At BookFest in Bucharest: Georgi Dimitrov’s Diary is a remarkable account of its era

Summary

General Information About the Event

• Event: Discussion on the Romanian edition of the book “The Diary of Georgi Dimitrov, 1933–1949” (CorinthPublishing House).
• Date and location: June 7, 2026, at the international BookFest fair in Bucharest, at the Bulgarian booth (Bulgaria is the festival’s guest of honor).
• Topic of the discussion: “From the Anti-Fascist Lion to the Architect of Soviet Influence.”

Participant Profiles

• Simona Preda (moderator): Historian, writer, Ph.D. in history, and cultural journalist with international experience (Fulbright Program in the U.S.).
• Corina Dobos: Researcher at the National Institute for the Study of Totalitarianism within the Romanian Academy; expert in biopolitics and the history of science.
• Ștefan Bosomitu: Researcher at the Institute for the Investigation of Communist Crimes; Ph.D. in history, specializing in the communist intelligentsia.
• Vladimir Mitev: Bulgarian journalist, founder of several bilingual and cross-border media platforms, and a Romanian speaker.

Key Points of the Discussion

1. The Image and Perception of Georgi Dimitrov

• In Bulgaria: During the socialist era, he was transformed into an official “icon” who was accorded special attention (symbolized by the mausoleum in Sofia and party textbooks).
  • In the post-socialist period (after 1990), his image quickly disappeared from public discourse; the mausoleum was demolished in the late 1990s.
  • Today, in Bulgaria, there is no longer widespread public interest in him, and the left is criticized for the fact that his government was too “internationalist” and not patriotic enough (especially regarding the Macedonian issue).
• Internationally: Ironically, he is better known and more positively regarded abroad (for example, in North Macedonia or among foreign left-wing intellectuals) than in his own country.
• Main historical achievements (according to the leftist tradition):
  • His heroic defense during the Leipzig trial (1933) and his opposition to Göring.
  • His ideological and practical vision for the creation of the “People’s Front (of Patriots).”

2. The Specific Nature and Historical Significance of the Diary

A unique document: Communist leaders rarely left behind personal diaries, due to the party principle that biographies are written only after death and because of the constant risk of purges during the Stalinist terror.

Lack of literary style: The diary is primarily administrative, dry, and factual (it describes meetings, dates, and official discussions).Authenticity and Preservation: The records are considered authentic. Dimitrov managed to preserve the diary (and save his life) thanks to his close ties with NKVD leaders and the personal trust he enjoyed from Stalin.Stalin as the central figure: The diary is a valuable source of information about Stalin himself, revealing the macro level of decisions made behind the scenes of Soviet power from the Comintern’s perspective.

3. The Diary’s Connection to Romanian History

• Romania’s Role in the Comintern: References to Romania are relatively few, which suggests that the Romanian communist movement did not make as significant a contribution as was believed locally.
• The Figure of Ana Pauker: She is the primary Romanian presence in the Diary and is portrayed as a true leader of international stature, in whom Moscow places great trust.
• Moscow’s Control Over Romania After 1945: The Diary contains key entries (for example, from January 4, 1945), in which Dimitrov conveys Stalin’s direct and detailed political advice to Gheorghiu-Dej and Ana Pauker regarding how to tactically establish the communist regime in Romania (gradual agrarian reform, postponement of aggressive and forced nationalization, and the temporary preservation of royal properties to appease the bourgeoisie).

4. The Importance of the Romanian Edition for Contemporary Readers

“The Gateway” to Bulgaria: The book helps Romanian society better understand the complex and sometimes “strange” history of neighboring Bulgaria, which remains little known in Romania.

Academic Contribution: The translation (based on the prestigious Yale edition) is accompanied by a thorough critical apparatus, which helps the public reinterpret communism through the lens of internationalism and the geopolitical realities of the 20th century.

