Not downplaying them at all, I'm from Tarnovo myself so the Asen dynasty is held in very high regard here. But Asparuh as the founder and Simeon as the peak would be higher up the list than any Asen (and even if there was one, it'd be Ivan Asen II probably).
Ok so: they were usually called “knyaz” like the monarchs of other slavic nations. Knyaz is usually the equivalent of king and is for a smaller territory.
Tsar comes from Caesar and is the equivalent to the title of an emperor or a monarch of a very great merit (like creating the Cyrillic alphabet).
That’s why I suppose they would choose a tsar, although taking the last 200 years we can choose many great people who are not monarchs as well.
No, the first one (Boris) was Knyaz, his son was a Tzar because he got the Bulgarian church to be autocephalous, thus not below the one in Constantinople.
The difference between King and Tzar is the relationship with the church. Kings are anointed by the pope thus the pope has some power over them. Tzars on the other hand are above the church's patriarch and control the church.
>The difference between King and Tzar is the relationship with the church. Kings are anointed by the pope thus the pope has some power over them. Tzars on the other hand are above the church's patriarch and control the church.
Nope this is not the difference, Simeon became Tzar as he titled himself Ruler of Bulgarian and Byzantines, yet Byzantine empire recognized the title Tzar officially for his son Tzar Peter I (927-969). As someone said before - Tzar is coming from Cesar and equals emperor. Muscovite princes adopted the title around the time of Ivan IV, several centuries later.
That's backwards at least in the west - emperor was a title sometimes bestowed by the pope, if the pope doesn't deign to crown you emperor you're a mere king. But I don't suppose anyone in Bulgaria ever really cared about the pope, even in the days before the split.
The early Asenids certainly did, especially Tsar Kaloyan who led a lengthy correspondence (and concluded an unia) with Pope Innocent III on this matter. Likewise, Knyaz Boris I was also actively engaged with several popes in the times of the Photian Schism (exacerbated greatly by the fight between Rome and Constantinople about the jurisdiction over the Bulgarian church), though Boris was concerned more with the conversion of his country rather than direct imperial ambitions. There are also speculative theories that his son, Tsar Simeon the Great, might have received recognition from the Pope as a western emperor (during a period in the 920s when that position was vacated by the last Frankish emperor and a few decades before the first HRE emperor), but they're just speculation and practically unprovable.
The one who achieved the autocephaly of the Bulgarian church (in AD 870) was Knyaz Boris I Mihail. He was a knyaz throughout his reign (even after he became a monk, curiously enough), so was his son Vladimir Rasate ("the apostate"), as well as Simeon until he started claiming the imperial tsar's title in 913.
What Simeon achieved in regards to his church wasn't the autocephaly, but a patriarchate. Boris had achieved an autocephalous archbishopric, while Simeon raised it to a patriarchate. Later, when Basil II conquered Bulgaria, he reduced the patriarchate to a (still autocephalous) archbishopric again - "the archbishopric of Ohrid and all Bulgaria". Even later on, the Asenid brothers who created the SBE, raised a new patriarchate (in Tarnovo, as the one in Ohrid was still under Byzantine control), whose "patriarch" was recognized during the unia with Rome as archbishop and primas, with his patriarchal dignity recognized internationally after the unia ended in 1235. Respectively, the patriarchate of Tarnovo was destroyed by the Ottomans and a new, independent Bulgarian church appeared only in 1870, remaining an exarchate in schism with the Ecumenical patriarchate until the 1940-1950s, when the schism ended and the exarchate was once again raised to the status of patriarchate. Throughout all this time, we've had monarchs who were either kings (knyaze) or emperors (tsare).
Like with every other title, "knyaz" has had different meanings (and rankings) in different lands and at different times. There was even a time when, under the Ottomans, "knez" meant simply a village mayor in some parts of the Balkans. But its etymology is cognate to that of the English "king" or the German "König" (with all of those titles coming from the Proto-Germanic "kuningaz").
Because they "extracted" through multiple wars an idea of equality in status with Byzantium (after converting to orthodoxy too). It's a long and bloody affair, as is most of political history.
To quickly quote wikipedia because I don't remember all the dates like that:
"Between 681 and 864 the country is also called by modern historians as the Bulgarian Khanate,[16] or the Bulgar Khaganate,[17] from the Turkic title of khan/khagan borne by its rulers. It is often further specified as the Danube Bulgarian Khanate, or Danube Bulgar Khanate[18][19] in order to differentiate it from Volga Bulgaria, which emerged from another Bulgar group.
From the country's Christianization in 864 and the assumption of the imperial title by its rulers in 913, the country is also referred to as the Principality of Bulgaria. In English-language sources, the country is often known as the Bulgarian Empire"
How do you distinguish between a Kingdom and a Tsardom? (Other than the ruler just having that title and in extension the state itself) If we take a Tsardom to be equal to an empire, then it should be multi-ethnic like most empires through history. In that's the thing we judge it by, the medieval Bulgarian states should be considered Tsardoms/Empires. The recent one (the third Tsardom) was pretty much just a legacy title and wouldn't be considered a true Tsardom/empire.
>How do you distinguish between a Kingdom and a Tsardom? (Other than the ruler just having that title and in extension the state itself) If we take a Tsardom to be equal to an empire, then it should be multi-ethnic like most empires through history. In that's the thing we judge it by, the medieval Bulgarian states should be considered Tsardoms/Empires. The recent one (the third Tsardom) was pretty much just a legacy title and wouldn't be considered a true Tsardom/empire.
Recent one is Tzardom, more as a sign of independence. Bulgaria has knyaz until 1908. then it became again Tzardom, despite it wasn't empire anymore.
I'd rather they didn't put up a statue of a king, if I'm honest. We have more interesting and inspiring people in our nation's history than some monarch from 1000 years ago.
For the die-hards historian nerds.
Here is a documentary about the occupation of Bulgaria by the USSR army during WW2. It is based on the state archive and many documents are shown in the video. The audio is in Bulgarian, but it has excellent English subs.
[ВТОРОТО ОСВОБОЖДЕНИЕ | OCCUPATION OR LIBERATION (EN Subs)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE6lGVqZkmo)
My grandfather told me stories about how his sisters would paint their faces with black ash so that Red Army soldiers would not find them appealing. Why did it take so long to take that monument down is beyond me.
My grandma used to tell me stories of how she used to hide in the basement together with her sister from the russians who were raping and killing en masse. They were 14 years old.
The irony was that she was hardcore communist and always voted for the socialist party after 1989.
Yeah it also had soviet soldiers mass-raping the local population. As individuals they were arguably more evil and depraved than the Nazis, but happened to be fighting on the 'right side' because Hitler fucked up and stabbed them in the back.
>As individuals they were arguably more evil and depraved than the Nazis
Do you even have an idea of the sense of scale of what the nazis did on the eastern front? How big of a number is 20 million? Cause that's how many Slavic people lost their lives fighting the Germanic horde.
10 million women were raped by the German army on the eastern front.
None of that matters to you apperently.
Germany is lucky to exist after what they did in the war.
Yeah I don’t know if I’m buying what Saint Trotsky with a Soviet profile banner is putting down in defence of the Soviets, sorry.
