“To appeal to Romanians’ national pride and lend credibility to their new regime, the neo-communists hailed the Romanian Revolution as ‘the first revolution broadcast live on television.’ Post-communist myths are deeply rooted in the cultural memory of Romanian society, as their origins can be traced to the nineteenth century, the era of the national paradigm’s construction.”
A book on the place of myths in the memory politics in a number of East-European countries.
“The low presence of women in all political structures during the last twenty-five years in Romania can be attributed to the post-communist propaganda that demonized women’s presence in politics based on a mythology that women in the communist-era leadership were numerous and incompetent.”
The biography of Miron Constantinescu, a key figure of the communist regime, idealizes his underground activism with its repercussions, the prison sentence. “There is nothing heroic in these histories. It is only the story of a sect with few adherents, some of whom were socially marginalized, or intellectually mediocre, and sometimes prone to betray their comrades.”
“The myth of Alba Iulia was used to develop a new, organic, and transcendent concept of the nation, with the Transylvanian Iuliu Maniu, the ‘hero’ of Alba Iulia, as its destined leader. The myth had a powerful simplifying role and was modulated by a drive to manufacture ideological legitimization.”
“Bessarabians perceived the Romanians of the Kingdom as ‘Moldavians, mixed with Hungarians and Bulgarians, who speak a corrupted language’ and have a king of ‘foreign faith’.”
“Eminescu’s confidence in the civilizing mission of the Romanian nation-state in the region remained unshaken. ‘The nine million Romanians have assembled over the centuries more numerous and more beautiful treasures than ninety million Russians will ever be able to assemble’.”
“Iorga might seem to be the exact opposite of Eminescu in terms of his position within the Romanian intellectual establishment and national discourse.”
The works of three Romanian intellectuals and publicists of Bessarabian origin who articulated different visions of Bessarabia are discussed: Bogdan P. Hasdeu, Constantin Stere, and Dimitrie C. Moruzi.
“Russian and Romanian intellectuals and elites engaged in symbolic competition over Bessarabia without eliciting any significant responses from the region itself. The Bessarabian intellectual stratum was negligible before the early twentieth century.”
Titles from the backlist, contemporary topics on top, older themes below.
“The dominant approach to Romanian populism treats it as a pathology inherent to democratic transitions, a position grounded on a sharp distinction between reasonable forms of democracy and its degeneration. A second strategy treats populism rather as a symptom, that is, a marker for other democratic difficulties and complexity, treating populism in Romania as a proxy, or a substitute, for radical politics within democracy.”
The past twenty-five years of east-central Europe are explored in a collective volume in the perspective of intellectual history.
“Due to their shallow and erratic adherence to political ideologies, most Romanian political parties devolved, without difficulty, their political identity towards a strong populist mode. A constant type of populism since the early 1990s is a notable combination of hopes of technocratic governance and the eternal return of anti-corruption crusades.”
“The Romanian example shows how demanding the implementation of the complete acquis communautaire is and what enormous efforts were required by legislators, who, during the same period, also had to implement thousands of other legal acts required by the acquis.”
A book on the expansion and institutionalization of intellectual property norms in the twentieth century.
“What the Romanian legislators have ultimately and rather impressively achieved, certainly as the ‘law on the books,’ is a mature and modern example of copyright law, influenced in no small part by the seven EU copyright directives.”
The comparative review of the control of political parties over the media in Eastern Europe reveals that in no other EU member state does such a low share of population watch public state television as in Romania. Commercial channels of domestic media investors (“moguls, barons, oligarchs…”) dominate the market. The printed press market is both underdeveloped and “overpopulated”—no wonder that almost all newspapers have been making losses under the impact of the global economic and financial crisis. This, in spite of the nontransparent redistribution of public money through hundreds of state agencies, from local municipalities to the Romanian Railway Company. The media are therefore an easy target for political pressure. Outlets are often instruments for political advantage, are strongly polarized in political terms, although tend to switch sides every now and then.
Notwithstanding, the analysis showed definite improvement as the media policies of two successive governments were compared, Năstase’s between 2000–2004 and Popescu-Tăriceanu’s between 2004–2008.
“Romania’s post-communist wars of memory are waged by heterogeneous armies and on several fronts. Historians are just one regiment, and not even that regiment is homogenous. It includes genuine democrats who suffered under the former regime, national communists, and former Securitate informers marked by their past.”
