I would like to thank Dr. R. J. Crampton, Professor K. Hopkins and Mrs. M. Serafetinidi for reading this paper and making helpful and encouraging comments. I would also like to thank Ian White for his help in translating Bulgarian material.

¹ For an account of similarities in Balkan societies see Stavrianos, L. S., The Balkans since 1453 (New York, 1958), especially pages 96–116, 137–53, 198–214, 413–24;Google ScholarSeton-Watson, Hugh, Eastern Europe between the Wars, 1918–1941 (Cambridge, 1945);Google ScholarIorga, N., Le caractere commun des institutions du Sud-Est de I'Europe (Paris, 1929), p. 138.Google Scholar

² For statistics on railway, road and sea transport during the interwar years in the Balkans, cf. P.E.P. Economic Development in S.E. Europe (London, 1945), pp. 60–79.Google Scholar

³ Cf. Stavrianos, , op. cit., p. 417;Google Scholar cf. also May, A. J., Trans-Balkan Railway Schemes’, Journal of Modern History, 12 1938, 496–527.Google Scholar

⁴ It was calculated that in 1932 the total foreign debt per head of population was 378 Swiss francs for Greece and 118 for Bulgaria, (cf. Royal Institute of International Affairs, The Balkan States, London, 1936).

⁵ Cf. Stavrianos, , op. cit., p. 445.Google Scholar

⁶ Cf. Tsouderos, E. J., Le Ré lèvement Economique de la Grèce (Paris: Berger-Levrault, 1920).Google Scholar For an account of Greece's financial position in the nineteenth century, cf. Levandis, A., The Greek Foreign Debt and the Great Powers 1821–1898 (New York, 1944).Google Scholar

⁷ A good indication of this is the predominance of an indirect system of taxation in all Balkan countries before and during the interwar period; Angelopoulos, cf. A., ‘Les Finances Publiques d'Etats Balkaniques’, Les Balkans, vol. 2, 09 1933, pp. 629ff.;Google Scholar Royal Institute of International Affairs, The Balkan States, London, 1936, p. 50.Google ScholarPubMed

⁸ For the interwar agrarian reforms in the Balkans, cf. Mitrany, D., Marx against the peasant (Chapel Hill, 1951);Google ScholarEvelpidi, C., Les Etats Balkaniques (Paris, 1930);Google Scholar for a survey of land tenure systems in various Balkan countries during the interwar period, cf. Moore, W. L., Economic Demography of Eastern and Southern Europe (Geneva, 1945), pp. 210–67.Google Scholar

⁹ Cf. Moore, W. L., op. cit., pp. 250–1;Google ScholarBell, J. D., The Agrarian Movement in Bulgaria, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University, 1970, ch. 1.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cf. Mitrany, D., op. cit.,Google ScholarMorgan, O. S. (ed.), Agricultural Systems of Middle Europe (New York, 1933);Google ScholarEvelpidi, , op. cit.;Google ScholarSideris, A., The Agricultural Policy of Greece 1833–1933 (in Greek), (Athens, 1934).Google Scholar

¹¹ Cf. Moore, W. L., op. cit., pp. 17–28.Google Scholar

¹² Cf. Moore, W. L., op. cit., pp. 63, 71–2.Google Scholar For a more optimistic calculation of the labour surplus, cf. Spulber, N., The Economics of Communist Eastern Europe, pp. 275–6.Google Scholar For statistics on number of people per 100 hectares of cultivated land, cf. Tomasevich, J., Peasants, Politics and Economic Development in Yugoslavia (Stanford, 1955), p. 309.Google Scholar

¹³ Cf. Stavrianos, , The Balkans since 1453, op. cit. pp. 599ff;Google ScholarSpulber, N., The State and Economic Development in Eastern Europe (New York, 1966);Google ScholarGerschenkron, A., Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective (New York, 1962), pp. 198–234;Google ScholarP.E.P., Economic Development in S.E. Europe, op. cit., pp. 39–140.Google Scholar