Here is a video of the event with auto-generated English subtitles

Discussion’s transcript

Introduction

Simona Preda:

Good afternoon!‌ Corinth Publishing and I are delighted and honored to launch, together with a representative from Bulgaria, journalist Vladimir Mitev, a book that is essential to communist historiography—not just Romanian historiography, but historiography in general—when we discuss the communist narrative: The Diary of Georgi Dimitrov, 1933–1949. The text has been edited, annotated, and accompanied by a foreword by Ivo Banac, with a preface by Cosmin Popa and an English translation by Lia Decei.

Of course, I must mention that this book, as its title suggests, is quite substantial and benefited from the editing work of Alexandru Gheorghe and Gabriela Trâșculescu, our colleagues in the typesetting department. Thus, Georgi Dimitrov’s Diary, 1933–1949, is an interesting addition to Romania’s historiographical landscape, all the more so given that the theme of our discussion today is “From the Anti-Fascist Lion to the Architect of Soviet Influence.” And, of course, how could someone—and this is what we were discussing earlier with this afternoon’s guests—who comes from humble origins, like many other communists, for that matter, end up becoming a member of the highest bodies of the Socialist International?

So, allow me to introduce this afternoon’s guests, and I have the honor and pleasure of welcoming: Vladimir Mitev, a journalist from Bulgaria; we thank him for joining us and for speaking Romanian so well, which delights us all, as we no longer need a translation; Corina Doboș, a research fellow at the National Institute for the Study of Totalitarianism—we’re delighted to have her with us; and Ștefan Bosomitu, a research fellow at the Institute for the Investigation of Communist Crimes and the Memory of Romanian Exile—we’re also delighted to have him with us.

A few brief words about the journal, after which we’ll discuss it in greater detail, because each of our guests today is a specialist in certain… well, actually, they’re specialists in the entirety of Romanian communism and beyond, but with a particular passion for certain aspects of historiographical discourse. A few general thoughts on the book. The Bulgarian politician Georgi Dimitrov, nicknamed the “anti-fascist lion,” was one of the most important leaders of the international communist movement and also a trusted member of Stalin’s inner circle.

One of the topics and ideas from which we’ll begin today’s discussion will be precisely how he came to be in Stalin’s inner circle and, at the same time, whether he was merely a pawn or had any decision-making authority regarding Bulgarian politics. As you’ll read in the book—and as Cosmin Popa so beautifully explains in the book’s preface—his journey, this cursus honorum, began in a family with a deep passion for the printed word, for printing, all the way to the highest echelons of socialism and communism in this region. Obviously, accused by the Nazis of setting fire to the Reichstag in 1933—and this was a driving force behind his career—he successfully defended himself, after which he became a symbol of resistance against Nazism.

In 1935, he was appointed General Secretary of the Communist International, and after the end of World War II, he became the country’s first communist prime minister. We’ll discuss his diary at length with our guests—not so much as a source, but as a reflection of his mindset as a communist leader—because we know that communist leaders rarely kept diaries, and this is an exceptional case. I’ll start with Vladimir Mitev. This is a question we were discussing even before the book launch.

The point is that many people in Bulgaria, of course, are familiar with this Georgi Dimitrov, who is much less well-known to a large part of the Romanian public. How was he viewed? Did he benefit—in the necessary sense of the word—from the kind of mythologization that some figures of Romanian communism, for example, experienced in Romania? Or was he always seen as part of the communist system, as the country’s figurehead leader? How was he viewed?

Debate participants Vladimir Mitev (with the microphone), Ștefan Bosomitu, and Corina Dobos (source: “Corinth” Publishing House)

Attitudes toward Georgi Dimitrov in Bulgaria today

Vladimir Mitev:

I suppose there’s a lot to discuss here, and, as we know, for several decades there was a mausoleum in the center of Sofia where Georgi Dimitrov’s body was buried. Of course, I, for example, having entered the educational system at the age of seven in 1990, still used socialist textbooks for another 2–3 years, through which I studied some basic topics—at that very early stage—about the country. And, of course, I remember very well that a great deal of attention was devoted in these textbooks—even for very young children—to the fact that he was a hero of Leipzig, his defense trial, and so on.

