Tag Archives: antisemitism

18% Brown: the downfall of a Bulgarian intellectual (II)

Some time ago I reported on this blog how the Bulgarian author Zachary Karabashliev campaigned for a veteran of the Bulgarian fascist and anti-Semitic “Legions” (in a FB post that he later edited by deleting the reference to the “Legions”) whom he called “a hero”. The same admiration was expressed by Karabashliev in a TV interview. The man in question, Dyanko Markov, has in the past repeatedly made public statements in which he described the deportation of the Jews in the areas annexed by Bulgaria in WWII to Treblinka as “relatively human”, and he even justified this deportation and murder of a “hostile population” in a speech in the Bulgarian Parliament a few years ago. Until today he identifies himself with the “values” of the Legions, an organization, which was created after the image of the German SA.

In my blog post I mentioned that Karabashliev and his fellow supporters, some of whom have been running a campaign for years to rehabilitate the anti-Semite Dyanko Markov and the fascist and anti-Semitic Bulgarian Legions, use a concrete incident described in the article to reiterate their historical revisionist theses on the heroism of the Legions, whose founder and leader Hristo Lukov is a figure venerated by Nazis throughout Europe today.

It is a tactic already applied in the past by a specific supporter of Dyanko Markov, to try to intimidate people who mention some for Markov and his fans uncomfortable facts with abusive words, as well as with the threat of legal action on the grounds of slander. So it was no surprise that Mr. Karabashliev, under the influence of the said person, sent me a formally polite and content-wise outrageous message, giving me an ultimatum of 48 hours to delete my allegedly “defamatory” contribution.

Although I can subjectively understand that – as he writes himself – my previous blog post is very unpleasant for him, I have to tell to Mr. Karabashliev however that he has to look who’s talking here. If he had not made the attempt to portray a man as a hero who – according to the final verdict of no less than three court cases on the exact same matter (Markov et al. vs. Yuliana Metodieva) – can be called an anti-Semite and a fascist – and who until today sticks to the ideals of his youth and propagates the anti-Semitic and fascist “values” of the Legions, while at the same time voicing holocaust apologies and denying the responsibility of the organization of which he was a member in the holocaust, my article would never have been written. And for a word that Mr. Karabashliev has distanced himself in the meantime from the Legions and the anti-Semite and fascist Dyanko Markov I have waited until now in vain.

What Mr. Karabashliev apparently has not understood until today: if a Dyanko Markov had been a member of the Legions and would have distanced himself credibly at some point in his life from the anti-Semitism and fascism of this immoral and inhuman organization, my article would also not have been written. But Markov is still a propagandist for the Legions and their anti-Semitism and fascism, he has participated several times in the notorious Nazi march in honor of Lukov, but Mr. Karabashliev finds him heroic and then begins moaning and whining when someone tells him that he is campaigning here de facto for the rehabilitation of an anti-Semitic and fascist organization, and also for the rehabilitation of a member who has not become in any ways distant to these “values” during his whole life.

Mr. Karabashliev has either committed a stupidity of gigantic proportions or he is sharing Markov’s political convictions and now, after several people have publicly criticized him for this, he seems to believe that the allegation of a lawsuit will cause me to tacitly delete my post. However, Mr. Karabashliev makes a mistake of judgment here. I am not intimidated by his threat.

I hope in his own interest that Mr. Karabashliev is informed by his lawyer that not everything that is personally unpleasant to him is slander. And that I have said something untrue about Mr. Karabashliev, he probably will not want to assert. That would be – because if he claims so, it is obviously not true – indeed slander by Mr. Karabashliev and therefore potentially a criminal offense. He may not realize his very delicate legal position in this case, but of course he, just like any other citizen, can choose the legal recourse to clarify which of the two of us has violated the law by claiming something false with the intention to tarnish the reputation of the other. The result could be quite surprising and even more unpleasant for Mr. Karabashliev than my blog post. In any case, I will continue to report on the activities of certain revisionist circles in Bulgaria, and in the future possibly in front of a larger international public.

Whether Mr. Karabashliev wants to be associated with anti-Semitic, fascist and historical revisionist circles in Bulgaria also in the future, or whether he realizes that he has got himself into something on this matter, which will permanently harm his reputation as a writer and person, I do not know, of course. The damage to his reputation, however, will be far greater and more lasting if he goes to court. The choice is up to him.

PS: Here is a report of the Bulgarian Jewish organization Shalom on anti-Semitism in Bulgaria. On page 8, Dyanko Markov and the Bulgarian Legions are also mentioned.

And here is a report on the three dismissed lawsuits, with which the journalist Yuliana Metodieva should be muzzled unsuccessfully in the dispute over Markov in the past.

© Thomas Hübner and Mytwostotinki, 2014-9. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without expressed and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Thomas Hübner and Mytwostotinki with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

18% Braun: Vom Fall eines bulgarischen Intellektuellen (II)

Vor einiger Zeit berichtete ich auf diesem Blog, wie der bulgarische Schriftsteller Zachary Karabashliev sich für einen Veteranen der bulgarischen faschistischen und antisemitischen „Legionen“ einsetzte und diesen (in einem später von ihm redigierten FB-Post, in dem er den Teil, der sich auf die Legionärstätigkeit dieses Mannes bezieht, löschte) als Helden bezeichnete. Ähnlich äusserte er sich in einem Fernsehinterview. Der Mann um den es geht, Dyanko Markov, wurde in der Vergangenheit mehrfach durch Äusserungen, in der er die Deportation der Juden in den von Bulgarien annektierten Gebieten nach Treblinka als „relativ menschlich“ bezeichnete, und der diese Deportation einer „feindlichen Bevölkerung“ öffentlich in einer Rede im bulgarischen Parlament vor einigen Jahren rechtfertigte, bekannt. Er steht bis heute zu den Werten der Legionäre, der bulgarischen Organisation, die nach dem Abbild der deutschen SA gegründet wurde.