¹⁴ For the concept of disarticulation which, I think, is very useful for characterising the Balkan economies of the interwar period, cf. Amin, S., L'accumulation du Capital a Vechelle mondiale (Paris, 1970), pp. 321ff.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Sectoral imbalances in the sense of having an overinflated service sector and a weak industrial sector; cf. Mouzelis, N. and Attaiides, M., ‘Greece’,Google Scholar in Archer, M. S. and Giuer, S., Contemporary Europe: Class, Status, Power (London, 1971).Google Scholar

¹⁶ For an analysis of Balkan peasant ideologies, cf. Peselz, Branko, Peasant Movements in South-eastern Europe, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Georgetown University, 1950.Google ScholarDimitrov, G. M., ‘Agrarianism’Google Scholar in Gross, F., European Ideologies, (New York, 1948);Google Scholar and Mitrany, , op. cit.Google Scholar

¹⁷ For a detailed history of Bulgaria's agrarian party, cf. Bell, J. D., The Agrarian Movement in Bulgaria, op. cit;Google Scholarcf. also Oren, M., Revolution Administered: Agrarianism and Communism in Bulgaria (Baltimore, 1973);Google ScholarOmelianov, A., ‘A Bulgarian Experiment’,Google Scholar in Sorokin, P. A. et al. , A Systematic Source Book in Rural Society, vol. II (Minneapolis, 1931).Google Scholar

¹⁸ For a short history of the Greek Agrarian Party, cf. Pournaras, D., The History of the Agrarian Movement in Greece (Athens, 1931).Google Scholar

¹⁹ For a very good historical account of the development of the Balkan merchant classes, cf. Stoianovich, T., ‘The conquering Balkan Orthodox merchant’ in Journal of Economic History, 1960, pp. 269–73.Google Scholar

²⁰ Bulgarians and other Slav merchants started to challenge Greek commercial supremacy in the Eastern Balkans only after the treaty of Adrianople in 1829. By this treaty the Danubian principalities were allowed to engage in international trade.

²¹ Not only the Aegean coast but even the coastal areas around the Black Sea were predominantly inhabited by Greek, Jewish and Armenian people; cf. Stoianovich, , op. cit., p. 310.Google Scholar

²² Op. cit., p. 311.

²³ Greece's cultural hegemony in the eighteenth century Balkans was not only due to its powerful merchant class. The position of the Greek Orthodox Church was another contributing factor. Before the establishment of autocephalous Slav nationalist churches the Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople was administering the religious lives of all orthodox Christians, Greeks and non-Greeks. All important ecclesiastical positions were monopolised by Greeks, the Greek liturgy was imposed in all churches and Greek was made the language of instruction at schools; cf. Stavrianos, , op. cit., pp. 368ff.;Google Scholarcf. also Iorga, N., La Revolution Francaise et le Sud-Est de L'Europe (Bucharest, 1934).Google Scholar

²⁴ The Greek war of independence (1821–27) brought a temporary halt to the commercial activities of the Greek merchant class. But this decline was temporar—at least as far as the Mediterranean trade was concerned. It recovered and flourished again after independence. As far as the overland inter-Balkan trade is concerned, due to the emergence of Balkan nationalisms and to other unfavourable conditions (e.g., brigandage), it declined in a more or less permanent way at the beginning of the nineteenth century; cf. Stoianovich, , op. cit., p. 312.Google Scholar

²⁸ The term modernisation is used here in a rather specific way. It refers mainly to ‘the process by which an underdeveloped region changes in response to inputs (ideologies, behavioural codes, commodities and institutional models) from already established industrial centres; a process which is based on that region's continued dependence upon the urban-industrial metropolis’. In contrast to this, development refers to the process by which an underdeveloped region attempts to acquire an autonomous and diversified industrial economy on its own terms; cf. Schneider, P. et al. , ‘Modernisation and Development’ in Comparative Studies in Society and History, 06, 1972, p. 340.Google Scholar

²⁹ For instance the first Greek constitutions were inspired by the French experience; and, although Capo d'Istria and later King Otto tried to implement a more traditional absolutist model of government, their efforts were ultimately frustrated.

