Home » Cultura »Opinie »Reactie rapida »Societate/Life » Citesti:

Was Romania’s Revolution a Fake?

Rupert Wolfe Murray decembrie 21, 2012 Cultura, Opinie, Reactie rapida, Societate/Life
38 comentarii 2,126 Vizualizari

On Christmas Day 1989 Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife Elena were shot by a military firing squad. Ceausescu was the last of the Central European dictators to be swept from power in that momentous year when Communism was overthrown in Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary and Poland. It was the end of the cold war.

The difference between the revolution in Romania and the other Central European countries was that it happened peacefully in the other countries. In Romania there was real chaos and thousands were killed in the crossfire.

The problem is that many Romanians today believe that their revolution wasn’t a “real” one.  They say it was a “Coup d’etat” — a seizure of power by a small clique of Communists, military leaders and KGB agents. They feel betrayed by the revolution, let down by the fact that the post-1989 governments have failed to improve the economy or lift the population out of the mire of poverty.

When I was at school in Scotland my history teacher said that the word revolution means to turn something round. The speed of a car’s engine in measured in revolutions per minute. When a country has a revolution, he said, it simply means there is a violent and chaotic change of government. That was it; no mention of things being any better, just different. I also learned that a coup d’etat is when the army seize control of the key government institutions and install a new government. The difference between a coup and a revolution is that the people are involved in a revolution — the mob — and there is a lot of chaos and uncertainty. A coup is a quick and precise seizure of power, people wake up the next day to a new government.

When I studied history at Liverpool University I read about all the destruction and chaos that had followed the French and Russian revolutions. In both countries the result of revolution was terror, dictatorship, starvation, war, poverty and many decades of political instability. (Imagine how advanced Russia would be today had it not been for their 1917 revolution.) And if we’re talking about fake revolutions, what about the English revolution of 1688? That didn’t involve the mob. It was just a backroom deal between king and parliament

There is no doubt in my mind that Romania’s change of government in 1989 was a revolution — even if it was stage managed and the mob were manipulated. It has all the ingredients of a classic revolution: a complete change of the political system; an angry mob; several days of violent chaos and uncertainty; and a shadowy clique of power brokers arguing about who will take over. They overthrew a seemingly all-powerful regime with party members, secret policemen and informers everywhere. And Romania now has a democratic system, however unsatisfactory it may be.

If I had been to school in a Communist country I would have been taught that a revolution is a new beginning, the moment when the shackles of capitalism, slavery and exploitation were thrown off and “the people” took charge of their own destiny; followed by a period of strong social and economic development. For Communists, the “revolution” is the big promise: it’s the turning point, the moment when things start to improve, a spontaneous uprising by the people. And by seizing control of the media, education (and, crucially, the teaching of history) who can argue with that?

What seems to have happened in Romania is that their so-called “intellectuals” — many of whom were educated under Communism — have decided they were betrayed by the 1989 revolution as it didn’t usher in the prosperity and stability they were expecting (Romania has been ruled by a incompetent bunch of ex-Communist crooks ever since 1989). So they want their money back and claim noisily that it wasn’t a “real” revolution. Like most ex-Communists, Romanians love a good conspiracy theory and this is the best one: the 1989 revolution was organised by shadowy local leaders hand in hand with international intelligence agencies. This explanation also enables Romanians to blame others (the plotters, the Russians) for their current ills, a bit like the Scots blame the English for all their troubles. But any psychologist can tell you that blaming others is a way of avoiding responsibility and facing up to your own problems.

I think it’s a real shame that Romanians are not proud of their great achievement in 1989. That was the year I started journalism and my first article was an interview with a Romanian exile who said there is no way that the Communist Party in her country could be overthrown. But a week later it happened. It was confusing and unsatisfactory in that the wrong people ended up in charge, but that’s not the point. They got rid of one of Europe’s worst dictators and they should be very proud of that. I certainly am.


Rupert Wolfe Murray was a journalist with Scotland on Sunday and BBC Radio Scotland in 1989. He came to Romania with The Observer Newspaper in January 1990 and made a film called After the Revolution with Laurentiu Calciu. He currently lives in Bucharest and doesn’t have a TV.

Ai informatii despre tema de mai sus? Poti contribui la o mai buna intelegere a subiectului? Scrie articolul tau si trimite-l la editor[at]contributors.ro

Citeste mai multe despre: ,

Currently there are "38 comments" on this Article:

  1. Dan spune:

    After an anti-comunist revolution one wouldn’t expect comunist reserves to rise to power.
    In most countries, immediately after 1989 they had non-comunists in power. We had comunists rule Romania for 7 years after the anti-comunist revolution.
    I would say it was a failed revolution. The revolution was in Piata Universitatii where the miners came to “restore old order” in our famous Mineriad. What a way to start a democracy…

    Perestroika was also a turning point, but you wouldn’t call it a revolution.

