Radio România Internațional

Tag: Romanian history

  • The Trans-Dniestr War

    The Trans-Dniestr War

    The reforms initiated by the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, known as perestroika and glasnost, in mid 1980s, have been to no avail for the Soviet Union. Its collapse in 1991 confirmed the bankruptcy of the system set up in 1917 following Lenins Bolshevik revolution. But the collapse of the Soviet Union has left room for armed conflicts. These conflicts were actually frozen or postponed although the Communist regime had intimated that brutal intervention had done away with the likelihood of conflicts being solved by armed intervention.



    The demise of the old Soviet system also meant rethinking the way in which Russia, the former USSRs successor, could maintain its leverage on the former Soviet republics. One of the methods was to encourage separatist movements. The first on the Kremlins list were Georgia and Moldova, Ukraine being considered still a faithful state to Moscow. As early as 1990, the self-styled republics of South Ossetia and Abhazia proclaimed their independence from Georgia while in Moldova there emerged the Trans-Dniester republic or Transdniester and Gagauzia.



    The proclamation of the Moldovan republic of Dniester on September 1990 after the Republic of Moldova had proclaimed its sovereignty on June 23rd 1990 opened the path for separatist movements. According to the 1989 census, in Trans-Dniester there lived 39.9% Moldovans, 28.3% Ukrainians, 25.4% Russians and 1.9% Bulgarians. After Moldova became a UN member state, on March 2nd 1992, the Moldovan president Mircea Snegur authorized the military intervention against the rebel forces, after they had attacked police stations loyal to Chisinau on the eastern bank of the Dniester river and in Tiraspol. The rebels, backed by the Soviet troops of the 14th army, consolidated their control on a large part of the disputed region. The outnumbered Moldovan army has never been able to regain control over Transniestr, despite mediations in the past 25 years.



    Mircea Druc was the Prime Minister of the Republic of Moldova between May 25th 1990 and May 28th 1991. When the conflict broke out, he was one of the leaders of the opposition Christian – Democratic Popular Front, in the opposition. In his opinion, the war in Transdniestr could not have been avoided:



    I believe that the Russian – Romanian war on the Dniestr in 1992 was impossible to avoid, no matter how hard we would try now to put the blame on one party or another. The misfortune, for Besserabians and for those living on the left bank of Dniestr, was that the arsenals and the warehouses of weapons evacuated by the Soviet army from the countries of the former socialist camp had been left across the Dniestr. So, the place was full of armament from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria. The armament there was worth over 4 billion dollars. In 1989 and 1990, with Gorbachevs perestroika in full swing, the conflict between Tiraspol and Chisinau started, as Tiraspol, alongside other anti-Gorbachev and anti-perestroika forces could not admit that the Soviet Union was falling apart. They refused the simple truth that all empires disappear sooner of later. Until August 1991 they kept hoping they could save the Soviet Union. But all their hopes were scattered on December 5th 1991, when the presidents of Russia, Byelorussia and Ukraine signed the document that made the USSRs dismantling official. According to Mircea Druc, the war also had a strong economic motivation that was as important as the geo-strategic one. Mircea Druc:



    “And then, something quite predictable happened. The interest groups in Chisinau were facing the dilemma of how to divide the Soviet heritage, the earnings of the collective farms (kolkhoz) and of the state-owned farms (sovkhoz) for which people living between rivers Niester and Prut had been working so hard, for over 50 years. In Transdniester, they used to talk about it in trivial terms, saying they would not allow the stupid Moldovans and the Fascist Romanians lay their hands on the 4 billion dollars. They used to curse Boris Eltin and other Russian leaders who had decided that everything on the territory of a former Soviet socialist republic was the property of that republic. They were determined not to share anything with anyone. So they decided to resist it. If it wasnt for this money, Chisinau and Tiraspol wouldnt have fought that hard and a third force would not have stepped in. I wonder why the Soviet troops and the center did not treat us, the Romanians from Bessarabia, the same way they treated the Baltic ‘aristocrats? In my opinion, they knew Romanians from Bessarabia were very determined and that bloodshed would be inevitable. But when there was an opportunity for Snegur to be given the 4 billions, they said no. Even Eltins democrats in Moscow decided to intervene with the 14th army. Eventually we found out that the entire arsenal had been sold and that Rutkoi and Cernomardin had decided where the money should go. 23 years later, theres nothing left, nothing to be shared.