²⁷ Cf. Stavrianos, , op. cit., pp. 364ff.Google Scholar

²⁸ A turning point in the cultural relationships between Greece and Bulgaria was the establishment of an autonomous Bulgarian church in 1870 which put an end to the religious hegemony of the Greek Patriarchate at Constantinople; cf. Karpathios, E. S., ‘Bulgaria, Church’ in Great Hellenic Encyclopaedia, VII, 672–82.Google Scholar

²⁹ This difference is even reflected in the actual content of Bulgarian nationalist ideologies which have a rather ‘defensive’ character; for instance Father Paisii, who wrote the first Bulgarian history, makes a continuous effort to persuade his readers that Bulgarians are as good or even better than the Greeks. There is also an attempt to contrast Bulgaria's rural virtues to evil Greek urbanism (cf. Pundeff, M., ‘Bulgarian Nationalism’, in Sugar, P. and Lederer, I. J. (eds.) Nationalism in Eastern Europe (Washington, 1969), p. 102.Google Scholar

³⁰ Cf. P.E.P., Economic Development in S.E. Europe, op. cit., p. 129Google Scholar and Deldycke, T. et al. , The Working population and its structure (Brussels, 1968).Google Scholar

³¹ Cf. Karavidas, K. D., Agrotika (in Greek), (Athens, 1931), pp. 125–36 and 201–68.Google Scholar

³² On the Zadruga family system, cf. Mosely, P. E., ‘The Peasant Family: The Zadruga or Communal Joint-Family in the Balkans and its recent evolution’ in Ware, C. F. (ed.), The Cultural Approach to History (New York, 1940), 95–108.Google Scholar For a contrast of Greek and Bulgarian family institutions during the interwar period, cf. Karavidas, , op. cit., pp. 201–68.Google Scholar

³³ Daniilides, D., Modern Greek Society and Economy (in Greek), (Athens, 1934), pp. 126–42.Google Scholar

³⁴ Mitrany, , op. cit., pp. 118–9.Google Scholar

³⁵ Cf., for instance, Wolf, E., Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century (London, 1971), pp. 276–302;Google Scholar cf. also Alavi, H., ‘Peasants and Revolution’, in Miliband, R. and Saville, J. (eds.), The Socialist Register (London, 1965), pp. 290ff.Google Scholar

³⁶ On the foreign origin of the Bulgarian bourgeoisie, cf. Stoianovich, , op. cit;Google Scholarcf. also Pasic, N., ‘Factors in the Formation of nations in the Balkans and among the Southern Slavs’, International Social Science Journal, 1971, No. 3, pp. 419ff.Google Scholar

³⁷ Cf. Karavidas, , op. cit., pp. 125–6.Google Scholar

³⁸ Iorga, N., ‘The French Revolution and South Eastern Europe’ in Fischer-Galati, S. (ed.), Man, State and Society in East European History (New York, 1970), p. 131.Google Scholar

³⁹ Cf. Popoff, K. G., La Bulgarie Economique (Sofia, 1920), pp. 83–134.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Cf. Kunin, Petko, The Agrarian and Peasant Problem in Bulgaria (in Bulgarian), (Sofia, 1971), Ch. 1.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Kunin, , op. cit., pp. 61ff.Google Scholar

⁴² Cf. Kordatos, J., Pages from the Agrarian Movement of Greece (Athens, 1964), pp. 143ff.Google Scholar

⁴³ Cf. Afendakis, D. N., Agricultural Credit in Turkey, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Greece (in Greek), (Athens, no date);Google ScholarEvelpidi, M. C., ‘La Cooperation aux pays Balkaniques dans le domaine du credit agricole’, Les Balkans, vol. 4, pp. 732–46,Google ScholarPopov, K., Aspects of the Creation and Development of the Cooperative Movement in Bulgaria (in Bulgarian), (Sofia, 1924).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Gerschenkron, , op. cit., p. 222.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Shanin, T., The Awkward Class (London, 1927), part two.Google Scholar

