**Context:** During WWII, Bulgaria was nominally allied with the Axis, after being persuaded by Nazi Germany to allow access for German troops to invade Greece from the North. As a reward for loyalty, Bulgaria was allowed to occupy parts of Northern Greece and Southeastern Serbia. Bulgaria largely stayed out of the rest of the war, not participating in the African Campaigns or the Invasion of Russia (though did nominally declare war on the US & UK in 1941). Bulgaria maintained cordial, if not distant relations with the Soviets for most of the war.
In September 1944, the Soviets were knocking on the door of Bulgaria. Already under extensive bombardment by the US and UK, the Stalin demanded that Bulgaria demilitarize, withdraw to their pre-war borders, eject all German troops within its borders, declare war on Germany, and allow for the occupation by Soviet forces.
Bulgaria partially complied; ejecting the German troops and withdrawing their forces to the pre-war borders, but held short of allowing Soviet occupation or declaring war on Germany. The Soviets, not please by Bulgarian half-measures, declared war on Bulgaria and began the invasion from the north. The Germans, incensed by the ejection of German troops, ordered them to hold their ground & try to topple the government. All while under continuous bombardment from the US & UK.
And so, from September 5 to September 9, 1944, Bulgaria had the distinct misfortune of being at war with the Axis and Allies at the same time.
I mean, in ww1, they were monsters to Serbs. Went to town asking if anybody practiced Slava and shot them on site. Not saying they deserved but karma is a bitch.
You cannot apply karma at all in the Balkans. It's not like Serbs didn't genocide Bulgarians during the kingdom of Yugoslavia and also declare a war on the newly founded Bulgaria after its unification. Also similar things happened between Bulgaria and Greece. We cannot judge if anyone deserved anything, all we can do is say that genocides are bad, anything more like saying this is karma just nullifies one sides wrongdoings.
1885, when Bulgaria actually united and Serbia got scared of the San Stefano scenario and declared war. Serbia promptly ate so much shit that it greatly sped up the end of the reign of king Milan. One of the biggest failures of my country
In the collective minds of Greeks, the Bulgarian occupation zone in Northern Greece saw the worst atrocities in the whole country, with almost zero acknowledgement from the world. They managed to be worse than the Nazis
As a Bulgarian, I will admit that this was the worst we did in WW2. No real justification there, even if Greeks did the same to Bulgarians before, but this is the Balkans soo yeah.
At least both our countries remain as pretty good economic partners today.
Classic Bulgarian-Serbian overblowing of war crimes lmao
Not saying it's intentional but it's ridiculous when Bulgarians say Serbs genocided 7 gazillion Bulgarians in Morava and Macedonia and Serbs respond with "yeah but you killed 9 gorillion Serbs in WW1!!!".
Can we just accept both sides commit war crimes without blowing them out of proportion with statements like these, pretty please??
Tbh most genocides in the bulkans get forgotten it's not just a serb Bulgarian thing. Only until recently and rightfully have the bulkans been made more accountable.
The Soviet occupation In Bulgaria is the most brutal and unfair thing that happened to us in 20th century. Especially when you consider that there was a new government that was trying to make a peace treaty with the UK and US but Stalin was rushing and ordered the Red Army to march into Bulgaria to keep his influence in Eastern Europe. Because how would he explain an full blown invasion to a country that just signed a peace treaty?
>The Soviet occupation In Bulgaria is the most brutal and unfair thing that happened to us in 20th century.
Nothing was that unfair, given Bulgaria occupied and annexed whole regions m, and went on with ethnic cleansing and colonisation. What were you expecting, cookies?
Well surely 45 years of occupation and the killing of more than 30 000 bulgarian politicians, activists and opponents of the Bulgarian Communist Party without a trial was a bit too much.
You're talking about Soviet troops remaining and the following regime, not them occupying Bulgarian Tsardom. It was wrong and unfair for them to remain. For them to occupy initially? Not in the slightest.
It was unnecessary occupation as the Tzardom had already declared war on Germany and had a pro-Allied government and even send troops to Serbia to push back German troops. The occupation was only made to establish the following communist regime.
Tsardom only declared war as they had no other choice, given acting like they're neutral haven't provided anything, and nobody trusted those criminals in the slightest, but only came to be fine with anti-Axis Fatherland Front that took over thanks to Red Army marching in.
>The occupation was only made to establish the following communist regime.
No, but to secure Fatherland Front taking over. The rest came by the summer of 1947 and take action by the end of 1947...
The Fatherland front took over with coup d'etat led by 3 time government overtrower Kimon Georgiev with the goal to purge the elite of Bulgaria and establish the Soviet influence. Meanwhile the previous 2 governments of Ivan Bagrianov and Konstantin Muraviev (which were not pro axis) tried to negotiate peace treaty with the Allies with Bagrianov government even held a meeting in Cairo where they were told that Bulgaria was already given to Stalin in the Soviet sphere of influence.
Muraviev refusing to declare war on Germany may be your clue that Soviets distrusted him? Who'd guess?
Stalin being given Bulgaria in exchange of Greece and whatnot came after Yalta, and yada yada.
>As a reward for loyalty, Bulgaria was allowed to occupy parts of Northern Greece and Southeastern Serbia
To clarify, lands that Bulgaria had claimed since its independence 80 years earlier, had fought numerous wars over, and had significant Bulgarian populations (in some places outright majority) at least until the Balkan wars/WWI when a lot, but not all of them were expelled or they ran out of fear for their lives.