In meinem Beitrag stellte ich fest, dass Karabashliev und seine teilweise schon einschlägig hervorgetretenen Mitstreiter, von denen einige seit Jahren eine Kampagne zur Rehabilitation des Antisemiten und Faschisten Dyanko Markov und der faschistischen und antisemitischen Organisation der Legionäre betreiben, einen konkreten Vorfall, der in dem Artikel geschildert wird, dazu benutzen, erneut ihre geschichtsrevisionistischen Thesen von der Heldenhaftigkeit der Legionäre, deren Gründer und Führer Lukov eine von Nazis in ganz Europa heute verehrte Figur ist, zu propagieren.

Es ist eine schon mehrfach erprobte Taktik einer Mitstreiterin von Dyanko Markov, Personen, die einige für Markov und seine Unterstützer unbequeme Tatsachen erwähnen, mit wüstesten persönlichen Angriffen und Schimpfworten und ausserdem mit einer Klageandrohung wegen Verleumdung bzw. übler Nachrede zu bedrohen. So war es auch keine Überraschung, dass mir Herr Karabashliev, wohl unter dem Einfluss der besagten Person, eine in höflichem Ton gehaltene aber inhaltlich unverschämte Nachricht zukommen liess, die mir ein Ultimatum von 48 Stunden gibt, meinen angeblich „verleumderischen“ Beitrag zu löschen.

Nun kann ich zwar subjektiv nachvollziehen, dass – wie er selbst schreibt – mein Artikel ihm sehr unangenehm ist. Allerdings muss sich Herr Karabashliev hier an die eigene Nase fassen. Hätte er nicht den Versuch gemacht, einen Mann als Helden darzustellen, der – und das ist gerichtlich letztinstanzlich bereits festgestellt (Rechtssache Markov et al. vs. Yuliana Methodieva) bis heute zu den Idealen der antisemitischen Legionäre steht und ihre Werte propagiert, bei gleichzeitiger Holocaustrelativierung und -apologie, ein Mann, den man von Rechts wegen ungestraft einen Antisemiten und Faschisten nennen darf, wäre mein Artikel nie geschrieben worden. Und eine Stellungnahme, in der Herr Karabashliev in der Zwischenzeit geäussert hätte, dass er sich eindeutig von den Legionären und dem Antisemiten und Faschisten Dyanko Markov distanziert – diese Stellungnahme habe ich bisher vergeblich erwartet.

Was Herr Karabashliev offenbar bis heute nicht verstanden hat: wäre ein Dyanko Markov Legionär gewesen und hätte sich irgendwann in seinem Leben glaubhaft vom Antisemitismus und Faschismus dieser amoralischen Organisation distanziert, wäre mein Artikel ebenfalls nicht geschrieben worden. Aber Markov steht bis heute zu den Legionären und ihrem Antisemitismus und Faschismus, hat auch mehrfach am berüchtigten Naziaufmarsch zu Ehren Lukovs teilgenommen, aber Karabashliev findet ihn heldenhaft und fängt dann an zu zetern und zu jammern, wenn jemand ihm sagt, dass er hier eine jahrelange Kampagne zur Rehabilitierung dieser antisemitischen und faschistischen Organisation unterstützt, eine Rehabilitierung eines Mitglieds auch, der überhaupt nicht geläutert ist und der sich nie glaubhaft von dieser Organisation und ihren verbrecherischen Zielen distanziert hat.

Herr Karabashliev hat entweder eine Dummheit von gigantischem Ausmass oder aber eine Überzeugungstat begangen und glaubt nun, nachdem ihn mehrere Personen dafür öffentlich kritisiert haben anscheinend, dass die Klageandrohung mich dazu veranlassen wird, meinen Post stillschweigend zu löschen. Allerdings begeht Herr Karabashliev hier eine Fehleinschätzung. Einschüchtern lasse ich mich nämlich nicht.

Ich hoffe in seinem eigenen Interesse, Herr Karabashliev wird von seinem Anwalt darüber aufgeklärt, dass nicht alles, was ihm persönlich unangenehm ist, Verleumdung darstellt. Und dass ich etwas Unwahres über Herrn Karabashliev behauptet habe, wird er wohl nicht behaupten wollen. Das wäre dann nämlich – da wahrheitswidrig – in der Tat Verleumdung durch Herrn Karabashliev und ergo strafrechtlich relevant. Falls er das nicht einsieht, steht ihm natürlich wie jedem Bürger der Rechtsweg offen, um zu klären, wer von uns beiden hier das Recht verletzt hat, indem er Unwahres behauptet. Das Ergebnis könnte für Herrn Karabashliev durchaus überraschend und noch viel unangenehmer sein als mein Artikel. In jedem Fall werde ich auch weiterhin und in Zukunft wohl auch vor einer grösseren internationalen Öffentlichkeit über die geschichtsrevisionistischen Aktivitäten gewisser Personen in Bulgarien berichten.

Ob Herr Karabashliev Wert darauf legt, auch weiterhin mit antisemitischen, faschistischen und geschichtsrevisionistischen Kreisen in Bulgarien in Verbindung gebracht zu werden, oder ob er einsieht, dass er sich bei dieser Angelegenheit in etwas verrannt hat, was seinem Ansehen als Schriftsteller und Person nachhaltig schadet, weiss ich natürlich nicht. Der Schaden für sein Ansehen wird allerdings ungleich grösser und dauerhafter sein, wenn er den Gerichtsweg beschreitet. Es liegt ganz bei ihm.

PS: Hier ein Bericht der bulgarischen jüdischen Organisation Shalom zum Antisemitismus in Bulgarien. Auf S. 8 finden auch Dyanko Markov und die Bulgarischen Legionen Erwähnung.