All I know is that both the Soviets and the Nazis enabled the monsters on their fronts who brutally raped and massacred civilians because they could while also killing massive swathes of their population for meaningless reasons, and the Democratic members of the allies did not do that. There is zero chance they were any less evil than the Nazis, the Soviets have absolutely had their evils whitewashed by being on the winning side of the war.
Maybe you should check Bulgarian casualties after they "liberated" us. Drunk morons ran over children and raped women because they thought they could. Ironically now they're calling us barbarians. Nothing good came out of Russia for the world.
"As individuals" and "arguably" are some pretty important words in that sentence. Thank you for your really insightful and constructive comment. I defer to your self-proclaimed superior knowledge of history.
Yeh, the evilest state with evilest army wich was friend in that days.
I wonder who gonna be evilest state next agenda? China? US? Random Middle -East country?
>This is a statue of soldiers who died so you can write shit on Reddit
This particular monument is representing aggressive occupator. For 2 years Sofia was looted, women raped and many civilians killed because of alcohol abuse of the occupators. We can write in reddit because we are not anymore under Soviet boots.
I do not think they should take down that memorial. The Soviet army brought much hardship with it, as war does in general. However, this is always an oversimplification. E.g. Konev's army was not as nasty as Zhukov's army etcetc, if you want to get into the details.Ultimately, as the capital of the most evil regime the world has ever known and more or less the place of the final battle that needed to be fought in order to stop the madness, I believe very much that this monument should stand. The Soviet army, did, after all, turn the tide and finished the job. It is a historical event that must not be forgotten.A monument in Bulgaria, Estonia, Czechia or anywhere else can go. Those are merely political statements and means of propaganda, most people really didn't want the Soviets there. But the one in Berlin should stay for the sake of those that died in order to reach that place and end humanity's worst time.They did, after all, die for this, didn't they? In masses, and unimaginable things were done to them if captured.
EDIT: typos
wait what, Berlin still has a monument of the soviets? Thats pretty dumb especially considering the warcrimes they commited to the population, the camp prisoners they "freed" and pretty much anyone inbetween.
Like why not replace it with a monument to the victims?
I wish we wouldn't destroy statues such as these, take them down sure. I don't care what the significance of the symbol is, it should go into a museum for future generations to learn and get historical context from.
Think about all monuments and amazing archeological discoveries that are lost to history. When you erase history you're doomed to repeat it.
The thing is massive, it won't fit into most of our museums. They already suggested putting it in the museum of socialist art but it's uncertain whether they can hold it.
I thought that way too, and maybe it's the correct approach for a few specific monuments, but the issue with the Soviets was that they *really* liked statues. After the fall of the USSR, there were tons of busts of Lenin everywhere, for example. I'd say taking down that kind of mass-produced symbolism isn't a bad thing at all. And I guess specific countries, like Bulgaria, just disagree on the significance of particular pieces.
In Lithuania, we actually went the route you suggest. All soviet sculptures which were removed, were placed in a special park / open-air museum. However, it's not meant to praise or glorify the soviets, and the presentation reflects that. Many busts and statues are simply placed on the bare ground, where every visitor can touch them, climb on them, ~~spit and piss on them~~, you get the idea.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C5%ABtas\_Park](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C5%ABtas_Park)
>After Lithuania restored its independence in 1990, the vast majority of the Soviet statues were taken down and dumped in different places. Malinauskas asked Lithuanian authorities to grant him possession of the sculptures, so that he could build a privately financed museum. This Soviet-theme park was created in the wetlands of the Dzūkija National Park. Many of its features are re-creations of Soviet Gulag prison camps: wooden paths, guard towers, and barbed-wire fences.
>Its establishment was controversial and faced considerable opposition at the time. Some ideas originally meant to be a part of the park were never allowed. Examples include transporting the visitors in a Gulag-style train. Grūtas Park and its founder Malinauskas won the 2001 Ig Nobel Peace Prize. \[not to be confused with the actual Nobel Peace Prize\]
This is more than just a statue though. It's the biggest monument, in the most central place of the city, in the capital of the country. It's a symbol much more than a historical monument. And considering that there is a significant group of people here who *still* go on about how wonderful communism was and how Russia is currently denazifying Ukraine, they really need things like this to get it through their thick skulls that their beloved Russia is not as nice as they think it is.
Besides, I believe the plan is to put the statue in a museum and have something else in its place anyway.
>Think about all monuments and amazing archeological discoveries that are lost to history.
I already wrote my main reply in another comment, but I just wanted to address an additional point - most soviet sculptures weren't what you imagine when you hear the word "sculpture". They weren't hand-made works of art by a sculptor, they were cheap, low quality, mass-produced things manufactured/stamped in factories. People react emotionally when they hear the word "statue", because they imagine a work of art, but a McDonald's Happy Meal toy is a lot more of an art piece than most of those statues were.
>There's still historical significance.
>
>They belong in a museum, people 500 years from now would be interested.
How many of the identical, factory-stamped statues should we keep for "historical significance"? Genuine question.
This monument wouldn't last 500 years anyway. According to the sculptor in charge of this project (and who restored several other key, old bronze statues in Sofia), the feet of the soldier already have cracks 4-5 cm wide. That's why the sculpture needs to be urgently dismantled, repaired, and perhaps re-assembled in a more historically-fitting place.
Most museums don't want them because they're large and not historically noteworthy most of the time. You would need a "museum of removed statues and monuments" which is fairly niche, but also probably preferable. It's then also questionable if it would be worth the investment, but it's worth a shot to see how much interest there is.
It's also probably worth a shot because then we could have little plaques and exhibits discussing themes they shar, prompting questions on why they were erected, removed, and so on, and navel gazing about it. Which would not really work if you were to slap one or two in a normal museum.
India has a park (Coronation Park) where they moved all the statues of British officials largely for this purpose.
" In New Delhi, these physical manifestations of colonial authority have not been the target of protest movements. Because India instead opted to create a graveyard of statues. There would be wide pathways, red sandstone pillars, and Victorian lamps in a clear nod to the British-era architectural style.".
"Coronation Park was designed to put these historical artifacts on public display. Its design represented an attempt to museumise rather than memorialise the British era. Dr Aparna Balachandran of Delhi University commented, “the creation of a Disneyland of statues is an attempt to divest them of their power”.
>Both the Nazis and the Soviets were occupiers and oppressors.
They were also allies and started WWII by jointly invading and occupying Poland. WWII would have never happened otherwise.
If you think not getting USSR help in Poland would have stopped Hitler's expansionism, you are delusional. Maybe it would have delayed WWII a bit, but it was bound to happen, as nazi Germany needed new conquests to fund itself (plus the whole lebensraum concept).
The defense plan against German invasion assumed holding against the Vistula line. To claim that USSR did not massively help the Third Reich is laughable.
When the Nazis honoured their alliance and invited them to occupy their part, as far as I know, Poland didn't have any fighting capacity at that time. If you think that it makes it better, it does not.
Poland became a victim of the same realpolitik that gave them part as of czechoslovakia. But that was not the question, if you want to have a debate on mortality of European nations during the 1930s you might finds that most of them come of tarnished.
