/ world today news/ Increasingly, Bulgarian politicians and scientists are retroactively angry with the USSR for unjustly declaring war on innocent and neutral Bulgaria. In this sense, it is the victim of an aggressor, an occupier and a factor in the interruption of our natural historical development. This is how other self-confident “intellectuals” and “researchers” speak and write loudly or quietly. And these are the “arguments” for so fanatically demanding the destruction of the monuments of Soviet wars, wherever they are located on the territory of the fatherland.
Is this the real story of 70 years ago, or is it a conjunctural alternative, a product of old grudges and new interests?
When discussing the issues of history, it is useful to put emotions aside and focus on the facts, on the political decisions and their consequences.
First of all, let’s clarify the issue of Bulgaria’s neutrality.
Neutrality is understood as the legal position of the state in which it does not participate in the war and does not provide direct assistance to the belligerents. The rights and obligations of neutral states, as well as belligerents in relation to them, are defined by two international legal acts signed in The Hague in 1907: “V Convention on the Rights and Duties of Neutral States and Persons in Case of Land War” and “XIII Convention Concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral States in Case of Naval War.” I will quote several articles from these documents so that the international crime committed by the government of Bogdan Filov during the Second World War and the consequences that we all will always bear as a historical legacy are extremely clear.
From the Vth Convention:
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Art. 2. It is forbidden for the belligerents to pass through the territory of a neutral country troops or columns either with combat or with food supplies.
Art. 3. The belligerents are also prohibited from:
(a) to construct on the territory of a neutral country a radiotelegraph station or any apparatus intended to serve as a means of communication with belligerent units on land or at sea;
(b) to use any installation of this kind which has been constructed by them for an exclusively military purpose in the territory of a neutral country and which is not open to public correspondence.
……………………………………………………………………………………………
Art. 5. A neutral State shall not tolerate in its territory any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4.
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
Art. 13. A neutral country receiving escaped prisoners of war shall set them free. If it tolerates their stay on its territory, it can determine their place of residence.”
From the XIIIth Convention
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
“Art. 5. It is forbidden for belligerents to make neutral ports and waters bases for naval operations against their adversaries. As well as establishing there radiotelegraph stations or any other apparatus designed to serve as a means of communication with belligerent forces on land or sea.
Art. 6. The sale on any basis directly or indirectly of warships, munitions or any military material by a neutral country to a belligerent country is prohibited “
……………………………………………………………………………………………
Below I will present only a few facts and let the unbiased reader compare them with the texts of the conventions and judge whether “neutral Bulgaria” was neutral. ?
The Bulgarian government declared Bulgaria’s neutrality for the first time in September 1939. But with the fact of Bulgaria’s accession in 1941 to the tripartite pact of Germany, Italy and Japan, it already violated this neutrality.
From the beginning of 1941, the entire infrastructure of the country: communication system, airports, ports, shipping, raw materials were entirely at the service of fascist Germany. In the same year 1941, German troops concentrated on Bulgarian territory and conducted operations to defeat and occupy Greece and Yugoslavia, with which Bulgaria is not at war and even maintains diplomatic relations. When this task was completed, the German troops were replaced by the Bulgarian occupation corps, but they did not go on vacation, but concentrated on the war with the USSR. In this sense, the thesis that our troops did not participate in the aggression against the USSR is not true. These troops remained on the auxiliary line of this aggression, relieving the more capable German formations on the main line.
A number of headquarters and intelligence structures were located on the territory of Bulgaria, about which the reader can be informed in detail from Beckerle’s diary. In the Bulgarian shipyard in Varna, landing ships were built serially for the needs of the German fleet in its operations against the USSR on the Black Sea. At the beginning of September 1944, in order not to fall into the hands of the Soviet troops, which were rapidly approaching the borders of Bulgaria, the German command organized the sinking of more than 20 such amphibious ships in our territorial waters. Later, some of them were withdrawn and served for a long time in the composition of the Bulgarian Navy.
A German squadron of seaplanes was stationed in Lake Varna, which solved the tasks of the German command during the war against the Black Sea Fleet of the USSR.
Bulgarian transport vessels, guarded by our warships, carried out military transports with German cargo between the ports of Bulgaria and Romania.