Developments in post-communist memory politics in Romania are discussed in a comparative collection.
After 1966, “without having pronounced the words ‘Bessarabia and northern Bukovina,’ a green light had practically been given to Romanian historians to give went to what was to be turned into the dominant narrative of collective trauma.”
“Gradually the Romanian historians began to make a distinction between the Iron Guard and the regime of the marshal. The former continued to be described in largely pejorative terms and to be depicted as peripheral to Romanian society. Marshal Antonescu, however, began to be exonerated and to be depicted as a personality whose decisions were a reflection of a '“no-choice' situation imposed on him by Romania’s post-1940 international situation.”
“The late Tony Judt argued that the real test for the EU was Romania’s accession, considering its pending structural problems. The piece generated anger among Romanian intellectuals and produced reactions both pro and con. Nevertheless, one cannot deny the nature of the difficulties with which Romania is faced, among them that of an unmastered past.”
“December 1989 is still a controversial historical topic. The pace and amplitude of the events, the role played by the Army in the repression and then in the fall of Nicolae Ceaușescu, the role of the nomenklatura in forming the new power structures, the violent chaos after December 22, as well as the so-called ‘terrorists,’ who were never identified, have generated several hypotheses regarding the fall of communism in Romania.”
“One must greet President Băsescu’s political will, the first post-1989 Romanian head of state that dared to begin the vital procedure of exorcizing the communist-Securitate demons.”
“Decommunization and defascization must be inextricably linked if Romania is to participate in building a shared European memory.”
“Compared with the communist regime in Romania, when the pressures from authorities was for Gypsies to declare themselves Romanians, leading to many people conforming to this request, after 1990 the official pressures was the opposite.”
A monograph about the ways the Roma are identified, classified and counted across Europe.
At the 2011 census the Roma could choose among the following 19 categories: rom, băieş, boldean, caştal, căldărar, cărămidar, cocalar, gabor, geambaş, lăieş, lăutar, pletos, rudar, spoitor, ţigan, ţigan de mătase, ursar, vătraş, and zavragiu. (The Romanian ethnic category had 7 different labels, Hungarian had 3, and German had 6.) And yet, they massively hid their Roma identity.
“We are not Roma because we don’t speak the Romani language. We speak only the Romanian language. We don’t know another language. So, why should they call us Roma? We have declared ourselves Romanians.” And: “In my identity paper it is written that I’m Romanian so Romanian I am. Roma people know the Romani language, whereas I know only the Romanian language”
“When I was back in Timişoara, sugar, butter, oil, and flour were rationed, while milk, eggs, and meat implied the same endless queues, before they would disappear altogether from Romanian stores.”—recollection from the years before 1989, alongside with a rich panoply of other remembrances of the communist era.
“Why haven’t I ever considered pursuing a career in the Securitate?”—publishing houses promoted well-written spy novels whose main characters were Securitate officers, so nice and so devoted to the fight against ‘evil’ that they rarely failed to win the sympathy of the reader.”
“Arguably, the Romanian Revolution of 1989 had three major features that made it so special in the context of the 1989 events in East-Central Europe: it occurred unexpectedly, unfolded violently, and had an ambiguous outcome.”
“The TV program Memorialul Durerii brought into everyone’s home the image of feeble old men and women—from interwar politicians to humble peasants—who spoke about their destinies being broken in the communist prisons. In contrast, and to viewers’ general astonishment, healthy-looking former torturers interviewed in the same series showed no remorse.”
The Republic of Moldova has been the par excellence place for history politics ever since its 1991 founding. In this context, discussing the holocaust in Bessarabia is gaining momentum.
"In Romania the idea of 'getting rid of the gypsies' existed ever since the deportations to Transnistria during World War II. From the point of view of the Romanian government mass Roma emigration following EU accession in 2007 serves a similar purpose."
Statements and debate between leading East European Roma activists about the fate and future of their people.
"What is needed is an effective system of public administration that works for everyone. If the Romanian social services would only function as they should by following their own regulations, this would be far more beneficial than any specific Roma strategy could be. If the government does unveil a new strategy this will probably be with the aim of attracting a few helpful headlines and will be used as a bargaining chip in the Schengen negotiations."