But, despite all this, I can say that once the old regime—as it’s called—was dismantled, after the changes came, it actually seems to me that Georgi Dimitrov largely disappeared from the public sphere and from discussions. Of course, historians might hold some conferences, and sometimes films are made… I can say that, even recently, there have been some history-focused podcasts featuring Georgi Dimitrov, and there are also accounts of his death—we can talk about that later if you’d like. Nevertheless, it seems to me that, among today’s public—let’s say over the last 30 years—it’s safe to say that Georgi Dimitrov doesn’t really spark much interest among the Bulgarian public; he is, perhaps, an example of a person who, in a sense, seems to be better known internationally than in Bulgaria.

I can also briefly explain why I think this is the case. So, for example, in North Macedonia—where there’s a whole discussion about his ties to the Macedonians—he’s viewed very positively, as far as I know. In North Macedonia, there are schools named after him, and I assume boulevards, streets, and so on as well. And similarly, I can recall that when I met the Trotskyist leader from Romania—who is now a professor at Oxford—one of the first things he told me was that Romania doesn’t have a figure of such great stature in the socialist movement as Georgi Dimitrov.

And I was surprised, in a way. No… I’d never heard before, in Bulgaria, that he was held in such high regard, because it seems to me that Bulgarian society has moved on. Quite simply, perhaps Georgi Dimitrov was turned into an icon, but the icon, of course, is not the real person. And once that legacy of socialist identity in Bulgaria was left behind, his mausoleum was also destroyed, so to speak… because, as you know, right at the end of the ’90s, the mausoleum was blown up, so to speak.

And it seems to me that there really is a certain negative sentiment in this regard, because we know—perhaps I don’t want to go into great detail here, but there is a certain dispute, at least on the surface, between Bulgaria and the state of North Macedonia on certain issues, we can, of course, discuss these things at length—but there are films, for example, that claim the Bulgarian Communist Party, in its early years after seizing power in the 1940s, betrayed the Bulgarian nation by contributing to the formation of this Macedonian identity.

And, of course, perhaps we need to explain that the socialist regime in Bulgaria began—as even some left-wing historians say and write—with a strong emphasis on the internationalist aspect of Bulgarian society, and its mindset was rather internationalist. Meanwhile, in the 1980s, for example, when General Zhivkov—while Zhivkov was in power—there was a shift toward a nationalist trend, as seen in this so-called “revival process,” the renaming of Turks in Bulgaria, which was also linked to certain acts of violence. So, the assessment of Dimitrov could even be seen as an evolution during the socialist period, even though he was an icon; but once socialism fell, an accusation was leveled against the Communist Party—now the Socialist Party—that it had not been patriotic enough during this very period when Georgi Dimitrov himself was in power.

And, to follow up on my answer—returning to the idea that there are Bulgarians who are better known internationally than at home—I can say the same about the Bulgarian structuralists, Julia Kristeva, Tzvetan Todorov, and others. These are people of a very high intellectual caliber who are internationally recognized, but, in my opinion, the vast majority of people in Bulgaria have never read anything they’ve written. So, this is perhaps an irony: that Bulgarians, in a sense, are very capable of integrating into the world, and there are Bulgarians who excel greatly on the world stage, but to be recognized simultaneously both internationally and in Bulgaria is, in my opinion, a slightly more difficult task.

Georgi Dimitrov’s Contribution from the Perspective of His Supporters

Simona Preda:

What you were saying is interesting, because there are certain similarities with many of the figures of Romanian internationalism who, throughout the course of communist discourse—depending on whether it took an internationalist or nationalist turn—were treated anywhere from being overlooked to being condemned. If we were to take a reductionist view, on the one hand there is his image during the communist period in Bulgaria, and on the other hand, in post-communist discourse—as in many other countries behind the Iron Curtain—this is what happened to many of the leaders or prominent figures there. On the other hand, if we were to consider it within the framework of communist discourse, what was his image as a hero linked to? To the events in Leipzig in 1933, or rather to the fact that he was the country’s first communist prime minister?

