A professor at Sofia University explained why Soviet monuments are being demolished in Bulgaria

Historical memory, which has become a field of ideological struggle in world politics, is an extremely painful topic these days. Requiring strict scientific optics, which is the only way to avoid slipping into the elementary “our heroes versus their villains.” That is why the view of what is happening from a serious scientist who has been studying issues of the politics of memory for many decades is extremely valuable. Iskra Baeva, Doctor of Historical Sciences, graduate and honorary professor of Sofia University, is not only a researcher, but also a witness to the war of symbols that has unfolded since the 1990s in the space of the former socialist camp. It seems that her view of the problem using the example of Bulgaria, where the official policy of erasing the memory of decades of the country’s socialist history and friendship with Russia and the USSR has now intensified, is all the more valuable since such a position in this country cannot be called state-approved.

We publish an article by Professor Iskra Baeva as evidence not only of the presence in Bulgaria of an alternative position to the European mainstream regarding the politics of memory, but also of the personal courage of the author.

Deep social changes always begin with the promotion of new ideas and the rejection of old ones. Thus, at the end of the socialist period, the intelligentsia, dissatisfied with political restrictions and strict (and at the same time stupid) censorship, began their struggle against the system by denying it, albeit in Aesopian language. Symbolic for that time were Blaga Dimitrova’s novel “Face” (1981), which criticized Stalinism, Zhelyu Zhelev’s study “Fascism” (1982), which supposedly described the National Socialist state, but referred to socialist realities, and Ivan Radoev’s play “The Ogress” (1976) and Jordan Radichkov’s “Image and Likeness” (1986), which revealed the ills of the previous regime and its leaders, cartoons by Todor Tsonev, the main character of which was Todor Zhivkov, films “Woman of 33 years old” directed by Hristo Hristov and screenwriter Boyana Papazova, “Margarit and Margarita” (1989) directed by Nikola Volev based on the idea of ​​the writer Alexander Tomov and others.

These artistic and other works of art were able to destroy the ideological image of socialism as a just society. It should not be forgotten that, despite censorship and restrictions, all of them appeared in Bulgaria quite officially. It’s as if the authorities themselves have already sensed that things are not at all as they have been imagined for years, and must change. The fact that the official ideologists of the Soviet-type state socialism system did not believe in it is evidenced by a very interesting discussion in 1990. Prof. Lyuben Nikolov, prof. Petr-Emil Mitev and Assoc. Bernard Muntean. We recently republished the discussion materials in the collection “What is socialism and does it have soil in our country? 130 years later…” The three named scientists tried to establish the causes of the deadlock crisis experienced by socialism, and found them not only in Stalinism and Leninism, but also in Marxism. Thus, “from above” – through the efforts of the intelligentsia, which had a strong influence on the society of that time, and the authorities and their entourage during the period of “perestroika” – socialism lost the trust of society.

This is one of the explanations for why the transformation process, called “transition” in the country, began so easily in Bulgaria: the majority of the population accepted the farewell to the past positively and looked forward with enthusiasm to the upcoming changes that promised political and economic freedom and democracy. But very soon it turned out that the strength of the new politicians lay in their struggle against the symbols of socialism, and not in the creation of the main symbols of the new system. At the same time, the preserved and actively used definitions of “freedom” and “democracy” gradually lost their original content.

And modern iconoclasm continued, expressing opposition to the legacy of previous periods: a large-scale struggle with symbols by changing the names of streets, institutions, villages and cities (including the rejection of the definition of “folk”), the demolition of monuments and the removal of memorial plaques associated with anti-fascist resistance. It was argued that it was not anti-fascist, since there was no fascist party in power in Bulgaria. This is true, but the country was part of the Tripartite Pact led by Nazi Germany, due to which the Bulgarian resistance movement was part of the European anti-fascist struggle.

The struggle of the new “democrats” against symbolic monuments today can be considered successful. The streets of cities and villages were renamed, thousands of monuments were destroyed, thrown away, melted down, before someone came to their senses and decided to collect them in one place and show them to the people – this is the purpose of what was created, although 20 years after the first iconoclastic wave in 2011, Museum of Socialist Art. With difficulty, after several unsuccessful attempts, the Mausoleum was demolished in 1999 – not to mention Georgiy Dimitrov: his remains were cremated, and his ashes were buried back in 1990 at the Central Cemetery of Sofia. The already empty building was awaiting a decision on its possible use. But many proposed ideas gave rise to one single result – destruction.

The same fate awaited another symbol of socialism – the monument “1300 years of Bulgaria” erected in front of the People’s Palace of Culture in Sofia. A symbol of the era of socialism, the monument was opened in 1981 in connection with large-scale celebrations in the country of this historical date, but with the beginning of the transition it was abandoned, no funds were allocated for its maintenance. And the result was immediate: the monument began to collapse, the remaining “skeleton” was first surrounded by a fence, and in 2017 it was demolished.

After this, it came to new symbols designed to form the image of a new democratic government. What do they look like?

