Free University of Berlin denies Batak massacre!!!

Brunbauer is one of the most praised academics in the field, how nice to see you insult him.

'cleared all their ridiculous claims'?

Do you not see, that you are present proof of a Bulgarians inability to discuss a dark part of their history. No one in Bulgaria is even willing to discuss it.

So instead of having a debate about the issue, in an academic conference, the Bulgarian media and public cause an uproar and embarrass themselves in the process. It almost reminds me about the Pope and his comments in a conference in Germany, which made half the muslim world angry.

Its no wonder that the best Eastern European Historians live in the West!

Hahhahah look here i'll translate:
http://www.monitor.bg/article?sid=&aid=118021&cid=1&eid=1044

In the interview to the right Clownbauer says "I have a bad experience with the Bulgarian media.They take interviews from me and then write completely different things.Our aim wasn't the denial of the thousands innocents massacred in Batak-it is a historical fact

This is actially an art-critical project about the picture "Batak massacre" by the polish artist Antony Piotrovsky
It's not about the fact itself it is about it's recreation in the artist field-(pictures,paintings)"

Someone got scared i think



Edited by Liudovik_Nemski - 01-May-2007 at 03:54

Liudovik. No ONE has read the article. The Journalists are taking something that they know nothing about, something that is beyond their capabilities.

Brunnbauer did not insult anyone, it was just inferred by a bunch of mongering Journalists.

As for your Bulgarian Historians. Bulgaria has a long history of having Historians that are not up to the Academic Standards set by other nations. Their are about 20books discussing the problems of Bulgarian History. Which is all about Nationalism, national myths and placing Bulgaria over historical fact.

As for Historical facts, they don't exist in the first place. The sensibilities of your Historians are rather degraded by this whole incident.

Originally posted by Ovidius Bulgaria has a long history of having Historians that are not up to the Academic Standards set by other nations.

Give me names.And what is your criteria for historians that are up to the academic standart?.

Edited by Krum - 01-May-2007 at 07:52

I dont know names off hand, I study Romania - I only know of this because I've read 'general' texts about South East European Historiography.

From what i remember, there are serious problems concerning the History of Macedonia and have been accusations and indications of falscification in this part.

I suggest, if you are interested, you spend time reading books about History in Post-Socialist states and the state of History in Bulgaria.

Re)writing history : historiography in Southeast Europe after socialism / Ulf Brunnbauer (ed.).

Myths and boundaries in South-Eastern Europe / P�l Kolst�.

n the wake of the Balkan myth : questions of identity and modernity / David A. Norris.

These are three general books from my Endnote. There is of course Todorova's books on identities as well.

As for the Socialist period, do i even need to bother - or can we agree that Politically restricted histories are simply not good enough? Hence why pre 10th Nov 1989, Bulgarian History really wasn't good enough.

As for Post-Socialist, these books discuss it quite well. There are many articles on the subject as well. But I don't have time to dig out the specifics right now, when i come to my work on Romanian Historiography again, I'll have a look.

Oh, so you are defending Socialist History?

I criticise the History of the Socialist period because of how it was created, manipulated and generally abused by the political elites, leading to the complete breakdown of Historical methodology in Socialist states - yes.

I do not know names because i am NOT A STUDENT OF BULGARIAN HISTORY, I study Romanian history. My knowledge is from books that survey South East Europe, not from direct readings of Bulgarian texts.

I know of exceptions of course - Nicolai Todorov for instance.

Anyhow, the books I mention have details of all the criticisms. Material that i HAVE read.

Yes, Falsicications can be found in any nation - but nationalism in History is really a phenomena of Post-Socialist History - generally because of the breakdown of the Historical structure. In the West, falsifications have generally been due to direct issues - like the abuse of history to prove theories. In Eastern Europe, it was the same, the abuse of History to support socialism within each nation. Post-Socialist History has changed that, but to the opposite extreme. This is totally unlike History in other nations. Post-Socialist History is almost comparable to the History of the pre-WW2 Era.

I will say one thing, in Romania history is slowly starting to change in a positive mannor. My point here was just to say that this reaction to a criticism of the history of a certain event in Bulgarian national History is really a bad reflection on Bulgarian History and Historians.

As for more books about Bulgarian Historiography. I can provide this, I just cannot do it instantly. Because I don't have such things readily available, becvause i don't study this directly.

And all those are what? Archaeologists? Its slightly different affair when it comes to Ancient history, heh.