    The conflict left 600 people dead on both sides. In 1992, following a convention on the conflicts peaceful resolution, signed by the Republic of Moldova and Russia, a status-quo was decided, which in fact meant a continuation of the conflict between Chisinau and Tiraspol.



  • The Museum of History and Archaeology in Constanta

    The Museum of History and Archaeology in Constanta


    The city expansion works that began in Constanta in 1877 led to the discovery of important archaeological artifacts, which gave a boost to research into the history of this ancient city, first founded by the Greeks under the name of Tomis. Archaeological exploration gradually uncovered pottery, statues, inscriptions and coins of great importance, which first entered private collections. This was the first step towards the creation of a history and archaeology museum in Constanta. In 1878, Remus Opreanu, Dobrogeas first Romanian prefect, took the initiative to display these collections in a museum housed by the Prefecture building. At first, the small-sized objects and 15 sculptures were displayed in the prefects own office, while 27 larger pieces were exhibited along the alley in front of the building. Unfortunately, a fire destroyed the Prefecture in 1882, so the collection of the new museum had to be relocated. It therefore moved from one place to another before reaching todays headquarters in Ovid Square. The initial collection of the Museum of History and Archaeology consisted of various donations, says the director of the museum, Gabriel Custurea:



    “Among other things, the museums collection contains donations. Among the donors I would mention Mihail Sutu, one of the founders of archaeology and numismatics in Romania, an exceptional scholar who also published his works in France and Germany in the 1890s. The finds uncovered during excavations made in the Constanta port as part of the modernisation works initiated by engineer Anghel Saligny at the beginning of the 20th century are now part of the museums collection. Records point to around 30 objects discovered during these excavations. There were many people at that time who were interested in local culture and wanted to have such a museum. The collections were even hosted by the Town Hall building. The building that currently houses the museum used to function as the Town Hall, while todays exhibition rooms are the same rooms that housed the museum between 1928 and 1938. After 1938, the museum found a home in the building that today houses the citys Aquarium, on the beachfront, opposite the Casino. The museum remained there until the 1950s when it moved to the Episcopal Palace. Finally, it moved to todays headquarters in the Ovid Square in 1977.”



    A landmark of Constantas old area, Ovid Square is dominated by a statue of the Roman poet Publius Ovidius Naso, who was exiled by emperor Augustus to Tomis. The Museum of History in Constanta prepares to celebrate 2,000 years since the death of Ovid, the author of “The Letters from the Black Sea”. Some of the events will be held together with a museum from the French city of Toulouse. Gabriel Custurea tells us more:



    “Ovid spent the final 9 years of his life here, in the ancient city of Tomis, from where he sent letters to Rome describing his sad life in exile, letters which were ignored by emperor Augustus. It is believed that Ovid was buried at the gates of Tomis, in the 1st century AD, on the site of what is today Ovid Square.”



    Apart from its permanent collection found at its headquarters in Constanta, the Museum of History and Archaeology also manages other historical sites in the Constanta county, some of which are not open to the public. Gabriel Custurea:



    “These sites cannot be visited because it is very difficult to reach them. One example is a painted hypogeum tomb that can only be accessed through a narrow slope. The tomb is covered by earth, so as to be better preserved. We try to maintain a constant level of humidity and temperature. Fortunately, the nearby street is restricted to heavy vehicles, so there are no vibrations to damage the tomb. Other sites managed by the museum are the small churches in Murfatlar dug into the side of a limestone hill, so they are very fragile. Each church consists of a small room of 6-8 square metres. These sites are not open for visitors, because they are very vulnerable to variations in temperature and humidity. Unless we protect them, they will be gone. Their protection, however, involves funding that we try to secure through European projects.”