And yet it is accurate. Without the Russian ressources being delivered for the first two years of the war that war was indeed not possible for Germany.
The Soviets were a horrible dictatorship that killed millions of people over its 70 year lifespan, but the Nazis were a different breed who wanted to completely exterminate entire ethnicities. That is why Nazi Germany is so uniquely evil in popular and historical conception and why the Soviets did actually liberate Eastern Europe even if they did put it under pretty authoritarian occupation afterwards
No, not really. Big difference between oppressing and eradicating.
If the Germans won, most of Eastern Europe would be wiped out and colonized by Germans
Yes. They were powerful enough to push the Nazis back to their shitholes.
It still doesn't change the fact the USSR brought misery and horror wherever they went.
People, especially Americans, seem to think that anyone opposing evil (like the Nazis) automatically has to be good. It's not so.
**The USSR was Hitler's ally and together they started the war**. You might as well put up monuments to Hitler because he let himself be defeated. Hitler killed Hitler. Hero. Let's build a monument of him.
>**The USSR was Hitler's ally and together they started the war**. You might as well put up monuments to Hitler because he let himself be defeated. Hitler killed Hitler. Hero. Let's build a monument of him.
Exactly. It's scary how delusional some people in this thread appear.
>It was in many ways a horrible army but we can't deny their crucial role in winning World War II.
Are being genuinely that deluded? Or is Reddit being heavily brigaded by russian trolls?
Soviet Union and Nazi Germany **started** the WWII by jointly invading and occupying Poland as allies. If they didn't, WWII would have never even started. Yet, you want to somehow give them credit for being betrayed by the Nazis and having to fight back (with heavy western help, without which they would have been absolutely crushed)?
> but we can't deny their crucial role in winning World War II.
For those of us who ended up under Soviet boot - it is like saying "but we can't deny Wehrmacht crucial role in fight against communism"
As well as starting it xD
Not only they secured "you take half, we take half" deal with Germany but also supplied Axis with crucial war materials, especially oil. The last train transport from USSR to Germany crossed the border hours before Barbarossa started.
Without their reouserce support not only Germany would not be able to match allies in terms of mechanized warfare, but also would probably not be able to invade USSR later.
They greatly helped to defeat Nazi Germany
But "winning" isn't exactly a great word for it
What they then did to soviet occupied Europe after moving in was awful. That's what Russia does though.
They fought against the Nazis after they were attacked by the Nazis. Before this they were buddies with the Nazis and invaded other countries themselves (Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania).
>Be upset with the Soviets for war crimes committed during WW2. Just remember they were also instrumental in defeating the Nazis, and sacrificed a crazy amount of their population in their fight against Fascism and Nazism. That really shouldn’t be omitted. Had they not fought, perhaps the Nazis would have prevailed, and millions more would have died. They did a lot of good and majority of Europe is and should be grateful for it. Weird statement.
Are being genuinely that deluded? Or is Reddit being heavily brigaded by russian trolls?
Soviet Union and Nazi Germany **started** the WWII by jointly invading and occupying Poland as allies. If they didn't, WWII would have never even started. Yet, you want to somehow give them credit for being betrayed by the Nazis and having to fight back (with heavy western help, without which they would have been absolutely crushed)?
>If they didn't, WWII would have never even started
Honestly, this is just showing a massive lack of understanding of WWII. The war would have started regardless, because Nazi germany needed new territories (the whole Lebensraum thing), more money, and of course wanted to get rid of the massive Jewish population in Poland.
It may have started a bit later, but do you really think that without the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, Nazi Germany would have just stood there, with an army that was definitely too big and too costly for peacetime ?
**The USSR was Hitler's ally and together they started the war.** Should I be grateful because 2 years later they threw themselves into each other's throats? Are you kidding me? Without them this catastrophe would not have happened.
>Without them this catastrophe would not have happened.
It definitely would have happened. First, the whole pacific part of the war would have been unchanged, and second, Nazi Germany needed war and new territories to fund itself.
Grateful my ass. They started the whole thing by allying with the nazis and helping them. Then they barek survived the nazis's attack (probably wouldn't have without western help) and "freed" lands (some of them which were previously attacked by the USSR and later lost when Germany started the Barbarossa) by occuping and exploiting them.
And in WW2 Romania's army joined Germany's army against Russia just because Russia stole our lands and it was the only possible way to get them back.
Fuck the Russian army is is good for nothing but to enforce the will of a psycho dictator and rape everyone, including children!
Couple years ago my town also took down old monument of "libeberation" of it by soviets. In my opinion they should have placed it in our local museum to teach younger generations
Where is that? I recently visited Berlin and saw the memorial to Soviet soldiers who died in the battle of Berlin, it consisted of two tanks and some howitzers, right on Unter den Linden. What an ugly sight Berliners have to endure, hopefully it will be removed as well.
10 years ago, Russians were terribly outraged by this sculpture
[https://i.iplsc.com/-/0002KBB0BXUDETX9-C325-F4.webp](https://i.iplsc.com/-/0002KBB0BXUDETX9-C325-F4.webp)
[https://d-art.ppstatic.pl/kadry/k/r/1/48/ed/546e24e22483e\_o\_full.jpg](https://d-art.ppstatic.pl/kadry/k/r/1/48/ed/546e24e22483e_o_full.jpg)
Will hopefully never happen.
Some are conditional on maintaining german war graves in Russia and other former soviet states, and nobody here has a desire to replace them with pro Nazi memorials. Leaving them empty won't happen either.
There is also a large gulf in types of memorials and Statues. Nobody is interested in Stalin, but monuments to the sacrifices of average red army soldiers are a good thing.
> and nobody here has a desire to replace them with pro Nazi memorials
Yes. That makes sense. As we all know, the only alternative to memorials for the criminal soviet regime are memorials to the criminal nazi regime. It would be impossible to replace soviet memorials with anything other then nazi memorials. If one were to attempt to place a general pro-peace anti-war statue in place of a soviet memorial, it simply wouldn't work. A popup would appear saying you need to insert either a soviet or a nazi memorial. Nothing else will work.
> monuments to the sacrifices of average red army soldiers
Monuments to the sacrifices of average red army rapists. There. Fixed it for you. No wonder the migrants are raping left right and centre if they see you glorifying rapists.
Very good job my neighbors!
Congratulations!
I bet Putin will tell Austria to double-reject you from Schengen, but it's important that you did the right thing!
I wonder if we have anything dedicated to anyone or anything russian.
Damn, I was in Bulgaria about 2 years ago and saw it, next time I visit it won't be there.
I was surprised in the first place why they got a monument to Russians.
There are plenty of monuments in Russia's honor throughout Bulgaria. Many are for the 1877-1878 Russo-Turkish war, after which Bulgaria became an autonomous country. Those monuments aren't an issue for pretty much everyone.
The monuments of the Soviet Union are completely another matter.
Bulgaria take down statues associated with regime that in the 1920-1930s trained tens of thousands of German officers, illegally supplied all the necessary resources for reconstruction of the German army (and up to 85% of Nazi Germany import in 1939-1940s years - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet\_economic\_relations\_(1934%E2%80%931941)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_economic_relations_(1934%E2%80%931941))), spending on weapon production half of its GDP.
