Why didn't Bulgaria defend itself in 1944?

[Ripsitipsi]

I find this kind of baffling.
Bulgaria had proven an impressive minor power in WW1. They had held the southern front largely alone for 3 years and won most of the engagements against the allies. Even when they gave up it wasn't due to their army collapsing, but a due to a political an economic crisis.
In WW2 they did not send their soldiers to be slaughtered on the eastern front like Romania and Hungary did. When the Red Army arrived at their border their army was intact, they had just received a batch of anti-tank weapons from Germany, they had a very defendable terrain with rivers and mountains - and yet they folded without putting up a fight. Why?
Surely they could've held back the Russians at least for a time and maybe gotten a separate peace like Finland and kept their independence at least.
Instead they chose to immediately give up, become a complete Soviet puppet and send their boys to die against the Germans instead.

[Art]

In September 1944 the Bulgarian government collapsed when it didn't side with the Allies energetically enough, that's speaks enough about feasibility of fighting against the Allies. In any case none of the rapidly changing governments had a desire to fight a lost war for no gains.

[Trexmaster]

I find this kind of baffling.
Bulgaria had proven an impressive minor power in WW1. They had held the southern front largely alone for 3 years and won most of the engagements against the allies. Even when they gave up it wasn't due to their army collapsing, but a due to a political an economic crisis.
In WW2 they did not send their soldiers to be slaughtered on the eastern front like Romania and Hungary did. When the Red Army arrived at their border their army was intact, they had just received a batch of anti-tank weapons from Germany, they had a very defendable terrain with rivers and mountains - and yet they folded without putting up a fight. Why?

Bulgaria, de jure, was an Axis member. It became an Axis member after some negotiations with the Nazi government, receiving back part of Dobruja & other concessions which you've mentioned.
Bulgaria, de facto, was an Allied-sympathetic country, with a one-sided emphasis on the Soviet Union, respectively top-down russophilia. What Latvians were during the Russian Civil War for the Bolsheviks, Bulgarians were for the Soviet Union during and after WWII.

Surely they could've held back the Russians at least for a time and maybe gotten a separate peace like Finland and kept their independence at least.
Instead they chose to immediately give up, become a complete Soviet puppet and send their boys to die against the Germans instead.

The ruling aristocracy, with whatever semblance of liberal or democratic circles that existed, paled in comparison with the vast majority of people that were either pro-socialist/communist, pro-russian, or pro-slavic. All three were concentrated with siding with the Soviet Union, in their hearts & minds. During the Cold War, Bulgaria actively tried to become part of the Union's Soviet Socialist Republics. The russians found it more lucrative to have them as a proxy, as unofficial soviet republic. For all intents & purpose, the Bulgarian people didn't see a problem, with this.

There's a statue in Plovdiv that glorifies the casualties during the Red Army's march into Bulgaria, during the Communist seizure of power & after establishing a new government. There's one problem: no Soviet soldier died in Bulgaria, fighting anything relating to the Axis.
Instead, Bulgarians chose to do the fighting themselves against themselves.

If you really want to get technical in details, the only Red Army soldiers that died in Bulgaria were the usual Soviet marauders: thieves, rapists, harassers, murderers. They died by execution orders at their immediate commanders' behest.

[dibo]

I find this kind of baffling.
Bulgaria had proven an impressive minor power in WW1. They had held the southern front largely alone for 3 years and won most of the engagements against the allies. Even when they gave up it wasn't due to their army collapsing, but a due to a political an economic crisis.
In WW2 they did not send their soldiers to be slaughtered on the eastern front like Romania and Hungary did. When the Red Army arrived at their border their army was intact, they had just received a batch of anti-tank weapons from Germany, they had a very defendable terrain with rivers and mountains - and yet they folded without putting up a fight. Why?
Surely they could've held back the Russians at least for a time and maybe gotten a separate peace like Finland and kept their independence at least.
Instead they chose to immediately give up, become a complete Soviet puppet and send their boys to die against the Germans instead.

You are forgetting that the intact and large Turkish army was also present and they have officially broken diplomatic relations with Germany on 02.08.1944 :roll: (although war was declared only in 02.1945) The whole Soviet 37 army was left facing Turkey in late 1944 to guard against possible incursions.

[GUYMAN]

Excellent point about the Turkish army dibo.
I'm very interested in Bulgarian military history - is there any way we could correspond directly - either here or via E-Mail, etc?