation.3
National and religious policy in the post-war period

The main ideological task of the post-war period was the unification of peoples and republics, overcoming the consequences of the world and civil war on the territory of Yugoslavia. The creation of a new socialist state presupposed the formation of a national identity construct - the "New Yugoslavia" and the Yugoslavs. This identity was no longer to be associated with the Yugoslavian peoples or with the historical past.

3. On the split historical memory in the case of Croats, see, for example, Biondich, M. (2006) "We Were Defending the State: Nationalism, Myth and Memory in Twentieth-Century Croatia", in Ideologies and National Identities, pp. 66-70. Budapest; Mojzes, P. (1994) Yugoslavian Inferno. Ethnoreligious Warfare in the Balkans, p. 154. New York.

page 64
Due to the fact of the existence of a unified state of Yugoslavia in the interwar period, it should have been based on the idea of a consciously chosen socialist path.4
The main vector of state development in the post-war period in economic, national and religious policy was following the Soviet model of building a socialist society5. In the sphere of religion, this meant persecution of the church and clergy, expropriation of church property, closure of religious institutions, and atheist propaganda. An additional factor contributing to the hostility towards churches was the direct involvement of clergy in the events of the civil war and occupation of Yugoslavia. We can agree with the position of the American researcher P. Moises, according to which during the Second World War the high status of religion in society was lost not only because of the great material and human losses of churches, but also because of the moral and civil damage caused to their reputation by the actions of church representatives.6
The program of the Union of Communists of Yugoslavia formulated the following vision of the national question: "Yugoslav socialist patriotism does not oppose itself, but, on the contrary, is a necessary internationalist complement to the democratic national consciousness in the conditions of a socialist community of peoples. It is not a question of creating a new "Yugoslav nation" in place of the existing nations, but of the natural growth and strengthening of the socialist community of producers, that is, of all workers from all the peoples of Yugoslavia, and of securing their interests on the basis of

4. Jovic, D. (2006) "Communist Yugoslavia and Its 'Others'", in J. R. Lampe and M.Mazower (eds) Ideologies and National Identities, p. 281, 291. Budapest.

5. According to I. B. Tito, " the CPYU saw the Soviet Union, as the first country of socialism,as a pillar and model."..> in the creation of an equal community of our peoples <...> in the direction of creating a united and truly united socialist Yugoslavia with a properly resolved national question" [italics-T. B.] (Tito B. I. Selected articles and Speeches, Moscow, 1973, pp. 38, 40).

6. Mojzes, P. (1992) Religious Liberty in Eastern Europe and the USSR. Before and After the Great Transformation, p. 342. New York; Slijepcevic, D. (2002) Istorija Srpske Pravoslavne Crkve, 2, s. 50. Beograd; Buchenau, K. (2003) "Was ist nur falsch gelaufen? Uberlegungen zum Kirche-Staat-Verhaltnis im sozialistischen Jugoslawien", Lehmann, H., Schjorring, J. H. (eds) Im Raderwerk des "real existierenden Sozialismus". Kirchen in Ostmittel- und Osteuropa von Stalin bis Gorbatschow, s. 111. Gottingen: Wallstein Verlag.

page 65
socialist relations"7.The special character of the Yugoslav identity was emphasized, among other things, by contrasting it with the negative image of the "other": the concept of interwar "bourgeois" Yugoslavism, to which all the negative features of enslavement and oppression were attributed, as well as nationalism. 8 In turn, the religious factor, from the point of view of the communist leaders, played an important role in the favorable resolution of the national question in socialist Yugoslavia. Orthodoxy in this context was perceived as an example of a "national religion" 9, while Catholicism was feared as a threat to the Vatican's growing influence 10.

However, at the same time, the policy towards the Serbian Orthodox Church (SPC) was often carried out and perceived as a continuation of the program of struggle against Serbian great-power chauvinism. It should be noted that the struggle against "Great Serbian hegemonism" was an integral part of the missile defense system-

7. Petranovic, B., Zecevic, M. (eds) (1988) Jugoslavia 1918 - 1988. Tematska zbirka dokumenata, s. 1074 - 1075 (iz programa SKJ, apr. 1958). Beograd.

8. This position is clearly stated in the speech of Josip Broz Tito: "In the old Yugoslavia, national oppression by the Great Serbian capitalist clique meant increased economic enslavement of the oppressed peoples... For more than 20 years our peoples have lived in conditions of inequality, and for more than 20 years the leaders have tried to achieve their unity, but not the unity of the peoples. For more than 20 years, it was written in the bourgeois press that the Yugoslavs had achieved their unity, but in reality national discord was growing more and more precisely because of national oppression and inequality, because of economic enslavement, etc. " See: Broz Tito I. Selected articles and Speeches, Moscow, 1973, p. 596.

9. As an example, it is worth quoting from Tito's assessment of the activities of Serbian Patriarch Gabriel: "As a positive point, it is worth highlighting that he shows himself as a patriot and that as a Yugoslav, he feels responsible for improving the state, that he understands that the church should be national in the Yugoslavian, or rather Slavic sense. This means that it will not, unlike others, serve non-national interests" (Religionsfreiheit in der FVR Jugoslawien. Dokumenten. Belgrad, st. 18 - 19; Slijepcevic, D. (2002) Istorija Srpske Pravoslavne Crkve, t. 3, p. 38. Beograd).

10. Thus, after the end of the war, there was a political project, supported by a part of the highest Catholic clergy in both Slovenia and Croatia, to create an "autocephalous" Catholic Church in Yugoslavia, which would allow breaking ties with the Vatican, and the authorities to get a more manageable clergy, which would be completely dependent on party politics and Tito personally (Ramet, S. P. (2011) Die drei Jugoslawien. Eine Geschichte der Staatsbildungen und ihrer Probleme, s. 235. Munchen; Benigar, A. (1974) Alojzije Stepinac, Hrvatski Kardinal, s. 639. Rim; Perica, V. (2002) Balkan Idols: Religion and Nationalism in Yugoslav States, p. 27. Oxford). One of the most active supporters of secession from the Vatican among the clergy was, for example, the Slovenian partisan priest Metod Mikuj, who campaigned for the creation of an independent Slovenian Catholic Church.

page 66
programs of the activity of the Comintern in the interwar period. The course towards the collapse of royal Yugoslavia corresponded to the goal of inciting a world revolution and was to be carried out, among other things, by strengthening separatist sentiments among small nations. 11 Most of the Comintern's funds were allocated specifically to support the Yugoslav Communists.12 Despite the pronounced national rhetoric and pro-Serbian position, the role of the Comintern and Communists in the interwar period in royal Yugoslavia is quite accurately recorded in Veselin Djuretic's book13. Whereas the researcher P. Hatzopoulos, when assessing the activities of the communist movement in the interwar period, did not pay any attention to the documents of the Comintern, which directly indicate the methods of the collapse of the "bourgeois empire"14.