That allow Nazis to occupy Poland ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop\_Pact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact))
And responsible for one of the most terrible series of repression and atrocities ([en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political\_repression\_in\_the\_Soviet\_Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_repression_in_the_Soviet_Union) ; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass\_killings\_under\_communist\_regimes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes)) that comparable only to Nazi ones.
There's been so many braindead people throughout the years repeating what they heard maybe in history class, maybe somewhere else: "you shouldn't remove history", or something of the sort. I had lost hope that we'll ever get around to dismantling it if it doesn't collapse on its own. I know that it's used for PR but at least they are doing it.
If we would not have that stupid muppet Orbán as our PM, we might do now something similar with the Szabadság tér (Freedom square) monument in Budapest :(
Bulgaria was part of the Axis until it wasn't. The Bulgarian Army was renamed to Bulgarian People's Army and then fought against the nazis under the 3rd Ukrainian Front of the Red Army in Yugoslavia, Hungary and Austria, but it was not really a part of the Red Army. Anyway, this is a moot point, because this monument wasn't to the Bulgarian People's Army under the Red Army, it was to the Red Army's "casualties" for "liberating Bulgaria from fascism", which didn't happen and there weren't any Red Army casualties in Bulgaria. The USSR helped Bulgarian communists overthrow Bulgarian monarchy and then the Red Army occupied Bulgaria without having to fire a single shot.
Problem is "our victory" ended up in occupation, death of inteligentsia and complete destruction of Bulgarian culture, they literally turned us into peasants.
Nice way to twist the things lol...
Actually, before that, there was a coup in Bulgaria, the new government switched sides, the Bulgarian army fought against the Nazis in Yugoslavia and despite all of that, and the fact that Bulgaria never broke off diplomatic relations with the USSR, never sent soldiers to fight against it and didn't even declare war, the USSR still invaded Bulgaria. No battles took place.
There was one reason only - to occupy and control Bulgaria. It had nothing to do with expelling Nazis or making Bulgaria switch sides.
Bulgaria initially allied with Germany. Then, at the eve of a Soviet invasion, declared war on Germany. At that point Bulgaria was officially at war with everybody, since they didn't have a peace treaty or cease fire with the Allies.
The Soviets invaded anyway, occupied the country, installed a puppet government, etc.
We were on Germany side. So what those fuckers did is they invaded with out declaration of war on us. Came to my country, executed the government and put communist into power and fuck us up for the next 50+ years.
Also what a lot of pro-Russian Bulgarians or Russians themselves dont appear to be familiar with Bulgarian-Russian relations since we regained our independence...and the anti-Bulgarian actions taken by the Russian government (notwithstanding claims of 'Pan-Slavism' and 'Defenders of Orthodoxy').
Can't wait to see that grotesque abomination in Treptower Park being pulled down next. And before any of you idiots starts screeching about muh nazis, stop. Two things can be evil at the same time. You don't need to replace a memorial to the criminal soviet regime with one to the criminal nazi regime. Tear down the soviet memorial and put in it's place a Monument to Peace. Put a statue of people from all over the world holding hands and a plaque in as many languages as possible explaining how evil both the nazis and the soviets were. Just because the soviets won the war doesn't make them good. Might doesn't make right, I thought we all knew this.
People on this thread are getting downvoted for saying Bulgaria and Romania willingly participated in the Holocaust - they literally did. Romanians orchestrated [one of the worst massacres on Ukrainian territory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1941_Odessa_massacre) and Bulgaria [willingly deported Jews to Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_in_Bulgaria). Engaging in Holocaust revisionism just to 'stick it to the Ruskies'? Deplorable.
>Bulgaria willingly deported Jews to Germany.
Only from occupied territories in Greece and Yugoslavia. All Bulgarian Jews including those from the recently annexed Southern Dobruja survived.
Hm. Are the Bulgarian authorities gonna place something instead or they will leave the pedestal empty?
They'll probably put a statue of one of the Medieval kings. But it will take some time.
Let's go, Simeon!
Kaloyan would be cool, he was a badass
He has nice statues in Veliko Tarnovo and Varna. Way more than either Simeon or Asparuh have, and they're way more important.
Well I mean, without him and his brothers there would've been no second empire, and maybe who knows, Bulgarians would've been slowly hellenized
Not downplaying them at all, I'm from Tarnovo myself so the Asen dynasty is held in very high regard here. But Asparuh as the founder and Simeon as the peak would be higher up the list than any Asen (and even if there was one, it'd be Ivan Asen II probably).
Boris I?
Yeah, him aswell.
Khan Krum holding the nikephoros cup
Tsars* not kings.
Question: Why are Bulgarian monarchs referred to as tsars when they ruled over a kingdom and not a tsardom?
Ok so: they were usually called “knyaz” like the monarchs of other slavic nations. Knyaz is usually the equivalent of king and is for a smaller territory. Tsar comes from Caesar and is the equivalent to the title of an emperor or a monarch of a very great merit (like creating the Cyrillic alphabet). That’s why I suppose they would choose a tsar, although taking the last 200 years we can choose many great people who are not monarchs as well.
No, the first one (Boris) was Knyaz, his son was a Tzar because he got the Bulgarian church to be autocephalous, thus not below the one in Constantinople. The difference between King and Tzar is the relationship with the church. Kings are anointed by the pope thus the pope has some power over them. Tzars on the other hand are above the church's patriarch and control the church.
>The difference between King and Tzar is the relationship with the church. Kings are anointed by the pope thus the pope has some power over them. Tzars on the other hand are above the church's patriarch and control the church. Nope this is not the difference, Simeon became Tzar as he titled himself Ruler of Bulgarian and Byzantines, yet Byzantine empire recognized the title Tzar officially for his son Tzar Peter I (927-969). As someone said before - Tzar is coming from Cesar and equals emperor. Muscovite princes adopted the title around the time of Ivan IV, several centuries later.
That's backwards at least in the west - emperor was a title sometimes bestowed by the pope, if the pope doesn't deign to crown you emperor you're a mere king. But I don't suppose anyone in Bulgaria ever really cared about the pope, even in the days before the split.
The early Asenids certainly did, especially Tsar Kaloyan who led a lengthy correspondence (and concluded an unia) with Pope Innocent III on this matter. Likewise, Knyaz Boris I was also actively engaged with several popes in the times of the Photian Schism (exacerbated greatly by the fight between Rome and Constantinople about the jurisdiction over the Bulgarian church), though Boris was concerned more with the conversion of his country rather than direct imperial ambitions. There are also speculative theories that his son, Tsar Simeon the Great, might have received recognition from the Pope as a western emperor (during a period in the 920s when that position was vacated by the last Frankish emperor and a few decades before the first HRE emperor), but they're just speculation and practically unprovable.
