In this article Theodora Dragostinova examines the interplay between official policies and popular demands in the nationalization of the Greek minority in Bulgaria. She explores why national activists and ordinary people chose to “speak national” in the context of the conflicting national interests and territorial aspirations of Bulgaria and Greece. At the official level, the national discourse and practice showed the co-existence of essentialist and constructionist understandings of nationhood; while the rhetoric of the primordial nation was ubiquitous, politicians realized that certain policies could “improve” the national body. At the popular level, the profuse use of national rhetoric functioned as an “emergency identity,” or a discursive strategy that allowed individuals to claim social legitimacy in emergency situations. Thus, despite the fact that people were forced to adopt clear-cut national allegiances, national side-switching remained a frequent phenomenon.
The 1919 Convention for Emigration of Minorities between Bulgaria and Greece was an important prototype for minority handling and population exchange in Eastern Europe after World War I. Based on research in Bulgarian and Greek archives, this article offers a comparative analysis of the conflicting pursuits of the two countries and the multiple opinions of various groups affected by displacement. Despite the optimism of the League of Nations that the Convention would solve ethnic conflict by bolstering individual rights, people's unwillingness to prioritize nationality undermined the execution of voluntary exchange. Instead, emigration occurred as an “actual exchange,” and refugees fled their birthplaces under harsh circumstances. Yet individuals inventively navigated their nationality and often defied the priorities of the nation-states to further their personal strategies. Because of the failure of this first international experiment of voluntary exchange in Eastern Europe, future proponents of population management adopted the principle of compulsory exchange.
From the estimated ten million refugees in interwar Europe, more than 250,000 were ethnic Bulgarians who found their way in the Bulgarian Kingdom following Bulgarian defeats in the Second Balkan War and World War One. For a country with a population of five and a half million in the mid-1920s, this refugee flow constituted a significant challenge from economic, political, social, and cultural viewpoints. Similarly to Germany, Hungary, and Austria, the refugee presence served as a constant reminder of national failure because Bulgaria lost territories, perceived as a part of the national homeland, to all of its neighbors. The Bulgarian state received refugees from the Ottoman Empire, Greece, Yugoslavia, and Romania, and the interwar governments were compelled to deal with a large and diverse population that suffered harsh socioeconomic problems and psychological traumas. Due to the Convention for Emigration of Minorities between Greece and Bulgaria of 1919 as well as the Greek-Turkish War of 1921–1922 and the obligatory population exchange it initiated in the period 1922–1924, refugee flows in the Balkans lasted well into the mid-1920s. Hence Bulgarians were on the move throughout 1924 and 1925. Despite these strenuous circumstances, interwar politicians boasted the successful integration of the refugees. Immediately after World War One, the government provided temporary assistance to the newcomers. In 1926, an international loan allowed the agricultural settlement of the most destitute new arrivals, and all refugees were granted the rights of Bulgarian citizens. A second loan in 1928 guaranteed the continuation of vital infrastructure projects. By the end of the 1930s, both domestic and international agencies involved in the refugee accommodation viewed the process as a successfully completed mission.
This article explores the ambitious Bulgarian cultural program in the United States of America to interrogate the importance of culture in the Cold War dynamics of the 1970s. The case study is examined at two levels; first, in the framework of the expanding contacts between East and West, exploring the importance of cultural diplomacy in the context of détente, and second, at the level of the actual cultural interactions, analyzing the meaning of cultural contacts across national borders and ideological divides. This analysis integrates insights from diverse literatures: international history, transnational history, postcolonial studies, and anthropology. The goal is to showcase the role of a small state on the periphery during the Cold War, to engage the softer side of EastWest interactions in a global context, and to emphasize how local communities and individuals creatively shaped the Cold War realities through their own actions. The article also engages contemporary debates about the meaning of these cultural encounters in the context of recent memory wars about the legacy of communism in Bulgaria. The end result is to depict the complex, multidirectional flow of ideas, people, and cultural products between East and West during the long 1970s and to trace their changing interpretations today.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.