On our shores, German radio technical means of communication and surveillance of the sea space were installed, which were manned by Wehrmacht soldiers. One of these stations in the area of Cape Emine in 1943 was destroyed by the partisans.
The Bulgarian authorities most barbarically violated the aforementioned Article 13 of the V Convention. The few Soviet prisoners of war who managed to escape, which the Germans transported illegally through our territory, were pursued by the “neutral” Bulgarian gendarmerie and found refuge only with the partisans.
On September 2, 1944, the Bulgarian government, frightened and confused by the rapidly developing military events on the Soviet-German front, again declared Bulgaria’s neutrality. And at the same time, the German troops retreating from the occupied territory of the USSR and Romania passed through our territory completely undisturbed. Fragmented units and units that came across the Danube reformed on our territory in special points and urgently withdrew to the west. The Bulgarian government not only did not fulfill its obligations under the V Convention to intern them, but invested enormous forces and resources to ensure their quick withdrawal.
The declared neutrality of Bulgaria in relation to the USSR became even more incomprehensible with the declaration of a “symbolic war” by England and the United States of America – the countries that at that time were its allies in the war against Germany. There is no such concept as “symbolic war” in international legal relations. The inhabitants of England and the USA may have learned about it from the press, but we, the Bulgarians, learned what airstrikes are in the non-symbolic war. Here I cannot fail to point out a paradox of the Bulgarian historical and, above all, political memory. I have not heard any of the “democratically minded politicians” complain about the completely undeserved and senseless from a military point of view bombings of Sofia, Plovdiv, Ruse, etc. and the thousands of civilian casualties. It seems that the British and American bombs are like New Year’s fireworks, and the victims – for them, as it were, it is more convenient for us to call them “victims of friendly fire”. The same fire that killed Bulgarian soldiers in Iraq
These are just a few facts that illustrate the gross non-observance of Bulgaria’s neutrality in relation to the USSR and our Balkan neighbors. The great crime can be seen in detail in the archives of the government and the palace, but it is shyly not publicized by historians and journalists. Where more interesting are the State Security files from more recent times.
As can be seen, the “unprovoked and unjust aggression of the USSR” is the result not of Stalin’s ill will, but of the violation of international legal norms by the Bulgarian government.
Not infrequently, historians and politicians put forward the idea that at that time the Bulgarian government had no choice, that it was powerless against the aggressive intentions of Germany in the Balkans and, for this reason, was forced to agree to everything that was asked of it.
It is absurd in history to build hypotheses like: “What if…” but I will allow myself to recall an episode from the history of the Kingdom of Denmark from the same time. Neutral Denmark refused to obey Germany’s dictates and allow her troops through her territory. A German military operation followed in response and it was occupied for several days without much resistance. When the Hitlerites began the persecution of the Danish Jews, the king of defeated Denmark pinned the yellow Star of David to his lapel and defiantly walked through the streets of the capital. After the end of the Second World War, the Kingdom of Denmark was among the winners because it defended its neutrality even at the cost of occupation.
The topic of Bulgaria’s neutrality does not end with the bitter pills of the past. Even today, the country’s rulers hardly think about these century-old conventions.
When the US was crushing Yugoslavia in 1999, we unthinkingly violated the UN Charter by aiding the US in this undeclared war.
In the US war against Iraq, we again chose military cooperation on one side instead of neutrality.
In both cases, these military actions were without UN sanction and, in the sense of international legal documents, were an act of war.
Militarily, the modern world is largely dominated by the US, and they are able to dictate to nations their own understandings of good and evil, justice and injustice. Perhaps this feeds the illusory sense of our politicians that as a loyal ally we can irresponsibly and with impunity violate our neutrality in conflicts between third countries. More than once, this fraud has led Bulgaria into a trap. Violation of international law sooner or later bears its bitter fruits. Unfortunately, the generation that picks these fruits is very often mistaken that someone else planted the poisonous tree for them.
I will add one more thing. In the world, which is so unfairly divided into weak and strong, into small and large, the ancient Greek proverb is recorded as an axiom: “What is allowed to Zeus is not allowed to the bull.” This cynicism is not codified in any international legal act, but it, alas, operates without fail. Bulgaria should not allow itself what Zeus allowed.
#Bulgarian #neutralities #View #Info
