#which was made still under the communist regime

[alexanderwales]

I've been trying to get a good overview of communist art, and it's difficult, partly because of the language barrier, but also partly because I think what I want isn't the art itself, it's a comparison of how the landscape of art-making shifts.

Movie-making, in particular, is a massive undertaking that requires a fair amount of time and money if you want to do it right. You need someone to write it, someone to direct it, someone to act in it, a cinematographer, some lighting, sound and music ... under a communist model, none of this would actually change. You would still need to acquire the personnel and make sure they were housed and fed. You would still need sets to be built and artists to devote their time and energy.

So one of the common criticisms of capitalism is that it produces Bad Art, that everyone is just trying to make a buck and they don't care about the product unless it finds consumers who will pay out cash. Everything is geared for the lowest common denominator. This gets worse as you involve more and more capital.

But I've always wondered: is this not also true under communism?

I don't mean in practice, that question is simple, all you have to do is read up on the film production processes from a number of different communist and formerly communist countries, whose source materials are often not accessible in English, mired in propaganda and disputes, and cover many decades. Easy peasy. I did what I think is a surface skim, but the common threads were that film studios were state-owned, scripts were approved by party officials, there were regular reviews during production, and a final review before release. You usually have to promote socialist values, or at least not criticize the current regime, and you have reviews for "ideological content". In spite of all this, some good movies got made, some bad movies got made, and some movies were banned for lack of ideological conformity or "frivolity". There are different eras to filmmaking in every country, times when the industry was thriving and times that it crashed to the ground in spectacular fashion as the government involved itself. A lot depended on who was in power and what the then-current ideology was. I think it's tempting to say that the widely agreed upon "great films" got made in spite of having ideological overview, but it's hard for me to evaluate that claim, and if someone said "the great American films were made in spite of capitalism" I think that also would be a difficult claim to evaluate, even though I've actually seen a pretty substantial amount of the canon and speak the language most often used in analysis of production processes.

No, what I mean is that in theory there's someone that has to be running the numbers. The film studio is state-run, sure, everyone is in state housing or whatever, they're getting food somehow ... but someone, somewhere, is authorizing all this. You don't make a film without a plan, so those plans have to be submitted to someone, or a committee, and that committee has to decide which films will get made and which will remain a dream. And if they're doing that, then they're either trying to make the film that they think benefits the country the most, or they're applying their own taste and judgment, but probably both.

And if you're under some kind of model where no one runs the numbers, where film-making is entirely volunteer work, then you still have problems, because you need this large volunteer organization, and you need to bring them in on your vision, and if they can just walk away, you need to maintain that energy and vision through the whole process.

I guess what I'm saying is that yes, capitalism presents problems when it comes to this specific artform, but I feel like as soon as you're out from under the yoke of the dollar, you're immediately under some other yoke. And I do wish that when people saw a bad film and said "the problem is capitalism" they would take a moment to consider that maybe there is always necessarily going to be oversight and compromise, just because of the nature of the enterprise.

This does not apply nearly so much to other forms of art, like those that can be done by a single person sitting in a room all alone.

[thetepes]

"Fuck it, I'm going to go back to calling people Nazis if they look at me funny." - 4:20 is the timestamp.

She is such a fascinating streamer, no? Dead air, no music, bringing up a cosplayer who killed themselves over accusations after saying it's perfectly fine and good to make flippant accusations. Telling her viewers to mass report Ant's videos, something which youtube found her so inert and completely fucking unable to meaningfully achieve they automatically considered his report solved because there was never any meaningful threat to begin with.

Anyway, it means nothing. This accusation. These words. Nothing, but meaningless piss from a person who so loudly declares their victimhood and cries about their status as a poc, a transwoman, a disabled person who lives off government assistance.

These things that all of which would have made you a victim of this meaningless regime to you. Let's look at who they targeted!

Black people

Civilians accused of disobedience, resistance, or partisan activity

Gay men, bisexuals, and others accused of deviant sexual behavior

 whose religious beliefs conflicted with Nazi ideology, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses

people with disabilities 

Slavic People

Political opponents and dissenters in Germany such as communists

Roma and other people derogatorily labeled as “Gypsies” 

Social outsiders in Germany derogatorily labeled as “asocials” or “professional criminals”

Soviet Prisoners of War. 

Hm, would you look at that? It seems we both meet the measure of those who would be eradicated. We would be victims of Nazis, Lily. Both of us.

Most estimates place the total number of deaths during the Second World War at around 70-85 million people. Approximately 17 million of these deaths were due to crimes against humanity carried out by the Nazi regime in Europe. In comparison to the millions of deaths that took place through conflict, famine, or disease, these 17 million stand out due to the reasoning behind them, along with the systematic nature and scale in which they were carried out.

They were 17 millions of us. A number not one of us can begin to fathom the actual scale of.

So why do only I know the weight of this between us, Lily? Are you really so disconnected from what you are that that multi generation eradicating horror is something you can't comprehend? Nazi isn't some flighty term like Republican that can mean anything from a out of touch grandma who thinks a house can still be bought for 25k to a man holding a tiki torch saying we should nuke downtown Atlanta. Nazis are one thing. They are the thing I struggle to describe as people, but they were and are people and we must remember the great evil people are capable of.

These are not the same thing. You can't just fling Nazi out like it's meaningless. To do so demeans not just the victims, but people still living. You belittle us. You belittle yourself. When you reduce Nazi to a buzzword you take away the sheer magnitude of the violence and loss they caused. Nazi is a word with meaning. It should hurt to say because of how heavy it is.

Have some pride. Have some dignity. Some grace. Have some respect for our lost kin and those that would have been our friends, for the strangers that would have been connected to us by the single thread of this group's hatred.