    • Catelu spune:

      I totally agree. The change of political system in 1989 was just a masquerade. The power remained to the same sort of people as before, and it’s been only in 2004 when it started to slip away from them as a result of pressure from UE institutions.
      The political struggle we’ve all seen during this summer is just about that: a communist dinosaur at risk to lose its power. And the bad news is we’ve lost.

  2. ex spune:

    Considering the Romania situation in 1989, that was the only way it could have happened. How can anyone think that bare-hand people could have really seized the power from the Communist party and the Security forces?

    So of course it was foreign intervention, of course the party / military elite was involved and took advantage. Unfortunately, there was no one else to do it.

  3. ex spune:

    PS: People in the street was genuine, this is what we’re proud of. But they had little part to play in the power game.

  4. dusu spune:

    Intii va multumesc!Urmaresc media online incepind din 16-17 dec cautind articole referitoare la evenimentul 89!!azi gasesc articolul unui englez!!!asta spune multe ptr acea tara.
    in fiecare an,mai apare o caramida la edificiul numit ,vad si de dvs,revolutie.de aceea le citesc.
    Oare nu avea dreptate,refugiatul acela in noiembrie89?daca sinteti la curent cu politica,ar trebui sa stiti ca aproape toti parlamentarii au fost comunisti.acum sint batrini unii si sint inlocuiti de copii lor.
    Ar trebui sa mi fie rusine ca va contrazic:nu,nu a fost revolutie.cum sa faci revolutie comunisti contra comunisti?daca atzi cauta sa vorbiti cu oameni pe care azi cred ii gasiti mai mult afara decit in ro,veti afla cum s a intimplat.16-18dec rascoala inabusita in Timisoara.21dec demonstratii impotriva comunistilor terminate cu morti in Cluj.acestea au fost adevarate.
    in buc a fost o provocare organizata chiar de comunisti si securisti.
    spuneti:´´ I read about all the destruction and chaos that had followed the French and Russian revolutions. In both countries the result of revolution was terror, dictatorship, starvation, war, poverty and many decades of political instability. (Imagine how advanced Russia would be today had it not been for their 1917 revolution.) ´´oare azi majoritatea rusilor credeti ca au aceeasi parere!!ha ha.iar daca credeti ca in ro tranzitia e benefica ptr majoritate atunci sint in totala discordanta cu dvs.

    • dusu spune:

      vreau sa accentuez,desi sintem in 21dec,anul asta e primul articol despre ´´revolutie´´!
      ce s o fi intimplat?

      • Gabi M. spune:

        @ Dusule
        Domnul Murray este scotian nu englez. Cum sa faca un “ardelean adevarat” ca dumneavoastra o asemenea greseala.
        Si de unde stiti dumneavoastra ca nu a fost revolutie? Mai pe scurt, ce au vrut romanii in 89? Sa cada Ceausescu? Sa plece comunistii? Sa trecem la o democratie liberala? Sa trecem la capitalism?

        • dusu spune:

          deci sint urmarit!!?ha ha ha.si supraveghetorii au si rol de avocati!!ha ha
          Scotia face parte din Regatul Unit!!?
          definitia revolutiei este problema stimate/a comentator.ca ce au vrut ruminii,asta puteti vedea clar si azi

          • Gabi M. spune:

            Scotia este parte componenta a Regatului Unit. In Regat traiesc mai multe grupuri etnice: englezi, scotieni, galezi, irlandezi. Intr-un cuvant puteti sa le spuneti britanici. Dar e riscant sa-i spui unui scotian ca este englez.
            Sa ne definiti si noua, cei care nu am tinut nici o carte de istorie in mana, ce este o revolutie. Eu nu inteleg cum Robespierre, Danton, Saint-Just au facut o revolutie ca sa inlature monarhia absolutista dar, paradoxal, Revolutia Franceza se termina cu instaurarea unui regim autoritar sub conducerea lui Napoleon Bonaparte.

            • dusu spune:

              Uite ca ajung sa combat precum un propagandist,ha ha:atunci poate si ardelenilor ar fi riscant sa le spuneti rumini!!?atzi putea sa le spunetzi cel mult: rumini noi!!!?
              e ultima controversa cu dvs;poate eu am lacune mari de educatie si nu am invatzat ce e aceea revolutie!!
              ptr autor,care accept ca nu vrea sa manipuleze:ar trebui sa cunoastetzi ca formarea acestui popor a inceput in 1920,iar momentul 89 a aratat inca odata(vezi 1956)diferentza culturala intre regat si Transilvania.in acel moment,chiar conducatorul revolutionarilor,tovarasul iliescu a avertizat asupra unui razboi civil.oltenii patrioti au fost dusi sute sa bata revoltatii din Timisoara.asta alaturi de militie,armata si securitate.un oras pe care mama acestui popor s a exprimat:trebuie ras de pe fatza pamintului.pe mine propaganda mincinoasa comunista cu troitze maramuresene peste tot,cu orase martir unde doar organili shi au reglat intre ele anumite conturi mafiote,o tzara unde alaturi de citziva rasculatzi(ca multzi au emigrat)exista o shleahta imensa de revolutionari certificatzi care tocmai asta vor sa demonstreze:revolutia noastra a intregului popor,doar ca impotriva conducatorului.
              s a inceput cu o perestroica si obligatzi comunistii au trebuit sa piarda dictatul,au ramas cu puterea economica care azi dicteaza politicul