As after September 9, 1944, tribute was paid to the victims of the previous regime: memorial sites were created where the Belene concentration camps were previously located, on the Danube island of Persin, and “Sunny Beach” in a stone quarry in the vicinity of Lovech.

On September 11, 1999, the Memorial to the Victims of the Communist Regime in Bulgaria was opened with names carved into black marble. The list covers the years 1919 (it is unclear why: the date is not related to the establishment of the communist regime in the country) – 1989.

After perpetuating the tragic past, the authorities somewhat reduced their activity in creating new symbols. But they didn’t give it up completely. In 2000, a statue of Hagia Sophia was erected on Independence Square in the capital. The initiator was the capital’s mayor Stefan Sofiyanski, and a team led by the famous Bulgarian sculptor Georgiy Chapkanov worked on the project. The statue, rather, personifies the centuries-old past of Sofia, rather than the new regime, but it was symbolically installed on the site of the monument to Lenin.

But monuments to figures associated with the new government are clearly designed to fulfill their function as new symbols. We are talking about monuments to one of the founders of the Union of Democratic Forces, the lawyer and public figure Svyatoslav Luchnikov (1922–2002) and the defector writer, author of “Absentia Reports on Bulgaria” Georgiy Markov (1929–1978), whose mysterious death in London gave rise to many myths.

It is difficult, however, to name any monument or composition that symbolizes the new democratic system. Yes, quite a few new modern buildings have indeed been built, but mostly these are large stores (shopping centers) or corporate offices. Perhaps they can be considered symbols of the modern era, since they promote consumerist neoliberal capitalism, but is this the idea of ​​​​freedom and democracy? At the same time, the buildings that house official institutions are old: built either before 1944 or before 1989. If you look for symbols in them, then the most expressive one should be recognized as the location of the parliament – the People’s Assembly not just anywhere, but in the emblematic Party House, built at one time with contributions from party members and, of course, with funds from the socialist state.

Perhaps the lack of new symbols worth fighting for is once again directing the attention and energy of the current holders of power to old symbols. This is the only way I can explain the fact that 34 years after we began our journey towards freedom and democracy, right-wing activists continue to fight against the symbols of the past.

For this reason, the most significant event of 2023 was the battle with the monument to the Soviet army. Only now, more than 30 years later, did the right finally consider the geopolitical and domestic political situation suitable to encroach on this grandiose symbol of the Red Army’s victory over National Socialism in Europe during the Second World War. And the central figures of the monument – a Red Army soldier with a victoriously raised Shpagin machine gun of the 1944 model (and not pointed at anyone), a Bulgarian mother with a child in her arms and a Bulgarian worker were just as symbolically cut into pieces and thrown to the ground.

Quite a lot has been said and written about the Monument from the standpoint of pros and cons. I have been writing about him and what he symbolizes for several years. Therefore, I don’t want to repeat myself. It is important to me that this Monument is a symbol. Not the occupation, but the role of the Soviet Union and its Red Army in the victory. After all, if there had not been this army, then there would have been no post-war democratic world (in Western Europe). The monument reminded us of many things. And that we, the Bulgarians, were allies of the Third Reich and helped its military operations, supplied the Reich with many things, including raw materials, replaced Wehrmacht units in the territories it occupied, provided our territory and ports to the services of Germany, etc. But this Monument also reminded us that at the final stage of the war, Bulgaria fought on the side of the anti-Hitler coalition as part of the 3rd Ukrainian Front, that we also participated in the pan-European Resistance movement, thanks to which we kept the country’s borders intact, including Southern Dobruja. Yes, this symbol also reminded us of the undemocratic political system imposed after the war, but should we forget about that too?

I can’t resist the temptation and not quote a fragment of the last speech of European Deputy Radan Kynev: “The symbol of the occupying Soviet power is lying on the ground, and that’s where it belongs. This shame should have reminded us for decades that we are not part of the free world, that we are doomed to be an element of the Asian dictatorship.” I resorted to the quotation because I have to remind Mr. Kynev that monuments to the Red Army still rise in such free countries as Germany, Austria, Hungary, Slovakia. What we have in common with these countries is that, like Bulgaria, they were part of the Tripartite Pact and were among the vanquished. They preserve the memory of this period of their history. Unlike us, who claim that we were always right and that everything bad that happens to us is the fault of others. No wonder we feel so unhappy because no one understands us.

One more thing. What will replace the already destroyed symbols – the Mausoleum and the Monument “1300 Years of Bulgaria”? The answer is nothing or almost nothing. I’m afraid that, as in the case of the Soviet Army Monument, we will only be left with destruction.

Today, on the site of the Mausoleum there is a parking lot and strange installations appear from time to time.

But let’s return to the main topic – the demolition of the Soviet Army Monument. This is another battle between new rulers and symbols of the past. The problem is when new symbols will appear and what they will be for which we, Bulgarians, will be ready to fight.

If we fail to create them, we are likely to remain stuck in a cycle of fighting for and against the past, without offering a compelling enough perspective to future generations. This prospect is something more than membership in the EU and NATO, rather than consumption and income, since people need not only material goods, but also ideals – goals and symbols that express them.