Todor Zhivkov and the Cold War: Revelations from His Personal Papers I International History Project. The collection's English language translations were edited largely by Nancy L. Meyers (CWIHP). In cooperation with the Cold War International History | tion with the Central State Archive - Sofia and the Cold War Project (CWIHP), the Cold War Research Group-Bulgaria gained access to the personal papers of longtime Bulgarian leader Todor Zhivkov in 2002. A first result of the research on the private papers of one of the longest-serving Communist leaders is a new CD-ROM on "Bulgaria and the Cold War. Documents from Todor Zhivkov's Personal Records," published by the Group in 2003. The collection covers the entire period of Zhivkov's reign from his election as Communist party leader in 1954 through the collapse of communism in Bulgaria in 1989. The CD-ROM contains more than 700 pages of previously unknown stenographic notes of Todor Zhivkov's conversations and correspondence with over thirty foreign state and political leaders from all five continents spanning more than three decades. The documents contain new evidence on a key political and military conflicts throughout the world during the Cold War years. The documents presented in a sampling below include a diverse array of conversations between the Bulgarian leader and foreign counterparts, including Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi (24 January 1969), Italian Foreign Minister Aldo Moro (27 April 1970), Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat (22 April 1980), US Undersecretary of State John Whitehead (4 February 1987), Chinese leaders Zhao Ziyang and Deng Xiaopeng (6-7 May 1987), and Greek Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou (22 April 1989). Future document samplers from this collection to be published by CWIHP online (http://cwihp.si.edu) will focus on events in the Middle East and in the Third World. Included in that collection will be conversations with Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, Syrian president Hafiz al-Assad, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, and many leaders of the leftist guerilla movements from the countries in Central America and Africa. Also among the documents in the collection are several classified government decisions to make arms deliveries to Third World countries. The documents give new evidence for the role Bulgaria played in regional conflicts throughout the period, in particular in the 1967 and 1973 ArabIsraeli Wars, and the Turkish invasion in Cyprus in 1974. Additional publications from the collection will scrutinize Bulgaria's relationship with the Soviet Union. While frequently seen as the "yes-man" in the bloc, Zhikov's conversations and correspondence with Brezhnev in 1973 and 1978/ 79 as well as with Konstantin Chernenko in 1984 will highlight some of Zhikov's internal and privately aired disagreements with the Soviets. The documents also reveal some of the methods he used to try to obtain from the Soviet leadership the concessions he most wanted. The CD-ROM collection was prepared by a group of Bulgarian scholars and archivists (Jordan Baev, Boyko Mladenov, Kostadin Grozev, Mariana Lecheva) in coopera The CD-ROM was introduced to the Bulgarian public during a visit to Sofia by CWIHP director Christian Ostermann in the fall of 2002 and has received widespread media coverage in all major Bulgarian newspapers and several radio and TV shows. For further information, contact Dr. Jordan Baev at baevj@mail.orbitel.bg. DOCUMENT No. 1 Memorandum of Conversation between Bulgarian [Source: Central State Archive, Sofia, Fond 378-B, File 249, translated by Dr. Rositza Ishpekova, edited by Dr. Jordan Baev.] Stenographic Report Between the President of the Council of Ministers of the Minister of India Indira Gandhi The talks attended: From Bulgarian side - Ivan Bashev, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Marii Ivanov, Minister of Machinery construction, Yanko Markov, Vice-President of the National Assembly, Milko Balev, Chief of the Prime-Minister's office, Ognyan Tihomirov, Deputy-Minister of Foreign Trade, Hristo Dimitrov, Bulgarian Ambassador in Delhi; By Indian side - Fahrudin Ahmed, Minister of Industry, INDIRA GANDHI: I would like once again to greet you and the attending people and to say how happy I am that you spared some time to come to our country. As I already told you the other day we attribute great significance to our friendship with Bulgaria. When I was in Bulgaria I acquainted you with some aspects of the situation in our country.' Now I would like to acquaint you with some difficulties we have in leading our people ahead. [...] Regarding the international situation. Vietnam has advanced a small step ahead. Hopefully, this will lead to improving the situation there. Yet in spite of the negotiations the situation there is still very tense, full of explosions. Whatever happens - no matter whether the negotiations succeed or not - the situation in Southeast Asia remains equally difficult. We back up peace in Vietnam. Changing the situation always creates certain difficulties. The countries from this region are receiving help from the USA at this moment, but I consider it an artificial force. Settling the problems via peaceful means would mean that the problems could be settled without an artificial force. Recently I was in London at the conference of the British Commonwealth countries.2 There I met the prime ministers of many countries - Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, and Singapore. They said they would like to have some defenses or some agreement in this