нищо интересно, на всичкото отгоре, точно тоя глава е писана от българин, някой си николай поппетров /който го чувам за първи път/. то цялата книга е компилация от подобни кратки писания на различни автори, май повечето балкански.

----------------------------

Nikolai Poppetrov, Fashizmut v Bulgaria: razvitie i proyavi [Fascism in Bulgaria. Development and Activities] (Sofia: IK Kama, 2008), 7–9, 69–72.
Nikolai Poppetrov emerged as a leading scholar of the history of Bulgarian
fascism in the late 1980s and early 1990s, with the publication of critical
reappraisals of the Bulgarian movements in Bulgarian Historical Review and
Istoricheski Pregled. The excerpts below, from Fashizmut v Bulgaria, represent the development of earlier articles, firmly situating the development
of fascist ideology in terms of the social, political, and economic crises of
interwar Bulgaria. Notably in 2009 Poppetrov published the first primary
sourcebook on Bulgarian fascism, entitled Sotsialno naliavo, natsionalizmut
napred. He is a member of the Institute for Historical Research at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
FASCISM IN BULGARIA
By order of a number of factors, which are indicated in the text, fascism echoed
and found adherents in Bulgaria. Its presence in the Bulgarian space is beyond
doubt. Initially it was manifested only in the propaganda of the experience of
Italian fascism, consequently, also in the establishment of formations, which partially or fully professed a fascist program and organizational principles.
Taking into account the specifics of fascism in its Italian prototype and its
other European expressions, and its development under Bulgarian conditions, we
may give the following definition of the phenomenon in Bulgaria:
• Ideas and political programs similar to and identical with the fascist prototype spread in Bulgarian context. Organizations with several hundred to
several dozens of thousands membership were founded.
• Fascism in the form of a single political organization (but also as ideology)
has not been in power and has not participated in the government of the
country. […]
Three major stages may be discerned in terms of ideas, ideology, propaganda,
and organization in the development of fascism in the Bulgarian context:
• early fascism (proto-fascism), in the first half of the 1920s, a period of
active initial acquaintance with, respectively, propaganda of Italian Fascism, and of formation of the first organizational nuclei of fascist activity;
• an increasing interest in the phenomenon and of the rapid development
of some organizations; a period coincident both with the world economic
crisis and the rise of National Socialism in Germany, namely, the period of
the second half of the 1920s and the beginning of the 1930s, until the coup
of 1934; and

194 Chapter 3
• a fully developed fascist ideology and of organizations with considerable
membership, activity, and presence, in the second half of the 1930s and the
beginning of the 1940s.
OUTLINE OF THE SPECIFIC FEATURES OF THE “SECOND WAVE”
OF BULGARIAN FASCISM
By January 30, 1933, when the national socialists took over the government
in Germany, the Bulgarian followers of Mussolini and Hitler had already gone
through the phase of organizational and ideological building. They were at
a stage when they were able to deploy efforts to enhance their influence. The
disposition of powers in the right-wing space showed the prevalence of organizations, which presented themselves as the unique spokesmen for all-nation goals
rather than for ones mechanically borrowed from fascism. BNSK (Bulgarski
narodensuyuz “Kubrat”/Bulgarian People’s Union “Kubrat”), SBRZ (Suyuz
“Bulgarska rodna zashtita”/“Bulgarian Home Defense” Union), and SBF (Suyuz
na bulgarskite fashisti/Union of Bulgarian Fascists) were in deep organizational
crisis; NSBRP (Natsionalsotsialisticheska bulgarska rabotnicheska partiya/
National-Socialist Bulgarian Workers’ Party) of [Hr.] Kunchev was of no importance; Natsionalna Zadruga (National Zadruga) enjoyed changeable success. The
new factors—Zveno, NSD (Narodno sotsialno dvizhenie/National Social Movement), Mlada Bulgaria (Young Bulgaria), SMNL (Suyuz na mladezhkite natsionalni legioni/Union of the Youth’s National Legions) were on the offensive. The
explanation for this is simple: they grasped the live tendencies of the moment,
laid an emphasis on the mass social leanings, and became spokesmen of discontent and desires that had captured sizeable social circles.
The popularity of the representatives of this “second fascist wave” may
be attributed also to the clear structuring of the agenda and the goals set in it.
The social, the problématique related to the economic crisis, the indebtedness of
a considerable part of the peasant population, the insecure position of the workers
are being drawn in the limelight. Society (nation, national community) is seen
as a community consisting of three main components—peasants, workers (i.e.,
producers), and organizers. Labor is held to be the most fundamental national
(communal) value, while the right to labor is proclaimed as one of the major
principles of the new authoritarian or fascist state. Solidarity, the sense of duty
and obligation to the community (collectivity), is the main uniting feature of relations within the community. From a social angle, the very fascist formations are
presented as movements, that is, as mass organizations in which all social (property) differences are made null and void.
The antiliberal pathos, which transpires in all texts, demonstrates the intention to break with the past, with a wrong direction, a way of thinking and conduct
that are alien to the Bulgarian mentality. The conclusions and the platforms of

