In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

CHAPTER 4 September Ninth, “People’s Democracy” and Socialism This essay traces the evolution of the views on the communist takeover in Bulgaria (September 9, 1944), the “people’s democracy” (1944–1948), and socialism for the duration of the regime and after its fall. The communist regime shaped and strictly controlled knowledge about itself, its genesis , and its past. The regime’s ideologically distorted self-image is of interest to historiography as an extreme case in which historical knowledge is subject to direct politicization and ideologization in legitimating power. At first sight, notions about the past would seem to be fixed once and for all. But precisely because knowledge of the past is set in direct relation to an ever-changing present political agenda, it is not fixed but subject to revision. The fall of communism precipitated a radical re-evaluation and reconceptualization of the recent past, often referred to as the “rewriting” of history. While it restores many empirical “truths,” it also satisfies the moral sense of justice (primarily of the victims) and is played out in a social context not devoid of relations with politics, though of a different kind (as will be seen). September Ninth On September 5, 1944, the Soviet Union declared war on Bulgaria (an ally of Hitler’s Germany), and the Soviet army crossed the Danube and marched into the country. On September 9 political authority in Bulgaria passed into the hands of the “Fatherland Front,” consisting of several political forces under the guidance of the Bulgarian Communist Party. Communist rule would last for almost half a century. September 9 became September Ninth—its sacred beginning, a founding myth, and the major national celebration day. The naming-interpretation of this date was of 224 Debating the Past fundamental importance for the regime, because it defined the way it was established and thus directly affected its legitimacy. It mattered to the communist rulers whether they had assumed power with the force of the Soviet army or relying on their own guerilla forces (the partisans), whether by a military coup d’état or by a popular uprising. More precisely , at stake was the relation between these factors and their center of gravity: the Soviet army, the military coup d’état in Sofia (carried out by pro-communist officers), the takeover of power in various localities by the partisans, and popular support.1 In the first days the communist leader of the internal resistance, Traicho Kostov, defined what happened on September 9 as an “antifascist revolution.” This was rejected by Georgi Dimitrov, general secretary of the Comintern from 1935 until its dissolution in 1943 and head of the Foreign Bureau of the Bulgarian Communist Party, which directed the resistance from Moscow during the war. He created and imposed the formula that the events were an “armed popular uprising” (in another version , an “all-people’s” uprising) against the monarcho-fascist dictatorship and the German occupiers; this characterization avoided the threatening impression of a social (class) revolution.2 This formula was codified in the major party documents, especially authoritatively in Dimitrov’s report before the Fifth Congress of the Bulgarian Communist Party in 1948.3 It 1 The facts, with emphasis on the partisans’ actions against the background of the Soviet advance, in Istoriya na antifashistkata borba v Bŭlgariya 1939/1944 (History of the antifascist struggle in Bulgaria 1939/1944), vol. 2 (Sofia: Partizdat, 1982), 225–271. A presentation of the events with a different emphasis (the Soviet troops waiting for the “internal factor” to assume power) after 1989 in Evgeniya Kalinova and Iskra Baeva, Bŭlgarskite prekhodi 1939–2005 (Bulgarian transitions, 1939–2005) (Sofia: Paradigma, 2006), 34–40. 2 Petŭr Avramov, “Razvitie na vŭzgleda za Devetoseptemvriiskoto vŭstanie i narodnodemokratichnata vlast (1944–1948 g.)” (Development of the views on the uprising of September 9 and people’s-democratic rule, 1944–1948), Istoricheski pregled 38, no. 3 (1982): 76–94, esp. 83. 3 Georgi Dimitrov, “Otechestveniyat front, negovoto razvitie i predstoyashtite mu zadachi. Doklad pred Vtoriya kongres na Otechestveniya front, 2 fevruari 1948 g.” (The Fatherland Front, its development, and its forthcoming tasks. Report before the Second Congress of the Fatherland Front, February 2, 1948). In Georgi Dimitrov, Sŭchineniya (Works), vol. 13 (Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BKP, 1955), 447–508, citation on 469; Georgi Dimitrov, “Politicheski otchet na Tsentralniya komitet na BRP (k.) pred Petiya kongres na partiyata, 19 dek. 1948” (Political report of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Workers’ Party [Communists] before the...

Share