"Domestic violence was widespread in Romania, where men smacked their wives as a matter of course and other people ignored this, minding their own business. But in Spain when there were such incidents the police arrived and even arrested Roma husbands, causing consternation among the Roma who couldn't understand how such a thing could happen."
The analysis of the dramatic transition from communism to capitalism in rural communities is based on 54 village studies. The Romanian findings are matched against experiences in Bulgarian, Czech, Hungarian, Polish, and Slovak villages.
The irony about immediate post-socialist developments in Romania was that, while this was the country where something close to an armed insurrection had taken place, the political, economic and social change that followed was the least revolutionary. An apparently radical privatization law was passed in August 1991, but the government was reluctant to implement it, and the precise relationship between the funds involved remained opaque. In addition, the post-socialist impotence of local authorities in Romania was extreme and their task enormous.
Peculiar aspects of transition: "during the transition period, when the young democracy was supposed to be built in Romania, schools and local authorities as well as non-Romani parents felt the freedom to declare that they preferred not to have their own children sit next to Romani children."
"The apple is rotten at the core. The first decade of Romania's post-1989 experience presented a striking paradox: the most abrupt break with the old order resulted in the least radical transformation." The volume on re-interpreting 1989 is the latest in the series edited by a team led by V. Tismaneanu. Another quote: "two lost decades since 1989, when pale images of economic and political pluralism have been created and the state has remained substantially unreformed and still shaped around clientelistic interests." The book matches Masterpieces of History, flagship publication of CEU Press (see excerpts at bottom).
Gorbachev to Reagan: Mr. President, you say that the English and French missiles are not defending West Germany. Well, who will defend the GDR? And Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Bulgaria? Who will defend them? That argument does not work. October, 1986
Face to face conversations of superpower leaders at the end of the Cold War on a thousand pages.
Baker to Bush: Gorbachev’s strategy of promoting the stable international environment necessary for perestroyka is threatened by the accelerating political changes now affecting every country in the region except Romania. November, 1989
Bush to Gorbachev: We don’t differ. Self-determination is a value we endorse and it is openness that permits self-determination. Western values does not mean the imposition of our system on Czechoslovakia, the GDR or Romania. December, 1989
Gorbachev to Bush: I promise you that tomorrow there will be talk of Poland’s western territories, about Transylvania, Macedonia. About a million Turks live in Bulgaria. In a word, if we do not keep the issue of territorial integrity and inviolability of borders under control, chaos will break out from which we will never extricate ourselves.
When Moldovans started talking about joining Romania, the population of one-third of its territory immediately objected, they do not want to leave. July, 1991
Understanding Romania, its past and present profiles, through the interpretation of key concepts like politics, property, progress, patriotism etc. in Romanian context. Also democracy, liberalism, constitution, nation, kinship, transition and Europe.
In the Soviet bloc playwrights used the stage to voice their denunciation of the oppressive political regime by drawing from the classical plays of Shakespeare, Molière, or Chekhov. The study includes the analysis of the work of three Romanian dramatists.
Nic Ularu’s The Cherry Orchard, A Sequel enacts dramatic metamorphoses that bring to the stage the violent rise of the Bolsheviks in the early days of the Soviet Union. A politically meaningful performance to a contemporary audience by inserting in the original play the brash beginnings of communism.
Matéi Vișniec’s Richard III Will Not Take Place or Scenes from the Life of Meyerhold speak to the audience in terms of the contemporary realities that make Meyerhold, the famous theater director, the protagonist of his own tragic life and death at the hands of Stalin’s executioners.
Vlad Zografi’s Peter or The Sun Spots captures on an immediate level Tsar Peter the Great’s despotic rule and depraved behavior during his visit to France in scenes that foreshadow, on an extended level, Stalin’s autocratic system and thus suggest a direct lineage from the White to the Red tsar in modern times.
Max Herman, known as Maxy (1895-1971) was a key figure of the Romanian avant-garde, who turned his avant-garde experience into advanced propaganda. Maxy followed the requirements of Zhdanovist socialist realism yet in 1952 was “unmasked” as a “formalist deviant.” Having survived the wave of purges, Maxy consolidated his position as a leading official artist of the regime. He wanted to appear as an innovator but he wanted to appear as a professional servant of the regime.
Artistic interactions both within the Soviet bloc and with the west between 1945 and 1989 are presented and analyzes in a collective book with 35 contributors.
