: ..

(1918 1939) (: / , :
. .., 2010. 376. .: . 355 374.
Tatoli T.V. uthoritarianism in Bulgaria in interwar period (1918 1939).
Lugansk, 2010. 376p. (Ukraine).
Bulgarian studies has obtained one more monographic study on political
regimes in Bulgaria in the interwar period. This theme has traditionally attracted
and still attracts the attention of researchers, not only in Bulgaria but also abroad.
The relevance of the above mentioned problem in the context of democracy
foundation in Central and South-Eastern Europe is undoubted. The book is
especially urgent because of the fact that there are some countries with latent
authoritarianism in the region. In addition, in connection with the expansion of the
methodological basis of historical science in Ukraine and Bulgaria, the
abandonment of one-dimensional exclusively Marxist approach to the analysis of
the past, there may be seen nostalgia for "the good old days", the idealization of
historical figures and a wide range of estimates of their activities. Obviously at a
new stage of historical science development, the expansion of the source base by
new published memoir and diary literature, greater access to archival materials,
created the favourable conditions for studying the political regimes in the 20s - 30s
in more objective way. That is why their analysis attracts researchers again.
Of course, the appeal to almost any scientific historical problem today does not
start with a clean slate. The author has witnessed a long-standing interest in the
question posed in the title of the book. A rich sources and historiography base,
amounting to about 300 items, was used to achieve the objectives of the study.
They include unpublished archival holdings ( Foreign Policy Archives of the
Russian Federation ), published memoirs, collections of documents, periodicals,
monographs and articles in Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Russian, English, Polish, Italian
and German. The nature of interwar political regimes in Bulgaria is actively
covered in Bulgarian literature. But it has been on the sidelines of the interests of
Ukrainian researchers. The book under review allows to fill this gap.
The authors qualities of a conscientious researcher and historian are combined
with the ability to write clearly and understandably about complex processes, to
argue her conclusions with lots of facts indicating the greatest possible number of
sources on specific issues. It allows to recommend the book not only for specialists
but also for students, to everyone who is interesting in the history of Bulgaria. The
book is written in positivism traditions. The chronological framework covers the
period of Bulgarian nation modernization, when historical time was " overloaded "
with numerous events and processes what accompanied the " authoritarianism
escalation from political ideas into political practice " ( p.5 ) .

The Bulgarian agrarian national Union (BANU) regime, the governing of

Alexander Tsankov, the military being in power, the personal regime of Boris III
are observed sequentially. The researcher focused on the following problems : 1)
legislation and political practice , 2) repression and their impact on the society and
the state, 3) the system of power organization, 4) historical personalities in public
life and society.
A lot of the authors conclusions make the reader think, making him partaker
of the conclusions of the addressed issues, give arguments for scientific discussion.
In particular, it concerns the BANUs way for the partys dictatorship. This is
accompanied by belittling the role of parliamentarism and the factual disregard of
public administration in a number of actions ( the establishment of The Peasants
dictatorship Committee and paramilitary Orange Guard, the XVI BANU Congress
decision on peasant dictatorship, etc.). The Ukrainian researcher agrees with the
conclusion of the Bulgarian historian T.Galunov that the BANUs regime turned
out antithesis of democracy violating the principles of parliamentary power ( p.89
). A detailed outline of the BANUs being in power is ended with the conclusion
about the presence of authoritarian tendencies in Peasant Party politics. However
authoritarianism in its final classical form had not emerged yet ( p.90 ) .
The author has paid tribute to the complex issue of fascism in Bulgaria.
Bulgarian historiography discussions invariably focused on it. In this regard
observations on the organization of the People's collusion and the Military League
are interesting. The military acted like a technical-organizational and ideological
force and civics were political force coup detat on June 9, 1923 in their alliance
against the BANUs. ( p. 103). Noting divergent estimates of the essence of the
People's collusion Tatoli T.V. traces how they have changed in science during the
1970 ies-- 1990 ies. Fascist character of the organization as well as the Military
League is questioned (pp. 96 - 101) . The author considers that the coup detat on
June 9 , 1923 had non-fascist character ( p. 117). The thesis about the nature of
authoritarian regimes of A. Tsankov ( p.117 -136 ) and A. Lyapcheva, who was
forced to liberalize the political system ( p. 171 ) is substantiated.
The author does not avoid the issue of repression. She holds the opinion that
not only their horrific scale allow to adequately understand the nature of the
processes what took place in the political history of Bulgaria. Legislative practice,
changes of the system of executive power, the position of the monarch, the left in
the political life of the country, the contradictions within the ruling forces were
taken into account. Based on the above mentioned facts a well-founded conclusion
is made about the erosion of the foundations of the authoritarian regime. However,
the rules of the constitutional regime were not restored ( p.184 ) . And it was a
precondition for a new stage of the strengthening of authoritarianism