Vladimir Mitev:

I believe that Georgi Dimitrov, from what I’ve understood and retained, has two major merits from the perspective of communist discourse. One is this defense— let’s say, heroic defense at Leipzig, in which he even boasted that, speaking in German he had learned, he managed to refute the powerful Göring and so on, thereby becoming an international star. Here I’d like to make a side note: it’s quite interesting that Georgi Dimitrov didn’t have a very high level of education; he didn’t study much—as far as I recall, he only completed six grades of school; he was largely a self-taught man, and I can say that he learned a great deal from the women in his life, because he actually learned German from his first wife, who was Serbian. And here we see his strong connection to the countries of the Western Balkans today, to Yugoslavia as it was before.

So, for Georgi Dimitrov, this is something for which he is praised: the fact that he emerged as the moral victor from a dispute in which his position was initially very weak. And, on the other hand, what gave him an advantage—and from which his recognition, still very much alive today among those on the left in Bulgaria, derives—is the concept of the “Popular Front,” so to speak. That is, the unification of all anti-fascist forces. And it’s clear that this strategy, so to speak, was employed even during the war—World War II—and immediately afterward. This is considered a contribution—let’s say—that is theoretical in one sense, but also practical.

Georgi Dimitrov’s Diary and the Bulgarian Public

Simona Preda:

And I have a question, before moving on to the other guests: when did you first hear about his diary?

Vladimir Mitev:

Here I need to mention one more detail. Many people—I’ve asked others as well—didn’t actually know much about his diary, and as far as I know, it wasn’t known about during the socialist period. I asked people who studied political education—those with higher education, where political education was a required subject—and it wasn’t discussed, as far as I can tell, at least based on the testimonies I’ve gathered.

So, basically, this diary appeared later on, as far as I understand. And there are two editions in Bulgarian. One is from 1997, published by Sofia University Press, and the second in 2003, by another publisher, which I believe is called Ist-Vest (East-West)—so it’s one of the major publishing houses.

And, as I said, it seems to me that his role was very significant at a certain point in history. But once that moment had passed, interest seems to me to have waned and become more limited to researchers. That is why I now greatly appreciate the fact that, for the first time, I was able to read his diary in Romanian, and I can say that I am very pleasantly surprised that there is interest in this subject precisely in Romania.

So, I think the translation from these sources—the Bulgarian one and the one from Yale—is very good. In my opinion, many things can be understood very well even by people who know nothing at all about Bulgarian realities, that period, or him personally.

The Importance of the Diary

Simona Preda:

Thank you very much! Since we’re on the subject of the diary, Ștefan, I’d like to ask you to continue the discussion we had before the launch. A communist leader who writes a diary… Something, in a way, quite unique.

Ștefan Bosomitu:

Yes, it is. All of this is proof of the exceptional nature of this volume: the fact that today we have the complete diary of one of the most important leaders of the communist movement during the interwar period and World War II. There is an incompatibility between the idea of a revolutionary and the idea of having a written history during one’s lifetime. I recall—that is, when I think about these details—that a few days ago I remembered a quote from Mikhail Olminski, a Bolshevik veteran, a former comrade of Lenin and Stalin, and a participant in the 1905–1907 Revolution.

In 1921, Mikhail Olminski was the most important figure involved in the effort to write the history of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of the Soviet Union and the history of the Revolution. He served as a sort of political coordinator for the historical writing projects of the 1920s. Mikhail Olminski once said, I quote: “A principle among us Bolsheviks: a comrade’s biography is not written until after he has died.” And this detail strikes me as highly relevant to understanding just how important this book we are presenting today is—this volume, this document that Georgi Dimitrov wrote over the course of 16 years. And over the course of 16 years—if we think about it—he began the journal; he started writing it because he was in prison.

Moderator Simona Preda pursued specialized studies in the U.S. as part of the Fulbright Program (source: Corinth Publishing House)

Georgi Dimitrov’s Motivation for Keeping a Journal

Simona Preda:

But why did he start writing it then?

Ștefan Bosomitu:

Out of a desire to record everything that was happening and to document—to identify and document—all the stages of that process, which he felt was, most likely, a pivotal moment in his life. After 1934, back in Moscow, writing a diary with political undertones—we know that during the Soviet era, this was an extremely complicated matter. We know full well that we are in a period… the period of the Great Terror, of purges, when it didn’t take much to be eliminated in various ways; you were liable to be arrested and executed for far less.