Against the background of the secret participation of the Comintern, "separatist" tendencies developed in Montenegro and Macedonia, which sought to achieve ecclesiastical independence from the Orthodox Church in order to increase their national status in a multi-ethnic state. The clergy did not disdain to appeal to secular legislation and did not disdain the help of party activists to achieve their own goals. Serbian church historian Sliepcevic (and other researchers with him) claims that behind all these attempts to separate Montenegro and Macedonia from the SECTS

11. From the resolution of the Comintern: "The Communist Party of Yugoslavia must make the national question the starting point of all subsequent actions of the party, since it is precisely national conflicts that create a favorable ground for the revolutionary movement. Not to relegate national conflicts to the background, not to obscure them, but, on the contrary, to emphasize and aggravate them, to transfer them to class soil <...> by means of agitation and propaganda" (The national question in the Balkans through the prism of the world revolution: In the documents of the central Russian archives of the early mid-1920s. Grishina R. P. Part 1, Moscow, 2000. pp. 175-176, 160).

12. The Comintern and the idea of World Revolution. Dokumenty [Documents], Moscow, 1998, pp. 150, 143, 170. On the support of individual national parties by the Comintern in the Kingdom of CXC, see, for example, the collection of documents: Grishina R. P. (ed.) The National Question in the Balkans through the prism of the World Revolution. pp. 249, 175-176, 164; Spivakovsky E. N., Gruzdeva V. P. III Congress of the Comintern and the Communist Movement in Bulgaria Romania and Yugoslavia // The Third Congress of the Comintern. Moscow: Politizdat Publ., 1975, pp. 565, 618.

13. V. Djuretich The collapse of Yugoslavia in the XX century (the main trends of 1918-2003). Moscow, 2003.

14. Hatzopoulos, P. (2008) Balkans beyond Nationalism and Identity. International Relations and Ideology. London.

page 67
the Communist Party of Yugoslavia stood 15. At the same time, Sliepcevic emphasizes that these processes, although they were separatist in nature, still corresponded to the line of national policy of the CPY, which recognized Montenegrins and Macedonians as separate nations, as well as the federal policy implemented on the territory of Yugoslavia.16
Already in the first post-war years, the question of the status and jurisdiction of Montenegro and Macedonia arose. The general course of the new Yugoslavia towards federalism and opposition to the "old Yugoslavia" caused the desire of the Orthodox clergy to seek a special status in the republics of Yugoslavia and in the composition of the SOC. In 1945, the clergy of Montenegro adopted a resolution on the need to demand such an organization of the Orthodox Church in Yugoslavia in order to guarantee equal rights for all Orthodox people, regardless of their nationality. The clergy demanded the creation of the Union of Orthodox Priests of Yugoslavia, 17 which would "take the initiative to set up a Central Priestly Committee with the aim of urgently regulating the status of the Orthodox Church in our country and relations between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and our Orthodox Church, since this was not done by the current Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church and since such a position of the Holy Synod does not meet the interests of the people and The Holy Church, through which no great Serbian chauvinist ideas can be realized " 18.

Such resolutions reflect the fact that local clergy were dissatisfied with the policy and reputation of the Russian Orthodox Church both before the Second World War and during the war years. Unwillingness of higher Serbian authorities

15. Sliepcevic suggests considering the Macedonian ecclesiastical question "in the context of the systematic escalation of anti-Serbian psychosis in Yugoslavia", which was supplemented by "dreams of a special Macedonian nation" (Sliepcevic B. Makedonsko crkveno pitanje. Minchen, 1969, p. 11).

16. Slijepcevic, D. Istorija srpske pravoslavne crkve, t. 3, s. 92.

17. The idea of priestly unions existed in the Serbian Orthodox Church and other Orthodox churches as early as the 19th century. The first one was founded in 1889 during the conflict between the Serbian government and the episcopate, initiated "from below" by the clergy, who sought the spiritual revival of the church, strengthening its moral influence on the population. Despite the fact that some bishops supported this union, it was created primarily by the lower clergy as a protest against the policies of church hierarchs (Alexander, S. (1979) Church and State in Yugoslavia since 1945, p. 187. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

18. Glasnik SPC, broj 9 od 1. X (18. IX) 1945, str. 85 - 86.

page 68
The very uncertainty of the situation in the Orthodox Church due to the fact that Patriarch Gabriel and part of the episcopate were abroad during the war and did not seek to return to the "partisan" state contributed to the fact that the clergy preferred to negotiate directly with the authorities who were ready for a dialogue within the framework of politics federalism and equal rights of peoples in socialist Yugoslavia.

Local authorities ' support for national initiatives in Yugoslavia is usually described in historiography as a policy of maneuvering the Communist Party between national interests. The special role of the Communist partisans in the liberation of Yugoslavia was intended to give the Tito regime the character of "all-people", and the support of small peoples in the federation also contributed to the popularity of the new socialist Yugoslavia. Attempts by local clergy to strengthen their "national" status were in many ways a way to establish direct contact with the authorities, and this was seen as the only chance to maintain at least some influence on the life of society. 19
Orthodox Church in Macedonia

The question of the proclamation of an autocephalous Macedonian Orthodox Church is considered in historiography most often in the context of the history of local churches. In studies of the history of the Serbian Orthodox Church, this episode is characterized as schism, a non-canonical separation from the Serbian Patriarchate. Formally, Belgrade still does not recognize the autocephalous MPC. In studies of the history of Church and State in socialist Yugoslavia, special attention is paid to the episode of the split of the Orthodox Church and the separation of the Macedonian Church. One of the key works on this topic, "The State and the Church in Yugoslavia since 1945" (Church and State in Yugoslavia since 1945) by the British researcher Stella Alexander, published in the 1970s, examines the question of the status of the Macedonian Diocese since 1945 in the context of relations between the Orthodox Church and the socialist state. The author often refers to the research of a Serbian emigrant church historian

19. См., например, Alexander, S. Church and State in Yugoslavia since 1945, pp. 258 - 259.

page 69
Sliepcevic 20. The position of Sliepčević, who published his works in West Germany at the expense of Serbian emigrants in Australia, is as follows: the creation of the MPC is a political action, the result of the national policy of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and personally I. B. Tito, who followed the line of the Comintern and was personally interested in implementing the "anti-Serbian" policy 21. Accordingly, the existence of the Macedonian nation and the Macedonian Church on the territory of Yugoslavia is based on historical myths fabricated by the Communists.22 Stella Alexander wrote that already in the 1940s, the main position, widely spread among the Orthodox Church of Macedonia, but publicly expressed only in the Diaspora, was that the Macedonian Orthodox Church is simply a product created by the communist government.23 Among the latest works in this area, we can mention the article by Serbian researchers M. Nikolic and D. Dmitrievich 24. It fully shares the classic Serbian concept that the creation of an autocephalous MOC and the split of the SOC were imposed by the Communist Party, which shared the "secular (non-ecclesiastical) principle that every nation should have its own church". The second thesis of the article proves the participation of the Roman Catholic Church in the Macedonian issue and its support for the self-proclaimed autocephalous MOC. At the same time, contacts with the Macedonian clergy are presented, despite the condemnation of the schism by Catholic bishops, as an anti-Serbian policy of the Vatican.25
In turn, Macedonian historiography examines the history of the MOC in the context of historical continuity with the medieval Archdiocese of Ohrid, and also justifies from a historical point of view the claims of the Macedonian people to the national church, which includes ecclesiastical autocephaly, the national hierarchy and clergy, as well as the introduction of the Macedonian language into worship and church practice.-

20. Slijepcivih B. Pytanje Makedonske pravoslavie crkve u Jugoslaviji [Nutrition of the Macedonian Orthodox Church]. Munchen, 1959; Slijepcivih B. Makedonsko crkveno pitanje. Minchen, 1969. p. 105.