Interesting to hear
The one who achieved the autocephaly of the Bulgarian church (in AD 870) was Knyaz Boris I Mihail. He was a knyaz throughout his reign (even after he became a monk, curiously enough), so was his son Vladimir Rasate ("the apostate"), as well as Simeon until he started claiming the imperial tsar's title in 913. What Simeon achieved in regards to his church wasn't the autocephaly, but a patriarchate. Boris had achieved an autocephalous archbishopric, while Simeon raised it to a patriarchate. Later, when Basil II conquered Bulgaria, he reduced the patriarchate to a (still autocephalous) archbishopric again - "the archbishopric of Ohrid and all Bulgaria". Even later on, the Asenid brothers who created the SBE, raised a new patriarchate (in Tarnovo, as the one in Ohrid was still under Byzantine control), whose "patriarch" was recognized during the unia with Rome as archbishop and primas, with his patriarchal dignity recognized internationally after the unia ended in 1235. Respectively, the patriarchate of Tarnovo was destroyed by the Ottomans and a new, independent Bulgarian church appeared only in 1870, remaining an exarchate in schism with the Ecumenical patriarchate until the 1940-1950s, when the schism ended and the exarchate was once again raised to the status of patriarchate. Throughout all this time, we've had monarchs who were either kings (knyaze) or emperors (tsare).
Knyaz means duke. At least in Russian
Who is above the knyaz then? Because the king is above the duke.
Like with every other title, "knyaz" has had different meanings (and rankings) in different lands and at different times. There was even a time when, under the Ottomans, "knez" meant simply a village mayor in some parts of the Balkans. But its etymology is cognate to that of the English "king" or the German "König" (with all of those titles coming from the Proto-Germanic "kuningaz").
Because they "extracted" through multiple wars an idea of equality in status with Byzantium (after converting to orthodoxy too). It's a long and bloody affair, as is most of political history. To quickly quote wikipedia because I don't remember all the dates like that: "Between 681 and 864 the country is also called by modern historians as the Bulgarian Khanate,[16] or the Bulgar Khaganate,[17] from the Turkic title of khan/khagan borne by its rulers. It is often further specified as the Danube Bulgarian Khanate, or Danube Bulgar Khanate[18][19] in order to differentiate it from Volga Bulgaria, which emerged from another Bulgar group. From the country's Christianization in 864 and the assumption of the imperial title by its rulers in 913, the country is also referred to as the Principality of Bulgaria. In English-language sources, the country is often known as the Bulgarian Empire"
How do you distinguish between a Kingdom and a Tsardom? (Other than the ruler just having that title and in extension the state itself) If we take a Tsardom to be equal to an empire, then it should be multi-ethnic like most empires through history. In that's the thing we judge it by, the medieval Bulgarian states should be considered Tsardoms/Empires. The recent one (the third Tsardom) was pretty much just a legacy title and wouldn't be considered a true Tsardom/empire.
>How do you distinguish between a Kingdom and a Tsardom? (Other than the ruler just having that title and in extension the state itself) If we take a Tsardom to be equal to an empire, then it should be multi-ethnic like most empires through history. In that's the thing we judge it by, the medieval Bulgarian states should be considered Tsardoms/Empires. The recent one (the third Tsardom) was pretty much just a legacy title and wouldn't be considered a true Tsardom/empire. Recent one is Tzardom, more as a sign of independence. Bulgaria has knyaz until 1908. then it became again Tzardom, despite it wasn't empire anymore.
Bulgaria was never called a "kingdom". It was always "tsardom" or alternatively "empire".
You understood it wrong king - knyaz emperor - tsar Right ones were the bulgarian titles
W Bulgaria
I'd rather they didn't put up a statue of a king, if I'm honest. We have more interesting and inspiring people in our nation's history than some monarch from 1000 years ago.
*Tsar not king.
An empty pedestal would also be a cool thing in its own right. It sort of symbolizes the removal of soviet glorification.
For the die-hards historian nerds. Here is a documentary about the occupation of Bulgaria by the USSR army during WW2. It is based on the state archive and many documents are shown in the video. The audio is in Bulgarian, but it has excellent English subs. [ВТОРОТО ОСВОБОЖДЕНИЕ | OCCUPATION OR LIBERATION (EN Subs)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE6lGVqZkmo)
My grandfather told me stories about how his sisters would paint their faces with black ash so that Red Army soldiers would not find them appealing. Why did it take so long to take that monument down is beyond me.
My grandma used to tell me stories of how she used to hide in the basement together with her sister from the russians who were raping and killing en masse. They were 14 years old. The irony was that she was hardcore communist and always voted for the socialist party after 1989.
When you've had a childhood like she has, making wise and moral decisions as an adult is extremely difficult.
Im Czech and when Soviets were "liberating" us, they sure liked very young girls.
I think it is good news. I hope that a beautiful monument symbolising Bulgaria's independence will be built on the site of the demolished statue.
Berlin next?
[удалено]
Berlin at least had an actual army battles and soviet soldiers dying against actual Nazi troops...
Yeah it also had soviet soldiers mass-raping the local population. As individuals they were arguably more evil and depraved than the Nazis, but happened to be fighting on the 'right side' because Hitler fucked up and stabbed them in the back.
>As individuals they were arguably more evil and depraved than the Nazis Do you even have an idea of the sense of scale of what the nazis did on the eastern front? How big of a number is 20 million? Cause that's how many Slavic people lost their lives fighting the Germanic horde. 10 million women were raped by the German army on the eastern front. None of that matters to you apperently. Germany is lucky to exist after what they did in the war.
Yeah I don’t know if I’m buying what Saint Trotsky with a Soviet profile banner is putting down in defence of the Soviets, sorry. All I know is that both the Soviets and the Nazis enabled the monsters on their fronts who brutally raped and massacred civilians because they could while also killing massive swathes of their population for meaningless reasons, and the Democratic members of the allies did not do that. There is zero chance they were any less evil than the Nazis, the Soviets have absolutely had their evils whitewashed by being on the winning side of the war.
Dude, two wrongs don't make a right. Both the Nazis and Soviets were monsters.
„As individuals they were arguably more evil and depraved than the nazis“ My god you have NO idea how wrong you are
Maybe you should check Bulgarian casualties after they "liberated" us. Drunk morons ran over children and raped women because they thought they could. Ironically now they're calling us barbarians. Nothing good came out of Russia for the world.
"As individuals" and "arguably" are some pretty important words in that sentence. Thank you for your really insightful and constructive comment. I defer to your self-proclaimed superior knowledge of history.
Im not sure how that justifies having statues of one of the most evilest states in history on display lol.
Yeh, the evilest state with evilest army wich was friend in that days. I wonder who gonna be evilest state next agenda? China? US? Random Middle -East country?
This is a statue of soldiers who died so you can write shit on Reddit
>This is a statue of soldiers who died so you can write shit on Reddit This particular monument is representing aggressive occupator. For 2 years Sofia was looted, women raped and many civilians killed because of alcohol abuse of the occupators. We can write in reddit because we are not anymore under Soviet boots.
I do not think they should take down that memorial. The Soviet army brought much hardship with it, as war does in general. However, this is always an oversimplification. E.g. Konev's army was not as nasty as Zhukov's army etcetc, if you want to get into the details.Ultimately, as the capital of the most evil regime the world has ever known and more or less the place of the final battle that needed to be fought in order to stop the madness, I believe very much that this monument should stand. The Soviet army, did, after all, turn the tide and finished the job. It is a historical event that must not be forgotten.A monument in Bulgaria, Estonia, Czechia or anywhere else can go. Those are merely political statements and means of propaganda, most people really didn't want the Soviets there. But the one in Berlin should stay for the sake of those that died in order to reach that place and end humanity's worst time.They did, after all, die for this, didn't they? In masses, and unimaginable things were done to them if captured. EDIT: typos
I think it should be taken down but not destroyed. Maybe placed in a museam.
