COURAGE

prepájame zbierky

This document is a copy of a memorandum written by Gheorghe Ghimpu at the end of 1971 and addressed to Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty. This thirteen-page typed text is part of volume 10 of the Usatiuc–Ghimpu–Graur file stored at the SIS Archive . The version preserved in this archive represents a literal Russian translation of a handwritten Romanian-language document. The Romanian version was copied by Valeriu Graur from the initial typed draft of the memorandum authored by Gheorghe Ghimpu. The handwritten Romanian text, confiscated from Graur’s apartment, constituted one of the main pieces of evidence during the trial. This text was to be smuggled by Graur to Romania and subsequently sent to the RFE/RL headquarters in Munich (by clandestine means), but Graur’s arrest hampered this. The document synthesises the main arguments and views of the members of the National Patriotic Front. The text begins by deploring the fate of the “ancient Romanian lands” of Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina and Transnistria under the “most cruel and despotic tyranny” of the Soviet regime. This regime is accused of “chauvinism” and of large-scale repressive policies in the post-war period. The author acknowledges that during the 1960s the situation had improved and that the Moldavian population had more opportunities to receive a better education. However, the MSSR’s position within the USSR is described as that of a “colony of the Russian Empire” (the anti-imperialist rhetoric is pervasive). The document then presents and purports to analyse various strategies used by the Soviet regime to Russify and “de-nationalise” the local Romanian-speaking population. Aside from mentioning the isolation of the USSR Romanians from Romania proper and the attempt to create a separate linguistically based Moldavian national identity, the author points to several other concrete manifestations of the Russification policy, e.g.: 1) the attempt to further assimilate the local population by appointing to leading and managerial positions Russian speakers or Russified Moldavians, who were in reaction labelled ”outsiders” (venetici) or Russian collaborators, and who consolidated the colonial relationship between Soviet Moldavia and the Russian centre; 2) the ”expulsion” of the Romanians to Siberia’s ”virgin lands” and their replacement by a wave of Slavic migrants, 3) compulsory service in the Soviet army; 4) the encouragement of mixed marriages; 5) the ubiquitous use of Russian as a state language (despite the provisions of the Soviet Constitution) and the marginalisation of Romanian; 6) the Russification of education at all levels; 7) the purposeful Russification of proper names (both family names and geographic locations). The author further argues that the Romanian population has not accepted the policies of the “Russian colonisers,” and invokes a number of individual examples of resistance, mainly from intellectual circles. Although stating that the “struggle will continue,” the text concludes on a rather pessimistic note, emphasising that the Romanians of the MSSR are isolated and ignored by the wider world due to the Russification policies pursued by the regime. The dominant nationalistic language and overtones, which are probably inspired from the interwar rhetoric specific to Greater Romania, make this document one of the most eloquent examples of Moldovan national opposition in the Soviet period. The attention given to the cultural sphere is especially revealing. It is worth mentioning that Graur reconstructed a version of this document from memory, so it was thus able finally to reach its destination ten years later, in 1982, when it was broadcast by Radio Free Europe. 

The Bogdan Radica’s letter to Franjo Tuđman is an example of his correspondence covering the period from the 1960s to the late 1980s. Their corresponding was very difficult, so Tuđman sent the letters to Radica in the USA through a confidant-intermediary. Radica first communicated Tuđman that he had to go to the Hoover Institute at Stanford University to read his book Uzroci krize monarhističke Jugoslavije od ujedinjenja do sloma (Causes of the Monarchist Yugoslavia Crisis - From Unification to Breakdown) (Zagreb: doctoral thesis, 1965) printed in two volumes in 1965. He wanted the book to be published in English. In his opinion, as a Croatian Marxist, Tuđman was to assume the role that Đilas and Mihajlov had prior to him. According to Radica, the importance of Tuđman's dissident work is that he pays attention to the question of Croatian statehood. Due to the need for secrecy, without mentioning the place of his summer residence (close to Ulivello, a village in Toscana, Italy where Radica spent his summer months), Radica informed Tuđman where they were to clandestinely meet. The letter is a testimony to the secrecy of their meetings. 

In the same letter, Radica was interested in Tuđman’s interviews by the European media such as the Italian newspaper Il tempo (The Time) and the Swedish National Television. They also discussed the possibility of translating Tuđman’s book National question in contemporary Europe and publish it in English so the world knows about the issue of endeavours in establishing Croatian statehood under the Yugoslav communist dictatorship. Radica asked a publishing house in New York to print Tuđman’s book. The publishing house was Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, whose owner was William Jovanovich, an American businessman with Serbian origins. All of Milovan Đilas’ books were published in English by the Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich publishing house. However, in the end, Jovanovich rejected Radica's suggestion and his publishing house never printed the book.

Milovan Đilas’ letter to Bogdan Radica was written in 1967 in Belgrade after Đilas had been released from prison. It was Đilas responding to Radica’s letter on 16 January 1967. The reason for this letter was Đilas' book titled Petar Petrović Njegoš: Poet, Prince, and Bishop published in 1966, in the USA. Their correspondence started after Radica had written about the life of Milovan Đilas and his conversion from a rigid communist to a dissenter. In the letter the first Yugoslav dissenter Milovan Đilas wrote to Bogdan Radica on matters relating to Croatian-Serbian relations, the question of Yugoslavia’s existence and the literary works of Petar Petrović Njegoš. Radica wrote about Đilas in a series of essays and articles in the American reviews and newspapers, more importantly, the article "The Idealism of Milovan Djilas" issued in 1963 in the review The Commentary.

Mircea Eliade and Emil Cioran had a long correspondence during the 1930s, which represents a valuable source of information for the cultural history of interwar Romania. The Aurel & Emil Cioran Collection contains a significant part of this correspondence. Some of the letters – such as the one presented here – reflect the attraction exerted among young intellectuals by the far-right ideology of the Legion of the Archangel Michael. The preservation of this correspondence by Cioran family involved significant political risks during the first two decades of the communist regime in Romania due to the fact that most of the cultural personalities with which Emil Cioran exchanged letters, such as Mircea Eliade, Constantin Noica, and Mircea Vulcănescu were censored during the 1950s.
In the first part of the letter, Mircea Eliade writes to his friend about the details of the editing process of Cioran’s book Schimbarea la faţa a României (The Transfiguration of Romania). This book, published in 1936 at Vremea Publishing House in Bucharest, is the most controversial among Cioran’s works due to the radical political ideas expressed in it, especially its anti-Semitism. Mircea Eliade expresses an ambivalent attitude towards Cioran’s book. On the one hand, Eliade criticises the pessimistic tone of the book and its criticism of Romanian peasant culture. On the other hand, taking into account Eliade’s involvement in the Legionary Movement, it is not surprising that he highly appreciates some of the most radical chapters of the book, such as the one dealing with the Jewish minority in the country. The letter illustrates the extent to which culture and politics were intertwined in interwar Romania, particularly during the 1930s, when many prominent young intellectuals adhered to the far-right ideology of the Legion. The main explanation resides in the cultural fashion prevailing in Romania during 1930s. Anti-rationalism, virulent nationalism, and the critique of the democratic regime became widespread among young Romanian intellectuals (Ornea 1996, 27–55). Rampant corruption and the “intellectual unemployment” of the young generation of Romanian intellectuals were favourable factors (Sdrobiş 2015, 175–181, 189–193).