Und hier ein Bericht über die drei abgewiesenen Klagen, mit denen die Journalistin Yuliana Metodieva in der Auseinandersetzung um Markov erfolglos mundtot gemacht werden sollte.

© Thomas Hübner and Mytwostotinki, 2014-9. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without expressed and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Thomas Hübner and Mytwostotinki with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

A menetekel

One of the key messages of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s “Two Hundred Years Together” is that the October Revolution, Bolshevism, and communist ideology in general are essentially Jewish “projects.” The intelligence apparatus, the systematic murder of regime opponents, the creation of the Gulag system in which millions of people were enslaved and murdered: it is mainly the Jews who are to blame. (He does not say it so flatly, but in the end this is what really matters to him). So whoever today is an anti-Semite, one could conclude by implication, only proves his anti-communism convincingly. And if there were acts of violence against Jews in Eastern Europe apart from the Nazi crimes, it was self-defense or revenge for communist injustice suffered, and in fact they meant only the Jewish political commissars … – this is how for example Paul Goma justifies today the murder of the Jews, committed by Romanians during WWII. And in Bulgaria, too, this form of anti-Semitism is a daily affair among staunch anti-communists. The more so today, where openly anti-Semitic political parties are in the government.

Therefore, when the Bulgarian writer Theodora Dimova publishes a strangely conspiratorial text in the otherwise respectable portal “Kultura”, a text that ostensibly commemorates the anniversary of the bombing of Sofia’s Sv. Nedelja Church in 1925, while emphasizing at the same time the struggle of the Bolsheviks against the Christian religion (which in the context of this terrorist act represents a falsification of history, since its motivation was quite different), this may at first sight seem a little outlandish. But the author, who often refers to “Christian values” in her public statements and laments the lack of a “spiritual elite” in Bulgaria, may be having in mind the approaching Orthodox Easter celebrations that coincide with the Jewish Passover feast this year?

What follows is a long-winded series of biblical quotations and hermeneutical remarks, all of which point to the continuity of the hatred of the enemies of Christ and Christianity – then as now: the Jews, as many readers who understand Dimova’s wink will surely say. They murdered Christ and they are behind Bolshevism, the ideology of the Anti-Christ. Dimova is too clever, she does not mention the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But the Jewish Passover feast and the invention of Jews abducting and slaughtering Christian children to drink their blood are well known to most Bulgarians, and the timing of the publication is obviously no coincidence. The Blood Libel, a ritual murder legend is believed by many people in Eastern Europe until today or at least found to be “interesting”. And there are also openly violent-pornographic anti-Semitic works, from Adolf Hitler to Henry Ford and Fred Leuchter, prominently placed and advertised in almost every bookstore in Bulgaria and sold by the tens of thousands. In such an environment, it is no longer necessary to be more explicit. Almost anyone who wants to understand the subtext understands it. One mentions the religious hostility of the (Jewish) Bolsheviks against Christianity, one speaks long and widely about the (Jewish) Christ murderers, quotes from biblical sources (thus unsuspiciously), and publishes everything a few days before Passover, the period when Jews are according to the Blood Libel looking for Christian children to sacrifice . The context is unambiguous: “We understand”.

Of course, all this is not conclusive proof of an intention. But the subtext is there. And the author is not naïve. However, anyone who babbles about “Christian values” and “spiritual elite” and then uses anti-Semitic clichés, only shows that he / she stands neither for these values, nor belongs to a spiritual elite, but to a dull mass of eternal-yesterday people.

The dilemma of the democratic right wing and conservatism in Bulgaria is that apart from militant verbal anti-communism, they have nothing to offer. There are no real values that they stand for and the ideology that they are shouting about and whose monuments they want to dispose of, is already dead (its enterprising heirs though are alive and kicking). There is a lack of a unifying, positive thought, a social vision. Moreover, there is no delimitation from the enemies of a democratic and pluralistic community from the extreme right. The tsarist and fascist dictatorship before the Communist takeover are being glorified, the main responsible for the murder of more than 11,000 Jews is counter-factually declared the “savior of the Bulgarian Jews”, General Lukov, a particularly close friend of the Gestapo and head of the Bulgarian legions is whitewashed into a hero and brave anticommunist, surviving members of these organizations who participated in crimes against humanity, are portrayed as great democrats and true patriots and given every podium (including the European Parliament) to spread their fake version of history to the applause of many Bulgarian intellectuals. The terrorist and anti-Semitic VMRO is today, only slightly revamped, a ruling party in Bulgaria. And so it goes on – the media and history books are now being “adapted” accordingly.

Today, Bulgaria is even further away than ever from making progress on the way to an open society. On the contrary, we are experiencing today the almost complete collapse of any intellectual honesty and decency. Bulgaria’s misery is not primarily due to the existence of corruption and organized crime, but to the indolence, cynicism and moral failure of a large part of the Bulgarian intelligentsia. The intellectually completely irrelevant article by T. Dimova is a menetekel.

28008677

Alexander Solschenizyn: Two Hundred Years Together, Herbig 2015 

© Thomas Hübner and mytwostotinki.com, 2014-8. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without expressed and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Thomas Hübner and mytwostotinki.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

“Евреите са нашето нещастие!”

Подтекстът на тази статия: евреите са убийците на Христос и са отговорни за болшевизма и атаката срещу Св. Неделя. Авторката не го казва буквално, но посланието е лесно да се чете между линиите…

Жалко е, че на “Култура” се появява статия, използваща антисемитски клишета. Това не съответства на това, което “Култура” беше за мен досега.

© Thomas Hübner and mytwostotinki.com, 2014-8. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without expressed and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Thomas Hübner and mytwostotinki.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

 


In Ruse with Elias Canetti

In the first volume of his autobiography Die gerettete Zunge (The Tongue Set Free), Elias Canetti writes about his early childhood in the Bulgarian city of Ruse – Canetti uses throughout the book the old name Rustchuk -:

“Everything that I experienced later, had already happened once in Rustchuk…On any one day you could hear seven or eight languages.”