Although the author does not seek to search the historical alternative of
authoritarianism in Bulgaria, she gives proofs of its slipping into its " arms " in
the post-coup detat period on May 19, 1934. It was due to both the programs of
the " Link" group and the Military alliance, and their actions in the social and
economic sphere, in the national question, and in foreign policy. Unlike the
previous period, the repressive actions of the Bulgarian authorities after May 19
1934 are seen an inevitable attempt of the authorities to protect themselves using
force. " In the environment of political and class conflict other ways were simply
ineffective so they could be used only as auxiliary ones" (p. 234). onsidering the
reasons for the collapse of the " May 19 " government the author departs from the
traditional in the Soviet period habit to search for objective reasons of different
phenomena, but focuses on the social and psychological ones - the attitudes
towards the authorities of various socio- demographic groups in Bulgaria (p. 236),
as well as the contradictions among the " 19 May figures " (p. 236 - 238).The last
authoritarian stage is associated with figure of the monarch , Boris III and his
regime of personal power ( p.245 - 274 ) in the country.
Studying the evolution of the political life of Bulgaria , the author inevitably
had to face the fact that traditional approaches are inadequate . These difficulties
were partly overcome, by the revision of some well-established academic
stereotypes following the Bulgarian researchers. They should include ethnic
collective democracy as its characteristic features in the last two centuries ( p.18 ),
" monarchist - fascism" ( p.329 330) ), the identification of the monarch with a
charismatic leader type ( p.342 343) . Furthermore, Tatoli T.V. avoids using the
conventional in political and legal sciences classification of political regimes
because of the danger to simplify or make a schematic analysis . Her appeal to the
original classification of political regimes by the Russian political scientist
G.V.Golosov looks justified and convincing enough for understanding the features
of the Bulgarian authoritarianism in the interwar period (p. 350 351) . It allowed
to eliminate the unilateral characteristics of political regimes and not to associate
them with particular social group interests.
The authoritarianisms carriers belonged to different political and class forces.
The author believes in the historical roots ( p.20, 22 28 ) of the survivability of
the authoritarian tradition that we cannot help agreeing with. On the other hand it is
referred to the subjective factor - the temptation by power turned to be an exam
which many politicians were not ready for.
The refereed work emphasizes again that the methods of historian scientific
research must be updated constantly because of debatable character and ambiguity
of the subject of the research. Habitual modes dont seem to be sufficient to
understand the peculiarities of Bulgarian national historical experience.In this case

the author managed to avoid the breaking off with the scientific knowledge of the
socialist period and show the danger of authoritarian idea despite of any attractive
mask that it could wear. The book makes a contribution to investigation the
Bulgarias place in European processes in the exceptionally important XX century.
Samoylenko N.
About the author: Natalia Ivanovna Samoylenko, candidat of historical sciences,
dotsent of history department. Poltava National Technical Yury Kondratyuk
University. Pershotravneviy, 24, Poltava, Ukraine, 36011.
e-mail: NatashaSam5@mail.ru
: ..
(1918 1939) (uthoritarianism in Bulgaria in interwar period (1918
1939): / ,
. ... -- :
. .., 2010. 376. .: . 355 374.
Bulgarian stadies
()
,

, .

- .
,
, ,

,
, . ,
,

, ,
20- 30 . .
,
.
, .

, 300 .
(
), ,

, , ,
, ,
, , ,
.
.
.
.
-
,
,
.
, , ,
. .

,
,
(.5).
,
, , III.
: 1)
, 2)
, 3) , 4)
.
,
, .
, (
Bulgarian agrarian national Union) .

( ,
, XVI etc.).

. ,

(.89).


.
(.90).
,

.1
.
-, 9 1923. (. 103). ..,
, ,
1970- 1990-.
, , (.. 96
101). 9 1923. (. 117).
. (.117
136 ) . ,

(. 171).
,

.
,
, , ,
.
.
(.184).


,
19 1934 . .
,
- , ,
. 19
1934.
.

(. 234).
19 ,
,
- --
-
(.236), 19 (. 236 238).

. . . ,
, 2010, .187.


III ( .245 274).
,
,

. , ,

.
(.18), (.329 330),
(.342 343). , ..

-
.
..

(. 350 351).
,
- .
.

(.20. 22 28) , .


, .

,

.

.
,
.
, ,
, .

, ,
,
.

.

 . , (
19 )
. ,

n ,