    “The Exhibit of the Month” is one of the projects initiated by the museum in an attempt to attract more visitors. One recent example was a Byzantine amphora dating from the 5th century AD found at sea at a depth of more than 100 metres.




  • Letters from the Great War

    Letters from the Great War

    The Great War shaped mankind profoundly. The conflict also brought about the largest display of human and material forces, and left behind winners and losers. The trauma was the same on both sides of the conflict, making warring factions connect and amplifying fleeting moments of humanity.



    Letters dating back to the Great War were an important source for historians to ascertain what those in the trenches felt and had to deal with. The National Military Museum in Bucharest hosts a collection of 120 such letters and postal cards, belonging to Romanian military who fought in the First World War. Historian and curator Carla Duta told use more about the feelings, sorrows and hopes of those who died for the ideals they believed in 100 years ago.



    Carla Duta: “Romanian military on the frontline more often than not wrote to their families, to their spouses, their mothers or children. One example is the collection of letters addressed by Col. Alexandru Stoenescu of infantry battalion #10 to his wife, Elena. There’s a series of 12 military post cards, each addressed to ‘Dear Lunca’ and ended with ‘I love you all so much, kisses, Alexandru’. All the 12 letters are dated 1916, at the time when the colonel was deployed on the Dobrogea frontline and was slightly wounded. I will briefly quote from these letters: ‘Dear Lunca. I am in good health, God willing. Our battalion fought well on September 6, 1916 and was awarded the daily reward. This brought great joy to my heart. In another letter I was mentioning that a bullet pierced my left ear. My wound has now almost fully healed. What’s the story with the zeppelins? Here we are under artillery fire every day. Kisses to you all, Alexandru.”



    Overwhelmed by the great hardships they underwent, soldiers on the battlefield had mixed feelings:



    Carla Duta: “The emotions, experiences and hopes of Romanian military on the frontline transpire in the letters and postcards sent to their families. They were all willing to sacrifice themselves for the Romanian ideal which animated their every action, but at the same time they were deeply concerned about their loved ones back home, who more often than not had no support and were living in dire straits. Here is an excerpt from a letter sent by Pascal Radulescu from the 1916 campaign in Flamanda: ‘I will never forget the moment when, wading through the shallow water, my machinegun broken by a bullet, I was carrying my beloved and dedicated sergeant in my arms, whose brains had been pierced by a bullet. I ordered the bugler to sound the attack and charged in, empty-handed and baffled’. The emotion in these lines, the optimism, the faith people placed in God in those times of despair, manage to reach and shake us. Quoting from another letter: ‘The Germans and Bulgarians were fleeing the battlefield, fearing the points of our bayonets. But Romanians showed no mercy for those who stayed behind’.”



    Carla Duta managed to reconstruct episodes from the war based on the letters:



    Carla Duta: “Some letters depict very impressive pictures of the war. The short format of the postcard did not allow the sender to write at great lengths. Still, the collection of letters sent by Alexandru Stoenescu depicts a few such scenes. Quoting from one of his postcards: ‘On September 6, 1916 our regiment entered the battle. I have never seen such atrocious fighting. Our regiment’s numbers were cut to half. God was kind enough to spare me though. We have 20 wounded officers and the battlefield is filled with corpses of Bulgarian soldiers. Our ferocious attacks have sapped their morale and they’re now pulling back. We’ve taken over their positions, now overrun with corpses’. Then there are letters describing scenes from the war in great detail, and the letters are thus more impressive. Here is how a military from Moldova describes an episode from 1917: ‘The Germans are having a hard time, they keep defecting to our sides. They say they have nothing to eat. As soon as they get their heads out of the trenches our soldiers grab them. A couple of shells passed over our heads just now. This is what war is like.”