respect, since they didn't feel safe enough. These countries had a meeting last year, but since nothing came out, they suggested having a new meeting.3 TODOR ZHIVKOV: I would above all like to thank you for the information. I would once again like to express our cordial gratitude for the invitation to visit your country and for the cordial and friendly hospitality you are showing us. We will tell our people about this hospitality and attention. We are deeply convinced that this will be highly appreciated in Bulgaria. We wish to develop a multilateral cooperation with India. I would like to inform you in the same order you informed us. You were in Bulgaria and you are aware of the problems we have to solve. That is why I will be brief. [...] I will elaborate on some issues concerning the international situation. We are worried by the war in Vietnam. We help the Vietnamese people as far as our abilities allow us to. Of course, the major help is offered by the Soviet Union, since Vietnam is fighting with Soviet arms. We will hardly imagine the struggling Vietnam's success without the Soviet Union's help. In spite of the Vietnamese people's heroism, the Americans could defeat it, since the USA's economy is 900 times stronger than that of Vietnam. But the Vietnamese people are heroically fighting with the help of the socialist countries and we are We think that each group would actually increase the simply astonished by its heroism under such conditions. tension in this part of the world. As far as Western Asia /the Middle East/ is concerned we share common views and hence I have nothing to say. We are in close contact with Nasser and we see that he has gone significantly ahead in acknowledging some of Israel's demands for instance the one regarding acknowledging the country Israel etc. Maybe the internal conflicts in Israel are an obstacle to and make the settling of the conflict there even more difficult. After visiting Eastern Europe, I visited Latin America last year as well. I am of the impression that the Latin American countries, although being in the USA's sphere of influence and strongly dependent on them, are trying to free themselves from that influence. And we would have to help them, so that an opposition could be created. Of course, posing the question for all Latin-American countries should not be considered right, since some of them have different stances. Our relationships with all countries are good, with the exception of two of our neighbors. We are doing our best to find ways to relieve the tension, since it's not good to have neighbors with which we are in a state of hostility. Actually nothing in particular has been done in this respect. We must mention here the latest declarations of [Pakistani President] Ayub Khan. We will do our best to use every possible gesture in order to normalize the relationships between our two countries. This is all I would say for the time being. You would probably want us to clarify some of the major issues. We would readily hear your information and more specifically we would like to hear something about the attitude of Yugoslavia and Romania towards the Warsaw Treaty countries and about the situation in China and Albania. We appreciate that the Vietnamese issue has now entered the phase of political resolution. Of course, there might be surprises. As you said, there might be explosions as well. But now things are going in the direction of political regulation. [US President Richard] Nixon will hardly take another course of action. But the negotiations will be extremely difficult. Contradictory interests are meeting. The issue could be solved on the basis of a compromise. But what kind of compromise? That is the problem. The fact that the Americans now are undertaking actions to conquer the villages in South Vietnam, which are now in the Vietcong's hands, must be stressed. Obviously their aim is to ensure a government working in their favor. The final result is difficult to predict. A lot depends on the progressive [segments of] mankind, on the struggle of the peaceful forces. The Vietnamese comrades are convinced that a political solution of the issue should be sought. There was a time when they were under Chinese influence. But now they back up a political solution of the issue. At present this already depends on the Americans. But they will probably withdraw their army from Vietnam when they are able to provide for them economically. You correctly noticed that our positions regarding the Middle East are similar. We are in favor of a political solution of the issues there. The [Egypt], which is the major, decisive force among the Arab countries, got far ahead in terms of its conception and suggestions. After the UN's decision in 1967 they made their positions more concrete in the spirit of the UN's decision. There are countries, of course, such as Syria and others, which have more peculiar views. But this fact is not decisive. The major force is [Egypt], supported by the majority of Arab countries. We must admit that [Egyptian president Gamal Abdel] Nasser shows political wisdom in this case. Nowadays, in our opinion, tension is created by the extremist forces in Israel. But, to be honest, we must admit that the Americans back them up. If the Americans move in the direction of a political solution of the issue, it will be solved very quickly, the same way the war was ceased. After the Americans told the Israelis to put an end to the war, they stopped their military actions. This is absolutely clear. I have been following the development of the problem concerning the war. After the Americans had been told they were going too far