Talk:Treaty of Bucharest (1913)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Do we disambiguate treaties as Treaty of X (year) or Treaty of X, year? I have always thought it was the former. john k 16:29, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Language of this entire article is extremely stilted. Entere first graph is impressionistic and one sided.DaveHM 13:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The text would appear to be derived from the source cited at the bottom - a US government report printed in 1918... john k 18:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


how about adding the article of the treaty which states that if one of the four parts of macedonia is ever given its independence, then with the revision of 2013, the party (the part that will have gained independence) will be entitled to the rest of the parts of macedonia. today, Republic of Macedonia has its independence. but i cant find any sources :/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are you taling about???--Michael X the White (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no such article.

NO Expire Date[edit]

The Treaty of Bucharest 1913 has NO expire date. All the speculations for a secret clausal for Macedonia and for the revision exist only in the imagination of some people.

Hankz1982 (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2008.

Yes, just dream about it.-- MacedonianBoy  Oui? 16:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are the dreamer. Why don't you go and read the treaty?
The treaty expired in 2013, the Greek government made a fuss about it then. (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MacedonianBoy Why scared? I thought there was no Macedonian POV. Why would you GreekBoys care about an expiration date if there is no one to return it to? (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Macedonian point of view[edit]

Why there is not the Macedonian point of view and where is the bloody division of Macedonia and where is the paragraph about the occupation of the Macedonian parts? So pathetic. -- MacedonianBoy  Oui? 16:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Take your sterile nationalism elsewhere. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You eat, dream and breath Greek nationalism, not me.-- MacedonianBoy  Oui? 14:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your irredentist fantasies are discussed at length at United Macedonia. No need to pollute this article with such nonsense. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, you can split us up for your nationalistic interests, but we can't even discuss ours? Hypocrite. (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As opposed to your Greek fertile nationalism? Need I remind you of the Human Rights Watch Group findings about Macedonians in Greece? (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what territories were they gaining?[edit]

nowhere is written that it was the ottoman region of rumelia, previously known as macedonia was the territory that they divided in three. the greek state, before that, was never in that region, as well as bulgarian or serbian. under contents, it should be the first on the list. (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The ottoman region known as Rumel was further south. It had nothing to do with macedonia.

Macedonian POV missing[edit]

The fact that on this article there is no Macedonian POV on this issue, even under a controversial banner, is the core of the crying and whining of Greece and Bulgaria. Any pretending that the problem is ancient history or even medieval history is BS. The fact that Greek and Bulgarian editors don't want a Macedonian POV on an article that is more exposed than the catch-all United Macedonia, just shows hoe scared they are. I wonder how Strasbourg might feel about things like this where Macedonians are still discriminated. (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]