21. Slijepcivih B. Makedonsko crkveno pitanje. pp. 15-41.

22. Ibid., pp. 9-13, 89-105.

23. Alexander, S. Church and State in Yugoslavia.

24. Nikolic, M., Dimitrijevic, D. (2013) "'Macedonian Orthodox Church (MOC)' in Former Yugoslav State", The Politics and Religion Journal 7 (1): 193 - 215.

25. Ibid., pp. 203 - 209.

page 70
tick box. At the same time, any claims made primarily by the Russian Orthodox Church about the uncanonicity of the actions of the Macedonian clergy and the refusal to recognize autocephaly are considered as a manifestation of Serbian nationalism, while arguments about the baselessness of secular claims and the construction of the Macedonian nation by communists are ignored.26
The problem of jurisdiction of the territories of the modern independent state of Macedonia is rooted in the history of relations between the Byzantines and neighboring Slavic peoples, and is primarily related to the history of the medieval Archdiocese of Ohrid27. Since 1870, Ohrid was subject to the Bulgarian Exarchate, and after the First World War, it became part of the greatly expanded jurisdiction of the Serbian Orthodox Church due to new political borders in the Balkans and creation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. At the beginning of World War II, the Serbian episcopate and clergy left Macedonia and were replaced by Bulgarian clergy for the duration of the occupation. 28 Therefore, the jurisdictional claims of the Serbian and Bulgarian clergy to Macedonia were often based on an ideologized interpretation of historical events.29
26. См., например: Илиевски Д. Смислата на некои отпори против автокефалиjата на Македонската православна црква. Scopijie: Institut za nationalna istoriya, 1970. Among the latest articles, the following should be mentioned, of course, of an apologetic nature: Cepreganov, T. Shashko, Ph. (2010)" The Macedonian Orthodox Church", in Leustean, L. N. (ed.) Eastern Christianity and the Cold War, pp. 173-188. London: Routledge.

27. For the most detailed study on the history of the Archdiocese of Ohrid, see I. Snegarov. History of the Ohridskata Archdiocese, in 2 volumes (from foundation to liquidation in 1767). Sofia: Academic Publishing House of Prof. Marin Drinov, 1995. Also for the history of the Archdiocese in the Middle Ages and Modern times, see: Gelzer, N. (1902) Der Patriarchat von Achrida. Geschichte und Urkunden. Leipzig; Podskalsky, G. (1997) "Zwei Erzbischofe von Achrida (Ochrid) und ihre Bedeutung fur die Profan-und Kirchengeschichte Mazedoniens: Theophylaktos und Demetrios Chomatenos", in La spiritualite de I'uniuers byzantin dans le uerbe et l'image (Festschrift fur E.Voordeckers). Turnhout; Dopmann, H. -D. (2006) Kirche in Bulgarien von den Anfangen bis zur Gegenwart. Munchen: Biblion-Verlag, etc. Ohrid was first mentioned as the episcopal center of the Bulgarian Church at the Fourth Ecumenical Council in 879-880. See Prinzing, G. (1993)" Ohrid", Lexikon des Mittelalters 6: 1376-1380.

28. Cepreganov, T. Shashko, Ph. (2010) "The Macedonian Orthodox Church", pp. 173 - 188.

29. The decision of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church of 22 September 1945 stated that the dioceses of Skopje, Zletovo-Strumica (Stip) and Ohrid-Bitola in the territory of the Republic of Macedonia were part of the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Orthodox population was under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church "not only since 1920, when these dioceses, in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia,

page 71
The question of national self-determination of Macedonian residents was most acute during the 20th century. It also played a special role in the history of the socialist movement in the Balkans during the interwar period.30 The Bulgarian occupation during the Second World War, accompanied by the replacement of the local clergy by Bulgarian ones, as well as the claims of the Bulgarian Communists to control the Macedonian communist movement only complicated the problem of the national status and self-determination of the Macedonian population. Nevertheless, the "Bulgarianization" of religion and politics met with strong resistance from the local clergy and population31. The Yugoslav partisans and the CPJ made active efforts in the struggle for the return of Macedonia. After the end of World War II, Macedonia became part of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia. In November 1945, at the second meeting of the AVNOYU (Anti-fascist Veche of the People's Liberation of Yugoslavia) the status of the Macedonian nation was recognized as equal to all other Yugoslav nations. Even earlier, a declaration on the use of the Macedonian language in the new Republic of Macedonia was adopted at the Congress of partisans of Macedonia in October 1943. The fact of recognition of a separate nation with a special national language was later of great importance, including when the Macedonian clergy demanded autocephaly.32
The discontent of the local clergy with Bulgarian interference in internal church affairs during World War II helped to establish their cooperation with the Macedonian Communist partisans. Already in 1943 a commission on religious affairs was organized headed by O. V. Manchevsky,

They were united with the canonical order, or, more precisely, returned to the bosom of the united Orthodox Church <...> but they were also in unity with the Patriarchate of Pec much earlier, with which they were separated due to historical events "(Quoted in Alexander, S. Church and State in Yugoslavia, p. 185).

30. There are many works on this subject, and it is worth mentioning, for example, collections of documents: Guskova E. Yu. (comp.) Macedonia: The Path to Independence. Documents. Moscow: Raduga Publ., 1997; Zhila L., Popovski V. The Macedonian question in the Documents of the Comintern Vol. 1. Part 1, 2: 1923-1925. Skopje: Gurga Publ., 1999. And also research: Kosik V. I. Macedonia-disputes, agreements, wars / / On the way to Yugoslavia: pros and cons. Essays on the history of national ideologies of the Yugoslavian peoples end of the XVIII-beginning of the XX century Moscow: Indrik, 1999; Hristov A. T. VMRO i makedonskata drzhavnost 1893-1934. Skopje: Kultura, 1993, etc. See also Slijepcevih B. Makedonsko crkveno pitanje, pp. 15-41.