Despite having spent only his first six years in the city of his birth – the family emigrated to Manchester in 1911 and Canetti came back only once for a visit in 1915 – Ruse and its unique multilingual and multicultural atmosphere at that time left a lifelong mark on the future writer.

A small book in Bulgarian language with the title In Ruse with Elias Canetti (В Русе с Елиас Канети) sheds additional light on this early period of Canetti’s life, family background and social surrounding.

In the middle of the 19th century Ruse had developed into a thriving city. Located at the Danube it had by then attracted a lot of trading activities and the port of Ruse was the main artery through which goods were imported and exported from and to the whole region. An additional boost to the economic development was the fact that Ruse had a fast-growing Jewish (Sephardic) community which was one of the driving forces for Ruse’s modernization; this together with a general economic boom in the then revived Bulgarian state (until the Russian-Turkish War 1877-78 it had been part of the Ottoman Empire for almost five hundred years) made Ruse the then most modern and truly European city in Bulgaria.  

The authors give us interesting information about the origin and growth of the Jewish community in Ruse and trace back also the family background of Canetti’s parents. Grandfather Elias Canetti (the namesake of little Elias) came from Adrianopel (Edirne) to Ruse and became a successful trader, first with his partner in Constantinople, later on his own. He reigned his firm and his family like a benevolent despot, a true family man that cared a lot for his grandchildren and particularly his oldest grandson Elias; but at the same time he expected that his sons gave up on their own plans and would be part of the future family business with branches in all other important Bulgarian cities.

For Jacques, young Elias’ father, this was a source of permanent inner conflicts – he was a talented violinist and dreamed of a career as a musician in a chamber quartet. Also Mathilde, his wife and Elias’ mother, was a talented amateur musician (she played the piano); there are photos that show the parents as musicians in a public concert in Ruse. Another photo shows Jacques, then a dashing young man, in a carnival costume – both parents who had spent years in their youth in Vienna loved the theatre and literature, things for which Grandfather Canetti had not much interest and which he might have considered at best as harmless hobbies, but as nothing serious.

Beside this latent conflict between Jacques and Elias Senior, another quite open conflict clouded the childhood of the future Nobel Prize winner. Mathilde’s family, the Arditis, were against the marriage of their youngest daughter with Jacques Canetti. The Arditis, one of the oldest and high-ranking Sephardic families could trace back their origin until the 13th century when some of their ancestors were astronomers and doctors at the courts of the Kings Alfonso IV and Pedro IV. After 1492, the family settled in Livorno and later in the Ottoman Empire, where several of their members became famous rabbis, kabbalists and scientists; the Arditis were among the first Jewish families in Ruse and looked down on Elias Senior and his family as upstarts, who had just arrived from the Orient and were no match for the famous and cultured Arditi family. One of the remaining (and traumatic) memories of his early childhood in Ruse was for Canetti a visit in Grandfather Arditi’s house. This grandfather, who never paid much attention to Elias and never gave him a present, asked his grandson on one occasion, which of his grandfathers he loved more – Grandpa Canetti or Grandpa Arditi. When the poor boy said “Both!”, he was immediately called a liar and hypocrite by his maternal grandfather. 

One of the most interesting chapters for me was the one on the artistic talent of Canetti’s parents, especially that if his father. Ruse had quite an active social and cultural life, and much of it was initiated and kept alive mainly by its Jewish citizens. Ruse has a beautiful theatre that regarding its size and architecture could be as well in Vienna or Budapest. During Ruse’s best times, many famous international troupes visited the Danubian city, the same goes for many musicians and orchestras. There were amateur theatre groups and concerts that raised funds for the education of poor but talented Jewish children, the Bnai Brith Loge played an important role in the social fabric of the Jewish community, and there were also some of the first Zionist organisations in Bulgaria which had their headquarters in Ruse. Other chapters cover the donations made by Canetti’s grandfather and father, the efforts of Jews from Ruse to support the war effort in the Balkan Wars and WWI, either as soldiers or by financial support. Another short chapter describes how Canetti learned some folk rhymes and stories from young Bulgarian peasant girls, stories he later found again in a German book about Bulgarian fairy tales and folk stories and that left obviously a deep impression on him. Philately, the role of the different newspapers in the Canetti household (in Ladino and in German), and the comet Halley are also covered by short but instructive chapters.

The Orator is the title of the longest chapter of the book, and it deals with Canetti’s relationship with one of the most colorful members of the Canetti-Arditi family, Elias’ cousin Benjamin ‘Bubi’ Arditi (Canetti calls him ‘Bernhard’ in a letter addressed to him that is reproduced in the book). Bubi, just a few years older than his cousin, was for some time a strong influence for Canetti and he is explicitly mentioned in the second volume of Canetti’s autobiography Die Fackel im Ohr (The Torch in My Ear).

After Canetti’s parents moved to Manchester with their three sons (Elias, Nissim and Georges), Elias saw his cousin during both visits in Bulgaria; in Summer 1915 in Ruse and in 1924 in Sofia. During this period Bubi had became a fervent Zionist and public speaker. Elias was so impressed by his cousin who engaged himself with all his energy in something much bigger than himself, a cause for the Jewish community, that we find traces of The Orator also in Masse und Macht and in his Aufzeichnungen. For a short time, young Elias seemed also to have considered to become a Zionist. Bulgarian Jews were in those days frequently targeted by the terrorist IMRO (today this extremist right-wing political party that is still proud of its criminal and antisemitic origin and which propagates quite openly violence against ethnic minorities and refugees is part of the Bulgarian Government!), that openly threatened to kill those who didn’t pay hefty sums to them; blackmail, collection of “protection” money and contract killings were the main financial sources of this “patriotic” group – today, being part of the Bulgarian government, they use means that are only slightly more subtle – that was in its high time considered the most ruthless group of assassins in Europe.  – When Canetti fell in Vienna under the spell of an even greater orator, Karl Kraus, this interest in Zionist politics faded away completely. 