Give that word it's meaning.

This part is for all of us who have grown too casual with our language, not just her,

Stop calling people Nazis unless they are. Nazis aren't fairytale creatures or monsters under the bed. They're human. They're your brother, your father, your cousin, your next door neighbor. That's what's so scary about them. They're just people. Hateful people. They look like you and me. Look at what a Nazi is. Look at their beliefs. Look at what they did. Memorize it. We all must look even though it hurts because we need to be able to identify them and half of that is giving that word weight so when we see the danger we can name it. For our own safety.

It's time to demand better. It's time to have meaning. It's time to use our words and use them accurately.

[southeastasianists]

Cambodia has a long history of performing arts that share commonalities with what is grouped under the "circus" banner nowadays. And like many of the country's ancient artforms, these traditions of acrobatics found themselves oppressed and vilified by the Khmer Rouge regime of dictator Pol Pot during the late 1970s. Inspired and supported by Maoist China, the Khmer Rouge intended to replace the country's old culture with a completely new one based on communist ideals. As such, traditional craftsmen and artists were routinely executed along with any dissidents, their relatives and even acquaintances. Cultural persecution thus became a part of one of the worst genocides of the 20th century.

Decades after this genocide, Cambodia still grapples with its consequences, not just in psychological terms but also the economic ripples of missing almost entire generations. As such, cities like Battambang, which was close to the border with Thailand and teeming with refugees, found themselves with high rates of poverty and children living on the streets. It was in this context that Phare Ponleu Selpak (PPS) was born in 1994.

A team of now adults, who had spent their childhood in refugee camps in Thailand, found themselves inspired by an art therapy program. This made them see their PPS initiative as a way to give other generations of disadvantaged children and young people the tools necessary to change their lives. While PPS's headquarters continue to be based in Battambang, their international flagship is Phare, the Cambodian Circus.

Most Phare performers may have originally lived in Battambang, but they now perform several shows per week in Siem Reap, the country's main tourist city. Their circus style takes some queues from the world-renowned Cirque du Soleil, highlighting human acrobatics and an artistic approach to their shows. Phare does not shy from references to the country's troubled history along with universal themes of strife. Phare has several shows that rotate on their performances. "Khmer Metal," for example, starts in a tourist pub the morning after a wild night, and features imagery like beer towers and drunk brawls, while "Influence" shows an authoritarian antagonist in a Mao-collared shirt.

Phare's aesthetic is a bit more DIY than Cirque du Soleil's current shows, but it is all part of their social enterprise aspects. Funds from their performances support PPS's other initiatives, which not only train future performers but also assist schools, art programs, and current performers' families. Following the massive negative impact of COVID-19 in tourism-focused Siem Reap, PPS needed an extreme act to raise additional funds for its reestablishment. It was this that led to their March 2021 performance. Including members of their Battambang and Phare crews, the show lasted just over 24 hours, earning them the still-standing (as of mid-2024) Guinness World Record for longest circus performance.

[mesetacadre]

The story that emerged was that of a plot to seize power by assassinating several government leaders through agents, who, if caught, would not even know the identity of their chiefs, but would appear to be ordinary agents of the German Gestapo. The chief conspirators, their reputations still intact, would call for “party unity” and the burying of all past hatchets to meet the emergency, and in the confusion would gain leading posts. One of them, Bakayev, was slated to be chief of the G.P.U. and would use the post to liquidate the agents who had done the actual murders, thus burying all evidence of the higher-ups’ crime. Some of the lesser agents apparently first learned in court the fate that their chiefs had reserved for them, and this greatly added to the venom with which they denounced those chiefs.

The reason for the conspiracy was given by Kamenev, brother-in-law of Trotsky, and himself a prominent leader in earlier years, who had been sidetracked by his long opposition to Stalin’s policies, especially to the Five Year Plan. Kamenev said that by 1932 it became clear that Stalin’s policies had been accepted by the people and that all hopes of overthrowing him by political means had failed. “There remained two roads... either honestly to end the struggle against the government, or to continue it... by means of individual terror. We chose the second road. We were guided in this by boundless bitterness against the leadership... and by a thirst for power to which we had once been near.” Zinoviev, former chief of the Communist International and later dropped because of unwillingness to follow the Stalin policy of noninterference by the Soviet government in other nations’ internal affairs, said that he had grown so accustomed to giving orders to large groups of people that he could not endure life without it. Several of the minor agents connected the group with the German Gestapo; N. Lurye claims to have worked “under the practical guidance of Franz Weitz, personal representative of Himmler.”

In subsequent trials of related groups, the hand of Nazi Germany was several times exposed. Pyatakov, former chief of Soviet state industry, said that he had met Trotsky abroad in 1935 and learned that the latter had made a deal with Rudolph Hess for Nazi support in the overthrow of the Stalin regime. In return for this, Germany was to get opportunities for investments throughout Russia and a special sphere of influence in the Ukraine through a puppet state. Other indications of German plotting came almost simultaneously from an entirely different quarter in far away Novosibirsk. In November, 1936, eight Soviet executives and one German engineer pled guilty to sabotage, which had wrecked coal mines and caused the death of miners; the German engineer’s testimony implicated the German consul in Novosibirsk.

The Soviets Expected It (1941), Anna Louise Strong

[rosefest]

Citizens Deprived of Basic Human Rights

Under the Peace Treaty signed between Bulgaria and the Allied Powers, which was ratified by the Presidency of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria on 26 August 1947, Bulgaria agreed to respect the basic human rights of its citizens. According to Article 2 of the treaty, Bulgaria was required to ensure that all its citizens, regardless of race, sex, language, or religion, would enjoy fundamental freedoms such as freedom of speech, a free press, freedom of religion and political beliefs, and the right to public gatherings. This treaty was effective from 15 September 1947.