Richard Demarco from Edinburgh did a lot to popularize Central European modern art in the world. His exhibition, Romanian Art Today (1971) had very little to do with the context, that is, Romania of the early 1970s. The Romanian origin was the only common characteristic of all the artists. Instead of any analysis of art and the historical context of the rise of the Romanian neo-avant-garde, the critics tried to find in the works of contemporary Romanian artists some kind of national essence. The nationalization of the avant-garde was the price of its appearance in the West.
In the night of 2-3 March 1949, between two and three in the morning, all the aristocrats in Romania were roused from their beds by armed men under the command of the militia and the Securitate and loaded onto trucks. Across Romania, 2,972 families, 7,804 people in total, were taken from their palaces, country houses and agricultural properties. The collective trauma of 3 March swept away the differences in wealth and status between nobles, leaving only naked human beings.
The Dutch author talked to survivors of the destruction under Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej and the psychological terror of Nicolae Ceaușescu as he was tracing the history of the Transylvanian aristocracy. He browsed old family albums and listened to commentaries to the photos, inserting them into the text together with pictures taken by himself.
“Four-fifths of the aristocracy lives abroad and will never come back. In those families the third generation no longer speaks the language.” Scholten reports about some of the few who try to recommence with the property returned in the frame of the remarkably farreaching restitution laws: houses, agricultural land, forests, shops, offices, banks, businesses and castles.
“As a general principle, many people not just in Romania but in all of Eastern Europe became informers because they had friends and families whom they wanted to protect. That is, they became informers because they were deeply embedded in social ties.”
The operation of the communist secret police is analyzed with the eyes of the ethnographer, herself a former target person.
“If the candidate agreed to become an informer, he would spend several months in a ‘novice’ status, during which he was trained in tactics, the kinds of observation and analysis his officer required, how to write reports, and so forth. He would then be invited to full informer status—an occasion that might be marked by a festive air, the officer and his superior wearing suits and ties, and serving coffee, food, and cognac. The candidate would write out his pledge to serve the organization in secret; then followed the ‘baptism,’ in which—very much as in secret societies the world over—the initiate would either choose or be given a new name”.
“I slipped her an envelope containing 500 dollars under the Athenee cafe’s marble topped table—recalls the reporter of the New York Times in his memoirs —and asked if she would consider emigrating to Israel. In those days Romania was selling its remaining Jews, some 250,000, to Israel, for cash and for Jaffa oranges—the equivalent of about 4,000 dollars each”.
“Ceauşescu, barely five feet three inches tall, entered from another door, greeted me with a soft handshake and gestured for us to sit down—he in the middle and me to his right. He then proceeded to read my heavily edited questions and his very stilted responses”.
“What I learned over the three decades filled me with awe and delight in the unique examples of beauty created by Romanians in music, art, architecture, poetry, prose, and philosophy. I also became acquainted with the many horrors and the few good moments of their political history. I even learned a little Romanian”.
The book that reassesses the effects of 1968 is particularly rich about how Ceauşescu profited from the wave of global revolt (including from hosting de Gaulle in May ’68).
A Bucharest-born Romanian-Briton was behind the huge book distribution program of the CIA that spanned 35 cold-war years, reached hundreds of thousand East-Europeans and involved a broad network of institutional and private supporters in the west. Ironically, there was a period around 1970 when the program met the least difficulties in Romania from all communist countries. Nevertheless even in this "liberal" early Ceauşescu era fewer Romanians had a chance to travel than others in the bloc.
"Your Majesty knows that the Romanian National Committee unfortunately has to seek not only the moral and political support of the Free Europe Committee but also its material support." - to Michael I from former foreign minister Vişoianu, president of the Romanian National Committee in exile. Austerity emerged also in 1957 (quoting Vişoianu again): "It is indeed a new American policy, which stems from the President's [Eisenhower] sick fear of war and from his illusions that one can reach an agreement with Soviet Russia. Our budgets have been cut significantly. The Voice of America as well as Radio Free Europe have been transformed into neutered stations. None of them is allowed to attack the Communist regimes in our countries anymore or to upset Khrushchev in any way."
How the US government sponsored political movements against communism during the Cold War: the essays are based extensively on the archival records of Radio Free Europe.
Essays reach back to the expansion of Stalinism in east Europe.