The book reproduces several letters of Canetti to his cousin Bubi and to people in Bulgaria who got in touch with him in his later life. He found touching words for his attachment to Ruse and the importance of the city for himself and his development as a writer.

This small book is not only very informative, it is also an important document of the renewed connection of the writers’ birthplace with this extraordinary son of Ruse. Canetti’s daughter visited Ruse for the first time in 1998 and initiated together with Penka Angelova from the University Veliko Tarnovo and other supporters the International Elias Canetti Society, which is now very active to promote the literary work of Elias Canetti, and the values for which he stood. The three engravings that show Old Ruse and that were among Canetti’s most treasured belongings, are now back in Ruse – a donation by his daughter. And there is a chance that not only the former building of the trading house Elias Canetti (Senior) in Slavyanski Street 14 in Ruse will be revived, but maybe also that the author’s birthplace at Gurko Street 13 will be turned into a museum one day. (Interestingly, the English Wikipedia page about Canetti, claims that the building at Slavyanska is his birthplace – a building that the author has rarely ever entered, since it was an office and a warehouse, not a residential building.)   

While the book provided me with interesting, new to me information and is written with real love and devotion to the subject, I have to mention two points with which I had a problem.

The book contains many reproductions of photos and other documents; that’s a good thing since it adds considerably to the quality of the given information and makes the book even more interesting and readable. However – and this really unforgivable – the book mentions absolutely no sources of any of the photos and documents, and therefore also not of the owners of the copyright of these illustrations. That is highly disappointing and doesn’t correspond with the standard of a book publication; it is even infringing the copyright – something that is considered in Bulgaria unfortunately as no offence at all by many people. For me it is a question of honesty and intellectual integrity not to disregard in such a shameful way the intellectual property of others, and it is a real pity that such an otherwise recommendable book has such a very serious flaw. 

I had also a problem with a question regarding a detail in the chapter devoted to The Orator. Bubi Arditi, a lifelong supporter of the revisionist Zionist Vladimir Zeev Jabotinsky, the Irgun, and other right-wing groups, was also politically involved with the last Czar Simeon II (and later Prime Minister Simeon Sakskoburggotski).

Simeon launched a long time ago a campaign to depict his father Boris III as the “saviour” of the Bulgarian Jews during WWII, a claim that has been a long time ago discarded by serious historians. In the contrary, Boris III was the main Bulgarian responsible for the extermination of the Jews in the annexed territories in Macedonia and Thracia. I don’t want to go into the details here regarding this topic, but it is important to know that Bubi Arditi wrote a book that supports Simeon’s revisionist theory.

After referring Arditi’s position that Boris III was the “saviour” of the Bulgarian Jews and his blaming the “Jewish communists in Bulgaria” that they are liars, the book claims surprisingly that Canetti shared his cousin’s opinion on this question. But while there can be no doubt about the fact that Canetti rejected the communist system in Bulgaria with harsh words, he was never a supporter of the thesis that Boris III was the “saviour” of the Bulgarian Jews and the reproduced letter proves – if anything – the opposite. The rather ambiguous wording of the authors in this particular context leaves room for the interpretation that they think that Canetti shared his cousin’s opinion. But Canetti was never ever a supporter of revisionist ideologues and I was rather annoyed by this passage in an otherwise very recommendable text.   

P.S. In case you wonder, the French actor Pierre Arditi is also a member of the Canetti-Arditi family. His father Georges and Elias were cousins.

.В Русе с Елиас Канети

Veselina Antonova / Ivo Zheynov: In Ruse with Elias Canetti, MD Elias Canetti, Ruse 2016

Elias Canetti: The Tongue Set Free, Granta Books, London 1999, translated by Joachim Neugroschel 

© Thomas Hübner and mytwostotinki.com, 2014-8. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without expressed and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Thomas Hübner and mytwostotinki.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

News from Retardistan (5): The silence of the lambs

Honestly, I cannot understand why most Bulgarian intellectuals don’t say a word about the fact that many of the places where they are usually buying their books are being more and more turned into locations where Nazi publishers are selling pamphlets that are advertising an inhumane ideology, racial hatred and mass murder. No wonder that in this climate, anti-Semitism shows its ugly face also outside the bookstores as this excerpt from the excellent book A Guide to Jewish Bulgaria shows.

It seems to be normal for most Bulgarian intellectuals to see Hitler’s My Struggle, Henry Ford’s The International Jew, and other extremely revolting books that either advertise mass murder, deny the Holocaust, or are apologies of war criminals being prominently advertised and promoted literally almost everywhere, or what is the reason for the silence of most of the Bulgarian intellectual elite in this case?

Do they think that the widespread promotion of such books in their country doesn’t concern them? Do they think someone might be offended when they raise their voice to confront those people who help to distribute extermination manuals? Are they afraid to be physically threatened if they speak out against right-wing extremism and Nazism? (I have to admit that this is unfortunately a very real threat as I learned during my public argument with a revisionist and anti-Semitic so-called “historian” – the “fan mail” by his friends gave me a very interesting insight in the moral scruffiness and deprivation of this part of the extreme right wing of the intellectual lumpenproletariat in Bulgaria; it contrasted rather typically and unfavourably with the almost complete lack of public support for my position by most of my intellectual friends – but do not worry, I have an extremely high frustration tolerance.)

Do they think it is a sign of democracy and freedom of expression when those who either deny the holocaust or who would like to commit mass murder, erect concentration camps, and sterilize by force certain groups of the Bulgarian population if they could are not only allowed to propagate their inhumane ideology without limits, but are even supported by a coalition of silent intellectuals and a public that seems to be completely uninformed about history and uninterested in what is going on in their country, in which revisionists, fascists and openly Nazi groups are taking more and more over the public discourse on certain topics? What kind of “democrats” would have the idea to promote a law that bans the use of certain communist symbols under threat of a prison sentence, but who seem to be fine with the promotion of mass murder under the banner of revisionism, fascism, and Nazism?