Nevertheless, we see that Georgi Dimitrov continued to write; he did so carefully, without drawing the attention of the NKVD. This may also be a matter of nuanced history, because, again from the diary, we see that he had close ties to the heads of the NKVD, and it is very likely that this detail afforded him a certain degree of safety. From this perspective, it is important that his history has been recorded in this form. Of course, we must bear in mind that there is nothing literary about what he writes. Only administrative matters and meetings are recorded.

However, beyond this detail, it is important because it helps us see whether we truly intend to delve into and gain a behind-the-scenes perspective on history—on the broader historical context of the 1930s and 1940s— because there are moments when, as you’ll see, in his discussions with regional leaders, he very carefully transcribes the conversations he had with Stalin, spanning several pages. He transcribes these conversations with great accuracy and in great detail. So, how does one go from being a revolutionary to being a bureaucrat?

Well, I don’t want to monopolize the discussion, and I don’t want to lay out the entire discussion for you just yet. What is that important issue… and I’ll give him the floor… It doesn’t necessarily have to do with Georgi Dimitrov himself, but rather with political, geopolitical, and global developments.

Readers of the diary

Simona Preda:

I’d like to return to the diary briefly with two short questions. One: Who is he writing for? Does he write only for himself? Does he write so he won’t forget? Does he write to leave a record? Or does he expect someone, later on, to read his notes?

Ștefan Bosomitu:

It’s a little bit of each of these things. He writes for himself, first and foremost, and perhaps also so he won’t forget. He writes because he feels the need to record these things. He writes while thinking—again… the prospect of this idea and this possibility always arises—that, at some point, he too might fall from grace. It was almost certain that he was aware of what was happening in his own time, in the years 1936–1937–1938. He saw it and was very aware of it at the time.

He saw how the ranks of the International were thinning day by day, because many of the European leaders who were in Moscow during those years were being executed for the slightest reason. It’s a big deal to take that on, when you wouldn’t even be in court, and I want to reflect on this and say that it’s something that carried symbolic significance, with many underlying reasons. What’s interesting, though—very interesting—is his patience in documenting this, driven by his faith, despite his modest educational background.

The Authenticity of the Diary

Simona Preda:

Yes, and there are 19 notebooks after all. And speaking of what you were saying about the mention of these discussions with Stalin, that was also the question I’d prepared for you: to what extent is it credible? Is it credible?

Ștefan Bosomitu:

I believe this is credible. I wouldn’t want us to view Georgi Dimitrov merely as a mere executor of Stalin’s orders. Because that perspective would be very simplistic and would place us once again within that interpretive framework in which Stalin was said to be the sole decision-maker. He didn’t decide everything; there were multiple centers of power. Stalin wouldn’t have liked that idea. Yes, but that’s the truth.

It’s my opinion that, even if it manifested as autocracy, he did decide everything at this macro level. It is true that, unlike other figures, Georgi Dimitrov is someone who managed to win Stalin’s trust and remained close to him—not as a victim, but as a figure who survived alongside Stalin and carried out his decisions. But this is at the level of the international movement, because on the foreign policy front, he coordinates its activities. This also explains why he enjoyed a sort of immunity during those grim years.

Georgi Dimitrov and the World Communist Movement

Simona Preda:

We’ll come back to this, because I’d be curious to know if there’s—but until then, let’s talk with Corina—a figure in Romanian politics similar to Georgi Dimitrov. Someone who shares his characteristics.

Corina Doboș:

Yes, I’d start with what we have now. I’ve looked at the translated passages; we don’t find any behind-the-scenes maneuvering where someone could get away with something—there are possible strategies and so on. What strikes me, again, as remarkable is how he manages… how he manages to survive. How he manages—and perhaps only Soviet Russia is the one that preserves and hosts the communist movement as a coherent movement—as a profoundly anti-fascist force, from the defense at the Leipzig trial to the transformation of this great anti-fascist opposition, in France for example. In the 1930s, at the Seventh Congress, their community—the universalism of their community—changed in some way.