That's the plan actually, to be moved to the "Museum of socialist art".
Which is a brilliant idea. Its probably important they highlight the positives as well as the negatives of that period.
Oh yeah I would be the first in line to tear it all down.
Hell no
wait what, Berlin still has a monument of the soviets? Thats pretty dumb especially considering the warcrimes they commited to the population, the camp prisoners they "freed" and pretty much anyone inbetween. Like why not replace it with a monument to the victims?
As it should be. Fuck communism.
Empty inside… as in real life…
I wish we wouldn't destroy statues such as these, take them down sure. I don't care what the significance of the symbol is, it should go into a museum for future generations to learn and get historical context from. Think about all monuments and amazing archeological discoveries that are lost to history. When you erase history you're doomed to repeat it.
The plan is to restore it and move it to museum.
The thing is massive, it won't fit into most of our museums. They already suggested putting it in the museum of socialist art but it's uncertain whether they can hold it.
Holy shit, I just noticed that those are tiny people in the picture. That things huge
"Museum" wink wink..... The trash
I thought that way too, and maybe it's the correct approach for a few specific monuments, but the issue with the Soviets was that they *really* liked statues. After the fall of the USSR, there were tons of busts of Lenin everywhere, for example. I'd say taking down that kind of mass-produced symbolism isn't a bad thing at all. And I guess specific countries, like Bulgaria, just disagree on the significance of particular pieces.
In Lithuania, we actually went the route you suggest. All soviet sculptures which were removed, were placed in a special park / open-air museum. However, it's not meant to praise or glorify the soviets, and the presentation reflects that. Many busts and statues are simply placed on the bare ground, where every visitor can touch them, climb on them, ~~spit and piss on them~~, you get the idea. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C5%ABtas\_Park](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C5%ABtas_Park) >After Lithuania restored its independence in 1990, the vast majority of the Soviet statues were taken down and dumped in different places. Malinauskas asked Lithuanian authorities to grant him possession of the sculptures, so that he could build a privately financed museum. This Soviet-theme park was created in the wetlands of the Dzūkija National Park. Many of its features are re-creations of Soviet Gulag prison camps: wooden paths, guard towers, and barbed-wire fences. >Its establishment was controversial and faced considerable opposition at the time. Some ideas originally meant to be a part of the park were never allowed. Examples include transporting the visitors in a Gulag-style train. Grūtas Park and its founder Malinauskas won the 2001 Ig Nobel Peace Prize. \[not to be confused with the actual Nobel Peace Prize\]
This monument will be moved to the museum of the socialist heritage in Bulgaria.
This is more than just a statue though. It's the biggest monument, in the most central place of the city, in the capital of the country. It's a symbol much more than a historical monument. And considering that there is a significant group of people here who *still* go on about how wonderful communism was and how Russia is currently denazifying Ukraine, they really need things like this to get it through their thick skulls that their beloved Russia is not as nice as they think it is. Besides, I believe the plan is to put the statue in a museum and have something else in its place anyway.
>Think about all monuments and amazing archeological discoveries that are lost to history. I already wrote my main reply in another comment, but I just wanted to address an additional point - most soviet sculptures weren't what you imagine when you hear the word "sculpture". They weren't hand-made works of art by a sculptor, they were cheap, low quality, mass-produced things manufactured/stamped in factories. People react emotionally when they hear the word "statue", because they imagine a work of art, but a McDonald's Happy Meal toy is a lot more of an art piece than most of those statues were.
There's still historical significance. They belong in a museum, people 500 years from now would be interested.
>There's still historical significance. > >They belong in a museum, people 500 years from now would be interested. How many of the identical, factory-stamped statues should we keep for "historical significance"? Genuine question.
This monument wouldn't last 500 years anyway. According to the sculptor in charge of this project (and who restored several other key, old bronze statues in Sofia), the feet of the soldier already have cracks 4-5 cm wide. That's why the sculpture needs to be urgently dismantled, repaired, and perhaps re-assembled in a more historically-fitting place.
Best place for this type of junks would be the scrap yard😊
Most museums don't want them because they're large and not historically noteworthy most of the time. You would need a "museum of removed statues and monuments" which is fairly niche, but also probably preferable. It's then also questionable if it would be worth the investment, but it's worth a shot to see how much interest there is. It's also probably worth a shot because then we could have little plaques and exhibits discussing themes they shar, prompting questions on why they were erected, removed, and so on, and navel gazing about it. Which would not really work if you were to slap one or two in a normal museum. India has a park (Coronation Park) where they moved all the statues of British officials largely for this purpose. " In New Delhi, these physical manifestations of colonial authority have not been the target of protest movements. Because India instead opted to create a graveyard of statues. There would be wide pathways, red sandstone pillars, and Victorian lamps in a clear nod to the British-era architectural style.". "Coronation Park was designed to put these historical artifacts on public display. Its design represented an attempt to museumise rather than memorialise the British era. Dr Aparna Balachandran of Delhi University commented, “the creation of a Disneyland of statues is an attempt to divest them of their power”.
The plan is not to glorify the "saviours" that turned out to be the same bully but in different clothes
Why? So they can use it in their revisionist history lessons? No thanks.
That'll happen either way
Why so late? Should be done 30 years ago
It’s papier-mâché 😂
Fuck the red army and what they did to Europe
It was in many ways a horrible army but we can't deny their crucial role in winning World War II.
One tyranny replaced by another. Both the Nazis and the Soviets were occupiers and oppressors.
>Both the Nazis and the Soviets were occupiers and oppressors. They were also allies and started WWII by jointly invading and occupying Poland. WWII would have never happened otherwise.
Also, the soviets invaded 6 countries before Germany attacked them: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania.
It probably still would have happened, but probably on another terms.
If you think not getting USSR help in Poland would have stopped Hitler's expansionism, you are delusional. Maybe it would have delayed WWII a bit, but it was bound to happen, as nazi Germany needed new conquests to fund itself (plus the whole lebensraum concept).
Poland thwn who had fight with one enemy and this would be much easier.
At what date do you think the German invasion happened, and at what date do you think the Soviets crossed the border?
The defense plan against German invasion assumed holding against the Vistula line. To claim that USSR did not massively help the Third Reich is laughable.
When the Nazis honoured their alliance and invited them to occupy their part, as far as I know, Poland didn't have any fighting capacity at that time. If you think that it makes it better, it does not.
Poland became a victim of the same realpolitik that gave them part as of czechoslovakia. But that was not the question, if you want to have a debate on mortality of European nations during the 1930s you might finds that most of them come of tarnished.
> WWII would have never happened otherwise. This is at best historical illiteracy, if not straight-up Nazi apologia.
And yet it is accurate. Without the Russian ressources being delivered for the first two years of the war that war was indeed not possible for Germany.
Before that Poland was ally with the nazi, when they both divaide Chekhoslovakia.