Hate speech against minorities is not the exception, but the rule in Bulgaria, and very few people seem to care. A real democracy and pluralist society requires that people raise their voice and set limits to this domination of the public sphere by revisionist, fascist and Nazi propaganda; intellectuals have a particular responsibility to speak out when it comes to these issues. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Bulgarian intellectuals seems to be sound asleep – this intellectual indolence, laziness and cowardice when it comes to confront this pest in Bulgaria is something very sad, disappointing, and depressing. 

Fortunately a few bookstores are consciously not following this trend and a few intellectuals voice their concern. A few bookstores and a few intellectuals, yes. But a real public discussion on a large scale about this problem doesn’t take place, nor seem many people who should know it better even to be aware at all of the issue. As long as it is like this, the enemies of democracy and a pluralist society have a field day in Bulgaria.

————————————————————————————————————————————

The above mentioned book is highly recommended to anyone with an interest in Jewish and/or Bulgarian history:

Dimana Trankova, Anthony Georgieff: A Guide to Jewish Bulgaria, Vagabond Media, Sofia 2011

© Thomas Hübner and mytwostotinki.com, 2014-6. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without expressed and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Thomas Hübner and mytwostotinki.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

News from Retardistan (4)

A bookstore in Sofia – the same about which I reported recently, the one which advertised Hitler’s My Struggle as “Hit” and put it in such a tasteful manner on a table beside á book of holocaust survivor Primo Levi:

To my surprise, Hitler’s book has finally disappeared from the prominently placed table (Primo Levi too). Has someone read my posting and realized that a book that is advertising the extermination of the Jews, published by a Nazi publishing house and with a portrait of Hitler on the cover that was an official portrait supposed to glorify him and that is obviously targeting an audience of raging anti-Semites and Nazis should not be sold in an establishment that is selling books? Unfortunately not!

My Struggle has not disappeared, but has moved to an even more prominent place: now you see this vile rag of a book in several copies almost jumping in your face when you enter this bookstore, placed on a display rack which every person that enters must notice.

And it goes without saying that the place previously occupied by My Struggle has found a “worthy” placeholder: Henry Ford’s The International Jew in Bulgarian edition, one of the main “inspirations” of Hitler and not much less radical regarding the “solution” of the “Jewish problem” as My Struggle.

Let me guess: when I visit this “establishment” (I avoid the word bookshop) next time, I will probably see Ford replaced by the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion“? Or Celine’s “Bagatelles pour un massacre“? Or the “Leuchter Report“? And in the children’s section maybe an edition of pornographic/anti-Semitic pictures from Julius Streicher’s “Der Stürmer”, labeled as usually with “Hit” and maybe in this case with the additional tasteful sticker “great educational value!”, preferably placed beside the The Diary of Anne Frank?.

Retardistan is a place where nice books that spread certain “values” even in the last household are held in great esteem, a place where people of a certain “culture” have it very easy to find what is arousing their interest and honestly, isn’t it great to find books that promote mass murder, systematic extermination of people and extreme racial hatred without any effort? Hail Retardistan! 

(Irony button “off”)


Roumanian Journey

It always amazes me how little we “Westerners” usually know about the culture and the history of South-Eastern Europe. And I am saying this even after sixteen years of Balkan experience.

It is therefore always a pleasure to read well-written travel accounts by authors that have the necessary curiosity, education and ability to transfer their knowledge to us readers. A good example is Roumanian Journey by Sacheverell Sitwell (the younger brother of Edith Sitwell, and an early member in Sir Oswald Mosley’s New Party before Mosley turned it into a fascist movement.).

The court ceremonial that Sitwell is describing is truly strange:

„As late as 1818, there is an account by an English traveller of an audience with the reigning prince, at Bucharest, in which he is described as being carried into the room, in the old traditional manner, supported by the arm of a servant under each of his shoulders, as though he were too important a personage to walk. These were the manners and customs of the old Turkish court, or even of the Court of Pekin. It was remarked, too, that the Phanariot princes had no standing army. This was not allowed them. Their state consisted in a multiplicity of servants, and in a few heyducks or Albanians gorgeously arrayed. I am even told, by Prince Matila Ghyka, that a Phanariot Prince, of the Mavrojeni family, made his official entry into Bucharest riding in a sledge drawn by a pair of stags with gilded antlers.”

A classical book – the first edition appeared in 1938 – that belongs in each library of anyone with an interest in South-East European history and culture; and for readers of travel books as well. The edition I read has a foreword by Patrick Leigh Fermor, another expert on Romania. Travel literature at its best, until about ten pages to the end when the author is revealing his anti-Semitism.

If it was not for the more than doubtful remarks about the “Jewish problem” that made me cringe, this book would be one of the very best in this genre. As it is, it is still a great read – with the mentioned restriction.

Sacheverell Sitwell: Roumanian Journey, with an introduction by Patrick Leigh Fermor, Oxford University Press, Oxford New York 1992 

© Thomas Hübner and mytwostotinki.com, 2014-6. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without expressed and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Thomas Hübner and mytwostotinki.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

News from Retardistan (3)

A bookstore in Sofia, at the table with the best and most-interesting newly arrived books. And what do I see? Hitler’s My Struggle, marked as a “Hit” – and just beside it a book by Primo Levi, a survivor of Auschwitz.

I am speechless.

