Cite?
And no, they were no Soviet troops in Bulgaria at any time after 1947. As well as Romania after 1958.
The Soviets had no military forces present in its vassal nations that bordered NATO members? Riiight.
Cite?
And no, they were no Soviet troops in Bulgaria at any time after 1947. As well as Romania after 1958.
The Soviets had no military forces present in its vassal nations that bordered NATO members? Riiight.
according to this
http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/nato/warsawpact.html
the 1989 order of battle for the Soviet Union, they do not have actual divisions in Bulgaria. However, the OB notes that Bulgaria is considered the most reliable of the Soviet allies. Rumania does not as well, and is considered questionable (and was low on the list for getting modern Soviet weapons as a result). The Soviets probably figured that since the entire Southwest TVD ... 3 military districts (Kiev, Carpathia and Odessa) are right next door with several armies between them that stationg actual forces there was unnecessary
(this is an impressively detailed OB)
Regardless, Bulgaria was practically an SSR anyway with the way it was run and the ambitions of its leadership at the time.
Considering that the Soviet Union didn't have troops in Czechoslovakia before 1968, I don't see what's so unbelievable about this.The Soviets had no military forces present in its vassal nations that bordered NATO members? Riiight.
What exactly do you mean with the way it was run? I don't really think it was that different from the way the other Eastern block countries were run. Also, if you refer to the suggestion that Bulgaria become a republic of the Soviet Union, that was most likely a ruse for Bulgaria's Zhivkov to ingratiate himself with the leaders of the Soviet Union. And it worked, considering how the Soviet Union sold goods to Bulgaria at lowered prices and Bulgaria then resold at market rates.Regardless, Bulgaria was practically an SSR anyway with the way it was run and the ambitions of its leadership at the time.
This theory still refuses to die? When it was build on the flimsiest of evidence and supported by the evidence of a mentally unstable man? When, despite all efforts, it was dismissed by the Italian court trying Ağca nearly 30 years ago?I would agree with you on that... Rumania might have done anything, but Bulgaria would have followed orders if war had come
after all, it was the Bulgarian Secret Service that tried to kill Pope John Paul II and certainly they didn't come up with that idea on their own
This theory still refuses to die? When it was build on the flimsiest of evidence and supported by the evidence of a mentally unstable man? When, despite all efforts, it was dismissed by the Italian court trying Ağca nearly 30 years ago?
And they wonder that so many people in Eastern Europe don't like Westerners.
You do notice that you are citing a paragraph without sources? Or perhaps you mean the Mitrokhin commission which also claimed that Prodi was the KGB man in Italy (note that the commision took place during Berlusconi's government and simply repeated long refuted claims: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Mitrokhin_Commission#The_.22Bulgarian_connection.22_claim. And there is still the fact that the whole theory relies on the unstable evidence of an unbalanced person who constantly contradicted himself and was an embarrassment at the trial of Antonov.this, for starters, would be why
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II_assassination_attempt
You do notice that you are citing a paragraph without sources? Or perhaps you mean the Mitrokhin commission which also claimed that Prodi was the KGB man in Italy (note that the commision took place during Berlusconi's government and simply repeated long refuted claims: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Mitrokhin_Commission#The_.22Bulgarian_connection.22_claim. And there is still the fact that the whole theory relies on the unstable evidence of an unbalanced person who constantly contradicted himself and was an embarrassment at the trial of Antonov.
How it is the most likely theory when it almost entirely relies upon the unreliable evidence of Ağca and the speculations of journalists linked to the CIA (which also had motive, method and opportunity to link this up with the Soviet Union in order to discredit them)? Or are the Soviets and their allies guilty by presumption?as noted in the wikipedia article, there are competing theories. We will probably not know for sure for many years, but as the Soviets had motive, method and opportunity, the most likely scenario is that the Bulgarians did indeed carry out an operation at the behest of the Soviet Union.
How it is the most likely theory when it almost entirely relies upon the unreliable evidence of Ağca and the speculations of journalists linked to the CIA (which also had motive, method and opportunity to link this up with the Soviet Union in order to discredit them)? Or are the Soviets and their allies guilty by presumption?
Why is it unlikely? He seems quite the type to do such a thing. As for the verdict of history, many of the writings supporting the theory were discredited within several years. Of course, there will be always many who will continue sprouting the theory, as it's rather convenient, but historians who have investigated the question in more detail don't seem to regard it so highly.it is unlikely he was a lone gunman like Sirhan Sirhan etc, and no one else had motive, so therefore, simply on logic, I think the verdict of history is going to rest on the Soviets and Bulgarians unless proven otherwise
Why is it unlikely? He seems quite the type to do such a thing. As for the verdict of history, many of the writings supporting the theory were discredited within several years. Of course, there will be always many who will continue sprouting the theory, as it's rather convenient, but historians who have investigated the question in more detail don't seem to regard it so highly.