From Popoff, K. G., op. cit., p. 97.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Cf. Moore, W. E., op. cit., pp. 77–91 and 250–2.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Cf. Sideris, A. D., op. cit.;Google ScholarServatis, G. and Pertounzi, C., ‘The Agricultural Policy of Greece’ in Morgan, O. S.(ed.), Agricultural Systems of Middle Europe (New York, 1933), 137–200;Google ScholarEvelpidi, C., op. cit., pp. 89ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Cf. for instance Lipset, S. M., Agrarian Socialism (New York, 1950);Google ScholarWolf, E., ‘On Peasant Rebellions’ in Shanin, T. (ed.), Peasants and Peasant Societies (London, 1971) pp. 264–74.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ For instance, L. Sayles argues, on the basis of a study of several hundred groups within industrial organisations, that groups whose members were ‘homo-genous’ (in the sense of having the same economic position and interests and of sharing other social characteristics) showed a very high degree of solidarity and were more prone to engage in collective action for the promotion of their interests (cf. Behaviour of Industrial Work Groups, New York, 1958).Google Scholar As far as trade union organisation is concerned, a similar link between ‘homogeneity’ and working class militancy is made by Kerr, C. and Siegel, A. cf. ‘The Interindustry Propensity to Strike’ in Kornhauser, A. et al. (eds.), Industrial Conflict (New York, 1954), pp. 189–212.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Figures taken from Lineton, M. J., Mina Present and Past—Depopulation in a village in Mani, Southern Greece, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Kent, 1971, p. 276;Google Scholar cf. also Moustaka, C., The Internal Migrant, Social Sciences Centre Monograph (Athens, 1964);Google ScholarHazoglou, S., ‘Internal Migration’ (in Greek), in Spoudai, No. 4, 1965–1966;Google ScholarBaxevannis, J., ‘Population, Internal Migration and Urbanization in Greece’, Balkan Studies, 6 (1965), pp. 83–98.Google Scholar

⁵² For the relatively high percentage of peasants' sons in higher education in Greece, cf. Lambiri-Dimaki, J., ‘Les chances d'accès a l'enseignement en Gr'Google Scholar in Castel, R. and Passeron, J., Education, Development et Democratie (Paris, 1967).Google Scholar

⁵³ Lineton, , op. cit., p. 175.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Cf. Stefanov, I., ‘Socio-economic Changes and Internal Migration in Bulgaria’, in Frijling, B. W. (ed.), Social Change in Europe (Leiden, 1973), p. 40.Google Scholar According to the last pre-Second World War census the Bulgarians living in localities with over 20,000 inhabitants amounted to only 12.7 percent of the total population. (cf. P.E.P. Economic Development in S.E. Europe, op. cit., p. 81).Google Scholar Even as late as 1955 the percentage was 15.3 percent, cf. Russett, , World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators (New Haven, 1964), p. 52.Google Scholar

55 Cf. article on ‘Greece’, Great Greek Encyclopaedia, p. 234; cf. also Fairchild, H. P., Greek Immigration to the United States, New Haven, 1911;Google ScholarKrikos, A., Greek Emigration to the New World (in Greek),Google ScholarSaloutos, T., The Greeks in the United States (Cambridge, Mass., 1964).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Cf. Roucek, J., ‘Les Boulgares d'Amérique’, Balkans, vol. 9., pp. 55–70.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Apart from agrarianism, communism was also a very significant political force in interwar Bulgaria; cf. Rothschild, J., The Communist Party of Bulgaria 1883–1936 (New York, 1959);Google ScholarJackson, D. G., Comintern and Peasant in East Europe, (New York, 1966);Google ScholarBurks, R. V., The Dynamics of Communism in Eastern Europe (Princeton, 1961);CrossRefGoogle ScholarSeton-Watson, Hugh, The Eastern European Revolution (London, 1950).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Cf. Angelopoulos, A., op. cit., pp. 674–9.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Cf. Petropoulos, J., Politics and Statecraft in the Kingdom of Greece 1833–1843 (Princeton, 1968);CrossRefGoogle Scholar cf. also Campbell, J. and Sherrard, Ph., Modern Greece (London, 1968), pp. 83–126.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ For the early struggles between the state and various local elites, cf. N, Diamandouros, Political Modernization: Social Conflict and Cultural Cleavage in the Formation of the Modern Greek State 1821–28, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University, 1972.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Dicey, E., The Peasant State (London, 1894), p. 145.Google Scholar