For Lenin, the universalist vocation was the World Revolution, whereas now, under Stalin, who did not focus on a single country, their community had reduced its universalist vocation to the policies of the Soviet Union at that time. Toward… actually, this is what I mean: the 1939 pact with Germany was a shock, a major blow, because through that pact both Dimitrov and many communists around the world felt betrayed, and they experienced immense disillusionment until 1941, when the USSR was attacked by… So, up until then—from ’39 to ’41—he was caught up in this search, and in ’43 the Comintern was dissolved, but not just any old way; its structures were officially recognized, and we’re thinking about how the political authorities would restructure themselves in the post-1935 era.

Dimitrov’s Faith in Communist Ideology

Simona Preda:

Yes, in his diary—speaking of what he says about all this involvement, this whole image of him as an anti-fascist… is there ever a moment when one might think, from a political standpoint, that he actually didn’t believe in all these things and, in fact, wasn’t doing them simply because he’d been drawn into this path from a young age? That he didn’t believe in true communism? I don’t think so. I don’t believe that. So he was a communist through and through.

Corina Doboș:

And I don’t think we should… I mean, this is a… a post-factum interpretation, in a way. Whether or not he was actually an anti-fascist, whether or not he was the anti-fascist of the Revolution, given the course of events… I don’t think he asked himself that question… I mean, I don’t think the question arose in those terms, given that he was caught up in living in Moscow during the most extraordinary period in the history of that time. He could only be what he was. The history of the 20th century—I mean, it’s still madness, but with the Spanish Civil War, these things… The Great Terror unleashed by Stalin… I mean, not even… after all, not even… it wasn’t even a question that things could be any other way. It would have been a matter of life and death to even think that things could be any other way or that he could be anything other than a communist.

And what strikes me as remarkable—and I believe that for this reason, the publication of this diary in Romanian, with a highly rigorous critical apparatus that facilitates a very clear understanding of the period and its context for the general public, not just for those directly involved in the subject, would be a remarkable academic undertaking—is precisely the fact that it offers us, to some extent, the opportunity teaches us to think about communism—or re-teaches us to think about communism—in internationalist terms as well. Because this re-learning is essential, as is the tension that actually exists between Dimitrov—the nationalist, Prime Minister of Bulgaria—and Dimitrov—the “Lion of Leipzig” and head of the Comintern. It actually reveals the tension between the two perceptions of the transformation of the international communist movement into these forms of national communism, as they came to power, in one form or another, at one time or another.

In a way, it reminds us not to forget the 1930s and the period leading up to World War II, when the internationalist vocation and organization of the communist movement proved essential not only for its own functioning but also for European history. Because, if not… it’s not for nothing that they say that without the Bulgarian Dimitrov—who ended up defending himself in Leipzig, saving his life, and being able to return or go to the USSR and contribute to the reorientation of the Comintern’s and the USSR’s policies along these lines—European history might have looked slightly different. And I believe this is essential to recover from this international perspective and from the internationalist viewpoint on the communist movement.

At the Bulgarian booth, during the discussion, a special display by Corinth Publishing was featured, dedicated to the Romanian-language edition of “The Diary of Georgi Dimitrov” (source: Corinth Publishing House)

Georgi Dimitrov’s Diary and Romania

Simona Preda:

That would have been interesting—to come back and discuss the man himself: his career, the events, what happened, and what the consequences of his actions were, not only in his personal life but also within the internationalist movement. But I’d like to hear—just a brief comment, Ștefan, I’d like to ask you—about how much we learn from this diary or how much it adds to the puzzle we already know about internationalist communism and these spheres of influence that basically show us how they’re constructed in this region. It’s a question for both of you, though I thought I’d ask you specifically as well.

Ștefan Bosomitu:

I’ll start, and I really want to chime in, because I’d like to point out… I hadn’t thought of this from the start, but I’d like to return first and foremost to: why is this journal important for the history of Romanian communism? I mean, it’s important in terms of how this volume helps us reinterpret the international history of Romanian communism. And, at first glance, if you’ll notice, there are a few clues. How many references to Romania are there? Are there a lot? I think there are a few. There are few references to Romania or to Romanian communist leaders, and perhaps most of them—I’d say about 80%—are references to Ana Pauker. Just as a point of reference. It’s important and interesting. It’s relevant. Why?