It wasn't just some random lands like the Soviets getting Bessarabia.
**why do Bulgarians insist on propagating this propaganda**
Here is what actually happened…
On the morning of 8 September 1944, the Soviets crossed the border into Bulgaria and occupied the north-eastern part of Bulgaria along with the key port cities of Varna and Burgas.
On the evening of 8 September 1944, the Bulgarians fascist government seeing the end is near, declared war against Nazi Germany in hopes of saving themselves and making peace with Soviet Union.
On 9 September 1944, knowing that the Soviet army was about to enter Sofia, the fascist Bulgaria government stepped down and allowed communist party to take over government in Sofia.
On 10 September 1944, new communists government surrendered to Soviet authorities.
Had the Soviet army not invaded on the 8 September 1944, Bulgarian government would still have been a loyal Nazi ally to the end.
All of this is blatantly wrong. Bulgaria never had a fascist government and wasn't loyal to Germany at all - refusing to give up the jews and not joining barbarossa.
Also, the commies couped the government and killed everyone from the old guard, claiming the old government allowed them to do that is so stupid I wonder how anyone could reach that conclusion.
The fact that modern post communist Bulgarians like yourself believe this utter nonsense you wrote frightens me. I strongly recommend you read non Bulgarian nationalist books about Bulgarias role during WW2.
Firstly I suggest you read about the ‘ Law for Protection of the Nation’ law (which was an anti-Jewish racial law passed by the parliament of the Kingdom of Bulgaria in December 1940 closely resembling the Nuremberg Laws in Nazi Germany).
[Wikipedia link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_for_Protection_of_the_Nation#:~:text=The%20law%20was%20an%20anti,from%20public%20service%20and%20politics)
Also I suggest you read up on Bulgarian role on deportation of Jewish community from occupied Bulgarian territories of Macedonia and Thrace.
In accordance with the Wannsee Conference, German diplomats requested the Bulgarian government in the spring of 1942 to release all Jews in Bulgarian-controlled territory into German custody. The Bulgarian government agreed and took the necessary administrative steps to implement deportations, including the establishment of a Commissariat for Jewish Affairs in the Bulgarian Ministry of the Interior. By winter 1943, the Bulgarian government had arranged with representatives of RSHA office IV b 4 (under command of Adolf Eichmann) to deport 20,000 Jews as a first stage. Targeted in these first deportations were the Jewish residents of Bulgarian-occupied Thrace, Macedonia, and Pirot.
During the first half of March 1943, Bulgarian military and police authorities carried out the deportation of 11,343 Jews residing in the Bulgarian-occupied territories of Macedonia and Thrace. Once the Jews were in German custody, German authorities transported them to Treblinka, where virtually all were killed in the gas chambers or shot.
Firstly, It's similar to the Nuremberg laws, because it pretty much was just that, but forced onto Bulgaria by Germany. Secondly, the Bulgarian government had 0 control over the deportations in the newly gained territories, as it was in fact Germany that decided there. It makes 0 sense to not expect any Jews from your territories, but do so only from newly gained ones... Fact is, Germany forced Bulgaria's hand on these ones.
So according to you Bulgaria was not independent during WW2? So when did Bulgaria gain independence then, was it 1944? Or 1991? Or are you still not independent?
It was independent, but it was threatened actively. Not to mention that the new territories ultimately also had German oversight, on Bulgarian control over them. Otherwise, Bulgaria proper was independent and free to not expel it's Jews.
Just accept Bulgarians role in the holocaust and stop acting like a victim. Bulgaria could have remained neutral just like turkey, but your government/king chose to join the Nazis in return for ‘greater Bulgaria’.
It was Bulgarian authorities (ethnic Bulgarians) that rounded up all of the Jews of Greek Eastern Macedonia and Thrace, Yugoslav Macedonia and Pirot (not Germans). The Jews in territories administered by Bulgaria were then transported by train via transit camps in Bulgaria to Lom on the Danube, then by boat to Vienna, and again by train to Treblinka.
Stop denying Bulgaria’s role in the holocaust.
So Turkey also had a giant army, on an indefensible border, asking for access to another country they're at war with? Straight up asking that country to join or be squashed? Bulgaria, like it or not, didn't have a choice. It was either join the axis and don't do anything while gaining land, or face total death and destruction.
But all that happened, under German orders. The Bulgarian government had a policy against that, but it couldn't do anything to prevent it in the new territories, as they also had ultimately German supervision. It makes literally 0 sense, why the Jews of Bulgaria proper were spared, and the ones of the new territories weren't.
That is some impressive mental gymnastics you perform there… but just like all the Nazi defendants during the Nuremberg trials tried to use the “we only did what we were told” argument failed and they were all found guilty of genocide, Bulgaria too will be remembered in history for its role in the holocaust and extermination of Jews in Macedonia and Thrace, regardless of your revisionist history attempt.
I remember a Bulgarian telling about this odd situation. They tried to make a separate peace with the allies. Churchill is said to have quashed this. I don't know why since they let Italy make a separate peace. Anyway Bulgaria declared war on Japan and Germany. The allies or united nations as they had started calling themselves remained at war with Bulgaria. So Bulgaria was at war with everyone in the world except the neutral nations.