in the war, [US President Lyndon B.] Johnson issued a command and in a couple of hours an end was put to the war. The Americans should obviously not be allowed to take advantage of their military success. Otherwise a precedent will be created and the political solution of the issue in the interest of all countries from this region, in the interest of all other countries and of strengthening the peace throughout the world, will be inhibited. I would like briefly to discuss the problems in Europe, since we live in this region. Last year was a very dramatic year for Europe. I would say that a dangerous situation was created. As you know, enormous NATO and Warsaw Pact military forces are concentrated in Europe. If a Third World War breaks out, its outcome will be determined precisely in Europe. Any complication of the situation in Europe now or change of any kind of the ratio between the forces will turn out to be disastrous. Hence we conduct a policy of oppressing these forces that contribute to the international situation's complication. These forces are concentrated above all in Western Germany. They are revanchist forces. I will not go into details in this question. Yet I would once again like to emphasize that what happened in Czechoslovakia [i.e. the Prague Spring and the Soviet invasion in August] and in Europe and what is happening now-the conduction of big maneuvers, the concentration of new military units on the borders with the socialist countries-is extremely dangerous. Regarding the Balkans. Fortunately or unfortunately Bulgaria is situated in the center of the Balkan Peninsula. They say that all of its neighbors took something from Bulgaria in the past, that they cut off living parts of it. But we do not raise such issues. We aim at making life for the people within the present boundaries of Bulgaria better. In spite of the fact of it being a small country, Bulgaria is a peace factor in this region. Not even a single Balkan issue can be solved without Bulgaria. The transportation links pass through our country, the Danube River also passes through Bulgaria, the major rivers in Turkey and Greece come from Bulgaria. Thus as a result of a lot of historical and geographical conditions, Bulgaria has become a country that can both complicate and improve the situation on the Balkans. We can turn the rivers for Turkey and Greece back, but don't do that, of course. On the contrary, we suggest undertaking measures for utilizing their water together. Recently there has been an easing up of the political atmosphere on the Balkans. Whatever happens, this process could not be reversed. For instance, a military junta has assumed power in Greece [in April 1967] that has no social support in the country. But it is forced to talk of good neighborly relations, of peace on the Balkans. Now they even make more declarations than us. Our relations with Turkey are developing well. This holds true of our relations with Yugoslavia and Romania as well. After the military junta came into power in Greece there has been certain stagnation in the development of our relations, yet recently there has been some improvement. The different events that take place, the fuss that has been made on the Balkans, should be considered and estimated as a state of affair events. Of course, there are a lot of forces and contradictions on the Balkan peninsula. But we see no serious reasons to complicate the situation. Of course, a major role is played by the international situation. nia. Regarding your question about Yugoslavia and Roma In the last couple of years our mutual cooperation with Yugoslavia has advanced significantly. We are in constant contact. We have had meetings with Tito a couple of times. But sometimes there are certain questions, which vex our relations. One of them is the so-called Macedonian question. Some nationalist circles in Yugoslavia have taken advantage of this question. We uphold the view that the Macedonian question has been historically inherited. Raising this issue and aggravating the situation is not beneficial to our countries and peoples. On the contrary, we must use it to strengthen the friendship and cooperation between the two countries and peoples. The question should be left to the scholars, to the historians to discuss. But we must not tackle this problem from a historical perspective. This has been one of the issues we have reached an agreement on with Tito. The second issue we have reached an agreement on concerns the formation of a Macedonian national consciousness that should not be done on an anti-Bulgarian basis, as it is now. All previous statistics-Turkish, Serbian, etc.-spoke of 1,200,000 Bulgarians. We do not raise this question, but they sometimes do. They make a lot of fuss. We show patience, because if we start answering the situation will become worse. We agree with Tito's recent declarations that there could be no peace and good relations on the Balkans without good relations between Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. We support this view and our efforts have been directed towards overcoming some difficulties that have cropped up as a result of the Macedonian issue and the events in Czechoslovakia. Our bilateral relations with Romania are marvelous. Our economic cooperation is extending. There is a cultural exchange between us. Their delegations constantly visit our country and our delegations-their country; that is we constantly exchange experience. Yet we have diverging opinions on some issues related to the international situation. We openly discuss these issues with comrade [Romanian president Nicolae] Ceausescu. But neither have I