Because we need to understand that, beyond what we believe, beyond the impressions we have, or the history that tells us certain things about this international dimension of Romanian communism—so to speak—our contribution to everything the International Commission movement stood for isn’t as great as we’d like to believe. Take, for example, something I thought about and actually tried to verify—a piece of information I had regarding the events of 1940. The Communist Party of Romania was in total chaos; it had no leader.

At that time, it was decided to send a delegation to Moscow for negotiations at the Comintern. Ștefan Foriș and Teohari Georgescu traveled to Moscow. We know that they were briefed at the Comintern, received there, interrogated, and so on. We also know that Ștefan Foriș and Teohari Georgescu were received by Georgi Dimitrov. Following this trip, Ștefan Foriș was appointed general secretary of the Communist Party of Romania. I can tell you that this meeting is not extensively documented here. It is very likely, as has been discussed here, that Georgi Dimitrov took notes on the meeting he had with Ștefan Foriș. There was a single entry, with no further explanation or additional commentary. This is to help you understand the lack of importance that Georgi Dimitrov attached to this meeting with Ștefan Foriș.

Again, reading the diary, at least for me, the international stature that Ana Pauker possessed is relevant and, in a way, instructive. And the fact that here, in this diary… Ana Pauker is presented there as a true leader of international stature. She, in 1941, after the Nazi attack and the start of the Nazi aggression against the Soviet Union… there are entries in the journal where Georgi Dimitrov says: “Okay, we’re starting to reorganize the Comintern under these new conditions; we have an influx of personnel into the Soviet Union: Thorez, Togliatti, and Marty,” and the others who had come and who could lend a hand in reorganizing the international movement and the Comintern—Ana Pauker being among them in this regard.

Again, it is important from this perspective to bear in mind, however, that from the perspective of the history of Romanian communism, by 1943… okay, the Comintern had already been dissolved, but the Soviet Union was already beginning to plan the postwar political order. Again, here we’ll see—we have a few references, not very extensive, but we do have references in which Georgi Dimitrov meets with Ana Pauker and begins to discuss and provide instructions regarding the formation in the Soviet Union of a core group to launch a propaganda effort that is, in fact, under his auspices. And in this context, starting in 1943, they sent Ana Pauker and Vasile Luca to prisoner-of-war camps and first formed a division, the “Tudor Vladimirescu” Division, and later the “Horia, Cloșca, and Crișan” Division.

I will conclude by pointing out—beyond a very relevant detail that Dimitrov shares with us—an essential observation for the history of Romanian communism regarding how Romania’s political evolution after 1945 was interpreted and guided from Moscow. It is a note dated January 4, in which Dimitrov states that he received the Romanian comrades Ana Pauker, Georgiu-Dej, and Apostol at his dacha, who “reported to us in detail on the situation in Romania and the party’s successes, and told us about their discussion with Stalin in December; the latter gave them the following advice.”

And here is the advice that, let’s say, Stalin suggested to Gheorghiu-Dej and Ana Pauker in December 1944–1945. Specifically, I’m thinking of Dimitrov: “Focus your attention on agrarian reform, the distribution of land abandoned by landowners; leave the royal estates and those of the monasteries alone”—that is, the abdication of Michael II (Michael I). “Build agricultural machinery and tractor depots; tractors will be provided—don’t forget—and large quantities of cotton will be supplied. Do not raise the issue of nationalization all at once; focus on development; do not force matters radically; try not to frighten or alienate the bourgeoisie, especially the Tatar group. Use the Tudor Vladimirescu Division in Bucharest.”

This was exactly what followed, in practice, in Romanian history: a rapprochement with the factional groups within the PNȚ and PNL, the formation of a Groza government—which, as a consequence, led to the restoration of Romanian administration in Northern Transylvania—and the agrarian reform, which also began under the Groza government. And once again, this tactic, which envisaged a partial agrarian reform—meaning it would not immediately affect the monarchy, nor, as they say, the big bourgeoisie and the other parties— What Dimitrov recorded on January 4, 1945, strikes me as absolutely relevant—somewhat prescient, even—and relevant to what happened here, because it was a plan that the communists clung to with both hands.