31. Alexander, S. Church and State in Yugoslavia, pp. 182 - 183.

32. Alexander, S. Church and State in Yugoslavia, p. 183.

page 72
which dealt, among other things, with the appointment of priests to parishes. In 1944, at the conference in Macedonia, an Organizing Committee was established under the leadership of Archdeacon Cyril Stoyanovsky, whose task was to organize religious life in Macedonia. The Committee worked closely with the partisans. 33 Shortly after the liberation of Belgrade, a letter of welcome was sent to the Synod of the Orthodox Church, signed by Macedonian priests who identified themselves as representatives of the "Organizing Committee for the Creation of an Independent Church in Macedonia and the Renewal of the Historical Archdiocese of Ohrid" .34 Metropolitan Joseph and the Synod of the Orthodox Church reacted quite harshly to the message, pointing out that such actions were unacceptable, those who violate the chain of command. The Synod invited the committee to discuss all issues with the Belgrade-appointed Metropolitan Joseph. The Organizing Committee responded by convening representatives of the Macedonian clergy and the People's Assembly (Ecclesiastical People's Council) on March 4-5, 1945, which was attended by more than 300 priests and laity. The council proclaimed the foundation of the independent Macedonian Orthodox Church and the restoration of the Archdiocese of Ohrid.35 In turn, the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church convened a conference of bishops, which recognized all the actions of the Committee as non-canonical and not subject to consideration or discussion.

The situation in Macedonia caused particular concern among Serbian bishops in the Diaspora, who tried to enlist the support of Patriarch Alexy I of the Russian Orthodox Church. Thus, as early as October 1945, Serbian-American-Canadian Bishop Dionysius, in a letter criticizing the position of the Russian Orthodox Church in relation to the religious situation in socialist Yugoslavia, called on the Patriarch to oppose the separation of the "Macedonian Church" as an act directed against the "unity of the Orthodox Church and the Serbian people" .36 In turn, Patriarch Alexy in December 1945 year from-

33. Cepreganov, T., Shashko, Ph. "The Macedonian Orthodox Church", p. 176.

34. Slijepcevih B. Pitanje Makedonske pravoslavie crkve. p. 28; Alexander, S. Church and State in Yugoslavia, pp. 183-184.

35. Cepreganov, Т., Shashko, Ph. "The Macedonian Orthodox Church", p. 176.

36. "The Russian Orthodox Church does not raise a voice against the expulsion of Serbian bishops from Southern Serbia and Macedonia, who were replaced by Bulgarian bishops... In cooperation with the well-known clergy case and the political representative of this new "Macedonian Power" within Yugoslavia, these bishops insisted, after they were canonically unable to remain part of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.

page 73
He taught Dionysius the following: "When representatives of the Macedonian Church asked us to support their desire for autocephaly, we rejected it and ignored the answer, not wanting to interfere with the Orthodox Church in any way. None of the autocephalous churches formed in Yugoslavia independently, without the consent of the Serbian Church, can be recognized by us as having acted against the sacred canons."37
The question of the status of dioceses on the territory of the Republic of Macedonia (in Serbian literature on the history of the Church, these territories are referred to only as "Southern Serbia"), which were subject to the jurisdiction of the SEC, was considered problematic in the eyes of the leadership of the SEC from the very end of the war. In March 1947, Serbian Patriarch Gabriel, in a conversation with former Finance Minister P. Stambolic and Major General L. Djuric (in the presence of Metropolitan Joseph of Skopje and Bishop Nisa Jovan), repeatedly returned to the question of the ecclesiastical situation in the Republic of Macedonia. At the very beginning of the conversation, the Patriarch stated::

We are very concerned about the issue of our church in Macedonia, and what is happening in Macedonia now is the result of Bulgarian propaganda. In Macedonia, the pro-Bulgarian na dominates-

churches-insisted on the creation of a special "Orthodox Macedonian Church" or on the renewal of the old Ohrid Archdiocese. We know that Your Holiness has a favorable view of the affairs of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and helped it to throw off its seventy-five-year schism. But the policy of the Bulgarian bishops in the Yugoslav Old Serbia and Macedonia, as well as the policy of creating an "Independent Macedonian Orthodox Church", is essentially an appeal for help to those anti-church Serbian and various other elements who rejoice in the breakdown of the unity of the Orthodox Church and the Serbian people. For this reason, we expect that Your Holiness will not want to recognize any such forcibly and illegally created church, or at least any other church in Yugoslavia that would have emerged by splitting up from the Orthodox Church.

Your Holiness is probably aware that Belgrade Radio announced at the end of August that it would soon start electing the head of the "Independent Orthodox Church in Macedonia". We implore Your Holiness to prevent this election, and if it does happen, not to recognize it. The" MPC " as an independent and recognized independent organization has never existed in history... The SEC cannot give up its historical rights, but it will also protect them from anyone who intends to threaten them. We are sure that the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Tsarigrad itself will not want to give recognition to some so forcibly created Orthodox Church, which has neither an ethnic nor canonical basis for its existence" (quoted in: Power and the Church in Eastern Europe 1944-1953. Documents of the Russian Archives, Vol. 1, 1944-1948 / Edited by T. V. Volokitina, G. P. Murashko, A. F. Noskova, D. N. Nokhotovich, Moscow, 2009, N 52, p. 215).

37. Power and the Church in Eastern Europe. 1. N 61. P. 249.

page 74
buildings 38. We are receiving news from the south that they do not want to accept any priest who does not change his last name to "-ov" or "-ski". They say: "we want neither Serbian lords nor Serbian priests." 39
Further, the question of whether it is possible and necessary to solve the problem taking into account the national characteristics of the region was discussed. In the bishop's report, the national claims of the Macedonians were called "Bulgarian propaganda" 40. The final decision was to "preserve the unity of the Church" at all costs. According to the patriarch, he had previously explained to the Macedonian communist Dimitar Vlahov that "our federation was formed much earlier than yours", referring to the hierarchy in the church structure, but that in any case "there should be no division in the Church", although the Patriarchate is ready to recognize Macedonians ' ecclesiastical autonomy within the framework allocated to them by the state autonomy. "Let them build their organization in accordance with their mentality, their dialect, etc." 41.The position of the Russian Orthodox Church against the separation of the Macedonian Church was also supported by the Orthodox Churches of Greece, Bulgaria, and other countries, which Macedonian researchers attribute to the geopolitical claims of the Balkan states.

The Soviet Ambassador A. I. Lavrentiev was informed in a conversation with Edvard Kardelj, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, about the situation around the Macedonian Church and about the negative position of Patriarch Gabriel in relation to"priests cooperating with the authorities"42. E. Kar-

38. In the patriarch's speech in Serbian, it sounded like "Bugarastvo".

39. Quote from: Jankovih M. D. Patrijarkh Herman u zhivotu i borbi za spomen-khrama. Beograd, 2001, p. 409.

40 ." When the Bulgarians were supposed to leave Macedonia in 1918, they gave rise to the idea that they were not Bulgarians or Serbs, but Macedonians "(Jankovih M. D. Patrijarch Herman, p. 410).