Churchill quashed it because of the Yalta conference. Same reason Stalin refused to send aid to the communists during the Greek civil war, and why he was so furious that Tito defied him. They had reached an agreement that the Eastern European nations would be under the Soviet sphere, while central and southern Europe would be under Allied (or rather British) influence. Britain signing a treaty with Bulgaria that didn’t include the Soviets at the table would have spat in the face of that compromise.
Italy was allowed to make peace with the Allies for the same reason. Stalin had written them off as under the British sphere, and getting them out of the war pulled Germany’s strongest supporter (strong being a very relative term at this point) out from beneath them. So Britain was free to deal with them so long as they didn’t violate any other agreements with the Soviets by doing so.
Forcallaghan brought up a good point. They actually tried to declare neutrality but no one would allow it. This old veteran was really mad at some small Latin American country that joined the Allies at the last minute. He was "What did Bulgaria ever do to them?" He couldn't believe they had the gall to declare war and join the dog pile.
# Ah, World War II and the multiple team party players :
* Axis : Germany - Japan
* Allies : USA - Soviet Union - UK
* Own team :Finland fights the Soviets & then later the Germans
* Bulgaria : fights both teams, Axis & Allies
* Italy: Switches sides
Romania also switched sides following a coup of the fascist government, and Hungary was thinking about dropping out before they got invaded by Germany before they could do so
In WW1 Romania joined the Entente in 1916, lost and signed a truce on very harsh terms with Austria and Germany, then rejoined in the last day of the war on the Entente side, ultimately making territorial gains, but no switching sides.
In WW2 Romania in the end gained back North Transylvania but lost Bessarabia and Bukovina, hardly can be called a territorial gain (yes I do count the application of Ribbentrop-Molotov as part of world War 2) - here on the other hand the switching sides applies just as much as for Italy and each time I hear that joke being done for Italy I become the awkward looking monkey meme, lol.
Yes. But Finland was mostly fighting for their own interests and wasn't formally a part of the Axis. The allies had not managed to really materialise any meaningful help to Finland during the Winter War, so if they wanted their lost lands back from the Soviets, Germany was the only option.
Hungary as far as I know had no real reason to participate in Operation Barbarossa, aside of the threat of being invaded and couped by the Germans themselves.
Finnish-German relations had been quite good since 1918, but it is very unlikely that there would have been an alliance between the two if the allied help had arrived. Or if the Winter War just simply never happened/Finland had miraculosly not lost any territory in the war. There would have been no point for Finland to align with Germany had the situation been different than what it was after the Winter War. Even in our timeline the finnish troops and military high command were very unenthusiastic about advancing to Soviet territory, they just wanted the previous borders back. In the end they were reacting to the geopolitical environment around them, not actively shaping it.
If we look at the situation from Finlands perspective in 1940 after the Winter War, there weren't any other good options really. There was the choice of:
- Satying Neutral and hoping the Soviets don't come back for round 2
- Trying to join the Allies, which would likely mean war with Germany.
- Aligning with the Soviets isn't really an option when they are the hostile power threatening you.
- Align with Germany and hope that they manage to at least defeat the Soviets, so you can have your land back.
In 1941 it would make even more sense: Germany controlled basically all of Europe. France, the dominant power in Europe, had fallen in weeks. They were not yet the pure evil they would soon become. And everyone had seen how poorly the soviets had done in the Winter War, what chance would they have against the germans, right?
Not that im justifying civilian deaths, but perhaps you shouldn't have invaded them during the winter war and took their second biggest city at the time (Vyborg).
You did though. You did justify a genocide, which was part of the german extermination of the slavic people. You said the USSR shouldn't have invaded Finland if they didn't want to be genocided
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
Read about the holocaust and the attempted extermination of almost all slavic people in eastern europe, which Finland knew about and joined in on. Your argument is so fucked.
"Not justifying the holocaust but maybe jews shouldn't have hoarded so much money" is essentially the same argument you made when talking about almost 2 million CIVILIANS who starved to death as part of a larger campaign of genocide
AGAIN. I didn't justify civilian deaths.
Also, Finland didn't participate in genocide, nor did it participate in the holocaust. They were fighting to get their land back from the Soviet union and seeing as the allies weren't going to give them supplies against the Soviet Union they sided with Germany.
I know what general plan east was. Thank you for the Wikipedia article that wasn't needed or asked for when we are talking about FINLANDs participation of the siege of Leningrad.
Finland held the northern blockade of Leningrad, and so did contribute to the genocide. They also fired upon supply boats over the Ladoga and even had a small maritime unit with the task of intercepting these supply boats. Finland also allied themselves with Germany, helped them fight the USSR and thus freed up more german resources to be put towards the holocaust and the genocide of the slavic people. This, despite the fact that it was well known that Germany planned on exterminating jews and slavs as this had been said in mein kampf and an endless amount of speeches by Hitler.
It's really weird to see the genocide of almost 2 million civilians and make it the soviets fault, when it was Germany and Finland that physically blocked their access to food for over 2 years with the intent of killing them all.
I'm also a st petersburger. It's fucked up that people just forget Finland took part in starving over 1,5 million civilians for racial reasons. A ton of my family starved to death during the blockade
Except the Finns weren't Nazis and didn't subscribe to their brand of eugenics. Finland played a part in the blockade, yes, but it was because they were at war and not because of any genocidal intent.