⁶² Of course following Michel's ‘Law of oligarchy’, one can argue that, taking into account the bourgeois origins of some of the peasant leaders and the unavoidable ‘corruption’ which followed their taking of power, the Agrarian Union was not very different from other bourgeois parties. But this position does not take into account the radical policies which the Agrarian Union did in fact pursue both on the international and the national levels. For instance, as far as foreign policy is concerned, Stamboliiski reversed completely the militaristic and ‘irredentist’ policies of his predecessors and promoted a policy of peaceful cooperation among all Balkan nations. On the national level, he tried to discourage large scale industrialisation and sought a path to development which could profit the peasants and safeguard their village communities. Of course, one could argue that a policy which tries to achieve economic growth without the painful disruption of peasant life is Utopian (cf. Moore, B., The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (London, 1967)).Google Scholar But the important point is that such policies were attempted and they did pose a real challenge to the traditional Bulgarian establishment.

⁶³ Cf. for instance Stewart, A. ‘Populism: The Social Roots’, in Gellner, E. and Ionescu, G. (eds.), Populism (London, 1969).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ For a review of such theories and an interesting reformulation, cf. Allcok, J. B., ‘Populism: A Brief Biography’ in Sociology, 09 1971, pp. 371–88.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Of course, it must be pointed out that being ‘drawn in’, i.e., greater integration to the centre, by no means implies a more balanced, less painful adaptation to the strains of rapid change. There is no indication that Greek peasants were better off than the Bulgarians during the interwar years. If anything, the opposite could be the case. For instance, just before the Second World War, Greece together with Portugal and Albania had the lowest calorie consumption rate in Europe: 2,300 to 2,500 calories daily per inhabitant (cf. Stavrianos, , op. cit., p. 683).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Concerning peasant studies, E. Wolf, for example, in examining the revolutionary potential of the peasantry in Russia, Mexico, Cuba, Algeria, China and Vietnam emphasises geographical and social isolation as factors conducive to peasant mobilisation (Peasant Revolutions, op. cit., pp. 276–302).Google Scholar Interestingly enough, similar generalisations seem relevant insofar as non-peasant working-class organisation is concerned. For instance, C. Kerr and A. Siegel in an article examining the propensity to strike in various industries explain the high degree of trade union organisation and militancy among miners, longshoremen and of those working in the maritime industry in terms of homogeneity of economic position and of their relative isolation from the larger community (cf. ‘The Interindustry propensity to strike’, op. cit., pp. 189–212).Google Scholar Similar points about isolation and its relevance to militancy in trade unions have been made by Sayles, and Strauss, , op. cit., pp. 148–9, 197–202,Google Scholar and Lipset, et al. , op. cit., pp. 106–40.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ For an attempt to produce this type of generalisations about peasants, cf. Rogers, E. M., Modernisation among Peasants: The Impact of Communication (New York, 1969).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Cf. for instance Pearse, A., ‘Peasants and Revolution: the case of Bolivia’, Economy and Society, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 266ft.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ More concretely, to take the Stamboliiski argument for instance, although his charisma helped tremendously the revival of the Agrarian Union after a temporary decline in 1909, it is quite certain that a Greek Stamboliiski could have not found a similarly favourable field for developing his potentialities. Moreover, I do not think that it is accidental that Venizelos, the Greek statesman who compares with Stamboliiski in terms of charisma, did not become the champion of the peasants but of the rising Greek bourgeoisie. As far as the ‘defeat at wars’ argument, this does not explain why the Agrarian Union became the major opposition party in Bulgaria before the Balkan wars.