41. Jankovih M. D. Patrijarkh Herman. P. 410.

42. Reference of the RPA Affairs Council on the conversation between the USSR Ambassador to Belgrade A. I. Lavrentiev and the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the FNRU E. Kardel regarding the position of the Serbian Patriarch Gabriel: "It is obvious that, as Kardelj further noted, Gabriel is very dissatisfied with the fact that many local Orthodox priests willingly cooperate with the authorities and do not pay much attention to reactionary bishops and in general with the entire top clergy. Apparently, Gabriel wants the government to alienate these priests and help bring them under the leadership of the church. Nothing will come of this aspiration of Gabriel" (Power and the Church. 1. N 1351 P. 590).

page 75
He also showed full awareness of the Macedonian issue. According to him, the Macedonian population does not accept and will not accept reactionary bishops, who used to be famous and are now famous as Great Serbian chauvinists. Gabriel knows this very well. A delegation of Macedonian priests will come to Gabriel in a few days, demanding the restoration of the former statute of the Church, according to which bishops were elected from below by priests. This delegation will also tell Gabriel that Macedonia wants the unity of the entire Orthodox Church, but at the same time it wants to have some autonomy in the election of bishops. If Gabriel does not agree to this demand, then the Macedonian priests will elect the head of their church, who, although not considered a bishop, will enjoy his rights. In the end, Gabriel will have to accept this state of affairs.43
However, as a result of the Tito-Stalin conflict and the Greek Civil War in the late 1940s, the Yugoslav authorities 'support for the Macedonian Church waned, 44 despite the Communists' initial sympathy for Macedonian national claims.45 The lack of a national episcopate and support from other autocephalous churches also did not help strengthen the position of the Macedonian Church. In November 1951, representatives of the Macedonian Organizing Committee were invited to the Synod and, according to the new Serbian Patriarch Vikenty, made a favorable impression on him. The delegation recognized the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church over the Church in Macedonia, "if it respects the national sovereignty of the Macedonian people." Also, representatives ask for-

43. Power and the Church. 1. N 135, p. 590.

44. During the Greek civil war, the idea of creating a "unified Macedonia" emerged, and the resolution of the Second Plenum of the People's Liberation Front, held in February 1949, proposed "the unification of the Macedonian people into one unified, independent, equal Macedonian State within the framework of the Republican People's Federation of the Balkan peoples". However, such a project, in the context of the conflict with the Information Bureau and the escalation of the Cold War, was considered by the Yugoslav Communists as an attempt by the Soviet Union and the Information Bureau to separate the Republic of Macedonia from the state of the FNRY, "in order to split socialist Yugoslavia and subordinate the republic to Soviet power". About the national revolution in Grchko. Beograd, 1950, pp. 47, 77.

45. Cepreganov, T., Shashko, Ph. "The Macedonian Orthodox Church", p. 178.

page 76
whether to make the official language of the Church in Macedonia Macedonian, while the liturgical language remained Church Slavonic, in addition, they supported the appointment of Macedonian bishops.46 The tone of the negotiations became incomparably calmer, and the recognition of the TWC's jurisdiction made it possible to conduct a constructive dialogue. At the same time, Serbian Bishop of Macedonian origin Dosifey (Stojkovski) was allowed to pay an official visit to Macedonia. In 1956, during a visit to Moscow, the Serbian Patriarch received Fr. Nestor Popovsky, chairman of the Macedonian Organizing Committee, and in 1957 the Patriarch recognized the right of Macedonian clergy to preach in the Macedonian language.

In March 1958, Serbian Patriarch Vikenty, accompanied by bishops, paid a 10-day visit to Macedonia, during which the issue of insufficient financial support for the church in the republic was raised. In May 1958, Tito arranged a meeting with the Yugoslav high clergy. The Patriarch thanked him for his interest in ecclesiastical affairs and especially for addressing the issue of social insurance for priests; in his response, Tito called on the bishops to deal with the problem of the Macedonian Church. According to press reports, Tito's concerns were attributed to strained relations with Bulgaria during this period, the latter could take advantage of the Macedonian situation for external intervention. The issue of the lack of bishops remained open due to the fact that all the candidates proposed by the Macedonian side were rejected by the Synod of the Orthodox Church for objective reasons (it was a question of married priests).47. The illness and sudden death of Patriarch Vikenty on 5 July 1958 marked the time when the solution of the Macedonian problem could no longer be postponed.

In October 1958, an Ecclesiastical and National Council was held in Ohrid, bringing together 220 priests and laity, at which it was decided to restore the archiepiscopal see in Ohrid, and Macedonian Metropolitan Dosifei (Stojkovski, vicar Bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church since 1951) was elected "only for the MOC and Orthodox Macedonians" 48.-

46. Alexander, S. Church and State in Yugoslavia, p. 207.

47. Ibid., p. 260.

48. Илиевски Д. Смислата на некои отпори против автокефалиjата на Македонската-православнацрква. Skopje, 1970. p. 18.

page 77
There are three new bishops for three new dioceses. Such an election was regarded as uncanonical, since only one consecrated bishop was present. A new charter was also adopted, according to which the Macedonian Church remained in canonical unity with the Russian Orthodox Church through the Serbian Patriarch, who would also be the Patriarch of the MOC. For its part, in May-June 1959, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church adopted a resolution stating that the diocese in the Republic of Macedonia "was separated into an independent church, which is governed in accordance with the charter adopted at the Macedonian church-national council."49 This decision strongly influenced the further development of events. According to Serbian historians, it was dictated by the idea of "economy", even by the "naivety"of the representatives of the SEC50. Recognition of the MPC's autonomy did not imply its separation into an autocephalous church. From the canonical point of view, it could only be implemented if the SEC agreed and the other Orthodox Churches were recognized (which was not part of the SEC's plans). At the same time, the Macedonian side subsequently referred to this particular decision of the SPC, relying on the word "independent" as an analogue of the Greek "autocephalous"51. The process of further separation of the Macedonian Church has gone further. In negotiations with the Serbian Patriarch, representatives of the MOC insisted on strengthening the" autonomous status " of the MOC as the only possible solution to the current situation, calling on the SPC to act "in the interests of ecumenism", designed to unite the churches, and not divide them.52 In the fall of 1966, the MOC officially requested autocephalous status from the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. On May 23, 1967, the Synod of the Orthodox Church rejected this request. On July 17-19, the Ecclesiastical People's Council of Macedonia in Ohrid was appointed, in accordance with the decisions of which autocephaly of the Macedonian Orthodox Church was proclaimed on July 19; the metropolitan received a new title "Archbishop of Ohrid and Macedonia". Soon the MPC switched to the New Julian calendar. In September 1967, the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church declared the MOC a schismatic religion.-

49.Cit. by: Ilievski D. Smislata na nekoi otpori. p. 18.

50. Nikolic, M., Dimitrijevic, D. "'Macedonian Orthodox Church (MOC)'", p. 196.

51. Илиевски Д. Смислата на некои отпори. С. 41.

52. Nikolic, M., Dimitrijevic, D. "'Macedonian Orthodox Church (MOC) '", pp. 200 - 201.

page 78
He broke off canonical communion with the Macedonian clergy.