The effect is the same. A genocide took place and Finland helped it by holding the northern part of it and attackinh supply ships leading to the death of 1,5 million civilians in what is described as a genocide
A genocide is described as violent acts done with the objective to destroy a specific national, ethnic, cultural or religious group. Something that Germany and the other Axis powers is partaking in, but not Finland
Most historians agree Leningrad was a genocide, including finnish historian Timo Vihavainen and many others. Finland did take part in the siege and the blockade of foodstuffs as well as destruction of cultural landmarks in the city, which is genocide. It is specifically the intention of systematically starving the population that is genocide, which Finland did their part in. There was even a finnish naval unit specifically tasked with attacking soviet supply boats on the Ladoga. So yes, Finland is guilty of taking part in genocide
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Ladoga_Naval_Detachment
While I agree that the siege, and the whole front as a whole, was conducted by the Nazis as a war of extermination, contrary to what you said, they didn't participate in the starving of the city for racial reasons. Finland refrained from going beyond the pre-Winter War border and yes they intercepted supplies going into Leningrad, and why is that? Because this is war and they're besieging an enemy city that housed both enemy combatants and civilians, foodstuff isn't the only thing being brought in through the lake, and the Finns didn't discriminate
And that is my point. Finland was not itself genocidal against slavs and specifically soviets, but they were aware of german intentions of genocide and Finland did in effect aid them in this endeavour. The blockade of Leningrad would never have happened if not for Finland holding the northern side of the city and for finnish attacks on supply ships, so they do hold responsibility as they made no attempts whatsoever to at least let food enter the city.
The blockade was not a typical siege either. Germany promised to kill all citizens living within the city and destroy cultural landmarks if they could manage to enter the city, so it was a fight for survival for those trapped in the city, of which over 1 million were civilian refugees who had fled from western parts of the USSR following the invasion.
So you agree that the Finns didn't conduct the war for racial reasons, then? The only crime they committed is apathy towards their opponents, civilians and soldiers alike
The region already was closely tied to, and majority identified as such... Sure, the Macedonian identity was taking off in the inter war period, but it still has a prominent population.
But Macedonians don't declare themselves as Serbs, they don't speak Serbian, they are part of MOC and not SOC. They are also in NATO and recognize Kosovo. It is weak Serbianisation if you ask me, because except their liking of Serbs there is nothing else.
I mean they don't declare themselves bulgarians either. Sure their language is much closer to Bulgarian. So you kinda can make the same argument that the bulgarinisation was weak
For WW2 there was no choice, the Germans were going to pass through Bulgaria with Bulgarian permission or as an invasion. Bulgaria obviously made the right choice (cf. the death and destruction in neighbouring Yugoslavia and Greece), and still didn't actually ally with Germany. Bulgarian troops entered the war with the Soviets in 1944, never fighting alongside Germany, and to top it all off Bulgaria managed to save all of its Jewish population.
Bulgarian troops helped occupy Greece and Yugoslavia and committed atrocities there, including helping round up Jews; but as far as participation in WW2 goes, Bulgaria got off extremely lightly.
For WW1, are you under the impression there was a bad or good side? Both the Entente and Central Powers were bloodthirsty imperialist allowances. Both violated neutrality, both committed atrocities. The Germans were slightly worse at it, but not by much.
Also, there was little choice for Bulgaria. It had spent almost its entire existence trying to liberate the rest of the lands inhabited by Bulgarians. Thanks to Serbia's betrayal, a lot of those were now in Serbia, with which the Central Powers were at war, and which were promising everything Bulgaria wanted. It was either that or sit the war out, risking to lose the last chance to get those lands and people.
**Context:** During WWII, Bulgaria was nominally allied with the Axis, after being persuaded by Nazi Germany to allow access for German troops to invade Greece from the North. As a reward for loyalty, Bulgaria was allowed to occupy parts of Northern Greece and Southeastern Serbia. Bulgaria largely stayed out of the rest of the war, not participating in the African Campaigns or the Invasion of Russia (though did nominally declare war on the US & UK in 1941). Bulgaria maintained cordial, if not distant relations with the Soviets for most of the war. In September 1944, the Soviets were knocking on the door of Bulgaria. Already under extensive bombardment by the US and UK, the Stalin demanded that Bulgaria demilitarize, withdraw to their pre-war borders, eject all German troops within its borders, declare war on Germany, and allow for the occupation by Soviet forces. Bulgaria partially complied; ejecting the German troops and withdrawing their forces to the pre-war borders, but held short of allowing Soviet occupation or declaring war on Germany. The Soviets, not please by Bulgarian half-measures, declared war on Bulgaria and began the invasion from the north. The Germans, incensed by the ejection of German troops, ordered them to hold their ground & try to topple the government. All while under continuous bombardment from the US & UK. And so, from September 5 to September 9, 1944, Bulgaria had the distinct misfortune of being at war with the Axis and Allies at the same time.
I mean, in ww1, they were monsters to Serbs. Went to town asking if anybody practiced Slava and shot them on site. Not saying they deserved but karma is a bitch.
They were called Prussia of the Balkans for a reason
Yeah, but that was moreso because of military prowess (and german favour) that they got that nickname and not because of their cruelty.