influenced him in any respect, nor has he influenced me, although we frequently go hunting together. [...] The major thing that our relations both with Yugoslavia country. The meeting was attended by: and Romania should be based on is the constant extension of our contacts and links. We are doing our best in this respect. We are not well acquainted with the issues regarding Asia. As far as the attempts at creating a military group in this region are concerned, I completely share your view. You are acquainted with our views regarding China. It's a pity that the things are the way they are in the country, which has the largest population in the world. Our relations with China are not well developed. The same goes for trade | with [China]. Of course, we prize our friendship with the Chinese people and in the future we'll do our best to restore the old friendship and cooperation with the great country of China. We might discuss with you some question regarding the bilateral cooperation. Ivan Bashev - Bulgarian Minister of Foreign Affairs; Giuseppe Purini - Italian Ambassador in Bulgaria TODOR ZHIVKOV: This is your first visit to Bulgaria. We ALDO MORO: Mr. Prime Minister, I would like to thank you for the invitation to visit your country and for your courtesy now. I would also like to say that this visit is an expression of our good attitude to and interest in your country. What we greatly value in your country, among other things, is the obvious development of all sectors of your economic life. INDIRA GANDHI: Our cultural relations with you are good, That is what made me accept your invitation to visit your but our economic relations must be improved. TODOR ZHIVKOV: Yes, I agree with you. INDIRA GANDHI: I would once again like to thank you for you responding to our invitation and coming to India. What you said about your country and Europe was very interesting for us. I am sure your stay here will be interesting and pleasant. TODOR ZHIVKOV: It is already very pleasant. We feel in (1:00 p.m.) DOCUMENT No. 2 Memorandum of Conversation between Bulgarian [Source: Central State Archive, Sofia, fond 378-B, file 269. Document obtained by Jordan Baev and translated by Rositza Ishpekova.] TALKS Between Comrade Todor Zhivkov and Aldo Moro, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Italy 27 April 1970 [Stenographic Notes) Today, the Prime Minister of the People's Republic of Bulgaria, comrade Todor Zhivkov, received Mr. Aldo Moro, Italian Foreign Minister, who is making an official visit to our country. After the long government crisis, this is my first visit abroad. I am grateful that you invited me and gave me the opportunity to make this visit at a time convenient for me. I would also like to admit that our relations are good in all spheres of life, but I also think there are great opportunities for further development. Making a survey of our relations in all spheres of life, I came to the conclusions that there isn't even a single sphere in which there is no cooperation between our countries. But as I already said, there are even greater opportunities that we will continue to discuss in our talks with Mr. Bashev. Later we will continue to discuss these opportunities via our ambassadors, who have done quite a lot for the development of our relations. A couple of days ago I visited your pavilion at the fair in Milan, where I tasted your wine and cheese for the first time. I had the chance to speak to your representative and was assured that our exchanges. are developing [well] and there are additional opportunities. So that we must now do more to help realize these new opportunities. There are projects for further cooperation. I would like to say that as far as we are concerned, we shall discuss these opportunities in great detail. We have signed a trade agreement, which ensures the development of our relations. As you said there are problems related to peaceful mutual coexistence and cooperation in Europe. This is an issue we will be discussing in greater detail. We consider bilateral relations very useful in the preparation of a wider European meeting. I think that a new atmosphere has been created in Europe. Of course, not all difficulties have been overcome. But we cannot deny the existence of an attempt among the peoples and governments to come to know each other better. There is a will and hope for the establishment of relations based on trust. Our trust has been increasing and we must support it via concrete acts. We would like to extinguish all dangerous war zones. We also consider a war out of the question. Peace is not something passive. We have taken the appropriate route. We are all involved in a competition and our actions are contributing towards achieving this common goal. I consider the latter to be a contribution to the develop ment of our contacts with all countries and above all the ones that favor such a dialogue. This is actually a dialogue about Europe and the world. Hence I am grateful for your invitation. I do hope that this visit will be a step forward along the path of peaceful mutual coexistence that can be very fertile. TODOR ZHIVKOV: We think that we might cooperate successfully with Italy, we might cooperate to ensure peace in Europe. The issue of European security is an enormous one. We think that a rational solution to this issue might be found, which will be decisive for the development of the world, for avoiding a Third World War which would definitely be a nuclear war. Second, we might cooperate successfully with Italy in the region of the Balkans and the Mediterranean. Bulgaria is not a big country, but fortunately or not, it is situated in the