Throughout the 1960s, the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church continued its attempts to call on the leadership of the MOC to return "to the bosom of the mother Serbian Church." The inability to obtain recognition from other Orthodox Churches that supported the preservation of the canonical order and supported the Orthodox Church of Macedonia has given rise to the idea that Macedonian bishops are going to abandon autocephaly. On the other hand, it was obvious that the Macedonian clergy would never have taken this step, because the rejection of autocephaly, according to D. Ilievsky, would have meant renouncing the Macedonian identity and identity, the historical ideals of national and spiritual freedom.53 In addition, the local party leadership supported the Macedonian clergy, while the Yugoslav leadership demanded a peaceful resolution of the conflict from the SOC.

The issue of a political initiative to achieve autocephaly for the MPC, as well as the non-canonical nature of autocephaly, which the SPC insists on until today, is quite complex. Canonists and church historians know that in Orthodoxy there are practically no historical examples of a" canonical " legitimate way to separate from the mother Church in order to achieve autocephaly. 54 An important argument for achieving autocephaly is the ethnic principle, as well as the question of State affiliation. The appeal to secular legislation and the use of "secular" means to achieve autocephaly is not an exclusive indicator of the party's initiative and pushing through the "Macedonian project" on the part of the Communists. Similarly, the idea of having a church of one's own, which is essential for completing the nation - building process, is by no means a product of "communist secular politics".55 The closest example of autocephaly achieved in the Balkans is the creation of the Bulgarian Exarchate in 1870. Autocephaly was based on national claims

53. Ibid., p. 16.

54. For a classic work on autocephaly, see Lotocki O. Autocephaly, in 2 volumes, Warsaw, 1935.

55. This point of view is most clearly expressed in the article: Nikolic, M., Dimitrijevic, D. (2013) "' Macedonian Orthodox Church (MOC)'", pp. 193, 209.

page 79
The Bulgarian claim to independence from the Patriarchate of Constantinople (primarily due to linguistic differences), appealed to secular Ottoman legislation and ultimately relied on the Sultan's firman 56. In this case, the opinion of the historian S. Pavlovich seems preferable, who also sees in the solution of the Macedonian church question not "Tito's direct hand", but the expression of the national interests of Macedonians within the framework of a historically set national-religious paradigm, although not without support from the party apparatus.57
Conclusion

Religious policies in Yugoslavia were radically different from those in other Eastern European countries that followed the Soviet Socialist model. None of the Christian churches was given such freedom of action in the socialist bloc states as the churches in Yugoslavia. In other Eastern Bloc countries, the opposition, rather than the official state, saw religious institutions as representatives of national interests opposed to Soviet-style communism.58
The characteristic anthropological features of the Balkan region, associated with the weak secularization of society and the special role of religion in ethnic identity, were of particular importance in trying to solve the complex national question in socialist Yugoslavia. The State sought support from religious institutions in creating a new national identity - the Yugoslav one. Traditionally national character

56. The Exarchic Charter. Charter for the administration of the Bulgarian Exarchate dated May 14, 1871 B. M. and G. S. 2-3. At the same time, when demanding autocephaly of the Belgrade Metropolis from the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1879, the Serbs relied, in turn, on the Bulgarian precedent, despite the condemnation of "ethno-philetism", see Popovic, R. (2005) Serbian Orthodox Church, p. 89. Beograd; Veselinovih P. Преглед историjе цркве у Староj Србиjи и Маведониjи од 1766. до 1919. Године. Српска Православна Црква 1219 - 1969. Beograd, 1969. p. 331. On political issues related to the proclamation of the Bulgarian Exarchate, see Gerd L. A. Constantinople and Petersburg: Church Policy of Russia in the Orthodox East (1878-1898). Moscow, 2006.

57. Pavlowitch, S. K. (1990) The Improbable Survivor. Yugoslavia and its Problems 1918 - 1988, p. 105. London.

58. Подробнее см.: Scarfe, A. (1984) "National Consciousness and Christianity in Eastern Europe", in Ramet, S. P. (ed.) Religion and Nationalism in Soviet and East European Politics, pp. 34 - 35. Durham.

page 80
religious organizations also met the task of promoting a new patriotism, the social protection of the clergy contributed to mutual understanding between the church and the state. The course of constructing a Macedonian identity in Yugoslavia found its logical conclusion in church independence, which further contributed to the" nationalization " of Orthodoxy in Macedonia.

Bibliography/References

Веселиновиh. Р. Преглед историjе цркве у Староj Србиjи и Маведониjи од 1766. до 1919. Године. Српска Православна Црква 1219 - 1969. Beograd, 1969.

Volokitima T. V., Murashko G. P., Noskova A. F., Nokhotovich D. N. (eds.) Power and the Church in Eastern Europe. 1944-1953. Documents of the Russian Archives, vol. 1, 1944-1948. Moscow: ROSSPEN Publ., 2009.

Girenko Yu. S. Soviet-Yugoslav relations. Moscow: International Relations Publ., 1983. Grishina R. P. (ed.) The National Question in the Balkans through the prism of the World Revolution: In the documents of the central Russian archives of the early-mid-1920s. Part 1, Moscow: Editorial URSS, 2000.

Geopolitical aspect of the Stalin - Tito conflict phttp://guskova.ru/w / yuhis / 2009-dec, accessed from 01.09.2014].

Guskova E. Yu. (comp.) Macedonia: The Path to Independence. Documents. Moscow: Raduga Publ., 1997. Gilas M. The face of totalitarianism. Moscow: Novosti Publ., 1992.

V. Juretich. The collapse of Yugoslavia in the XX century (main trends 1918-2003). Moscow: Indrik Publ., 2003.

Jankovih M. D. Patriarkh Herman u zhivotu i borbi za spomen-khrama [Patriarch Herman u zhivotu and borbi za spomen-khrama]. Beograd Publ., 2001.

Zhila L., Popovski V. The Macedonian question in the documents of the Comintern Vol. 1. Part 1, 2: 1923-1925. Skopje: Gurga Publ., 1999.

Илиевски Д. Смислата на некои отпори против автокефалиjата на Македонската православна црква. Skopje: Institute for National History, 1970.

The Comintern and the idea of World Revolution. Documents. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1998.

Kosik V. I. Macedonia-disputes, agreements, wars // On the road to Yugoslavia: pros and cons. Essays on the history of national ideologies of the Yugoslavian peoples end of the XVIII-beginning of the XX century. Moscow: Indrik, 1999.

Лотоцький О. Автокефалія, в 2 т. Варшава: Пращ українського наукового інституту 1935.

Romanenko S. Between "Proletarian internationalism" and "Slavic brotherhood". Russian-Yugoslav Relations in the context of Ethno-political Conflicts in Central Europe (early 20th century-1991). Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie Publ., 2011.

Slijepchevih B. 73. Makedonsko crkveno pitanje. Minhyeon, 1969.

Slijepcevi B. 73.Pytanje Makedonske pravoslavie crkve u Gihoslaviji [Nutrition of the Macedonian Orthodox Church]. Munchen, 1959.

