Bulgaria leaves the Eastern Bloc in the early 1970s and integrates with the West

There has not been any attempt but it was mainly because Romania's first elected president stripped the King of his citizenship and barred him entry into the country. Michael was turned back at the airport when he arrived in the country during 1990 and at the time he was immensely popular. If an attempt to restore the monarchy would have happened then, I'm pretty sure it would have happened. Nevertheless, right now support is around 30% if I remember correctly, the King is extremely old and ill and in no position to assume the throne anymore. His daughter, Margareta has a very unpopular husband and is not very popular herself either. Chances of a restoration in Romania are close to 0. I'm a republican myself, but I do think the country could benefit from a more socially active royal house.

Yeah, that more or less fits what I've read about Iliescu. A real bastard that guy was, it's a shame you guys got screwed over like this. "The worst thing about communism is not communism itself but what comes after it's gone." —Adam Michnik.

In Poland, the conditions for monarchy restoration were much more favorable in the '90s but Poland had been without a Polish-blooded king at least for the past 200 years and the dude next in line was German (so you can imagine the lack of popular enthusiasm). Besides, the country's been a republic since 1918 and even under monarchy it had been pretty damn republican in its character so there wasn't much need for that.
 
On the other hand, the 1940-44 Romanian government was not King Michael's government; he was a ceremonial monarch at the time. While the Bulgarian government (which did deport some of the Jews to Germany, and enacted various anti-Semitic measures) was most certainly Tsar Boris' government.

It's always seemed to me that Romania was almost a carbon-copy of Italy in WW2. They also had a decent king who didn't exactly approve of the Fascist Prime Minister's actions. Then they both switched sides in view of the upcoming Allied forces. That being said, Antonescu did set a much bloodier track record than Mussolini, especially in regard to the Jews (whom Mussolini never even especially disliked in the first place) and the Iron Guard was even worse. At least judging from the sources at my disposal.

Also, the majority of Bulgaria's Jews were not saved by Tsar Boris - they were saved by the resistance of Bulgarian society and notable figures. The monarch, who originally just intended to save a handful of his personal friends and ignore all the other Jews, was merely pushed to action by strong public protest.

Truth be told, the Bulgarians did give away the Jews from the territories they had gained off Yugoslavia and Greece. But the pre-war Bulgarian Jews survived, no question about that.
 
It's always seemed to me that Romania was almost a carbon-copy of Italy in WW2. They also had a decent king who didn't exactly approve of the Fascist Prime Minister's actions. Then they both switched sides in view of the upcoming Allied forces. That being said, Antonescu did set a much bloodier track record than Mussolini, especially in regard to the Jews (whom Mussolini never even especially disliked in the first place) and the Iron Guard was even worse. At least judging from the sources at my disposal.

There are certainly some similarities.
As for the comparison between Mussolini and Antonescu...who knows. Antonescu does seem to have had a bloodier track record, but there was also a lot of stuff going on in Italian-occupied Ethiopia and Greece.
 
Militarily, I don't think Romania can do much by itself. Although admittedly going mostly from now-declassified CIA documents (with all that entails), I'm not getting an ideal picture.

If the document is generally accurate, Romania was one of the weakest Warsaw Pact armies and had little to no offensive capability.
 
Considering Simon was able to become Prime Minister and not do a terrible job, while not really excelling either, I think a restoration of the Tsardom is certainly possible. With the fact that this is a purely hypothetical exercise I think we might as well go off such an expectation.

In the late 80s or early 90s would likely be the best chance for a restoration. From there, you would likely see Bulgaria becoming far more pro western and some reforms. The Tsar would by popular as he was IOTL, while the former communist bureaucracy was not highly popular.

Regarding tourism, Bulgaria is a very nice area in the Black Sea with some nice beaches, and IIRC already has a fair amount of tourism, a Tsar could only enhance tourism if slightly. However, with this ATL in mind tourism would be much more entrenched in Bulgaria as it would have more European connections and a better economy.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
On the other hand, the 1940-44 Romanian government was not King Michael's government; he was a ceremonial monarch at the time. While the Bulgarian government (which did deport some of the Jews to Germany, and enacted various anti-Semitic measures) was most certainly Tsar Boris' government.

Also, the majority of Bulgaria's Jews were not saved by Tsar Boris - they were saved by the resistance of Bulgarian society and notable figures. The monarch, who originally just intended to save a handful of his personal friends and ignore all the other Jews, was merely pushed to action by strong public protest.
Were Macedonian Jews perceived to be as foreign--thus explaining the lack of resistance to their deportations to Nazi death camps?
 
Were Macedonian Jews perceived to be as foreign--thus explaining the lack of resistance to their deportations to Nazi death camps?

Yes, they were not Bulgarian citizens. Although this was not so much a matter of public perception as a matter of formality, and how the military rule over those areas made it easier.
 
One thing is Afghanistan. If the Soviets pull out so early, what happens to the DRA? I can't see it lasting too long after the Soviets are gone so early. How does this affects the Middle East?
 
Top