874.00/5–945: Telegram
The United States Representative in Bulgaria (Barnes) to the Secretary of State
[Received May 10—8:04 a.m.]
242. The end of hostilities in Europe finds politically conscious Bulgarians, and most Bulgarians are politically conscious even if unintelligently so, in a somewhat confused state of mind.
Only the Communists are inspired by clearcut concepts and objectives and possess the force and drive that gives self confidence. They want a hammer and sickle, a workers and peasant[s] foundation for all future governments. They want foreign policy based only on the power of Russia and the interests in common of the two countries. Hence the current effort to eliminate from the Agrarian Party within [Page 209] the Fatherland Front all elements that stand for an independent and separate Agrarian Party and that advocate a wider basis—a Soviet-Anglo-Saxon basis—for Bulgaria’s foreign policy. The Agrarian leaders Obbov and Athanassov are playing the Communist game. They have convoked a conference of the Sofia Agrarian Party organization as a move against the Agrarians in the present government who persist in the view that the independence of the Agrarian Party must be preserved. The conference began its session [apparent omission] that the resignations of the Agrarian Ministers are in the hands of the Prime Minister.
So with the incipient government crisis growing more acute it is not unnatural that cessation of hostilities in Europe finds Bulgarian opinion in a somewhat confused state of mind. But there are more reasons than merely this one and they are all more or less fundamental with respect to the future path the country shall follow.
Bulgaria has waged war actively on the battle field against Germany. More than forty thousand of her soldiers have been casualties in the last few months. Perhaps twelve thousand at least have been killed. Even so the country’s status as a defeated enemy remains unchanged. While it may not be generally understood Russia has sought the status of cobelligerent for Bulgaria it is nevertheless known by the leaders that Anglo-Saxon resistance to this proposal is largely responsible for the unchanged status of the country. Those who know the facts ask themselves what is the meaning of all this.
The purely Russian character of the Control Commission is an open secret throughout the country. It is only natural that many wonder whether this state of affairs will continue and if so what conclusions are to be drawn from the failure of the Anglo-Saxon nations to take any important part in setting Bulgaria on to the path of her future development.
The absence of any knowledge as to what Russia intends to do about continued occupation of the country is also an unsettling factor. Neither politically nor economically can the country settle down until the occupation ceases or until it is known that occupation must be considered a normal rather than abnormal state of affairs for some time to come.
What about the Bulgarian Army in the field? Are these hundred odd thousand troops to be returned soon to their homeland or does Russia plan to keep them absent for some time more and if so for what purpose, for what reason? These too are only very natural questions in the minds of Bulgarians today.
Of course, the country is happy that hostilities in Europe are at an end. And except for the Communists no disposition exists to minimize the fact that the victory is quite as much an Anglo-Saxon one, if [Page 210] not more so, than a Red victory. Nevertheless the dominant note in the local reaction, as Bulgaria today begins under the aegis of Moscow to express thanksgivings for the end of the war in Europe, is one of preoccupation over the fate that is awaiting the country. Must it go the Russian way under Communist domination or will it be permitted to continue as an independent European state having useful political and economic ties with the West as well as the East?
Repeated to Moscow as No. 113 and AmPolAd as 122.