Snegarov I. History of the Ohridskata Archdiocese, in 2 volumes (from foundation to liquidation in 1767). Sofia: Academic Publishing House of Prof. Marin Drinov, 1995.

page 81
Spivakovsky E. N., Gruzdeva V. P. III Kongress Kominterna i kommunisticheskoe dvizhenie v Bulgarii, Rumania i Jugoslavii [The Third Congress of the Comintern and the Communist Movement in Bulgaria, Romania and Yugoslavia]. Moscow: Politizdat Publ., 1975. pp. 562-623. Tito B. Izbrannye statei i rechi [Selected articles and Speeches]. Moscow: Polit. lit., 1973. Hristov A. T. VMRO i makedonskata drzhavnost_1893_1934. Скопjе: Култура, 1993.

"Relations between the state and the Roman Catholic Church in Croatia, Yugoslavia in the 1970s and 1980s" (1982), Occasional papers on religion in Eastern Europe 2 (3).

Akhavan, P. Howse, R. (1995) Yugoslavia: The Former and Future, Reflections by Scholars from the Region. Washington D. C.: Brookings Institute.

Alexander, S. (1979) Church and State in Yugoslavia since 1945. Cambridge: University Press.

Alexander, S. (1987) The Triple Myth. A Life of Archbishop Alojzije Stepinac. N. Y.: Columbia University Press.

Altevolmer, B. (2004) Nation-Building in Serbien und Kroatien. Eine Studie zur Reichweite allgemeiner Theorien des Nationalismus. Stuttgart.

Banac, I. (1984) The National Question in Yugoslavia. London: Cornell University Press.

Benigar, A. (1974) Alojzije Stepinac, Hrvatski Kardinal. Rim.

Benson, L. (2001) Yugoslavia: a Concise History. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Biondich, M. (2006) "We Were Defending the State: Nationalism, Myth and Memory in Twentieth-Century Croatia", in Ideologies and National Identities, pp. 66 - 70. Budapest.

Boeckh, K. (1996) "Monolog der Ideologie: der Prozess gegen Erzbischof Stepinac 1946 in der damaligen jugoslawischen Presse", F. Prcela (ed.) Dialog. Auf dem Weg zur Wahrheit und zum Glauben, ss. 325 - 335. Mainz: Paderborn.

Bosnjak, B., Bahtijarevic, S. (1969) Socijalisticko drustvo, crkva i religija. Zagreb: Institut za drustvena istrazivanja Sveucilista.

Buchenau, K. (2006) Kampfende Kirchen: Jugoslawiens religiose Hypothek. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Buchenau, K. (2003) "Was ist nur falsch gelaufen? Uberlegungen zum Kirche-Staat-Verhaltnis im sozialistischen Jugoslawien", Lehmann, H., Schjorring, J. H. (eds) Im Raderwerk des "real existierenden Sozialismus". Kirchen in Ostmittel- und Osteuropa von Stalin bis Gorbatschow. Gottingen: Wallstein Verlag.

Cepreganov, T. Shashko, Ph. (2010) "The Macedonian Orthodox Church", in Leustean, L. N. (ed.) Eastern Christianity and the Cold War, pp. 173 - 188. London: Routledge.

Cviic, C. (1985) "Religion and Nationalism in Eastern Europe: the Case of Yugoslavia", Journal of international studies 14 (2).

Cvitkovic, I. (1986) Ko je bio Alojzije Stepinac. Sarajevo: NISRO Oslobodjenje.

Cvitkovic, I. (1981) "Crkva u savremenom jugoslavenskom drustvu", Nase teme 25 (7/8).

Djilas, M. (1992) Lico totalitarizma [The face of the totalitarism]. Moscow: Novosti.

Djuretic, V. (2003) Razval Jugoslavii v XX veke (osnovnie techenia 1918 - 2003). [Destroying of Yugoslavia in the 20th century (the main directions 1918 - 2003)]. Moscow: Indrik.

Dopmann, H. -D. (2006) Kirche in Bulgarien von den Anfangen bis zur Gegenwart. Miinchen: Biblion-Verlag.

Drobech, W., Stauber, R., Tropper, P. G. (2007) Mensch, Staat und Kirchen zwischen Alpen und Adria 1848 - 1938. Einblicke in Religion, Politik, Kultur und Wirtschaft einer Ubergangszeit. Klagenfurt/Celovec-Ljubljana/Laibach-Witen/Dunaj; Klagenfurt.

page 82
Frid, Z. (1971) Religija u samoupraunom socijalizmu. Zagreb: Centar za drustvene djelatnosti omladine.

Gallagher, T. (2000) The Balkans after the Cold War: From Tyranny to Tragedy. London: Routledge.

Gallagher, T. (2005) The Balkans in the New Millenium. In the Shadow of War and Peace. New York.

Gelzer, H. (1902) Der Patriarchat von Achrida. Geschichte und Urkunden. Leipzig.

Girenko, Yu. (1983) Souetsko-yugoslauske otnoshenia [Soviet-Yugoslav relationship].

Moscow.

Greinacher, N., Elizondo, V. (1982) Churches in Socialist Societies of Eastern Europe. New York.

Grishina, R.P. (2000) Nacionalniy vopros na Balkanah cherez prizmu mirovoj revolucii: V dokumentah centralnih rossijskih arhivov nachala serediny 1920-h godov [National question in the Balkans through the prism of the world revolution: In documents from the central Russian archives from the middle of the 1920s], Vol. 1, Moscow.

Guskova, E. (2009) Geopoliticheskij aspekt konflikta Stalin-Tito [Geo-political aspect of Stalin-Tito's conflict] [http://guskova.ru/w/yuhis/2009-dec, accessed on 01.09.2014].

Guskova, E. (1997) Makedonija: Put к samostojatelnosti. Dokumenti [Macedonia: the way to the independency. Documents]. Moscow

Hatzopoulos, P. (2008) Balkans beyond Nationalism and Identity. International Relations and Ideology. London.

Hristov, A. (1993) VMRO i makedonskata drzavnost 1893 - 1934 [VMRO and Macedonian statehood]. Skopje.

Hudson, K. (2003) Breaking the South Slav Dream, The Rise and Fall of Yugoslavia. London.

Ilievski, D. (1970) Smislata na nekoi otpori protiv avtokefalijata na Makedonskata pravoslavna crkva [The meaning of the resistence against autocephaly of Macedonian Orthodox Church]. Skopje.

Jankovic, M. D. (2001) Patrijarh German и zivotu i borbi za spomen-hram. Beograd.

Jerotic, V. (2004) Vera i nacija. Beograd: Ars Libri.

Jovic, D. (2006) "Communist Yugoslavia and Its 'Others'", in J. R. Lampe and M. Mazower (eds) Ideologies and National Identities. Budapest.

Komintern i ideja mirovoj revolucii. Dokumenti [Comintern and the idea of the world revolution] (1998). Moscow: Nauka.

Kosik, V.I. (1997) "Makedonija - spori, soglashenija, vojni" [Macedonia - conflicts, agreements, wars], in Na putiah к Jugoslavii: za i protiv. Ocherki istorii nacionalnih ideology jugoslavianskih narodov 18 - nachala 20 v. [On the way to Yugoslavia: pro et contra. Apects of the history of national ideologies of Yugoslavian nations 18 -beginning of the 20th a]. Moscow.