middle of the Balkan Peninsula and no issue can be solved without it. Our country has proved many times that it supports understanding between the Balkan countries. Peace on the Balkan Peninsula can be achieved only if it is connected with peace in the Mediterranean and vice versa―peace in the Mediterranean can be ensured only if there is peace in the Balkans. These two things cannot be separated. And I believe that the talks with our minister of foreign affairs in this respect will be interesting. We are interested in close cooperation with you. [...] So Bulgaria should not be underestimated. It is not a big country, its population is about 8.5 million, yet we have one ambition - to catch up with the advanced countries. I consider it a noble ambition. It goes without saying that a country that has set forth such ambitions cannot be thinking of war. On the contrary, its foreign policy is directed towards the elimination of war, towards the preservation of peace. To be honest, we must admit that communism will rule in the world not by means of war. It will win without a war. I have no intention to persuade you, I would just like to put forth this thesis. It is peace. ALDO MORO: Mr. President, I would like to emphasize two things. We first of all consider peace to be a global necessity. Hence there can be no peace in Europe, which is not related to the peaceful conditions in the Mediterranean. Within this framework, we agree with the idea about Bulgaria's role in the center of the Balkan Peninsula. I would like to say that we appreciate Bulgaria's efforts to have good-neighborly relations with the other Balkan countries. We also appreciate its contribution to ensuring peace in the Eastern Mediterranean. But we will be discussing this issue with Mr. Bashev. The second thing I would like to dwell on is the fact that we appreciate Bulgaria's efforts directed towards its economic development. You said your aim was to reach the advanced countries. I would like to say that Italy is well developed in only one of its parts, in another the southern part, it has to solve the same problems, as you have to solve. So that there is a mutual interest to exchange experience and I consider the cooperation between us in this sphere of general interest. We can exchange experience; can come to know each other better. I think that there is still some way to develop our economic relations, there is the possibility to quantitatively and quantitatively balance our exchange. The principle of liberalization that is our guiding principle promotes the development of exchange of goods. [...] As far as our bilateral relations are concerned, it would be appropriate to discuss the problem of their development on a qualitatively new basis. As state and social figures we have to be realists and to know that the possibilities for the further trade development between our countries have been exhausted. Because the trade is now unilateral to some extent. It is based on the import of machines and equipment from Italy, which we will be much interested in in the future and the export from our country mainly of agricultural products. There obviously exists some kind of a contradiction that must be overcome. How do we see the overcoming of this contradiction? We must direct our efforts towards specialization, especially in the sphere of industry. There should be an exchange of industrial products in both directions, and also of machine-building products. Some Western circles are not well informed and do not have an accurate idea about our country. Bulgaria is viewed as some kind of agricultural country that, in spite of its moving ahead, still remains agricultural. This idea is radically false. I will now illustrate my opinion with a couple of facts. According to some data from the UN Economic Committee, Bulgaria is first in the world according to some criteria and second - after Japan, according to other. What I have in mind is the rate of development. [...]│hind the Americans in the sphere of technology. We are not Let's take as example electronics. We signed agreements in the period 1971-1975 to export electronics to the Soviet Union valued at 700 million rubles. [...] Now we have been working hard to open six electronics plants. This means that by the middle of the year we will have 10 electronics plants. I'm giving these examples not to praise our country - we are experiencing a lot of difficulties and hardship. We, the present leaders of the state, are ordinary people. What is most important is that Bulgaria is developing at a rapid rate. TODOR ZHIVKOV: I absolutely agree with what Mr. Moro said here. We value Italy as a well-developed industrial country. I think that it occupies seventh place in the world according to its industrial potential. We are quickly developing our productive forces now and we are interested in buying plants and equipment from Italy and we do believe that we will find a beneficial solution. I hope your visit will be helpful in this respect. We are confronted with a big question. I think you are confronted with it too. Respectively that we are far be well acquainted with the American industry and technology. But we are well aware that what is happening in Japan widely applies American techniques. Let me give you only one example. A couple of years ago an enormous plant for fertilizer production was built in Vratza. A Belgian trade company supplied it. It is already working. There are 400 people working in such a plant in Japan, while in our country their number is 1,500. You are probably also concerned with such problems. [...] This is the essence of the problem that we are confronted |