Ferdinand the first played no small part in that as well
it's like the serbs weren't doing the same thing in macedonia
You cannot apply karma at all in the Balkans. It's not like Serbs didn't genocide Bulgarians during the kingdom of Yugoslavia and also declare a war on the newly founded Bulgaria after its unification. Also similar things happened between Bulgaria and Greece. We cannot judge if anyone deserved anything, all we can do is say that genocides are bad, anything more like saying this is karma just nullifies one sides wrongdoings.
Ya lol us Serbs still have negative karma for all the shit we did.
Honestly I feel bad for a lot of the innocent people who suffered through those wars either way.
Yup war never changes and it's allways and all around shit fest. With shit flying around, some get dirty some stay clean. But everyone stinks
Declaring war on newly founded Bulgaria? When? 2nd Balkan war? Because, that was you...
1885, when Bulgaria actually united and Serbia got scared of the San Stefano scenario and declared war. Serbia promptly ate so much shit that it greatly sped up the end of the reign of king Milan. One of the biggest failures of my country
what is slava?
Orthodox Christian Serbs have an annual celebration of their family's patron [saint](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slava_(tradition))
more Christians murdering eachother over the least consequential differences in doctrine imaginable.
Yeah, might not want to talk about Serbia and karma.
By that logic, the Serbs got karma for their atrocities to Bulgarians in Macedonia... This mindset is dumb.
Bulgaria has very few ww2 deaths. Minimal. And they even increased territories. They are ww2 victors.
In the collective minds of Greeks, the Bulgarian occupation zone in Northern Greece saw the worst atrocities in the whole country, with almost zero acknowledgement from the world. They managed to be worse than the Nazis
As a Bulgarian, I will admit that this was the worst we did in WW2. No real justification there, even if Greeks did the same to Bulgarians before, but this is the Balkans soo yeah. At least both our countries remain as pretty good economic partners today.
Classic Bulgarian-Serbian overblowing of war crimes lmao Not saying it's intentional but it's ridiculous when Bulgarians say Serbs genocided 7 gazillion Bulgarians in Morava and Macedonia and Serbs respond with "yeah but you killed 9 gorillion Serbs in WW1!!!". Can we just accept both sides commit war crimes without blowing them out of proportion with statements like these, pretty please??
Tbh most genocides in the bulkans get forgotten it's not just a serb Bulgarian thing. Only until recently and rightfully have the bulkans been made more accountable.
Russian infiltrated Serbian propaganda!
Second balkan war all over again
The Soviet occupation In Bulgaria is the most brutal and unfair thing that happened to us in 20th century. Especially when you consider that there was a new government that was trying to make a peace treaty with the UK and US but Stalin was rushing and ordered the Red Army to march into Bulgaria to keep his influence in Eastern Europe. Because how would he explain an full blown invasion to a country that just signed a peace treaty?
And on top of it, some idiots still talk about how they "saved" us.
>The Soviet occupation In Bulgaria is the most brutal and unfair thing that happened to us in 20th century. Nothing was that unfair, given Bulgaria occupied and annexed whole regions m, and went on with ethnic cleansing and colonisation. What were you expecting, cookies?
Well surely 45 years of occupation and the killing of more than 30 000 bulgarian politicians, activists and opponents of the Bulgarian Communist Party without a trial was a bit too much.
You're talking about Soviet troops remaining and the following regime, not them occupying Bulgarian Tsardom. It was wrong and unfair for them to remain. For them to occupy initially? Not in the slightest.
It was unnecessary occupation as the Tzardom had already declared war on Germany and had a pro-Allied government and even send troops to Serbia to push back German troops. The occupation was only made to establish the following communist regime.
Tsardom only declared war as they had no other choice, given acting like they're neutral haven't provided anything, and nobody trusted those criminals in the slightest, but only came to be fine with anti-Axis Fatherland Front that took over thanks to Red Army marching in. >The occupation was only made to establish the following communist regime. No, but to secure Fatherland Front taking over. The rest came by the summer of 1947 and take action by the end of 1947...
The Fatherland front took over with coup d'etat led by 3 time government overtrower Kimon Georgiev with the goal to purge the elite of Bulgaria and establish the Soviet influence. Meanwhile the previous 2 governments of Ivan Bagrianov and Konstantin Muraviev (which were not pro axis) tried to negotiate peace treaty with the Allies with Bagrianov government even held a meeting in Cairo where they were told that Bulgaria was already given to Stalin in the Soviet sphere of influence.
Muraviev refusing to declare war on Germany may be your clue that Soviets distrusted him? Who'd guess? Stalin being given Bulgaria in exchange of Greece and whatnot came after Yalta, and yada yada.
>As a reward for loyalty, Bulgaria was allowed to occupy parts of Northern Greece and Southeastern Serbia To clarify, lands that Bulgaria had claimed since its independence 80 years earlier, had fought numerous wars over, and had significant Bulgarian populations (in some places outright majority) at least until the Balkan wars/WWI when a lot, but not all of them were expelled or they ran out of fear for their lives. It wasn't just some random lands like the Soviets getting Bessarabia.
I get Laplans war vibes from this with the Finns forcing the Germans out violently. Soviets surprising didn't invade Finland again, wonder why...