    How did Romanian military see their presence on the battlefield? Carla Duta quoted a fragment from the letter of a father to his son, private Vasile Florescu. The letter is dated 1917:



    Carla Duta: “Dear son, today Mr. Niculescu brought me your letter. You will win this war, I am sure. Don’t forget who your ancestors are and make your people proud. It has fallen on you to fight so that we should keep our land, bled by the enemy occupation. Have no fear for your life, for you have pledged it to your king and country. May the thought of forging a Greater Romania lift your spirit and cast away your doubts. For dying for your country means dying a hero’s death. So discard any thoughts deterring you from the sacred cause of victory. May your actions be worthy of your words and thus you will have your father’s blessing. Your mother and brothers want to see you return victorious and pray dearly for your safety and for victory. Send my greetings to your brothers in arms and may God give you strength. Vasilica, my son, don’t ever forget that no one in your family has ever been a coward and that honour has always been our family’s motto.”



    Great victories are written in blood, there’s no denying and mail from the Great War fully confirms this indisputable truth.

  • Carol I of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, King of Romania and Bulgaria

    Carol I of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, King of Romania and Bulgaria

    South-eastern Europe in mid 19th century was in turmoil. The Balkan states were trying to get rid of the Ottoman influence and to adopt the western model of economic, political and society modernization. The anti-Ottoman reactions went hand in hand with the local rivalries generated by the idea of nationalism which each nation boasted before the great powers to show their superiority as compared to the other nations, a superiority which was only illusory. There was rapprochement between some of the nations but it eventually failed because of the complicated geopolitical games at European level. Once such failed rapprochement was that between Romania and Bulgaria, two neighbouring countries that were seeking independence.



    The historical relations between Romanians and Bulgarians had their ups and downs. The stronger Ottoman presence in the Balkans starting with the 14th century led to the instatement of the Ottoman peace, which meant control of the Crescent Moon over all the nations in south-eastern Europe. In the first half of the 19th century the Romanian elites had managed to individualize the Romanian space and give it state identity, while the Bulgarians were in full process of getting their own identity. The Bulgarians who emigrated from Romania after 1850 spread the nationalist ideas south of the Danube, in the territory occupied by the Turks, which was to become the nucleus of the future Bulgarian state. The coming to Romania’s throne of Prince Carol I of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen in 1866 brought stability to Romania and put the country on the path of modernization and Europeanization. After the Russian-Romanian-Turkish war of 1877- 1878, as a result of which Romania became independent, Carol I came to be seen as a responsible and credible sovereign.



    Romanian and Bulgaria had got closer than ever before and the 1877-1878 war was the peak of their rapprochement. It was actually the close friendship established between the Romanian army and the troopes of Bulgarian volunteers who were fighting alongside the Russians and Romanians. Many Bulgarian fighters received Romanian decorations. Besides this friendship among soldiers there was also a cultural component to the relation between Romania and Bulgaria. Historians would talk about the Romanian-Bulgarian medieval state of brothers Petru and Ioan Asan, created through the common fight of Romanians and Bulgarians against the Byzantines.



    The rapprochement between Romania and Bulgaria was also due to the mutual affection shown by Prince Carol I of Romania and the Bulgarian Prince Alexander of Battenberg. Proclaimed prince in 1879, at the age of 22, Alexander, a nephew of the Russian tsar Alexander II, was 18 years younger than Carol I. Alexander’s attempt to govern without Russia’s approval, as he had been talked into by the Bulgarian politicians, led to a crisis that removed him from the throne in 1885. It was in 1885 that the idea of a personal union between Romania and Bulgaria emerged. In June 1886 a group of Bulgarian envoys offered to Carol I of Romania the crown of Bulgaria, which meant a personal union between the two countries. The offer was very tempting, but the geopolitical reasons in the area led to the failure of that project. Historian Sorin Cristescu will speak next about the reasons why the idea of a union between Romania and Bulgaria failed:



    “There was much talk about this personal union between Romania and Bulgaria both in 1878 and in 1886 when Alexander of Battenberg was dethroned. The Russians wanted to control Bulgaria, that is why the war of 1877-1878 occurred. The Russians thought that, if at the border of Europe there was a country sympathizing with France, namely Romania, which considered itself the younger sister of France, why shouldn’t there be a country, in their neighbourhood, that could be their younger sister? The Russians’ involvement in this issue was huge. Bratianu himself realized that any acceptance by the Romanian political elite or by Carol I, any suggestion to accept the crown offered by Bulgaria, would have as a consequence Russia’s firm and categorical retort. So, the representatives of Bulgaria were sent back home. There were discussions about the personal union between the two countries but Bratianu, a cautious politician, cut the talks short.”