The collectivization of agriculture in Romania was one of the longest and most arduous campaigns of social engineering in the countryside launched in post-1945 Eastern Europe, involving a war against the peasantry lasting more than 13 years. Collectivization served not only as a main form of “class struggle” in the countryside, but also as an instrument of repression against certain ethnic or religious groups.
Based on a wealth of archival materials, a critical overview of the main stages and features of the process of collectivization in Romania, comparing it with similar campaigns that took place in the former Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe. Resistance and repressions are also discussed.
“Hătcărău commune: on August 30, 1944, Russian soldiers took two barrels of wine from Simion Banu and sacks full of oats from Constantin Cristea. The nun N.N. was raped. Ciorani commune: resident Mihalache Petre was shot dead, and afterwards 60,000 lei, a watch, and a ring were taken; 300,000 lei from Chirilă Chiriţa; 250,000 lei from Gheorghe Stănescu; 180,000 lei and a watch from Gheorghe Popescu. Adâncata commune: two horses, corn, oats, and birds from Ion Gheorghiu.” (Reports of the Romanian General Inspectorate of the Gendarmerie.)
This documentary collection on the Soviet occupation of Romania, Hungary, and Austria is the result of an academic collaboration between many historians from these three countries.
“The Allied Control Commission cannot help but note completely unsatisfactory progress in implementing the armistice agreement, which can be explained by a lack of desire and goodwill on the part of the Romanian government to assure fulfillment of the armistice clauses by Romanian authorities. Thus far, not all German and Hungarian subjects living on Romanian territory have been interned…” (Vinogradov to Sănătescu, November 1944)
“Between 1940 and 1944, during Hungarian rule, Northern Transylvanian Jewry were exposed to several waves of atrocities: firstly, to expulsion and deportation to Galicia; secondly, to the ‘Holocaust by bullets’; thirdly, to extermination by work, hunger, and disease during the forced labor service; and, finally, to the mass deportation to Auschwitz and the almost total destruction in German Nazi camps.”
The book presents the newest trends in the study of the Shoah in Hungary, and prevailing aspects of Holocaust remembrance.
“Romanian policy-makers prioritized the economic exploitation of the Jewish communities and the utilization of the expertise of Jewish intellectuals and skilled workers for the economy. A Decree Law in 1940 excluded all Jews from armed service, but also stipulated that Jewish experts could be employed by the Ministry of Defense, were allowed to wear the uniform and should be paid regular fees.”
“More than three-quarters—125,000 to 130,000 members—of the Jewish community of Northern Transylvania perished during the Holocaust, while the losses among the Southern Transylvanian Jewry were around 1,000 people out of a total of 42,000.”
Why did the Transylvanian Saxons turn to eugenics as a means of self-empowerment in inter-war Romania? This monograph examines the conceptual and methodological evolution of the eugenic movement during this turbulent period.
“In contrast to most other German minorities in Romania, the roughly 250,000 Saxons had a firmly entrenched sense of national identity, strong urban and rural economies, established parliamentary and local political traditions, and a virtually omnipresent national Protestant church hierarchy, entrusted with the Saxon school system. Despite adamant assurances by its elites that these pillars of Saxon identity were historical fixtures, the realities of the geopolitical storm gathering over Europe; the flurry of new ideas on nationhood and race; and the growing pressures exerted by an increasingly nationalist Romanian nation-building project wreaked havoc on the Saxon economic, social, and political life.”
The Saxon case-study offers valuable insights into why an ethnic minority would seek to re-entrench itself behind the race-hygienic walls of a "eugenic fortress.”
“Ironically, the rebellion in the Peloponnese in 1821 also ended the ascendancy of the Phanariot elite that had until then acted not only as an agent of Hellenization for their Orthodox retinues of humble Bulgarian, Albanian, Vlach, and Romanian origins, but also mediated their integration into Ottoman governance, creating a significant class of Orthodox Christians who had a stake in the legitimacy of Ottoman imperial rule.”
By exploring the development of ethnic diversity and national tensions, the contributors to this volume challenge the readers to engage in a new way of thinking about the region and Balkan studies.
“Demographers continued the Ottoman practice of placing all Orthodox Christians into one group and counted Bulgarians, Greeks, Romanians, Serbs, and Gagauz together as part of the Orthodox Christian religion, regardless of which Orthodox Church they followed.”