© Thomas Hübner and mytwostotinki.com, 2014-6. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without expressed and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Thomas Hübner and mytwostotinki.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

A case of revisionism, or How interested circles in Bulgaria try to turn the main responsible for the killing of 11,363 Jews into someone that is “more than a Bulgarian Schindler”

The events about which I am talking here took place more than 70 years ago and are extremely well documented. But until today there are two competing narratives regarding the interpretation of these events and a recent interview of the former Bulgarian Czar and later Prime Minister Simeon Sakskoburggotski (Simeon von Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha) brought them to the surface again and created a quite heated discussion in the public sphere in Bulgaria.

The facts: Bulgaria, whose government at that time had since long very close ties to Nazi Germany, joined the Axis officially on March 1, 1941. Bulgaria had lost territories in the Balkan Wars and WWI that it considered to be rightfully part of Bulgaria, and Nazi Germany supported these territorial claims to Macedonia, a part of Kosovo, the Dobrudzha, and the Greek part of Thrace. Part of the deal to join the Axis was on the other hand to actively support the extermination of the Jews – it was later agreed that Bulgaria will “deliver” as a starter 20,000 Jews to the Nazis. So, in the end of the day it was a deal “territory against handing out the Jews for extermination”.

Even before joining the Axis, the Bulgarian government started to support actively the anti-Semitic policy of the Nazis. Bulgaria issued laws that deprived Bulgarian Jews of most of their rights; the laws were inspired by the anti-Semitic laws in Nazi Germany that in a way prepared the population to accept the fact the Jews were no citizens, and actually not even human beings in the ideology of the Nazis and their willing helpers.

In spring 1943, the Bulgarian parliament issued a supportive vote to deport for now 20,000 Jews from the territory of Bulgaria (including those territories that were to be annexed by Bulgaria) to Poland. 11,363 Jews from Bulgarian-occupied Macedonia and Western Thrace were rounded up by Bulgarian police and military, put in trains guarded by Bulgarians and sent mainly to Treblinka. There was literally only a handful of survivors.

When in March 1943 the Bulgarian authorities started to announce their intention to round up also the Jews from the “Old” Bulgarian territory, i.e. Bulgaria in the borders before 1941, courageous Bulgarian citizens, a few politicians with a conscious (such as Dimitar Peshev), and some of the leaders of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (Metropolit Kiril and Metropolit Stefan), organized public resistance in Kyustendil, Sofia, Plovdiv, and other places. A demonstration of the illegal Communist party in Sofia resulted in the arrest of more than 400 participants.

Bulgaria was a country where antisemitism was not a mass phenomenon, most Bulgarians traditionally held good relationships with their Jewish neighbors and felt that they were Bulgarian citizens just like everybody else. It became obvious to the government and to the powerful Czar Boris III that they had underestimated the supportive reaction of the Bulgarian population for the Jews; at a time when it was already clear that Nazi Germany will lose the war (this happened after the capitulation of Stalingrad), the Czar and the government decided to “play on time”.

In order to avoid a serious crisis and threat to their power by a possibly very strong reaction of a considerable part of the Bulgarian population if they would deport the remaining Jews to Poland, they found all kind of excuses to delay the deportation – much to the anger of Dannecker, the highest Nazi representative in Bulgaria who was dealing with the organisation of the endlösung, and of Hitler personally. But knowing fully well that he was on the losing side, Boris (who died a few days after he visited Hitler in Germany) tried to gain some leverage for the time after the war. And to be considered the “savior” of the Bulgarian Jews would be possibly part of that leverage, so he hoped.

As a result, all Jews within the pre-1941 territory of Bulgaria survived (unless they perished as part of the partisan movement); almost all Jews in the annexed territories were killed.      

In his recent interview with CNN, the son of Czar Boris III, the former Czar Simeon II, and later Prime Minister of Bulgaria, mentioned his hopes that his father will be declared one of the Righteous Among the Nations, a title awarded by Yad Vashem to non-Jews who risked their lives to save Jews during the Holocaust.

The basic criteria to be awarded the title of Righteous Among the Nations, according to the official website of the Yad Vashem Memorial are as follows:

  1. Active involvement of the rescuer in saving one or several Jews from the threat of death or deportation to death camps;
  2. Risk to the rescuer’s life, liberty or position;
  3. The initial motivation being the intention to help persecuted Jews: i.e. not for payment or any other reward such as religious conversion of the saved person, adoption of a child, etc.;
  4. The existence of testimony of those who were helped or at least unequivocal documentation establishing the nature of the rescue and its circumstances.

It is obvious that Czar Boris III is not fulfilling a single one of these criteria.

I would not have mentioned the attempt of a son to whitewash his father from his responsibility of the death of more than 11,000 people, if it would be a private matter only. But Simeon is not a private person only. He came back to Bulgaria after decades of exile to become Prime Minister, making the promise that after 800 days the Bulgarians would live better under his rule (he and his sister live indeed much better now – one of the first laws he issued was about the restitution of the private property of the family of the Czar, and now he and his sister own land and properties that were never theirs, and which make them the by far biggest landowners in Bulgaria).

The reason why I am writing about this topic is another one. What we can witness in Bulgaria is the attempt of interested circles to whitewash history, to deny historical responsibility for the deeds of the past, or even for serious crimes that were committed in the past. That is not limited to Bulgaria of course, and it is not limited to the role of the Czar in the survival of the Bulgarian Jews living on the pre-1941 Bulgarian territory. Revisionism is in my opinion a very serious threat for Bulgaria. Only when you know who you are and what you did in the past and for what you are responsible, you have a chance to learn from history.

An article written by Manol Glishev, a poet and intellectual, shows clearly the very ugly side of this kind of revisionism. I was really shocked and aghast when I read it.

After an introduction which he is using to insult everyone who dares to be critical regarding Boris’ role and Simeon’s objective lies about that part of history (see below), saying that “negativism transferred from father to son or from son to father is a totalitarian practice”(!!!), we “learn” in his article how Boris III was working hard for years to preserve the life of every Bulgarian – but “unfortunately” the Jews in the occupied and annexed territories were not Bulgarians, so there was nothing he could do. (This is ignoring the fact that it was Boris III and his government that “made” all inhabitants of the occupied and annexed territories into Bulgarians – except for the Jews, for which he had already other plans.)