Irregular Violence: Bandits, Guerillas, and Militias 195
Zveno and NSD show a pragmatic approach of identifying problems and offering
solutions for them, and a concrete program to deal with them at that. There is
unanimous belief in the political circle and in the movement that the establishment of a just economic and social order is connected with changes in the
existing situation, with the introduction of planning and control.
The restraint and abolishment of liberalism in the economic life, the
endorsement of principles bringing together employees and employers, and
regulating the economic and social relations are only possible with the active
involvement of the state in the economic and social spheres. Thus the question
of the leading role of the state in the economic and social life is imperatively
included in the agenda of the day. This is the source of the preference given to
the organization of society based on estates through professional representation
of interests—a position that places the two formations closest to fascism. As
a matter of fact, the corporate system, which had become very popular in the
right-wing space at the beginning of the 1930s, was not entirely alien to Bulgarians. As an estate organization BZNS (Bulgarski zemedelski naroden suyuz/
Bulgarian Agricultural National Union), for example, had always maintained
the view that the best representation of social interests would be on the basis
of (professional) estates. This oblique and rather contingent closeness between
agriculturalist estateness and fascist corporatism would, for example, explain
the successes of the NSD among peasants. New is also the approach to the most
painful problem of the national agenda—the national question. Members of
Zveno, Mlada Bulgaria, and of the National Social Movement valued the nationstate as a fundamental element in the contemporary and future development of
Bulgaria. To one or another degree, their preferences went to irredentism. However, in their current programs, as well as in their direct ideological and organizational activities, the national question and the revision of the unjust peace
treaties occupied only a secondary, subordinate place. The social and economic
issues had a primary role and this made their political line harmonious with the
immediate problems of the bulk of society.
Anti-Semitism became an essential feature of the Bulgarian political landscape. It was maintained by Rodna Zashtita, which made serious efforts to formulate its understanding of the kindred relationship among Masons, Jews, and
communists (Bolsheviks). The organization used every opportunity to manifest
its anti-Semitism (e.g., in the trial against its member Kalpakchiev who had maltreated a Jew for mercenary reasons, 1932). Zveno, NSD, and Mlada Bulgaria
manifested toleration for Jewry and did not show any anti-Semitic tendencies.
However, anti-Semitism found a warm reception among the youth’s movement
of the Legions. Some local circles and bodies of the Legions made anti-Semitism
their main direction of propaganda (e.g., the journal Mosht [Power], published
in Plovdiv, 1933). Their anti-Semitic argumentation is very similar to that of the
national socialists, but it lacked the racist aspect, as the theory of the pure race

196 Chapter 3
did not find any significant echo in the Bulgarian political space. What needs to
be underscored is that as early as the beginning of the 1930s, the political trend
defined here as fascist had acquired to a considerable degree an anti-Semitic
dimension.
Translated by Rossitsa Gradeva

кажи му северномакедонец вместо да го обиждаш

Съдържаниет е скрито
Влезте за да го видите