“In 1989 Michael Sharif found ‘xenophobic communism’ to be a defining feature of Ceauşescu’s Romania, Zhivkov’s Bulgaria, and increasingly Milosevic’s Serbia.”
“In Epirus, those Aromanian speakers that did not leave for Romania are Greek identified, and it is rare to find anyone under forty who is an active speaker of Aromanian.”
Nicolae Iorga (1903), Aurel Constantin Popovici (1908), Mircea Eliade (1927), Nichifor Crainic (1935), Lucian Blaga (1936), and Emil Cioran (1936). Some of the best known names of Romanian intellectual legacy appear with short biography, succinct presentation and a specimen from a work that fits best into the subject of “anti-modernism.” This is the title of the concluding volume of the grand CEU Press undertaking of Discourses of Collective Identity in Central and Southeast Europe 1770–1945, a challenging comparative collection of essential primary sources, accompanied by introductory essays and contextual analyses.
In the first four volumes Romanians are represented by the Supplex Libellus Valachorum (1791), Maior (1812), Golescu (1826), Kogălniceanu (1843), Bălcescu (1850), Brătianu (1853), Russo (1855), Bărnuţiu (1867), Maiorescu (1868), Budai-Deleanu (1875), Eminescu (1881), Caragiale (1893), Râmniceanu (1903), Popovici (1906), Ibrăileanu (1909), Dobrogeanu-Gherea (1910), Lovinescu (1924), Boilă (1931), and Gusti (1937).
“As an ethnographer, I was in contact at this time with Iorga and Murgoci’s Institutul Balkanic in Bucharest. I gave them several manuscripts for publication.”
Besides collecting material for his scholarly work in Paleontology, Geology and Albanian Ethnography, the eccentric Transylvanian Baron was keen about other political developments.
“I was concerned about the Romanian question in Transylvania. The Romanians who lived there told me quite openly that they were waiting for the death of Emperor Franz Josef to rise up against the Hungarians as they were confident that, when Franz Ferdinand took the throne, they would no longer have to fear the army since Franz Ferdinand was a good friend of the Romanians and Aurel Vlad.”
Christ said: "Get back, nâjit, and go into the deserted forests and go into the horns of the stags and of the rams and stay there till the sky and the earth pass away. Fear the Lord who sits on the Judgement throne of the entire world and may this serve you as an order, beginning of the beginnings and of all the diseases, and get out of the servant of God Dimitrie, of his head, of his nostrils, of the crown of his head, of his eyes, of his teeth, of his ears and of all his joints".
In contemporary Romanian, the word nâjit is used mainly in popular language. Its principal meaning is that of disease. Scholars trace back this Romanian folk charm, which has its Slavic and Greek counterparts, to an antique prototype involving Artemis of Ephesos. Essays analyze and compare popular healing texts and other forms of verbal magic in all corners of Europe from the Atlantic to the Ural.
The book on the deeds and vicissitudes of Jesuit communities spans as far as Cluj, Alba Iulia and other places in Transylvania and Moldavia. A quote from the book: “The accomplishments of Jesuit historians active in the Habsburg region were largely oblivious to the Romanian Orthodox cultural tradition. Moreover the engagement of Jesuits with Eastern Rite Christianity is similarly devoid of a significantly spiritual element.”
* * *
Earlier items on the back list of the Central European University Press include monographs fully or partly on Romania:
- History and myth in Romanian consciousness has been a genuine international success;
- Similar in subject and impact to the previous is the one on Transylvanian identity;
- The history of Gypsies in Romania is an important reading in the context of European integration;
- A comprehensive description of the painful process of agricultural collectivization in Romania; the richly documented (also illustrated) volume acquaints the international academic community with this chapter of 20 th century European history;
- A unique account of an intellectual in Ceauşescu’s Romania;
- An essay on the role of aesthetic imaginationin human society;
- An account about the transformation of Romanian countryside focuses on two villages in Muntenia: Ceauşescu’s birthplace and a village that tried to resist communism;
- The comparative analysis of the restitution of confiscated property after the fall of the communist regime in eastern Europe;
- Together with twenty-eight more post-communist transition countries, the political and economic performance of Romania is also examined as part of a search of varieties of transition models;
- A member of the European Parliament, former Romanian minister ponders about which way capitalism goes;
- And which way go universities? This is the subject of the Bucharest sociologist’s book.