In one of the paragraphs that is dealing with the fate of the Macedonian and Thracian Jews, Glishev is writing that Macedonia was not part of Bulgaria at the time of the deportation and that the Czar made “big efforts” to save the Macedonian and Thracian Jews. Both is simply a fabrication. I would recommend Mr Glishev to read a bit about the historical facts. As a start I could recommend him the excellent book by Rumen Avramov: “Salvation” and fall: Microeconomics of the state antisemitism in Bulgaria 1940-1944, which shows among other things the very strong involvement of the Bulgarian state, its government and its ruler, Czar Boris III in the deportation and killing of the Jews in the annexed territories. That the Bulgarian state and Boris himself bear the responsibility for the extermination of the Jews in Macedonia and Western Thrace is also evident from the documents published recently by Avramov and Nadia Danova from the archives of Alexander Belev, the “Kommissar für Judenfragen” in Bulgaria, the organizer of the activities against the Jews. Mr Glishev could also inform himself by reading the Dimitar Peshev biography by Gabriele Nissim. Or Arno Lustiger’s excellent book Rettungswiderstand, in which the author describes clearly and with plenty of documentary support that the main responsibility for the extermination of the Jews in Macedonia and Western Thrace was with the Bulgarian government and Boris III.

When Mr Glishev even writes that “Boris is more than a Bulgarian Schindler” (headline of his article), I feel really that I am running out of words. To read a headline like this from an intellectual and poet is sickening. His intervention on behalf of an opportunistic ruler who sided with the Nazis because it suited his policy to increase the Bulgarian territory (and let – if possible – others do the dirty job for him), someone who didn’t have the slightest problem to turn the Bulgarian Jews into slaves that were deprived of almost any human rights, someone who ordered his policemen and military to round up the Jews in Macedonia and Western Thrace and send them to Treblinka, is not a worthy cause by any means.

According to the logic applied by Mr Glishev, Joseph Goebbels should be given the title of a Righteous Among the Nations too. It was Goebbels, who ordered the release of about 2,000 Jews in Berlin in 1943, after a group of women demonstrated in the Rosenstrasse in Berlin, after the arrest of their Jewish husbands and fathers. As a result of these unexpected demonstrations, and after a major bombing raid, Goebbels decided not to fuel possible protests and to release these people – for the time being. Does that make Goebbels a “savior of the Jews of Berlin”? The answer is obvious, and I feel ashamed that some people, among them even intellectuals and writers have the chutzpah to make a “savior of the Jews” out of an opportunist and bootlicker of the Nazis, who partnered in their crimes whenever it was favorable for him.

In an emotional, but factually correct response, the writer and survivor Lea Cohen answered to Glishev’s unsupportable article and Simeon’s interview.

Contrary to what Simeon said in the interview, Bulgaria was not an occupied country; Macedonia and Western Thrace were occupied by Bulgarian troops; to say that Boris “was hiding the Jews in labor camps” is so ridiculous and outrageous as to say Stalin was “hiding the opposition in labor camps”; it was not Simeon’s mother, but the Spanish ambassador that issued passports to the Bulgarian Jews; it was not the Nazi administration, but the Bulgarian administration that sent the Jews from Macedonia and Western Thrace to Treblinka; Boris III name was removed by the Jewish National Fund from all commemorative signs after a committee headed by an Israeli High Court judge came to the result that he in no way was responsible for saving the Bulgarian Jews – Simeon is just outright lying in this interview.

It makes me angry to see a person spreading so much obvious revisionist lies as Simeon does; it is sickening to see some intellectual and writer running to his help for his outrageous lies, trying to manipulate the public opinion in Bulgaria in accordance with Simeon’s revisionist agenda.

That the Jews in the pre-1941 Bulgarian territory were saved, is and will always be an honorable act by the part of the Bulgarian population responsible for it and by those people who voiced their resistance to the planned deportation; Boris III doesn’t belong to that group of honorable people, and revisionist campaigns like the one his son, with the support of interested circles, is running now, will hopefully have no success. This is not only a question of the interpretation of historical events; it is also a question of morals and ethics.

It is high time to admit that also Bulgaria had its share of responsibility in the Holocaust, and that the saving of a part of the Jews is just a (convenient) part of the whole story. It is also important to remember who was responsible from the Bulgarian side for this participation in the Holocaust: the Bulgarian government at that time, and the monarch Czar Boris III. That may be painful for some people who still prefer a made-up version of history to the truth – but it is indispensable for the country’s future. Only a Bulgaria that acknowledges its past – and not a revisionist parody of it – will be able to build a future free of the ghosts of antisemitism, racism and fascism.

kniga_roumen_1

Румен Аврамов: „Спасение“ и падение, Университетско издателство „Св.
Климент Охридски“, 2012 (Rumen Avramov: “Salvation” and fall: Microeconomics of the state antisemitism in Bulgaria, 1940-1944), Sofia 2012

Румен Аврамов и Надя Данова: Депортирането на евреите от Вардарска Македония, Беломорска Тракия и Пирот, март 1943 г./ Т. I-II (Rumen Avramov and Nadya Danova, eds.: The deportation of the Jews from Vardar Macedonia, Aegean Thrakia and Pirot, March 1943, 2 vol.), Sofia 2013

Arno Lustiger: Rettungswiderstand. Über die Judenretter in Europa während der NS-Zeit. Wallstein, Göttingen 2011

Gabriele Nissim: The Man who stopped Hitler, I. Borouchoff, 2002

© Thomas Hübner and mytwostotinki.com, 2014-5. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without expressed and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Thomas Hübner and mytwostotinki.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.