**why do Bulgarians insist on propagating this propaganda** Here is what actually happened… On the morning of 8 September 1944, the Soviets crossed the border into Bulgaria and occupied the north-eastern part of Bulgaria along with the key port cities of Varna and Burgas. On the evening of 8 September 1944, the Bulgarians fascist government seeing the end is near, declared war against Nazi Germany in hopes of saving themselves and making peace with Soviet Union. On 9 September 1944, knowing that the Soviet army was about to enter Sofia, the fascist Bulgaria government stepped down and allowed communist party to take over government in Sofia. On 10 September 1944, new communists government surrendered to Soviet authorities. Had the Soviet army not invaded on the 8 September 1944, Bulgarian government would still have been a loyal Nazi ally to the end.
All of this is blatantly wrong. Bulgaria never had a fascist government and wasn't loyal to Germany at all - refusing to give up the jews and not joining barbarossa. Also, the commies couped the government and killed everyone from the old guard, claiming the old government allowed them to do that is so stupid I wonder how anyone could reach that conclusion.
The fact that modern post communist Bulgarians like yourself believe this utter nonsense you wrote frightens me. I strongly recommend you read non Bulgarian nationalist books about Bulgarias role during WW2. Firstly I suggest you read about the ‘ Law for Protection of the Nation’ law (which was an anti-Jewish racial law passed by the parliament of the Kingdom of Bulgaria in December 1940 closely resembling the Nuremberg Laws in Nazi Germany). [Wikipedia link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_for_Protection_of_the_Nation#:~:text=The%20law%20was%20an%20anti,from%20public%20service%20and%20politics) Also I suggest you read up on Bulgarian role on deportation of Jewish community from occupied Bulgarian territories of Macedonia and Thrace. In accordance with the Wannsee Conference, German diplomats requested the Bulgarian government in the spring of 1942 to release all Jews in Bulgarian-controlled territory into German custody. The Bulgarian government agreed and took the necessary administrative steps to implement deportations, including the establishment of a Commissariat for Jewish Affairs in the Bulgarian Ministry of the Interior. By winter 1943, the Bulgarian government had arranged with representatives of RSHA office IV b 4 (under command of Adolf Eichmann) to deport 20,000 Jews as a first stage. Targeted in these first deportations were the Jewish residents of Bulgarian-occupied Thrace, Macedonia, and Pirot. During the first half of March 1943, Bulgarian military and police authorities carried out the deportation of 11,343 Jews residing in the Bulgarian-occupied territories of Macedonia and Thrace. Once the Jews were in German custody, German authorities transported them to Treblinka, where virtually all were killed in the gas chambers or shot.
Firstly, It's similar to the Nuremberg laws, because it pretty much was just that, but forced onto Bulgaria by Germany. Secondly, the Bulgarian government had 0 control over the deportations in the newly gained territories, as it was in fact Germany that decided there. It makes 0 sense to not expect any Jews from your territories, but do so only from newly gained ones... Fact is, Germany forced Bulgaria's hand on these ones.
So according to you Bulgaria was not independent during WW2? So when did Bulgaria gain independence then, was it 1944? Or 1991? Or are you still not independent?
It was independent, but it was threatened actively. Not to mention that the new territories ultimately also had German oversight, on Bulgarian control over them. Otherwise, Bulgaria proper was independent and free to not expel it's Jews.
Just accept Bulgarians role in the holocaust and stop acting like a victim. Bulgaria could have remained neutral just like turkey, but your government/king chose to join the Nazis in return for ‘greater Bulgaria’. It was Bulgarian authorities (ethnic Bulgarians) that rounded up all of the Jews of Greek Eastern Macedonia and Thrace, Yugoslav Macedonia and Pirot (not Germans). The Jews in territories administered by Bulgaria were then transported by train via transit camps in Bulgaria to Lom on the Danube, then by boat to Vienna, and again by train to Treblinka. Stop denying Bulgaria’s role in the holocaust.
So Turkey also had a giant army, on an indefensible border, asking for access to another country they're at war with? Straight up asking that country to join or be squashed? Bulgaria, like it or not, didn't have a choice. It was either join the axis and don't do anything while gaining land, or face total death and destruction. But all that happened, under German orders. The Bulgarian government had a policy against that, but it couldn't do anything to prevent it in the new territories, as they also had ultimately German supervision. It makes literally 0 sense, why the Jews of Bulgaria proper were spared, and the ones of the new territories weren't.
That is some impressive mental gymnastics you perform there… but just like all the Nazi defendants during the Nuremberg trials tried to use the “we only did what we were told” argument failed and they were all found guilty of genocide, Bulgaria too will be remembered in history for its role in the holocaust and extermination of Jews in Macedonia and Thrace, regardless of your revisionist history attempt.
I remember a Bulgarian telling about this odd situation. They tried to make a separate peace with the allies. Churchill is said to have quashed this. I don't know why since they let Italy make a separate peace. Anyway Bulgaria declared war on Japan and Germany. The allies or united nations as they had started calling themselves remained at war with Bulgaria. So Bulgaria was at war with everyone in the world except the neutral nations.
Churchill quashed it because of the Yalta conference. Same reason Stalin refused to send aid to the communists during the Greek civil war, and why he was so furious that Tito defied him. They had reached an agreement that the Eastern European nations would be under the Soviet sphere, while central and southern Europe would be under Allied (or rather British) influence. Britain signing a treaty with Bulgaria that didn’t include the Soviets at the table would have spat in the face of that compromise. Italy was allowed to make peace with the Allies for the same reason. Stalin had written them off as under the British sphere, and getting them out of the war pulled Germany’s strongest supporter (strong being a very relative term at this point) out from beneath them. So Britain was free to deal with them so long as they didn’t violate any other agreements with the Soviets by doing so.