A great many other CEU Press books abound in references to Romanian history and culture.
- The Gesta Hungarorum of Anonymus, familiar to Romanian historians for long, is available now in a Latin-English bilingual publication;
- The volume that presents excerpts from east European travel writings contains the following Romanian authors: N. Soutzo and D. Golescu from the 1820s, followed by Kogălniceanu and Iorga, early 20 th century pieces from by N. Mihăescu-Nigrim, M. Sebastian and C. Petrescu, ending up with T. Mazilu from 1973. Iorga’s and Sebastian’s writings are analyzed in the collection of essays on travel writing;
- A highly successful biographical reference book contains entries on the following Romanians: M. Baiulescu, C. Botez, Princess A. Cantacuzino, E. Djionat, E. Gjika, (Dora d’Istria), E. Meissner, S. Nădejde, E. Negruzzi, E. de Reuss Ianculescu, A. Voinescu, and A. Xenopol;
- Expressions of Lutheran identity of the Saxon community in Transylvania;
- The comparative study of liberal nationalism in eastern Europe includes also the Romanian varieties;
- The intellectual history of early emergence of socialism, along with Balkanic neighbours;
- The Legion of the Archangel Michael is discussed in the book on ideologies and identities; The sensitive issues of prostitution and anti-semitism in Romania are explored in the not much less sensitive context of eugenics and racial nationalism in their historic survey in eastern Europe;
- How new churches were built in communist Romania;
- A seminal volume on the 1989 revolutions;
- On the reorganization of Romanian police;
- How did the East-European mindset adapt to capitalism? The comparative analysis of eight countries, Romania being very much in focus;
- A critical analysis of post-communist Romanian historiography, and its museums, memorials and monuments;
- The communist past evoked by Pişcu and Chifu.
Excerpts from Masterpieces of History:
Document No. 8: Transcript of CC CPSU Politburo Session, November 13, 1986, On the results of the meeting between leaders of the fraternal parties of the socialist CMEA member-states
Gorbachev: Ceauşescu kept repeating his own thing, and worse than before, especially on international issues. He spoke excessively, with much demagoguery. For example: “we should speak about communism in a tactical sense, and our strategy is—‘Toward Communism’!” He cast a shadow over perestroika with these words. And—”What is the point of going through perestroika? In Romania we went through it a long time ago!” It’s as if he should get a decoration for democracy, while Romania is really under a Ceauşescu dictatorship. […] He is for “socialism by inheritance,” for a “dynastic socialism.” He said: “there is no need for new forms of collaboration, but Romania will not be against using the new forms.”
Document No. 13: Report on Mikhail Gorbachev’s Visit to Romania June 4, 1987
When Ceauşescu and I went out to the people, their reaction was like a wound-up music box: “Ceauşescu—Gorbachev!” “Ceauşescu— peace!” When I came closer to the people I would ask them: do you know any other words?
Document No. 42: Memorandum from the Bogomolov Institute, "Changes in Eastern Europe and their Impact on the USSR," February 1989
In Romania "the regime still has not exhausted its resources and has recently been accumulating the experience of combined repressive measures and social maneuvering to maintain social stability."
Document No. 67: Record of Third Conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and Helmut Kohl, June 14, 1989
Kohl: Of all the socialist countries, we have the most hopeless relations with Romania. There is no movement at all; just complete darkness and stagnation. I do not understand Ceauşescu. How does he not see what a ridiculous cult he has created in his own country? I cannot believe that he can seriously think he has made the Romanians the happiest people on Earth.
Document No. 117: Memorandum from the CC CPSU International Department, “Towards a New Concept of Relations between the USSR and the States of Central and Eastern Europe”, January 5, 1990
Multiple Soviet delegations in the states of Eastern Europe failed to forecast events, even in the short run, and failed to direct the actions of Soviet diplomacy into the correct channel. Our policy in Romania provides the most stunning example of this.
A series of erroneous foreign policy actions took place in an outdated spirit of loyalty to a narrow group of party leaders. The most serious errors: a visit by M.S. Gorbachev to Romania (1989), awarding N. Ceauşescu with the order of Lenin and sending a very high-ranking party delegation to the last Congress of the RCP.