    The idea of the personal union between Romania and Bulgaria should be viewed in the context in which federalism was one of the most en vogue projects in the 19th century Europe. The contesters of multinational empires wondered what would have followed after their dismantling. The answer was the formation of state federations or confederations to prevent domination by one single state. The 1848 revolution had seen federalism as a regional alliance principle and a viable policy for what would have followed after the collapse of multinational empires. Consequently the failure of the Romanian- Bulgarian dynasty had two causes: the threat of a Russian invasion and the final victory of nationalism.

  • The Avram Iancu Memorial Museum

    The Avram Iancu Memorial Museum

    An outstanding leader of the Romanians in Transylvania in the 1848 revolution, Avram Iancu was born in Vidra, a village in the Apuseni Mountains of great interest in terms of ethnicity and history.



    Avram Iancu became a legendary figure in Transylvania, and in recognition of his merits and achievements, king Ferdinand set up a memorial museum in the hero’s native village. The museum was opened in 1924 in Avram Iancu’s family house and was visited by the royal family, which was on a journey through Transylvania after the province became part of Romania in 1918. The museum, which isn’t just a memorial house but also an ethnographic museum of a region with an outstanding tradition, has been there for 90 years. Let’s find out more from museographer Ionel Heller.



    Ionel Heller: “The house, which was built around 1800 by Avram Iancu’s parents Alexandru and Maria, and was also bequeathed to his children, is a peasant house with a stone foundation, walls built out of fir timber and a steep roof of shingles so that rain and snow slides off. Another building, which was erected on the premises in 1924 with help from the Sibiu-based Astra Society, is actually housing the museum, which is more of a cultural compound. The premises also include a school, a kindergarten and a church. We have there the memorial house, consisting of a living room and a guest room, a porch and a church. In the museum compound we have a history exhibition, an exhibition of ethnographic artifacts, which has on display tools used in a peasant household.”



    The section devoted to Avram Iancu as a historical figure has on view two swords that belonged to the hero.



    Ionel Heller: “This is a peasant household specific to that region, with a tall bed built in such a manner so as to preserve heat for a long time. On that bed lies a special kind of hey mattress. In front of the bed there is a baby cradle. Then there are shelves all over the place, just like in any other peasant house. In the corner of the room there is a coffer where valuables were kept, such as money and keys. Also in the corner there was a pipe and a cupboard for dishes and food. The stove that you see there was used to heat the entire room and cook meals.”



    A peasant household also included other buildings, where tools used in daily activities were kept.



    Ionel Heller: “The ethnographic section of the museum has on display folk costumes and various tools used in the weaving of cloth; one can see there a shuttle, a loom and other tools very useful in a peasant’s household. In the last room we have the replica of a cart loaded with all sorts of goods to be sold in fairs across the country. People of this area used to barter the goods they produced in their households for grain in the south of the country.”



    The museum in the Avram Iancu village, named after the hero, is more than a memorial house, and it is worth visiting by someone who wants to get a better understanding of the specificity of this region, inhabited by proud and industrious people.

  • Romanian Communists in the French Resistance

    Romanian Communists in the French Resistance

    The generation of people who fought against Fascism strongly believed in the lofty ideals of socialism and communism. Some of those ideals even had the support of decent people, who found racism outrageous. Fascist aggression throughout Europe was a strong enough reason for young left-of-center militants to mobilize against the worst evil history had ever imagined. According to internationalist Marxist-Leninist doctrine, Fascism was nothing else but the embodiment of capitalism’s most evil spirit, namely nationalism.



    For Romanian communists, the occupation of France was the sign it was high time they did something about it. Renowned Romanian-born historian Vladimir Tismaneanu, a University of Maryland professor in the United States, was born into a family with strong Marxist roots. Both parents had fought in the Spanish Civil War, where his father lost an arm in action. Vladimir Tismaneanu’s aunt used to be active in the French Resistance, and even received the highest decoration. Vladimir Tismaneanu recalled an episode of the journey his mother made to Spain in 1936, when she joined the International Brigades as a volunteer. It was the birth of the Romanian anti-Fascist resistance in the Second World War.



