site.btaKing Boris III: 80 Years after His Death, Controversy over His Personality Lingers

"A controversial character, a statesman of his time, King Boris III was one of the brightest political personalities not only on the Bulgarian but also on the Balkan horizon after WW I," writes Nikolai Poppetrov of the Institute for Historical Studies at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. His article, marking the 80th anniversary of the monarch's death (August 28, 1943), was published at www.dnevnik.bg on Monday.

The author notes that Bulgarian public opinion still lacks consensus about Boris's role in history.

"Economic modernization, the recovery of Southern Dobrudzha [in 1940] and the unification of Bulgarian lands, the repulsion of extreme, destructive elements and keeping Bulgaria out of embroilment in the war are among the most frequently cited achievements of his reign"

"Political violence and Bulgaria's alliance to Nazi Germany in WW II are among the arguments of those who believe that his presence in Bulgarian politics was worthless," Poppetrov writes.

"King Boris III acceded [in 1918] after a catastrophic war, at a moment of economic, political and mental crisis. Cautious by nature, it was in these early years of his rule that the monarch developed and sharpened a sense of distrust of the members of the political elite. On this basis, his characteristic behaviour took shape in the 1920s: outwardly hesitant, waiting, even seemingly uncertain, but in reality purposeful, patiently planning and persistent in pursuing his goals," the historian points out.

"Extremely well-informed, prepared for every business meeting, a subtle psychologist, King Boris turned out to be not the palace boy but a perceptive observer of the domestic and international situation, a skilled communicator, an experienced statesman."

"Paradoxically, until the May 19, 1934 coup political parties urged the King to intervene actively in government so as to ensure the power sharing of a particular political player. This prevented him from becoming a monarch-arbitrator in Bulgarian political life," Poppetrov notes.

"The King's behaviour was determined by a number of factors: international politics in general, Bulgaria's hostile Balkan surroundings, and the international arrangements restricting its international activity as a result of the post-World War I status quo. Other significant factors were the role of the Soviet Union and of the Comintern with their strong imprint on the country's situation."

"The political reality at home was just as complicated: a permanent crisis of the party system and of parliamentarism, strong public discontent with the social and economic development, and clear influence of Bolshevism and fascism."

"The 1934 coup established an authoritarian regime, and King Boris III took advantage of this situation to assume personal control of the country. However, he did so indirectly, through the governments he appointed."

Authoritarian Rule and Vigorous Modernization

"The nine years (1935-1943) during which King Boris was the main factor in government were a time of vigorous comprehensive modernization. That was a period of authoritarian rule, without parties, initially without parliament, and later with a manipulated legislature in which the opposition was nevertheless represented. What was peculiar to Bulgaria's development at that time was the establishment of an undemocratic regime coupled with economic, educational and cultural upsurge. By curbing political strife and manifestations, the May 19 regime unleashed public energy, channelling it into economic prosperity, infrastructure development, technical innovations and social events," Poppetrov writes.

He recalls the three principal events for which King Boris III is held responsible by his detractors: joining the Tripartite Pact on 1 March 1941, declaring a war on Britain and the US in December 1941 (which, although described as a token war, is seen as siding with Hitler in the global conflict and on account of which Bulgaria incurred a series of deadly Allied air raids in 1943 and 1944), and the persecution of the Jewish minority and the deportation of Jews from Bulgarian-occupied Aegean Thrace and Vardar Macedonia in 1943.

"In 1941 the King was faced with his most difficult choice. The neutrality that the Kingdom had declared [in September 1939] was undoubtedly the best solution, and the state respected it until it became quite impossible to maintain it. A 600,000-strong German army waiting on the banks of the Danube to pass through Bulgaria simply had to be allowed to do so without resistance. Resistance would imply casualties and devastation. To abdicate or emigrate like other monarchs in the face of German pressure was not a decision Boris III would have accepted. The options offered by communist propaganda - entering into an alliance with the USSR, or by bourgeois politicians - switching allegiances to the anti-Hitler coalition, were untenable," the historian argues.

"An alliance with the USSR posed a risk of Sovietization, which the King would not tolerate. An alliance with France and Britain would automatically entail a war with Germany. Moreover, a tie-up with Berlin presupposed as a goal the solution (partial or complete) of the national question," Poppetrov notes, referring to the territories that Bulgaria had been forced to cede to Greece and Yugoslavia after its defeat in WW I.

"Political developments dramatically narrowed the King's room for manoeuvre, and short-term politics suggested wrong decisions. A favourable outcome of these decisions would prove impossible. National unification, which was the price for the path the country had chosen, turned out to be short-lived. The only thing the King could do was to stop the deportation of the Bulgarian Jews, which was one of the King's actions shrouded in mystery (March 1943)".

"Above all, he was averse to extremes, he was moderate in his personal and statesmanlike claims, and generally showed realism in his assessments. He was capable of making contacts, of finding a talking point with representatives of various circles. A careful analysis of his behaviour reveals an amiable sense of humour and of irony. Having fought on the front of World War I, he had learnt empathy, and he personally assisted ordinary people in coping with the effects of natural and man-made disasters: floods, fires, earthquakes, bombings," Poppetrov observes.

"In the face of neighbouring Balkan governments' anti-Bulgarian sentiments and the ambitions of aggressive great powers such as Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, the King displayed sang-froid and skilful diplomacy. He did not go on record committing wholeheartedly to any particular great power or ideology. He was presumably sincere when he declared himself to be 'the only Bulgarianophile' among local political leaders. In his contacts with Bulgarian politicians, intellectuals and ordinary people, he was direct and forthcoming without being intimate or condescending. Not coincidentally, literary critic Vladimir Vassilev noted in Boris's obituary in the Zlatorog magazine that "tactfulness and a sense of royal dignity" were the hallmarks of the monarch's image.

"Throughout his reign, the King adhered to a course of moderation on the national question and pursued a focused national policy. It would be not an overstatement to say that the personality of King Boris III left an indelible mark on the overall development of Bulgarian society in the 1918-1943 period," the article concludes.