Georgi Dimitrov and Stalin

Simona Preda:

One more reason to believe what’s written in the diary, because, as you can see, it’s proof that this is how it happened. Corina, if you have anything to add, and then I’ll give the floor to our colleague from Bulgaria to wrap things up.

Corina Doboș:

…Yes, it seems to me that in this diary, Stalin remains the central figure. That is to say, I dare say—and this is why it deserves to be juxtaposed with Milovan Djilas’s *Conversations with Stalin*—it’s an opportunity to learn more about Stalin, except that, again, as I’ve already mentioned, these aren’t the notes of someone who is disillusioned with Stalin and the USSR, unlike the Yugoslav leaders.

And that’s why I find it very interesting—and so does the editor, who places excerpts from Dimitrov’s diary side by side with the same entries or entries referring to the same moments in Djilas’s diary. And there are different nuances—or, I suppose, perspectives. I think it’s important that this resource exists; we should treat it as a working tool and try to view it with a critical eye. We don’t doubt that Dimitrov believed what he wrote, but it’s the point of view of a particular person who, at a certain moment, held a certain position—it’s not the absolute truth. And to the extent that we can—given that the main figure is Stalin—compare multiple sources regarding those events, so much the better. And, well, that’s how I see it: it’s yet another source regarding Stalin; above all, we have yet another account of Stalin, albeit written from a Comintern perspective.

The Romanian and Bulgarian Audiences

Simona Preda:

Yes, that strikes me as essential. Thank you very much, even though we’re still talking about Stalin in the end. Please, Vladimir Mitev: why would Romanians read such a book? I’m referring to the general public.

Vladimir Mitev:

You’re referring, I suppose, to Romanians. I believe Bulgaria remains relatively unknown, and here I must say that the idea of Bulgaria being the special guest of this festival is very good—I deeply appreciate it. It’s a good sign, seeing the thousands of Romanians who have been coming every day for the past five days.

So, Bulgaria has its own successful and prominent figures. Of course, these are figures who aren’t icons. Perhaps during the socialist era there was a tendency to turn them into icons. We see that today we can discuss everything, and we even have the testimonies of these people. So, I’d say that Bulgarians, in the past, didn’t come across as very appealing, but, in my opinion, Bulgarians have certain complexities and ambiguities that, I think, are interesting. The key is to have the insight to decipher exactly what’s going on there.

And in this sense, I believe the book can still serve as a gateway to a broader range of topics related to Bulgaria. I hope there will be other books of this kind, as well as work by experts like those on this panel and, perhaps, by journalists. So, I’d say that Bulgaria isn’t quite as unattractive as it’s made out to be. It may be challenging in some ways—Bulgarians are, in my opinion, a bit difficult, a bit unique—but that doesn’t mean they aren’t worth making a greater effort to understand.

Closing

Simona Preda:

Thank you very much! So, a window into Bulgarian history, as you present it to us through this book: The Diary of Georgi Dimitrov, 1933–1949. Enthusiasts and the curious can find it at the Corinth Publishing stand, where they can browse through it and purchase it. Thank you, Vladimir Mitev, and we are honored—I’ll say this again—to be at the Bulgaria booth and that Bulgaria is the guest of honor at this fair. Thank you, Corina Doboș, thank you, Ștefan Bosomitu, and of course, thank you to all of you who joined us for this launch.

This is Corinth Publishing’s final book launch at this fair. Thank you for visiting our booth, for the books you’ve purchased, and for the smiles we’ve shared. We look forward to seeing you again, as there are still a few hours left for us to enjoy this book-loving community. Best of luck to you all, and thank you for your attention!

Photo: The Bulgarian booth during the launch of Georgi Dimitrov’s journal (source: Corinth Publishing House)

Subscribe to the channel of the blog “The Bridge of Friendship” in YouTube, where a number of video and audio interviews are published! The blog can also be followed in Facebook and Twitter. Its Telegram channel is here. And here is its Substack account.

About Author