    Vladimir Tismaneanu: “Via France, mother headed for Spain. It was the policy of non-intervention that practically banned people from straight out joining the International Brigades in Spain. Those people’s route took them through Italy, and that’s how my father got there, or through France. Mother arrived in France, in Paris, which was the hub where the French Communist Party’s Foreign Bureau had its headquarters. At that time mother was rather naive, and let me just recall a telling episode. She set foot in Paris, where she stayed for a month, she was given a room, and she got her training. The most important man in the movement in Paris was Palmiro Togliatti, who was a representative of the Spain — Moscow — Paris axis. My mother took the train to Perpignan, and in her naiveté she saw no problem in buying a newspaper to read on the train. Imagine what newspaper she bought? Officially she was traveling as an art history student to visit monasteries. And she bought L’Humanite. It was her first big mistake, since she was traveling to Spain, speaking with a foreign accent and besides, she bought L’Humanite. There was only one person in the compartment with her, and at the end of their journey, as they were getting off, the man told her, ‘You’re going to Spain to join the International Brigades.’ She denied it, but the man told her, ‘Girl, if you do that again, make sure you don’t buy L’Humanite the next time. You just don’t strut around reading the French Communist Party’s official newspaper.’ The man was the communist elected official of the region.”



    Internationalism was the issue that caused most of the Romanian resistance fighters from France choose a side. Here is Vladimir Tismaneanu again:



    Vladimir Tismaneanu: “Worth mentioning here is the definition Stalin gave to proletarian internationalism. By definition, Marxism was an internationalist doctrine. Nationalism and Marxism are not complementary. If you’re an honest nationalist, you cannot be a Marxist, and if you are a Marxist, you cannot be a nationalist. Things are very clear in this respect. There were all sorts of alloys and alliances, that’s another kettle of fish, it’s precisely that which needs explaining. Stalin gave the definition of proletarian internationalism, the famous litmus test. The litmus test for proletarian internationalism, Stalin used to say in 1927, and that was still valid until the Soviet-Chinese conflict, was the attitude towards the Soviet Union. No one was a genuine internationalist if they questioned the validity of the Soviet Bolshevik party.“



    Olga Bancic, Cristina Luca, Mihail Florescu, Gheorghe Gaston Marin and Alexandru Jar were among some of the most active personalities of Romanian communist diaspora in France. However, there were other anti-Fascist intellectuals who took up that line. One such important person was pilot and inventor Traian Vuia. We also wanted to find out from Vladimir Tismaneanu if Traian Vuia had any ties with the French Resistance and the Romanian communists in France.



    Vladimir Tismaneanu: ”I know those ties were very strong, I know that from my aunt, I also know they met several times. Also, there was a strong connection with Elena Vacarescu, she was responsible for that connection, through writer Ilarie Voronca. The same thing happened with Elvira Popescu. We cannot deny that prominent Romanian intellectuals were leftists, and there’s another name that comes to mind, that of ballerina Lisette Codreanu, Brancusi’s friend. That was a discrepancy: intellectuals in Romania did not have any leftist leanings, yet when they arrived in Paris, they all became leftists. All of them were either leaning towards the socialist left or the communist left. Vuia had never been a communist in any way, as far as I know, but he had ties with them, he gave them money, shelter and connections in villages, he had a holiday house which was used by the Resistance. It was that kind of connections which in northern France could lead to many complications. When De Gaulle removed the communists from the government in 1946, when Thorez was a minister, the Cold War began. In 1948 and 1949, communists faced large-scale expulsion from France, and that’s when Mihai Sora returned, for instance. Some of them hadn’t managed to become French citizens.”



    Once Fascism was destroyed, those who had believed in a better world heaved a sigh of relief. They got the feeling socialism would bring salvation to mankind, and would also put an end to all suffering. But the course history took was quite different.