However, throughout the entire period of communist rule in Bulgaria (from 1944 to 1990), the communist regime systematically violated these fundamental rights, disregarding the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Violations Under the Communist Regime

Despite the treaty’s provisions, the communist regime did not honor the rights guaranteed by the Peace Treaty or international human rights standards. Instead, it engaged in widespread violations, such as suppressing freedom of speech, restricting the press, and silencing opposition. The government used state-controlled media to manipulate public opinion, and dissidents were either imprisoned or sent to labor camps. The freedom of assembly was also restricted, and anyone who attempted to challenge the regime faced serious consequencesPersonal Istanbul Tours.

Human Rights in East Germany

In 1977, Erich Honecker, the First Secretary of the German United Socialist Party and the head of state of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), made a statement claiming that there were no human rights issues in the GDR. He said, “There may be no human rights activists in the German Democratic Republic because all human rights are fully observed in this country.” Despite this claim, many citizens in the GDR still tried to escape the oppressive regime, and the number of people attempting to legally leave the country increased every year.

The Expatriation Movement in East Germany

By the late 1970s, a movement began to form in East Germany, called the “Voting on a Request for Expatriation”. This movement was primarily made up of young people who were trying to leave the German Democratic Republic for a better life. Despite the regime’s claims that human rights were respected, many East Germans felt trapped and sought to escape. According to Robert Havemann, a prominent critic of the regime, the movement had grown to 120,000 members by 1976, and by 1977, the number had reached an estimated 200,000.

The communist regimes in both Bulgaria and East Germany were responsible for widespread violations of human rights. While the government officials in both countries claimed to uphold human rights, the reality was far different. Citizens faced constant surveillance, imprisonment, and suppression of their basic freedoms. Movements like the Expatriation Movement in East Germany showed the growing frustration and desire for freedom among young people. These events highlight the contrast between the regime’s promises and the lived reality of the people under their control.

[burgasbg]

Fear and Control Bulgria Under Soviet Influence

On January 2, 1959, British Ambassador to Bulgaria, Anthony Lambert, wrote a report that clearly expressed the tense situation in the country. He said, “One cannot help feeling that the shadow of fear and Moscow’s hand of death are hanging over each and every Bulgarian, not excluding the communist leaders.” This statement captured the strong influence of the Soviet Union over Bulgaria, even among those in power.

Bulgaria Copies the Soviet Model

Even after the death of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin in 1953, Bulgaria’s Communist leaders continued to follow the Soviet system closely. The Bulgarian Communist Party said it was moving away from Stalin’s personality cult, but in reality, little changed. Leaders still showed great loyalty to the Soviet Union and copied its style of governance Istanbul Tours Guide.

Zhivkov’s Extreme Proposal

One of the most shocking events happened in July 1963. Todor Zhivkov, who was the First Secretary of the Bulgarian Communist Party at the time, made a bold move. He proposed that Bulgaria should officially become part of the Soviet Union. He brought this idea to a plenary meeting of the party’s Central Committee, which included the top members of the Communist Party.

Surprisingly, all 167 members of the Central Committee supported the idea. They voted in favor of Bulgaria joining the Soviet Union, showing just how deeply committed the leadership was to the Soviet cause.

Khrushchev Is Informed

In October 1963, Zhivkov traveled to Moscow and told Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev about the proposal. He said that the Bulgarian Communist Party had already discussed the idea and agreed to it. This showed how far Bulgaria’s leaders were willing to go to stay close to the Soviet Union, even if it meant giving up their country’s independence.

A Nation Under Influence

During this period, propaganda was heavily used to support the Soviet-controlled regime in Bulgaria. Posters, media, and speeches constantly promoted the idea that following the Soviet Union was the only path to progress. The Bulgarian people lived under a system that demanded loyalty, punished dissent, and pushed Soviet ideals above national identity.

The events of the early 1960s show how deeply the Soviet Union influenced Bulgaria. Even after Stalin’s death, fear and control remained strong. Todor Zhivkov’s proposal to join the Soviet Union highlights how the Bulgarian Communist leadership placed ideology above national sovereignty. It was a time when independence was traded for loyalty, and the future of Bulgaria was tied tightly to Moscow’s decisions.

[lovelybulgaria]

Fear and Control Bulgria Under Soviet Influence

On January 2, 1959, British Ambassador to Bulgaria, Anthony Lambert, wrote a report that clearly expressed the tense situation in the country. He said, “One cannot help feeling that the shadow of fear and Moscow’s hand of death are hanging over each and every Bulgarian, not excluding the communist leaders.” This statement captured the strong influence of the Soviet Union over Bulgaria, even among those in power.

Bulgaria Copies the Soviet Model

Even after the death of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin in 1953, Bulgaria’s Communist leaders continued to follow the Soviet system closely. The Bulgarian Communist Party said it was moving away from Stalin’s personality cult, but in reality, little changed. Leaders still showed great loyalty to the Soviet Union and copied its style of governance Istanbul Tours Guide.

Zhivkov’s Extreme Proposal

One of the most shocking events happened in July 1963. Todor Zhivkov, who was the First Secretary of the Bulgarian Communist Party at the time, made a bold move. He proposed that Bulgaria should officially become part of the Soviet Union. He brought this idea to a plenary meeting of the party’s Central Committee, which included the top members of the Communist Party.

Surprisingly, all 167 members of the Central Committee supported the idea. They voted in favor of Bulgaria joining the Soviet Union, showing just how deeply committed the leadership was to the Soviet cause.

Khrushchev Is Informed

In October 1963, Zhivkov traveled to Moscow and told Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev about the proposal. He said that the Bulgarian Communist Party had already discussed the idea and agreed to it. This showed how far Bulgaria’s leaders were willing to go to stay close to the Soviet Union, even if it meant giving up their country’s independence.

A Nation Under Influence

During this period, propaganda was heavily used to support the Soviet-controlled regime in Bulgaria. Posters, media, and speeches constantly promoted the idea that following the Soviet Union was the only path to progress. The Bulgarian people lived under a system that demanded loyalty, punished dissent, and pushed Soviet ideals above national identity.

The events of the early 1960s show how deeply the Soviet Union influenced Bulgaria. Even after Stalin’s death, fear and control remained strong. Todor Zhivkov’s proposal to join the Soviet Union highlights how the Bulgarian Communist leadership placed ideology above national sovereignty. It was a time when independence was traded for loyalty, and the future of Bulgaria was tied tightly to Moscow’s decisions.

[linka-r9-vysocina]

Once again, i think you are misunderstanding me on purpose. The only thing I wanna clarify is this: I am not comparing Hamas to Nazi Germany. I am comparing the RHETORIC that people use to justify the ethnic cleansing of Palestine: people claim that all Palestinians are basically Hamas collaborators, Hamas commited the 7th October attacks, therefore all Palestinians are guilty. (To be clear, I don't agree with any of this, but I see this line of reasoning everywhere, and it's awful). You use the same rhetoric in regards of whole nations - they allied with Germany, therefore they are all guilty (even though most ordinary people had nothing to do with the decision to ally with Nazi Germany, it was something that was decided on the politics level).

In the same way, if a country allied with Nazi Germany were full of people from different walks of life, most of which didn't really have a say in any of this. There were definitely collaborators, but there were also people who stood up to the atrocities. "The country knew what it was getting itself into and therefore deserves anything that comes" is collective punishment and dehumanisation, I am sorry.

"I personally would rather be in a communist satellite state than a Nazi collaborator. I was under the impression that Nazis are intolerable and whoever helps a Nazi is also a Nazi." They were attacked. Were they supposed to just let the Soviets destroy their country? Do you know what it means for countries to be a Soviet colony? It meant that anyone active in public life was imprisoned, it meant thousands of people sent to siberia, it meant russification, death of free speech and culture. I suggest doing a reading on the winter war and the nature of the Finnish-German allyship.

"If the Soviet Union didn't invade Nazi-occupued countries, what would those countries have been allowed to continue to do? Can you answer me that?" Nobody ofrced the Soviets to send POWs to Siberia and to turn the invaded countries into basically colonies which people were not allowed to leave. The logic of "They freed you, so you should be happy to accept ANY TREATMENT from their side" is... fringe at best. "You should be HAPPY to have been an authoritatian state for 40 years, in which people weren't allowed to voice dissent and weren't allowed to leave! Also if your parent was against the regime in any way you are not going to university, sorry."

I understand that you are coming from the viewpoint that "Soviet Russia was good, actually", and therefore I will not convince you of anything, but still.

"Again, I hope the victims of the Holocaust who died because of anticommunism can appreciate your nuance." I find it very interesting that you blame "anticommunism" for their deaths (as if Russia was also not antisemitic as fuck; also being against soviet russia is not inherently anti-communist) and disgusting how you evoke them and use for your own rhetorical purposes. Those people were not a monolith and nobody now can say what they would or would have not appreciated. But their mass murder was made possible in part because of a rhetoric that you yourself use: "Those people deserve anything that comes for some reason, they are all guilty". For example, I hate the US for arming Israel and allowing the mass killing of Palestinians, but I wouldn't be comfortabel wishing horrible fate to every US citizen, because I can see the nuance in this.

Anyway. I don't want to be condescending and say "read a history book", but if you are interested in the history of Europe of the 20th century, I recommend reading a bit more about it. It's a complex topic and once you get into it you find that every country was dealing with a complicated net of international relationships and own historical experience (if I come back to the Baltics, their experience with Russia was so awful that they were eyeing Germany as an ally - I know that YOU personally would have preferrec to be a Soviet colony, but the people then 1) didn't really know what Germany was up to and 2) have been occupied by Russia before and knew how bad that can get).

I don't know where you are from but I assume that you are from outside Europe? I think that any European country to this day tries to grapple with the legacy of WWII, and to come to terms with the fact that our own people have commited horrible deeds, but mostly to understand how it happend and what lead the people to act the way they did. Today, we know what the Nazis did. People then didn't. I you want to understand what happened in Europe (and later in the world) in the 1930s and 1940s, you have to look into the nuance. I am glad that you are sure that YOU wouldn't have ever alligned with Nazis. You just seem like a person who would happily doom a group of people because they are all guilty, which is something that, well, the Nazis did.

"I was under the impression that Nazis are intolerable and whoever helps a Nazi is also a Nazi." This is the last thing I want to comment on: I find it very interesting how you freely mix allyship of states and allyship of people. If I personally help a Nazi (person) - then yes, I don't disagree. But when you are a leader of a country and you have to choose between mass death and serfdom of your people OR allying with an awful country, what would you choose? And if you choose the allyship, does that make all your citizens Nazis by association? I don't think so, but I expect you see it differently.

Anyway, once again I don't really believe I will convince you of anything, but this really helps me articulate my thoughts and maybe some of my followers will find this helpful.

I've literally said for years but the idea of mind control being real is more valuable as propaganda than actual mind control

[travelmgznbg]

Citizens Deprived of Basic Human Rights

Under the Peace Treaty signed between Bulgaria and the Allied Powers, which was ratified by the Presidency of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria on 26 August 1947, Bulgaria agreed to respect the basic human rights of its citizens. According to Article 2 of the treaty, Bulgaria was required to ensure that all its citizens, regardless of race, sex, language, or religion, would enjoy fundamental freedoms such as freedom of speech, a free press, freedom of religion and political beliefs, and the right to public gatherings. This treaty was effective from 15 September 1947.

However, throughout the entire period of communist rule in Bulgaria (from 1944 to 1990), the communist regime systematically violated these fundamental rights, disregarding the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Violations Under the Communist Regime

Despite the treaty’s provisions, the communist regime did not honor the rights guaranteed by the Peace Treaty or international human rights standards. Instead, it engaged in widespread violations, such as suppressing freedom of speech, restricting the press, and silencing opposition. The government used state-controlled media to manipulate public opinion, and dissidents were either imprisoned or sent to labor camps. The freedom of assembly was also restricted, and anyone who attempted to challenge the regime faced serious consequencesPersonal Istanbul Tours.

Human Rights in East Germany

In 1977, Erich Honecker, the First Secretary of the German United Socialist Party and the head of state of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), made a statement claiming that there were no human rights issues in the GDR. He said, “There may be no human rights activists in the German Democratic Republic because all human rights are fully observed in this country.” Despite this claim, many citizens in the GDR still tried to escape the oppressive regime, and the number of people attempting to legally leave the country increased every year.

The Expatriation Movement in East Germany

By the late 1970s, a movement began to form in East Germany, called the “Voting on a Request for Expatriation”. This movement was primarily made up of young people who were trying to leave the German Democratic Republic for a better life. Despite the regime’s claims that human rights were respected, many East Germans felt trapped and sought to escape. According to Robert Havemann, a prominent critic of the regime, the movement had grown to 120,000 members by 1976, and by 1977, the number had reached an estimated 200,000.

The communist regimes in both Bulgaria and East Germany were responsible for widespread violations of human rights. While the government officials in both countries claimed to uphold human rights, the reality was far different. Citizens faced constant surveillance, imprisonment, and suppression of their basic freedoms. Movements like the Expatriation Movement in East Germany showed the growing frustration and desire for freedom among young people. These events highlight the contrast between the regime’s promises and the lived reality of the people under their control.

[dealbulgaria]

Fear and Control Bulgria Under Soviet Influence

On January 2, 1959, British Ambassador to Bulgaria, Anthony Lambert, wrote a report that clearly expressed the tense situation in the country. He said, “One cannot help feeling that the shadow of fear and Moscow’s hand of death are hanging over each and every Bulgarian, not excluding the communist leaders.” This statement captured the strong influence of the Soviet Union over Bulgaria, even among those in power.

Bulgaria Copies the Soviet Model

Even after the death of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin in 1953, Bulgaria’s Communist leaders continued to follow the Soviet system closely. The Bulgarian Communist Party said it was moving away from Stalin’s personality cult, but in reality, little changed. Leaders still showed great loyalty to the Soviet Union and copied its style of governance Istanbul Tours Guide.

Zhivkov’s Extreme Proposal

One of the most shocking events happened in July 1963. Todor Zhivkov, who was the First Secretary of the Bulgarian Communist Party at the time, made a bold move. He proposed that Bulgaria should officially become part of the Soviet Union. He brought this idea to a plenary meeting of the party’s Central Committee, which included the top members of the Communist Party.

Surprisingly, all 167 members of the Central Committee supported the idea. They voted in favor of Bulgaria joining the Soviet Union, showing just how deeply committed the leadership was to the Soviet cause.

Khrushchev Is Informed

In October 1963, Zhivkov traveled to Moscow and told Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev about the proposal. He said that the Bulgarian Communist Party had already discussed the idea and agreed to it. This showed how far Bulgaria’s leaders were willing to go to stay close to the Soviet Union, even if it meant giving up their country’s independence.

A Nation Under Influence

During this period, propaganda was heavily used to support the Soviet-controlled regime in Bulgaria. Posters, media, and speeches constantly promoted the idea that following the Soviet Union was the only path to progress. The Bulgarian people lived under a system that demanded loyalty, punished dissent, and pushed Soviet ideals above national identity.

The events of the early 1960s show how deeply the Soviet Union influenced Bulgaria. Even after Stalin’s death, fear and control remained strong. Todor Zhivkov’s proposal to join the Soviet Union highlights how the Bulgarian Communist leadership placed ideology above national sovereignty. It was a time when independence was traded for loyalty, and the future of Bulgaria was tied tightly to Moscow’s decisions.

[southeastasianists]

The story Southeast Asia likes to tell itself is that, by the late 1990s, it had something like its “end of history” moment.

By 1999, the region was free of colonialism, with the last push made by Timor-Leste, which that year held a referendum to throw off Indonesian imperialism. With that development, the region’s national borders appeared to be finally decided and revanchism, although it was still voiced on the fringes, had ended. 

All Southeast Asian countries, except Timor-Leste, were members of ASEAN. Communist Vietnam and Laos were stable and internationally accepted. Anti-communist tyrants like Indonesia’s Suharto, Burma’s Ne Win and Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines had either resigned or been ousted. 

And the worst crimes of the Cold War-era, including the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia, were not just over but there was to finally be some sort of justice. In 1999, the holdout Khmer Rouge leaders finally surrendered and Ta Mok, its former army chief, was symbolically arrested by the local authorities. 

Today, however, Southeast Asia finds itself trapped by history. 

On the one hand, it became evident in February 2021 that not all of 20th-century history was over. The military coup in Myanmar that month awakened many to the reality that some elements of the pre-Cold War period had not been solved. 

Indeed, Myanmar has been trapped in the early 20th century since independence from Britain in 1948. Whereas all other Southeast Asian threw off their colonial powers and then resolved their internal battles over what form of government would follow, Myanmar did not. 

Myanmar as outlier

Anti-colonial struggles are conflicts against a foreign aggressor and civil wars at the same time. It is not enough to claim self-determination; it must be determined what sort of self you want once free. 

The partition of Vietnam was both things at once. Many historians date the Cambodian Civil War as beginning in either 1967 (with the Samlaut Uprising) or 1979 (with the Lon Nol “coup”) but those same political schisms were latent, though blanketed, under Nordom Sihanouk’s regime that ruled after independence. 

The People’s Power uprising in the Philippines in 1986 was essentially the answer to the question — constitutional or personalist rule — that was posed when the country gained independence from Spain in 1898, and, indeed, was the internal debate within almost all of José Rizal’s writings. 

But Myanmar never went through this process — or, rather, successive military juntas never allowed the question to be seriously explored. The 1962 coup effectively froze in time the question of self-determination of Myanmar’s myriad ethnic minorities, a remnant of colonial rule.

In two ways, Myanmar under the military remained a colonial holdout: The Bamar center colonized the ethnic periphery and the anti-colonial struggle was never allowed to fully run its course. The cataclysm of the 2021 military coup appears to be the event that will finally bring this historical question to a proper solution. 

The answer offered by the anti-junta movement, centered on the National Unity Government, is a revolutionary federal state, in which Myanmar maintains its same territorial borders but vastly more power and autonomy is given to the ethnic areas, while at the same time the national army, a product of anti-colonialism, will be dissolved and something (perhaps a network of militias) will take its place. 

The junta’s answer, the same that its predecessors offered, is devolution based on the permission of a central authority, implemented through peace talks. The problem with this answer, as has been the case in the past, is that it is dependent not upon rules or laws but the whims of whichever general is sitting in Naypyidaw, so essentially yet another delay in answering the post-colonial civil war question.

Yet, for now at least, according to some hopeful observers, the forces of revolution are prevailing over the forces of reaction in Myanmar.

Baked-in crisis

Alas, the rest of Southeast Asia seems unwilling to accept that a historical reckoning must happen in Myanmar for there to be any progress. 

One can put aside the fatuousness of permitting Myanmar entrance into ASEAN in 1997 before those civil-war conflicts were solved, yet ASEAN still doesn’t accept that by doing so it institutionalized those conflicts into the regional system.

In other words, by accepting Myanmar into the ASEAN bloc, the rest of the region (perhaps) unwittingly accepted a share of responsibility for solving those historical conflicts. This point is still not appreciated by ASEAN in its continued insistence that the solution to the current crisis is to return to a point in time: the status quo ante. 

Yet, even if that return was feasible, which it isn’t, ASEAN would still be left with the situation of Myanmar’s 20th-century conflicts sparking another similar crisis at some point in the future. 

ASEAN is, therefore, trapped in apparently thinking that Myanmar is unique in that it won’t have to go through the same bloody processes that the rest of the region did — a final reckoning of post-colonial civil wars — and clearly thinks that the region’s responsibility is to forestall, not assist, this process.

On the other hand, Southeast Asia is also in a history trap of believing that the post-Cold War era is still alive. 

It can be fairly said that the region, aside from China, was the biggest beneficiary of the world order left after the collapse of communism in Europe. A cursory look at how the region has developed economically, culturally and socially since 1989 is enough to make that argument. 

But what should we call the period between 1989 and, roughly, 2019? The “Chimerica Era”, that chimera when the United States and China thought they could get along and when the West thought that Beijing was playing by the same rules? Or, perhaps, the “Inter-Cold War Era?”

Nostalgia not enough

In any case, that period is now over. Yet, Southeast Asia’s leaders still think that they can deny its disappearance by repeatedly stating their opposition to what has come after – a “New Cold War” – as if denying something’s existence makes it not exist.

They hold onto the hope that Washington and Beijing will finally see sense and agree that because things were much better for all in the 2000s that should be their shared vision for the future. 

If there is a purpose to “hedging”, it is presumably to play both superpowers off against one another to extract the most benefits. Yet the downside is that you make yourself dependent on both sides, as has been the case: As a share of overall ASEAN trade, the United States and China have taken on a larger, not smaller, percentage in recent years. 

Hedging, as manifested today, is to take both sides, rather than to take neither side. That is problematic, to say the least, if there is a possibility of both sides going to war, when you will be forced by events outside your control and at a time not of your choosing to decide which side to take.

None of this is unreasonable from an emotional level; it’s only natural for Southeast Asian leaders, by 1999, to have been jubilant that the horrors of the 20th century were over and that their societies could finally have the stability to become prosperous – thanks to the Inter-Cold War Era. 

It’s only natural to want the good times to continue. Sadly, they’re over and the world is once again a far more unstable and unpredictable place, including in ASEAN’s northwest. Nostalgia for times past will only get you so far. 

David Hutt is a research fellow at the Central European Institute of Asian Studies (CEIAS) and the Southeast Asia Columnist at the Diplomat. As a journalist, he has covered Southeast Asian politics since 2014. The views expressed here are his own and do not reflect the position of Radio Free Asia and RFA sister organization BenarNews.

[bookingonlineflights]

Citizens Deprived of Basic Human Rights

Under the Peace Treaty signed between Bulgaria and the Allied Powers, which was ratified by the Presidency of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria on 26 August 1947, Bulgaria agreed to respect the basic human rights of its citizens. According to Article 2 of the treaty, Bulgaria was required to ensure that all its citizens, regardless of race, sex, language, or religion, would enjoy fundamental freedoms such as freedom of speech, a free press, freedom of religion and political beliefs, and the right to public gatherings. This treaty was effective from 15 September 1947.

However, throughout the entire period of communist rule in Bulgaria (from 1944 to 1990), the communist regime systematically violated these fundamental rights, disregarding the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Violations Under the Communist Regime

Despite the treaty’s provisions, the communist regime did not honor the rights guaranteed by the Peace Treaty or international human rights standards. Instead, it engaged in widespread violations, such as suppressing freedom of speech, restricting the press, and silencing opposition. The government used state-controlled media to manipulate public opinion, and dissidents were either imprisoned or sent to labor camps. The freedom of assembly was also restricted, and anyone who attempted to challenge the regime faced serious consequencesPersonal Istanbul Tours.

Human Rights in East Germany

In 1977, Erich Honecker, the First Secretary of the German United Socialist Party and the head of state of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), made a statement claiming that there were no human rights issues in the GDR. He said, “There may be no human rights activists in the German Democratic Republic because all human rights are fully observed in this country.” Despite this claim, many citizens in the GDR still tried to escape the oppressive regime, and the number of people attempting to legally leave the country increased every year.

The Expatriation Movement in East Germany

By the late 1970s, a movement began to form in East Germany, called the “Voting on a Request for Expatriation”. This movement was primarily made up of young people who were trying to leave the German Democratic Republic for a better life. Despite the regime’s claims that human rights were respected, many East Germans felt trapped and sought to escape. According to Robert Havemann, a prominent critic of the regime, the movement had grown to 120,000 members by 1976, and by 1977, the number had reached an estimated 200,000.

The communist regimes in both Bulgaria and East Germany were responsible for widespread violations of human rights. While the government officials in both countries claimed to uphold human rights, the reality was far different. Citizens faced constant surveillance, imprisonment, and suppression of their basic freedoms. Movements like the Expatriation Movement in East Germany showed the growing frustration and desire for freedom among young people. These events highlight the contrast between the regime’s promises and the lived reality of the people under their control.

[foodtravelbg]

Citizens Deprived of Basic Human Rights

Under the Peace Treaty signed between Bulgaria and the Allied Powers, which was ratified by the Presidency of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria on 26 August 1947, Bulgaria agreed to respect the basic human rights of its citizens. According to Article 2 of the treaty, Bulgaria was required to ensure that all its citizens, regardless of race, sex, language, or religion, would enjoy fundamental freedoms such as freedom of speech, a free press, freedom of religion and political beliefs, and the right to public gatherings. This treaty was effective from 15 September 1947.

However, throughout the entire period of communist rule in Bulgaria (from 1944 to 1990), the communist regime systematically violated these fundamental rights, disregarding the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Violations Under the Communist Regime

Despite the treaty’s provisions, the communist regime did not honor the rights guaranteed by the Peace Treaty or international human rights standards. Instead, it engaged in widespread violations, such as suppressing freedom of speech, restricting the press, and silencing opposition. The government used state-controlled media to manipulate public opinion, and dissidents were either imprisoned or sent to labor camps. The freedom of assembly was also restricted, and anyone who attempted to challenge the regime faced serious consequencesPersonal Istanbul Tours.

Human Rights in East Germany

In 1977, Erich Honecker, the First Secretary of the German United Socialist Party and the head of state of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), made a statement claiming that there were no human rights issues in the GDR. He said, “There may be no human rights activists in the German Democratic Republic because all human rights are fully observed in this country.” Despite this claim, many citizens in the GDR still tried to escape the oppressive regime, and the number of people attempting to legally leave the country increased every year.

The Expatriation Movement in East Germany

By the late 1970s, a movement began to form in East Germany, called the “Voting on a Request for Expatriation”. This movement was primarily made up of young people who were trying to leave the German Democratic Republic for a better life. Despite the regime’s claims that human rights were respected, many East Germans felt trapped and sought to escape. According to Robert Havemann, a prominent critic of the regime, the movement had grown to 120,000 members by 1976, and by 1977, the number had reached an estimated 200,000.

The communist regimes in both Bulgaria and East Germany were responsible for widespread violations of human rights. While the government officials in both countries claimed to uphold human rights, the reality was far different. Citizens faced constant surveillance, imprisonment, and suppression of their basic freedoms. Movements like the Expatriation Movement in East Germany showed the growing frustration and desire for freedom among young people. These events highlight the contrast between the regime’s promises and the lived reality of the people under their control.

[hutupistravel]

Citizens Deprived of Basic Human Rights

Under the Peace Treaty signed between Bulgaria and the Allied Powers, which was ratified by the Presidency of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria on 26 August 1947, Bulgaria agreed to respect the basic human rights of its citizens. According to Article 2 of the treaty, Bulgaria was required to ensure that all its citizens, regardless of race, sex, language, or religion, would enjoy fundamental freedoms such as freedom of speech, a free press, freedom of religion and political beliefs, and the right to public gatherings. This treaty was effective from 15 September 1947.

However, throughout the entire period of communist rule in Bulgaria (from 1944 to 1990), the communist regime systematically violated these fundamental rights, disregarding the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Violations Under the Communist Regime

Despite the treaty’s provisions, the communist regime did not honor the rights guaranteed by the Peace Treaty or international human rights standards. Instead, it engaged in widespread violations, such as suppressing freedom of speech, restricting the press, and silencing opposition. The government used state-controlled media to manipulate public opinion, and dissidents were either imprisoned or sent to labor camps. The freedom of assembly was also restricted, and anyone who attempted to challenge the regime faced serious consequencesPersonal Istanbul Tours.

Human Rights in East Germany

In 1977, Erich Honecker, the First Secretary of the German United Socialist Party and the head of state of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), made a statement claiming that there were no human rights issues in the GDR. He said, “There may be no human rights activists in the German Democratic Republic because all human rights are fully observed in this country.” Despite this claim, many citizens in the GDR still tried to escape the oppressive regime, and the number of people attempting to legally leave the country increased every year.

The Expatriation Movement in East Germany

By the late 1970s, a movement began to form in East Germany, called the “Voting on a Request for Expatriation”. This movement was primarily made up of young people who were trying to leave the German Democratic Republic for a better life. Despite the regime’s claims that human rights were respected, many East Germans felt trapped and sought to escape. According to Robert Havemann, a prominent critic of the regime, the movement had grown to 120,000 members by 1976, and by 1977, the number had reached an estimated 200,000.

The communist regimes in both Bulgaria and East Germany were responsible for widespread violations of human rights. While the government officials in both countries claimed to uphold human rights, the reality was far different. Citizens faced constant surveillance, imprisonment, and suppression of their basic freedoms. Movements like the Expatriation Movement in East Germany showed the growing frustration and desire for freedom among young people. These events highlight the contrast between the regime’s promises and the lived reality of the people under their control.

[holidaysbalkan]

Citizens Deprived of Basic Human Rights

Under the Peace Treaty signed between Bulgaria and the Allied Powers, which was ratified by the Presidency of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria on 26 August 1947, Bulgaria agreed to respect the basic human rights of its citizens. According to Article 2 of the treaty, Bulgaria was required to ensure that all its citizens, regardless of race, sex, language, or religion, would enjoy fundamental freedoms such as freedom of speech, a free press, freedom of religion and political beliefs, and the right to public gatherings. This treaty was effective from 15 September 1947.

However, throughout the entire period of communist rule in Bulgaria (from 1944 to 1990), the communist regime systematically violated these fundamental rights, disregarding the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Violations Under the Communist Regime

Despite the treaty’s provisions, the communist regime did not honor the rights guaranteed by the Peace Treaty or international human rights standards. Instead, it engaged in widespread violations, such as suppressing freedom of speech, restricting the press, and silencing opposition. The government used state-controlled media to manipulate public opinion, and dissidents were either imprisoned or sent to labor camps. The freedom of assembly was also restricted, and anyone who attempted to challenge the regime faced serious consequencesPersonal Istanbul Tours.

Human Rights in East Germany

In 1977, Erich Honecker, the First Secretary of the German United Socialist Party and the head of state of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), made a statement claiming that there were no human rights issues in the GDR. He said, “There may be no human rights activists in the German Democratic Republic because all human rights are fully observed in this country.” Despite this claim, many citizens in the GDR still tried to escape the oppressive regime, and the number of people attempting to legally leave the country increased every year.

The Expatriation Movement in East Germany

By the late 1970s, a movement began to form in East Germany, called the “Voting on a Request for Expatriation”. This movement was primarily made up of young people who were trying to leave the German Democratic Republic for a better life. Despite the regime’s claims that human rights were respected, many East Germans felt trapped and sought to escape. According to Robert Havemann, a prominent critic of the regime, the movement had grown to 120,000 members by 1976, and by 1977, the number had reached an estimated 200,000.

The communist regimes in both Bulgaria and East Germany were responsible for widespread violations of human rights. While the government officials in both countries claimed to uphold human rights, the reality was far different. Citizens faced constant surveillance, imprisonment, and suppression of their basic freedoms. Movements like the Expatriation Movement in East Germany showed the growing frustration and desire for freedom among young people. These events highlight the contrast between the regime’s promises and the lived reality of the people under their control.

[bulgarialife]

Fear and Control Bulgria Under Soviet Influence

On January 2, 1959, British Ambassador to Bulgaria, Anthony Lambert, wrote a report that clearly expressed the tense situation in the country. He said, “One cannot help feeling that the shadow of fear and Moscow’s hand of death are hanging over each and every Bulgarian, not excluding the communist leaders.” This statement captured the strong influence of the Soviet Union over Bulgaria, even among those in power.

Bulgaria Copies the Soviet Model

Even after the death of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin in 1953, Bulgaria’s Communist leaders continued to follow the Soviet system closely. The Bulgarian Communist Party said it was moving away from Stalin’s personality cult, but in reality, little changed. Leaders still showed great loyalty to the Soviet Union and copied its style of governance Istanbul Tours Guide.

Zhivkov’s Extreme Proposal

One of the most shocking events happened in July 1963. Todor Zhivkov, who was the First Secretary of the Bulgarian Communist Party at the time, made a bold move. He proposed that Bulgaria should officially become part of the Soviet Union. He brought this idea to a plenary meeting of the party’s Central Committee, which included the top members of the Communist Party.

Surprisingly, all 167 members of the Central Committee supported the idea. They voted in favor of Bulgaria joining the Soviet Union, showing just how deeply committed the leadership was to the Soviet cause.

Khrushchev Is Informed

In October 1963, Zhivkov traveled to Moscow and told Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev about the proposal. He said that the Bulgarian Communist Party had already discussed the idea and agreed to it. This showed how far Bulgaria’s leaders were willing to go to stay close to the Soviet Union, even if it meant giving up their country’s independence.

A Nation Under Influence

During this period, propaganda was heavily used to support the Soviet-controlled regime in Bulgaria. Posters, media, and speeches constantly promoted the idea that following the Soviet Union was the only path to progress. The Bulgarian people lived under a system that demanded loyalty, punished dissent, and pushed Soviet ideals above national identity.

The events of the early 1960s show how deeply the Soviet Union influenced Bulgaria. Even after Stalin’s death, fear and control remained strong. Todor Zhivkov’s proposal to join the Soviet Union highlights how the Bulgarian Communist leadership placed ideology above national sovereignty. It was a time when independence was traded for loyalty, and the future of Bulgaria was tied tightly to Moscow’s decisions.