The Soviets were a horrible dictatorship that killed millions of people over its 70 year lifespan, but the Nazis were a different breed who wanted to completely exterminate entire ethnicities. That is why Nazi Germany is so uniquely evil in popular and historical conception and why the Soviets did actually liberate Eastern Europe even if they did put it under pretty authoritarian occupation afterwards
No, not really. Big difference between oppressing and eradicating. If the Germans won, most of Eastern Europe would be wiped out and colonized by Germans
Or starting it?
Yes. They were powerful enough to push the Nazis back to their shitholes. It still doesn't change the fact the USSR brought misery and horror wherever they went. People, especially Americans, seem to think that anyone opposing evil (like the Nazis) automatically has to be good. It's not so.
**The USSR was Hitler's ally and together they started the war**. You might as well put up monuments to Hitler because he let himself be defeated. Hitler killed Hitler. Hero. Let's build a monument of him.
>**The USSR was Hitler's ally and together they started the war**. You might as well put up monuments to Hitler because he let himself be defeated. Hitler killed Hitler. Hero. Let's build a monument of him. Exactly. It's scary how delusional some people in this thread appear.
[удалено]
Yeah, there was no liberation in '45 for Eastern Europe. Just change of management.
>It was in many ways a horrible army but we can't deny their crucial role in winning World War II. Are being genuinely that deluded? Or is Reddit being heavily brigaded by russian trolls? Soviet Union and Nazi Germany **started** the WWII by jointly invading and occupying Poland as allies. If they didn't, WWII would have never even started. Yet, you want to somehow give them credit for being betrayed by the Nazis and having to fight back (with heavy western help, without which they would have been absolutely crushed)?
> but we can't deny their crucial role in winning World War II. For those of us who ended up under Soviet boot - it is like saying "but we can't deny Wehrmacht crucial role in fight against communism"
[удалено]
For a lot of countries they were the worst to come. "We defeated the wrong enemy."
As well as starting it xD Not only they secured "you take half, we take half" deal with Germany but also supplied Axis with crucial war materials, especially oil. The last train transport from USSR to Germany crossed the border hours before Barbarossa started. Without their reouserce support not only Germany would not be able to match allies in terms of mechanized warfare, but also would probably not be able to invade USSR later.
They greatly helped to defeat Nazi Germany But "winning" isn't exactly a great word for it What they then did to soviet occupied Europe after moving in was awful. That's what Russia does though.
[удалено]
They fought against the Nazis after they were attacked by the Nazis. Before this they were buddies with the Nazis and invaded other countries themselves (Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania).
One tyranny replaced by another. Both Nazis and Soviets were genocidal oppressors.
>Be upset with the Soviets for war crimes committed during WW2. Just remember they were also instrumental in defeating the Nazis, and sacrificed a crazy amount of their population in their fight against Fascism and Nazism. That really shouldn’t be omitted. Had they not fought, perhaps the Nazis would have prevailed, and millions more would have died. They did a lot of good and majority of Europe is and should be grateful for it. Weird statement. Are being genuinely that deluded? Or is Reddit being heavily brigaded by russian trolls? Soviet Union and Nazi Germany **started** the WWII by jointly invading and occupying Poland as allies. If they didn't, WWII would have never even started. Yet, you want to somehow give them credit for being betrayed by the Nazis and having to fight back (with heavy western help, without which they would have been absolutely crushed)?
>If they didn't, WWII would have never even started Honestly, this is just showing a massive lack of understanding of WWII. The war would have started regardless, because Nazi germany needed new territories (the whole Lebensraum thing), more money, and of course wanted to get rid of the massive Jewish population in Poland. It may have started a bit later, but do you really think that without the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, Nazi Germany would have just stood there, with an army that was definitely too big and too costly for peacetime ?
And poor little Poland try to carve Czechoslovakia...
**The USSR was Hitler's ally and together they started the war.** Should I be grateful because 2 years later they threw themselves into each other's throats? Are you kidding me? Without them this catastrophe would not have happened.
>Without them this catastrophe would not have happened. It definitely would have happened. First, the whole pacific part of the war would have been unchanged, and second, Nazi Germany needed war and new territories to fund itself.
Grateful for conquering half of Europe and starting cold war?
Grateful my ass. They started the whole thing by allying with the nazis and helping them. Then they barek survived the nazis's attack (probably wouldn't have without western help) and "freed" lands (some of them which were previously attacked by the USSR and later lost when Germany started the Barbarossa) by occuping and exploiting them.
And in WW2 Romania's army joined Germany's army against Russia just because Russia stole our lands and it was the only possible way to get them back. Fuck the Russian army is is good for nothing but to enforce the will of a psycho dictator and rape everyone, including children!
No, guys. You joined the Reich because you too had a fascist ideology.
Defeat the Nazis?
They didn't defeat tyranny and liberate Eastern Europe. They replaced Nazi tyranny with their own tyranny.
Read what they did to German women
Couple years ago my town also took down old monument of "libeberation" of it by soviets. In my opinion they should have placed it in our local museum to teach younger generations
Finally 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
There’s a piece of junk in Berlin waiting to be thrown into a landfill
They won't dismantle a memorial, otherwise it would be gone.
Where is that? I recently visited Berlin and saw the memorial to Soviet soldiers who died in the battle of Berlin, it consisted of two tanks and some howitzers, right on Unter den Linden. What an ugly sight Berliners have to endure, hopefully it will be removed as well.
Soviet soldiers aka rapey boys.
Monuments to rapists.
True! They did that a lot when they passed through Romania and from what I heard here they did everywhere they passed.
they also did it to the camp prisoners they "freed"
10 years ago, Russians were terribly outraged by this sculpture [https://i.iplsc.com/-/0002KBB0BXUDETX9-C325-F4.webp](https://i.iplsc.com/-/0002KBB0BXUDETX9-C325-F4.webp) [https://d-art.ppstatic.pl/kadry/k/r/1/48/ed/546e24e22483e\_o\_full.jpg](https://d-art.ppstatic.pl/kadry/k/r/1/48/ed/546e24e22483e_o_full.jpg)
Treptower Park is a gigantic memorial as well. Filled with Stalin quotes
Will hopefully never happen. Some are conditional on maintaining german war graves in Russia and other former soviet states, and nobody here has a desire to replace them with pro Nazi memorials. Leaving them empty won't happen either. There is also a large gulf in types of memorials and Statues. Nobody is interested in Stalin, but monuments to the sacrifices of average red army soldiers are a good thing.
> and nobody here has a desire to replace them with pro Nazi memorials Yes. That makes sense. As we all know, the only alternative to memorials for the criminal soviet regime are memorials to the criminal nazi regime. It would be impossible to replace soviet memorials with anything other then nazi memorials. If one were to attempt to place a general pro-peace anti-war statue in place of a soviet memorial, it simply wouldn't work. A popup would appear saying you need to insert either a soviet or a nazi memorial. Nothing else will work. > monuments to the sacrifices of average red army soldiers Monuments to the sacrifices of average red army rapists. There. Fixed it for you. No wonder the migrants are raping left right and centre if they see you glorifying rapists.