Kristo, I. (1997) Katolicka crkva and totalitarizmu 1945. -1990.: razmatranja о Crkvi и Hrvatskoj pod komunizmom. Zagreb.

Leustan L. N. (2004) "Religious Elements in Defining European Identity in the European Union and Southeastern Europe", in D.Marinovic, S.Zrinscak, I.Borowik (eds) Religion and patterns of social transformation, pp. 277 - 295. Zagreb.

Lotockiy, O. (1935) Avtokefalia [Autocephaly]. Warsaw

Manousakis, G.M. (1997) "Das Verhaltnis von Orthodoxie und Islam im heutigen Siidosteuropa", in Dopmann, H. -D. (Hg.) Religion und Gesellschaft in Sudosteuropa. Miinchen.

page 83
Milinkovic, B. (1992) Bibliografija radova o nacionalnom pitanju i medunacionalnim odnosima. Zagreb.

Mojzes, P. (1987) Church and State in Postwar Eastern Europe. A Bibliographical Survey. New York: Greenwood Press.

Mojzes, P. (1992) Religious Liberty in Eastern Europe and the USSR. Before and After the Great Transformation. New York.

Mojzes, P. (1994) Yugoslavian Inferno. Ethnoreligious warfare in the Balkans. New York.

Muzic, I. (1978) Katolicka crkva и Kraljevini Jugoslaviji. Split.

Nikolic, M., Dimitrijevic, D. (2013) "'Macedonian Orthodox Church (MOC) ' in Former Yugoslav State", The Politics and Religion Journal 7 (1): 193 - 215 [http://www.politicsandreligionjournal.com/images/pdf_files/engleski/volume7_nol/nikolic. pdf, accessed on 20.12.2014].

"Odnosi izmedju vjerskih zajednica i drzave" (1981), Argumenti 1 (1): 80 - 103.

Okey, R. (2007) Taming Balkan Nationalism, The Habsburg "Civilizing Mission" in Bosnia, 1878 - 1914. New York.

Pavlowitch, S. K. (1990) The Improbable Survivor. Yugoslavia and its Problems 1918 - 1988. London.

Pavlowitch, S. K. (2008) Hitler's New Disorder. The Second World War in Yugoslavia. London.

Perica, V. (2002) Balkan Idols: Religion and Nationalism in Yugoslav States. Oxford.

Petranovic, B., Zecevic, M. (eds) (1988) Jugoslavia 1918 - 1988. Tematska zbirka dokumenata. Beograd.

Petrovic, M. (1997) Konkordatsko pitanje Kraljevine Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca. Beograd.

Podskalsky, G. (1997) "Zwei Erzbischofe von Achrida (Ochrid) und ihre Bedeutung fur die Profan- und Kirchengeschichte Mazedoniens: Theophylaktos und Demetrios Chomatenos", in La spiritualite de l'univers byzantin dans le verbe et l'image (Festschrift fur E. Voordeckers). Turnhout.

Prinzing, G. (1993) "Ohrid", Lexikon des Mittelalters 6: 1376 - 1380.

Ramet, S. P. (1984) "The Interplay of Religious Policy and Nationalist Policy in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe", Religion and Nationalism in Soviet and East European Politics. Durham.

Ramet, S. P. (2011) Die drei Jugoslawien. Eine Geschichte der Staatsbildungen und ihrer Probleme. Munchen.

Romanenko, S. (2011) Mezhdu "proletarskim internacionalizmom" i "slavjanskim bratstvom". Rossijsko-jugoslavskie otnoshenija v kontekste etnopoliticheskih konfliktov v Srednej Evrope (nachalo XX veka - 1991 god) [Between "proletarian internationalism" and "Slav brotherhood". Russian-Yugoslavian relations in the context of ethno-political conflicts in the Central Europe (beginning of the 20th century -1991)]. Moscow

Roter, Z. (1976) Katoliska cerkev in drzava v Jugoslaviji 1945 - 1973. Socioloski teoreticni vidiki in raziskovalni model. Ljubljana.

Sagi-Bunic, T. (1983) Katolicka crkva i hrvatski narod. Zagreb.

Slijepcevic, D. (1959) Pitanje Makedonske pravoslavne crkve и Jugoslaviji. Munchen.

Slijepcevic, D. (1969) Makedonsko crkveno pitanje. Munchen.

Slijepcevic, D. (2002) Istorija Srpske Pravoslavne Crkve, 2. Beograd.

Snegarov, I. (1995) Istorija na Ohridskata arhiepiskopia (ot osnovania do likvidacii v 1767 9.) [History of the Ohrid archdiocease (from founding till liquidation in 1767)]. Sofia.

page 84
Spivakovskij, E., Gruzdeca, V. (1975) "III Kongress Kominterna i kommunisticheskoe dvizhenie v Bolgarii, Rumynii i Jugoslavii" [III Congress of Comintern and the communist movement in Bulgaria, Romania and Yugoslavia], Tretij kongress Kominterna [The Third Congress of Comintern], pp. 562 - 623. Moscow

Stojadinovic, M. M. (1970) Ni rat ni pakt. Jugoslavija izmedju dva rata. Rijeka-Opatija: Otokar Kersovani

Tito, B. (1973) Izbrannie statji i rechi [Selected articles and speeches]. Moscow.

Todorova, M. (2009) Imagining the Balkans. New York.

Udovicki, J., Ridgeway, J. (2000) Burn This House. The Making and Unmaking of Yugoslavia. London.

Velikonja, M. (2003) Religious Separation and Political Intolerance in Bosnia Herzegovina. Texas.

Veselinovic, R. (1969) "Pregled istorije crkve u Staroj Srbiji i Makedoniji od 1766. Do 1919. Godine", Srpska Pravoslavna Crkva 1219 - 1969. Beograd: zdanje Svetog arhijerejskog sinoda Srpske pravoslavne crkve.

Vidic, R. (1962) Position of the Church in Yugoslavia. Belgrade.

Volokitina, T., Murashko, G., Noskova, A. (2008) Moskva i Vostochnaia Evropa. Vlast' i tserkov' v period obshchestvennykh transformatsii 40 - 50 godov XX v. [Moscow and Eastern Europe. The Power and the Church in the Period of Society's Transformations in the 1940s and 1950s]. Moscow.

Vrcan, S. (1980) Raspeto katolicanstvo. Zagreb.

Vuskovic, B. Placko, Lj. (1987) "Religijsko-crkvena identifikacija i praksa", Religija i drustvo. Zagreb.

Zila, L., Popovski, V. (1999) Makedonskij vopros v dokumentah Kominterna [Macedonian question in the documents of Comintern], vol. 1, part 1, 2: 1923 - 1925. Skopje: Gurga.

Zirdum, A. (2007) Povijest krscanstva and Bosni i Hercegovini. Plehan: Slovoznak.

Zrinscak, S. (1999) Sociologija religije. Hrvatsko iskustvo. Zagreb: Pravni fakultet.

page 85

Permanent link to this publication: