User talk:TodorBozhinov
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007
The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Germans in Bulgaria
 |
On 31 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Germans in Bulgaria, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
--howcheng {chat} 16:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User page for speedy deletion?
Please tell me this is a joke. Why would any one in their right mind want their userpage speedily deleted? Chris 17:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WW II
Re: your article Military_history_of_Bulgaria_during_World_War_II
Bulgaria signed the Tripartite Pact in 1941 and attacked Greece. No amount of smoothtalking ("e.g. Bulgaria retained its prosition of passivity" - oh please!) will ever change the malignant role of Bulgaria in the history of WWII. Soviet occupation must have given Bulgaria a good idea of what NE Greece went through during the "glory days" of Bialomorska Balgaria.
Parrisia 20:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Osvoboditel
You are probably right. “Malignant” does not even begin to explain the criminal role of Axis partner Bulgaria during WWII. In the final analysis, if you really are into accurately presenting the facts, then you need to observe the following:
Even the fascist dictatorship who run Greece at the time, refused to capitulate to the Germans. The Greeks fought the Axis with all their strength, even managing to score a few points on the way (Greco-Italian War) and did not become the Axis “policemen” ("assigned the control of already German-conquered territories" – also in that job you apparently did not perform very well either – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Bulgaria). After the Nazis won the Battle of Greece, a fierce resistance was organized.
The "Osvoboditel", on the other hand, felt no need in doing the right thing i.e. making a contribution into the Allied effort and fight the Germans. Instead he saw the Nazi attack on Greece as a perfect opportunity to put his expansionist and "irredentist" agenda(against Greece and Macedonia, respectively) into action. He explicitly agreed about that with Hitler before signing the Tripartite Pact.
In the case of Macedonia, the "Osvoboditel" may have had a point since nationalist Bulgarians like to think that Macedonians are in fact Bulgarians, but, in the case of Greece his aspirations were totally groundless. It is like us Greeks saying that Instabul (formerly known as Constantinople) is still Greek despite its 99,99% non-Greek population and that we need to take it over.
This decision by the "Osvoboditel" rightly placed Bulgaria in the esteemed company (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, Independent State of Croatia) that you yourself have described. But don’t kid yourself: Bulgarian occupation of Greece was far worse than the Nazi and Italian ones. Deportation of all officials (mayors, school-teachers, judges, lawyers, priests), a universal ban on the use of the Greek language even on a private basis, expropriation of land and housing, import of Bulgarian settlers, renaming of all towns and places. Nomatter how romantically you choose to look at this, Bulgaria, unlike Nazi Germany, set out to annex NE Greece.
Parrisia 07:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bulgarian alliances
We fought the Nazis, you sided with them even becoming their policemen, end of story. It is not anyone else's fault that your useless statesmen made all the wrong choices both in WWII and in 1912-3. I guess the bottom-line is that you have to make something of our own and try not to steal somebody else's property.
Parrisia 10:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cheers
...to the best Wikipedian from Bulgaria I know!!!
What do You make of the 1885-1886 Serbo-Bulgarian war?
I think it was the stupidest act in the history of Bulgars and Serbs. The two peoples lived in peace for half a millennium before, and look at what that stupid and selfish act that relied itself of foolish opinions of a tiny group of men brought: Remember the Balkan Wars and the First World War? Do You remember Bulgaria's refusal to a Serbo-Croato-Bulgarian state and then to join Yugoslavia and then to a unified Balkans? Remember the rival tendencies that even pushed Bulgaria in the first half of the 20th century as the "Evil of the Balkans"?
The war was nonsensical. The Serbian soldiers were of tiny moral, fighting to comrades (they weren't in 1912, by then inner-national hatred grew up enough), former and future allies. And the basic customs of Serbia (honored always before and after this act), including all Serbian Laws bound Serbia never, ever to fight a war (unless it's a defensive war) against anyone save the, ehm, "illegitimate" Ottoman Empire! --PaxEquilibrium 23:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- 7th century - 830: perfect utopia
- 840 - 1330 : traditional conflicts and political competing
- 1330 - 1885: peaceful utopia
- 1886 - 1960s: brutal hatred
- 1960s - incumbent: peace...but what kind?
- The opinion in Serbia is divided. Those who believe Milan was a face of Europe and those who think he was the maddest Serbian King. Half of the Serbian Army deserted by the time the forces reached Bulgarian border.
- Anyway, this is how the war was "justified":
- Main: Bulgaria annexed eastern Rumelia, violating the Congress of Berlin; Serbia demanded that it too be given a similar amount of Ottoman territory to the south, but all requests were ignored; so, they decided (or Milan decided in all his fury) to punish Bulgaria
- Truly main: the (future then?) greatest Serbian statesmen ever, Nikola Pašić, was a Bulgarian; he was exiled and left to his homeland; King Milan demanded that Bulgaria hands him over Nikola and all the other Radicals, which the Bulgarian King refused; as a result Milan decided himself to go for it
- Alleged cause explained on the international scene: the Bulgarian Army occupied a watchpost east of Nish that belonged to Serbia, the local soldiers refused to unman it and even shot at a Serbian soldier.
Cheers! --PaxEquilibrium 10:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] BG nouns
Could you check my observations here for accuracy before I start going to all articles removing claims that Bulgarian is an analytic language (it's not, Bulgarian verbs are nothing like Chinese or even Afrikaans verbs where the word doesn't change at all).--Domitius 15:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, he's from Bulgaria alright, but what cannot be known is his ethnic origin (which's irrelevant to me completely; as long as he's from Bulgaria, he's Bulgarian). He's most probably of either Circassian or Aromanian origin... who knows...his family today in Bulgaria definitely considers themselves Bulgarians most probably though. Ethnic origin didn't matter, even to him. --PaxEquilibrium 18:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- ...but he never ever forgot about his Bulgarian homeland (evidently) and was a Bulgarian politician slightly as well (while he lived in Bulgaria). --PaxEquilibrium 19:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bulgarians of Romania
Greetings, Todor. I don't know if you've looked at ro:Bulgarii, but according to that article, there are actually three groups of Bulgarians in Romania: 1) Banat Bulgarians. 2) "Bulgarians of Muntenia (and Oltenia), where they are called 'Serbs'. All 'Serbs' in southern Romania aee in fact Bulgarians. They do not have education or liturgies in their native language and so are being strongly assimilated. Even though only a few thousand Bulgarians appear in census data, there may be as many as 100,000 of them, but because of a lack of national consciousness they mainly declare themselves 'Romanian'. These Bulgarians are descended from Bulgarians who fled Ottoman interdictions in the 15th-19th centuries." 3) "Northern Dobrogea: the majority left Romania in 1940 after a population exchange agreed in the Treaty of Craiova; today there are just several hundred Bulgarians left there. This is the oldest Bulgariann community in Romania, its presence dating to the 6th century." There's also a map.
Do you know anything more about this subject? It's poorly sourced (except for two articles, one about a village in Muntenia and one about Bulgarians in Bucharest) but could be interesting - maybe we should a larger "Bulgarians in Romania" article linking to the Banat Bulgarians and discussing the other two groups. Certainly, there should be something on the Northern Dobrogea Bulgarians. For the record, in 1930 there were ~360,500 Bulgarians and ~54,000 Serbs and Croats in Romania, so if you exclude the Banat & Bessarabian Bulgarians and count a few of the Serbs as Bulgarians (which apparently happened), that leaves a fair amount of people.
Anyway, see what you think, and what (if any) Bulgarian sources you can find. Biruitorul 05:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, Todor. There is a ton of articles this "Bulgarians of Romania" ought to be linked to, and I have sources that may come in handy for details. I'm willing to help from my end. I don't know why it took us so long: we already have a Category:Bulgarian-Romanians. Dahn 11:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi! Indeed, it could be linked from a lot of places. I'm not sure I have enough sources at that moment even to start the article as a good summary (I'd like to have everything sourced), so feel free to start it yourself if you like. Todor→Bozhinov 11:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'll get to work on changing those links to direct to the future article for now, and then I'll start something from what I have around. Dahn 12:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi! Indeed, it could be linked from a lot of places. I'm not sure I have enough sources at that moment even to start the article as a good summary (I'd like to have everything sourced), so feel free to start it yourself if you like. Todor→Bozhinov 11:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- BTW, I meant to write "from central northern Bulgaria", because that's where both part of the Banat Bulgarians and those Paulicians in Wallachia originate, but I got distracted and wrote "in". I didn't meant to say Wallachia is central northern Bulgaria or anything like that :) It's just that there are former Paulicians in central southern Bulgaria too, e.g. see Rakovski. Todor→Bozhinov 11:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, no prob. My point was the following: it is, as you point out, very likely that Paulicians/Roman Catholics in Bulgaria and other parts were also being referred to as "pavlicheni" in Romanian, and it is somewhat likely that, occasionally, the "pavlicheni" exonym passed to Bulgarians in general or to Slav-speaking Roman Catholics in general (like Ceangăi came to designate Roman Catholics in Moldavia in some accounts), although it seems that, up until the 1800s, Orthodox Bulgarians in Wallachia were being colloquially and erroneously referred to as "Serbs" (reason why we have all those villages named "Sârbi" scattered throughout the Bărăgan). However, in that case, we knew for sure that at least part of the Bulgarians present came from the Banat, so there was little reason to assume that the name referred to the Paulician/Roman Catholic community at large. Since your edit had erased a link that led to the article where the "Paulician" issue appeared to be clarified at least in part, it was making the text less than it could be. Definitely, the best solution in this case as well is to have an umbrella article, so I changed the link to that. My edit summary may have been too lapidary, but it was hard for me to summarize this point in there. Dahn 12:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- The passing of the exonym (which is also often an endonym) would not be a precedent, so it's likely. As for that misindetification as "Serbs", I seem to recall reading somewhere that it is explained by the traditional meaning of sârbi in Romanian as including all South Slavs (Nyagulov, "Banatskite balgari", p. 56, note 47). Is there anything like that? Todor→Bozhinov 13:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about it being "all South Slavs", but it may be for all Orthodox South Slavs. Then again, it probably depended on the level of interest people had - the more cosmopolitan Bucharesters referred to people from Gabrovo, people from Tarnovo, people from Ragusa, etc. by their city of origin. What sources I have say is that no census recorded Bulgarians as "Bulgarians" until some time before 1850 (arguably because Russians, who were present here, took more interest in recording accurate data, and because a significant number of refugees from your country crossed to the north). Dahn 03:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- The passing of the exonym (which is also often an endonym) would not be a precedent, so it's likely. As for that misindetification as "Serbs", I seem to recall reading somewhere that it is explained by the traditional meaning of sârbi in Romanian as including all South Slavs (Nyagulov, "Banatskite balgari", p. 56, note 47). Is there anything like that? Todor→Bozhinov 13:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, no prob. My point was the following: it is, as you point out, very likely that Paulicians/Roman Catholics in Bulgaria and other parts were also being referred to as "pavlicheni" in Romanian, and it is somewhat likely that, occasionally, the "pavlicheni" exonym passed to Bulgarians in general or to Slav-speaking Roman Catholics in general (like Ceangăi came to designate Roman Catholics in Moldavia in some accounts), although it seems that, up until the 1800s, Orthodox Bulgarians in Wallachia were being colloquially and erroneously referred to as "Serbs" (reason why we have all those villages named "Sârbi" scattered throughout the Bărăgan). However, in that case, we knew for sure that at least part of the Bulgarians present came from the Banat, so there was little reason to assume that the name referred to the Paulician/Roman Catholic community at large. Since your edit had erased a link that led to the article where the "Paulician" issue appeared to be clarified at least in part, it was making the text less than it could be. Definitely, the best solution in this case as well is to have an umbrella article, so I changed the link to that. My edit summary may have been too lapidary, but it was hard for me to summarize this point in there. Dahn 12:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, I meant to write "from central northern Bulgaria", because that's where both part of the Banat Bulgarians and those Paulicians in Wallachia originate, but I got distracted and wrote "in". I didn't meant to say Wallachia is central northern Bulgaria or anything like that :) It's just that there are former Paulicians in central southern Bulgaria too, e.g. see Rakovski. Todor→Bozhinov 11:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I like Siderov - though feel free to ATTACK me for that statement! (I'm not sure I'd want him in power, but he at least addresses important questions that other politicians prefer to ignore.) Anyway, it seems support is building for this "Bulgarians in Romania" idea. Don't forget our friend Christian Rakovsky, another Romanian-Bulgarian revolutionary. I'll translate some relevant excerpts about the village; more upon request.
"The locals officially declare themselves Romanian, but say they are Bulgarian in origin. Archives indicate they are actually Serbs.
"In Gauriciu, a commune with some 4,000 inhabitants, the majority speak "Old Bulgarian", a strange language peppered with many Serbian and Romanian words.
The elderly Ştefan Tudor: "I am a Bulgarian and this is how I want to die."
"The old people of Gauriciu know that the first Bulgarians who settled around here did so an a hill still called Ciuminie Vra (Hill of the Plague). After an epidemic, they moved further down, in an area good for gardening, where they still live. Gauriciu is first mentioned in a document of 18 April 1533, when Vlad Vintilă fortified several villages in the area. In 1817, in the records of the Smărdoasa estate, sold by stolnic Parashiv to Crenea Popovici, two villages are mentioned: Smărdoasa and Sârbii Otcismea ("The Serbs from near the fountain"). In 1823, Cernea Popovici noted in his will that he had brought 82 families of Serbs and settled them on a plot of land on the Smărdoasa estate, which would be called Gauriciu.
"So, why Bulgarians? Maybe before the 82 Serbian families were brought in, Bulgarian settled here, attracted by a soil favourable for gardening. A mixture of the two groups followed, also favoured by the two languages' Slavic roots. Another possibility is that the man who wrote Cernea Popovici's will made a mistake, writing Serbs instead of Bulgarians. What is certain is that the inhabitants of Gauriciu consider themselves Bulgarian, and are Orthodox." Biruitorul 17:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Siderov is funny, and all he can do is complain. Yes, he may sometimes address important issues, but he offers no viable solutions. Thanks for translating these excerpts! Certainly very curious. It seems that broader meaning of sârbi we talked about above may be a good explanation? Todor→Bozhinov 08:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Did You ever hear...
...about Constantine Bodin (or Peter III)? --PaxEquilibrium 23:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 14 | 2 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Eastern Rumelia
Greetings Todor
I was just catching up a bit on Eastern Rumelia when I noticed that the coat of arms shown on this article is different from the one shown on the article about Bulgarian unification, although the two seem to be related. Do you know which insignia is the correct one, and if you do, would you mind updating the articles accordingly? Happy editing. Valentinian T / C 21:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I've never seen illustrations of this insignia elsewhere, so it is likely that it was never properly defined (in any case, the Bulgarian arms is prettier). Thanks again. Valentinian T / C 11:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