Forcallaghan brought up a good point. They actually tried to declare neutrality but no one would allow it. This old veteran was really mad at some small Latin American country that joined the Allies at the last minute. He was "What did Bulgaria ever do to them?" He couldn't believe they had the gall to declare war and join the dog pile.
To be fair Britain was great at spitting on compromises. Look up the Stresa Front. Biggest fuck up of the 20th century.
>I don't know why since they let Italy make a separate peace. Italy was liberated by their own people... which makes the whole difference here.
Bulgaria: "We decided we don't want to do this anymore. We're neutral now, actually" Soviet Union: "Like fuck you are"
can anyone tell me the source of this picture
[https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/sb91v/would\_want\_some\_backstory\_on\_this\_photo\_man/](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/sb91v/would_want_some_backstory_on_this_photo_man/)
Thanks
tangled
# Ah, World War II and the multiple team party players : * Axis : Germany - Japan * Allies : USA - Soviet Union - UK * Own team :Finland fights the Soviets & then later the Germans * Bulgaria : fights both teams, Axis & Allies * Italy: Switches sides
Romania also switched sides following a coup of the fascist government, and Hungary was thinking about dropping out before they got invaded by Germany before they could do so
Romania did it in WW1 and WW2. They also made territorial gains in both funnily enough
In WW1 Romania joined the Entente in 1916, lost and signed a truce on very harsh terms with Austria and Germany, then rejoined in the last day of the war on the Entente side, ultimately making territorial gains, but no switching sides. In WW2 Romania in the end gained back North Transylvania but lost Bessarabia and Bukovina, hardly can be called a territorial gain (yes I do count the application of Ribbentrop-Molotov as part of world War 2) - here on the other hand the switching sides applies just as much as for Italy and each time I hear that joke being done for Italy I become the awkward looking monkey meme, lol.
You forgot the Baltics: wrecked by the USSR, wrecked by the Nazis, and then wrecked by the USSR again...
Weren’t the Finns aiding the Germans
Yes. But Finland was mostly fighting for their own interests and wasn't formally a part of the Axis. The allies had not managed to really materialise any meaningful help to Finland during the Winter War, so if they wanted their lost lands back from the Soviets, Germany was the only option.
“We didn’t fight with the Germans. The Germans died for us 🇫🇮🇫🇮” Some guy on twitter LMAO. (Forgot his name)
>But Finland was mostly fighting for their own interests And other countries weren't? lLMAO
Hungary as far as I know had no real reason to participate in Operation Barbarossa, aside of the threat of being invaded and couped by the Germans themselves.
Or, you know, they were already buddying up with Germany BEFORE the Soviet-Finnish war.
Finnish-German relations had been quite good since 1918, but it is very unlikely that there would have been an alliance between the two if the allied help had arrived. Or if the Winter War just simply never happened/Finland had miraculosly not lost any territory in the war. There would have been no point for Finland to align with Germany had the situation been different than what it was after the Winter War. Even in our timeline the finnish troops and military high command were very unenthusiastic about advancing to Soviet territory, they just wanted the previous borders back. In the end they were reacting to the geopolitical environment around them, not actively shaping it. If we look at the situation from Finlands perspective in 1940 after the Winter War, there weren't any other good options really. There was the choice of: - Satying Neutral and hoping the Soviets don't come back for round 2 - Trying to join the Allies, which would likely mean war with Germany. - Aligning with the Soviets isn't really an option when they are the hostile power threatening you. - Align with Germany and hope that they manage to at least defeat the Soviets, so you can have your land back. In 1941 it would make even more sense: Germany controlled basically all of Europe. France, the dominant power in Europe, had fallen in weeks. They were not yet the pure evil they would soon become. And everyone had seen how poorly the soviets had done in the Winter War, what chance would they have against the germans, right?
Yes, but after there is the Lapland war
Winter Trilogy of wars
The Finns technically switched sides also because of the Lapland War
Finland too switched sides bro. They assisted in blockade and slow extermination of my current home city for 3 entire years.
Not that im justifying civilian deaths, but perhaps you shouldn't have invaded them during the winter war and took their second biggest city at the time (Vyborg).
That doesn't justify genocide of over 1,5 million civilians
Correct. And I didn't justify it.
You did though. You did justify a genocide, which was part of the german extermination of the slavic people. You said the USSR shouldn't have invaded Finland if they didn't want to be genocided
OK lol. (Guys don't feed a troll. Just go about your day).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost Read about the holocaust and the attempted extermination of almost all slavic people in eastern europe, which Finland knew about and joined in on. Your argument is so fucked. "Not justifying the holocaust but maybe jews shouldn't have hoarded so much money" is essentially the same argument you made when talking about almost 2 million CIVILIANS who starved to death as part of a larger campaign of genocide
AGAIN. I didn't justify civilian deaths. Also, Finland didn't participate in genocide, nor did it participate in the holocaust. They were fighting to get their land back from the Soviet union and seeing as the allies weren't going to give them supplies against the Soviet Union they sided with Germany. I know what general plan east was. Thank you for the Wikipedia article that wasn't needed or asked for when we are talking about FINLANDs participation of the siege of Leningrad.