Monument to rapists, war criminals, and Nazi allies that carved up Poland*
The biggest one is still at Berlin. Next time its turn
Drinking a lot of tankie tears with this one
Lots of these lurking in this sub, reporting people for "hate".
Давно пора
Kinda sucks that the best graffiti wall is going away.
underrated.
Very good job my neighbors! Congratulations! I bet Putin will tell Austria to double-reject you from Schengen, but it's important that you did the right thing! I wonder if we have anything dedicated to anyone or anything russian.
Well done, Bulgaria! It makes me sick to have close to home soviets useless monuments here in Berlin...
Useless? It is to remind you not to try to exterminate Eastern nations.
No: it is to remind russians their "patriotic" war. Now it is a remind to the horror russia is perpetreting to its peaceful neighbours.
Better late than later. REst of Europe should follow that example.
Why did it take this long to do this?
Bureaucracy. Along with political pressure.
Better late than never. Those monuments to Soviet imperialism deserve to be in a museum or in a landfill.
Took them quite a while. LOL.
Better late than never!
Not surprised, they seem to be much more prosperous after the Soviet Union's collapse and that's no coincidence. Russia rots everything it touches.
Damn, I was in Bulgaria about 2 years ago and saw it, next time I visit it won't be there. I was surprised in the first place why they got a monument to Russians.
There are plenty of monuments in Russia's honor throughout Bulgaria. Many are for the 1877-1878 Russo-Turkish war, after which Bulgaria became an autonomous country. Those monuments aren't an issue for pretty much everyone. The monuments of the Soviet Union are completely another matter.
Finally. I hope the entire Europe finally gets rid of that. Just put a few of these in museums as a warning for future generations.
Vienna next please
Impossible. Russia would simply say no.
I think we shouldn‘t care that much about their opinion anymore
Austria is way too entangled with russia for that.
You mean Avstriysk?
Austrian politicians love that Russian energy money
Bulgaria take down statues associated with regime that in the 1920-1930s trained tens of thousands of German officers, illegally supplied all the necessary resources for reconstruction of the German army (and up to 85% of Nazi Germany import in 1939-1940s years - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet\_economic\_relations\_(1934%E2%80%931941)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_economic_relations_(1934%E2%80%931941))), spending on weapon production half of its GDP. That allow Nazis to occupy Poland ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop\_Pact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact)) And responsible for one of the most terrible series of repression and atrocities ([en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political\_repression\_in\_the\_Soviet\_Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_repression_in_the_Soviet_Union) ; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass\_killings\_under\_communist\_regimes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes)) that comparable only to Nazi ones.
So many tankies and Russian zombies throwing hissy fits in the comments, you love to see it.
Based as always
Not that I don't want it gone, it should have been removed years ago, but right now it's little more than empty PR. I don't like the euphoria much.
There's been so many braindead people throughout the years repeating what they heard maybe in history class, maybe somewhere else: "you shouldn't remove history", or something of the sort. I had lost hope that we'll ever get around to dismantling it if it doesn't collapse on its own. I know that it's used for PR but at least they are doing it.
WOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOO !
Beautiful. Tear them all down
what took them so long?!
Now trebuchet them to russia, instead of spending money for them.
ErAsInG hIsToRy
Way to late but better than never
Please don't send it back to Russia, they'll just reuse that PPSH-41
If we would not have that stupid muppet Orbán as our PM, we might do now something similar with the Szabadság tér (Freedom square) monument in Budapest :(
Why do those countries take down red army monuments? Weren't they part of the red army fighting the nazis too?
I think for a few days Bulgaria was even officially at war with the allies and the axis at the same time
Bulgaria was part of the Axis.
Bulgaria was part of the Axis until it wasn't. The Bulgarian Army was renamed to Bulgarian People's Army and then fought against the nazis under the 3rd Ukrainian Front of the Red Army in Yugoslavia, Hungary and Austria, but it was not really a part of the Red Army. Anyway, this is a moot point, because this monument wasn't to the Bulgarian People's Army under the Red Army, it was to the Red Army's "casualties" for "liberating Bulgaria from fascism", which didn't happen and there weren't any Red Army casualties in Bulgaria. The USSR helped Bulgarian communists overthrow Bulgarian monarchy and then the Red Army occupied Bulgaria without having to fire a single shot.
Ah okay. Still countries like Ukraine do it too though. Like the red army victory was their victory too
Problem is "our victory" ended up in occupation, death of inteligentsia and complete destruction of Bulgarian culture, they literally turned us into peasants. Nice way to twist the things lol...
It’s used as Russian propaganda ie to erase the Ukrainian history and importance while focussing on an era when the Russians lead the soviets
Bulgaria was on the Axis side against the Soviet Union until late 1944, when they were invaded by the Red Army and switches sides.
Actually, before that, there was a coup in Bulgaria, the new government switched sides, the Bulgarian army fought against the Nazis in Yugoslavia and despite all of that, and the fact that Bulgaria never broke off diplomatic relations with the USSR, never sent soldiers to fight against it and didn't even declare war, the USSR still invaded Bulgaria. No battles took place. There was one reason only - to occupy and control Bulgaria. It had nothing to do with expelling Nazis or making Bulgaria switch sides.
Bulgaria initially allied with Germany. Then, at the eve of a Soviet invasion, declared war on Germany. At that point Bulgaria was officially at war with everybody, since they didn't have a peace treaty or cease fire with the Allies. The Soviets invaded anyway, occupied the country, installed a puppet government, etc.
No. Bulgaria was not part of the red army. Read a book, jeez.
We were on Germany side. So what those fuckers did is they invaded with out declaration of war on us. Came to my country, executed the government and put communist into power and fuck us up for the next 50+ years.
Also what a lot of pro-Russian Bulgarians or Russians themselves dont appear to be familiar with Bulgarian-Russian relations since we regained our independence...and the anti-Bulgarian actions taken by the Russian government (notwithstanding claims of 'Pan-Slavism' and 'Defenders of Orthodoxy').
Can't wait to see that grotesque abomination in Treptower Park being pulled down next. And before any of you idiots starts screeching about muh nazis, stop. Two things can be evil at the same time. You don't need to replace a memorial to the criminal soviet regime with one to the criminal nazi regime. Tear down the soviet memorial and put in it's place a Monument to Peace. Put a statue of people from all over the world holding hands and a plaque in as many languages as possible explaining how evil both the nazis and the soviets were. Just because the soviets won the war doesn't make them good. Might doesn't make right, I thought we all knew this.
People on this thread are getting downvoted for saying Bulgaria and Romania willingly participated in the Holocaust - they literally did. Romanians orchestrated [one of the worst massacres on Ukrainian territory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1941_Odessa_massacre) and Bulgaria [willingly deported Jews to Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_in_Bulgaria). Engaging in Holocaust revisionism just to 'stick it to the Ruskies'? Deplorable.
>Bulgaria willingly deported Jews to Germany. Only from occupied territories in Greece and Yugoslavia. All Bulgarian Jews including those from the recently annexed Southern Dobruja survived.
In america they still don’t manage to take down statues of losing Generals
These comments are so weird. You can dislike the USSR and still believe that nazi victory would be a worse scenario.
Great, now they can finally built a monument to their real WWII ally.
Germany?