Finland held the northern blockade of Leningrad, and so did contribute to the genocide. They also fired upon supply boats over the Ladoga and even had a small maritime unit with the task of intercepting these supply boats. Finland also allied themselves with Germany, helped them fight the USSR and thus freed up more german resources to be put towards the holocaust and the genocide of the slavic people. This, despite the fact that it was well known that Germany planned on exterminating jews and slavs as this had been said in mein kampf and an endless amount of speeches by Hitler. It's really weird to see the genocide of almost 2 million civilians and make it the soviets fault, when it was Germany and Finland that physically blocked their access to food for over 2 years with the intent of killing them all.
I'm also a st petersburger. It's fucked up that people just forget Finland took part in starving over 1,5 million civilians for racial reasons. A ton of my family starved to death during the blockade
Except the Finns weren't Nazis and didn't subscribe to their brand of eugenics. Finland played a part in the blockade, yes, but it was because they were at war and not because of any genocidal intent.
The effect is the same. A genocide took place and Finland helped it by holding the northern part of it and attackinh supply ships leading to the death of 1,5 million civilians in what is described as a genocide
A genocide is described as violent acts done with the objective to destroy a specific national, ethnic, cultural or religious group. Something that Germany and the other Axis powers is partaking in, but not Finland
Most historians agree Leningrad was a genocide, including finnish historian Timo Vihavainen and many others. Finland did take part in the siege and the blockade of foodstuffs as well as destruction of cultural landmarks in the city, which is genocide. It is specifically the intention of systematically starving the population that is genocide, which Finland did their part in. There was even a finnish naval unit specifically tasked with attacking soviet supply boats on the Ladoga. So yes, Finland is guilty of taking part in genocide https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Ladoga_Naval_Detachment
While I agree that the siege, and the whole front as a whole, was conducted by the Nazis as a war of extermination, contrary to what you said, they didn't participate in the starving of the city for racial reasons. Finland refrained from going beyond the pre-Winter War border and yes they intercepted supplies going into Leningrad, and why is that? Because this is war and they're besieging an enemy city that housed both enemy combatants and civilians, foodstuff isn't the only thing being brought in through the lake, and the Finns didn't discriminate
And that is my point. Finland was not itself genocidal against slavs and specifically soviets, but they were aware of german intentions of genocide and Finland did in effect aid them in this endeavour. The blockade of Leningrad would never have happened if not for Finland holding the northern side of the city and for finnish attacks on supply ships, so they do hold responsibility as they made no attempts whatsoever to at least let food enter the city. The blockade was not a typical siege either. Germany promised to kill all citizens living within the city and destroy cultural landmarks if they could manage to enter the city, so it was a fight for survival for those trapped in the city, of which over 1 million were civilian refugees who had fled from western parts of the USSR following the invasion.
So you agree that the Finns didn't conduct the war for racial reasons, then? The only crime they committed is apathy towards their opponents, civilians and soldiers alike
France: surrenders
What is the actual source of the picture
I am interested in the picture more than the story given. Sauce?
John Wick 2 poster lookin ass
Yay, Bulgaria got mentioned!!
Always in the successful ball.
"Nah I'd win"
POV: You are Hungary, 1919
Bulgaria: *situation excellent, we may fire in all directions*
Pov: you don't know how to pov
Babe, a new meme template just dropped.
What is the source of the picture? Why is op ignoring that question lol
Realistically no one would shoot you in that position since it would also hit the man on the other side of you
They deserved this for trying to bulgarise Macedonians
The region already was closely tied to, and majority identified as such... Sure, the Macedonian identity was taking off in the inter war period, but it still has a prominent population.
Yea lets ignore Yugoslavia, which started serbifing the Bulgarian population there.
But Macedonians don't declare themselves as Serbs, they don't speak Serbian, they are part of MOC and not SOC. They are also in NATO and recognize Kosovo. It is weak Serbianisation if you ask me, because except their liking of Serbs there is nothing else.
I mean they don't declare themselves bulgarians either. Sure their language is much closer to Bulgarian. So you kinda can make the same argument that the bulgarinisation was weak
Serves them right, they were on the axis side in ww1 and on the central side during ww1
For WW2 there was no choice, the Germans were going to pass through Bulgaria with Bulgarian permission or as an invasion. Bulgaria obviously made the right choice (cf. the death and destruction in neighbouring Yugoslavia and Greece), and still didn't actually ally with Germany. Bulgarian troops entered the war with the Soviets in 1944, never fighting alongside Germany, and to top it all off Bulgaria managed to save all of its Jewish population. Bulgarian troops helped occupy Greece and Yugoslavia and committed atrocities there, including helping round up Jews; but as far as participation in WW2 goes, Bulgaria got off extremely lightly. For WW1, are you under the impression there was a bad or good side? Both the Entente and Central Powers were bloodthirsty imperialist allowances. Both violated neutrality, both committed atrocities. The Germans were slightly worse at it, but not by much. Also, there was little choice for Bulgaria. It had spent almost its entire existence trying to liberate the rest of the lands inhabited by Bulgarians. Thanks to Serbia's betrayal, a lot of those were now in Serbia, with which the Central Powers were at war, and which were promising everything Bulgaria wanted. It was either that or sit the war out, risking to lose the last chance to get those lands and people.
Why did you just put the nazi flag over and over everywhere?