        • Eneas spune:

          @mariusmioc- bietul fals scotian chiar are tupeu! argumentele logice care descriu ce s-a intimplat in 1989,numita popular Lovilutia =
          1.in orice dictionar politic , reintoarcerea la un sistem politic,social si economic anterior se numeste Contrarevolutie!
          2.conform documentelor istorice URSS infiltrasera turistii cu Lada la nivelul unei divizii,exact in zilele Lovilutiei!foarte interesanta spontaneitatea Timisoarei..))))))
          3.idealistii,profitorii,papagalii media ,cersetorii certificatelor de revolutionar au tot interesul a acrediteze Revolutia ,din pacate toata lumea occidentala stia in 1989 ca a fost o lovitura militara de stat de esenta si instigare gorbaciovisto-sovietica cu acoperire in miscari de strada *spontane* numita in dexul politic Lovilutie(vezi primele guverne 90-91, toate pline de spioni sovietici)
          4.Interesant SUA intervine militar in acele zile in Panama contra lui Noriega,mor 4000-9000 de panamezi patrioti care isi aparau tara si doreau nationalizarea canalului Panama !S-a spus atunci ca fiecare supraputere sa isi faca curat in zona de influenta ,Romania se gasea sub influenta Madagascarului ..???)))))
          5. o tara ca Romania, care are o mentalitate de colonie,va fi intotdeauna colonizata !o tara este colonie cand resursele naturale sunt exploatate de puteri straine,prin intermediul agentilor economici numiti investitori pentru acoperirea jafului ,cuvantul investitor avand un inteles financiar stimabil!
          6.clasa politica actuala,formata din tineri si batrani,femei ,rromi ,etc ,au in ADN fosta Securitate ,conform intelesului dat de Andropov transformarilor din Estul comunist
          7.cand un fals scotian isi da cu presupusul despre Lovilutia Romana , comicaria e majora,ca intotdeauna istoria este scrisa si falsificata de altii ,nu de autohtoni !

  5. Lupul Monarhist spune:

    Why it was not a Revolution (food for thought for Mr. Murray).

    We liked and some of us still like to believe it was one. As years have passed since those events I tend to believe that what happened in December 1989 was not a Revolution. Here are my arguments:

    - There was no organized political opposition to Ceausescu’s communist regime in 1989 to fight for democracy and civil rights. There was no such force to emerge as the leading political party in Romania after the fall of communism in December 1989. The second rank communists and member of the secret police invented one, called FSN, to legitimate their internal coup;
    It’s true, there were dissidents, small pockets of old politicians inside the country or abroad however, no matter how much we respect them, we must admit that their influence was insignificant and they were entirely unknown to the public. Romania was entirely isolated in the ’80s.

    - The events occurred over a 10-day timeframe, which is significantly less to time the real revolutions consumed in that past: American (8 years), French (10 years), Russian or Iranian. After 25th of December, all died-out. The new leadership of the country showed to the entire world the new face of the Romanian democracy: recycled communists that opposed any form of political opposition (liberals, christian-democrats), getting happy trigger to liquidate their former comrades following classic bolshevik techniques. That was the turning point and wake up call for many of us. The events that followed that Christmas were just a confirmation that the new political class was not favoring the law. In fact, they were fighting to acquire power as their political establishment was reshuffled by popular revolt on the streets. They did not hesitate to preserve the old mentalities, the old mechanisms that kept Ceausescu in power for 26 years. Restoration was in progress at beginning of 1990…

    - We do not know yet who killed people on the streets. Or better said who shot them? Do you believe the stories about terrorists?

    What was December 1989? I think it was a popular revolt w/o major leaders that erupted because many Romanians refused (finally!) to endure the daily humiliation of the communist regime any longer. The external factor should not be disregarded, too, all Eastern European countries were experiencing similar political events and the reds were collapsing everywhere. Unfortunately for us, the popular revolt was confiscated swiftly by communists that understood at that time that Ceausescu’s days were over. We were easy prey at that time.

    Nonetheless, December 1989 marked the end of the WWII for Romania. We won our liberty and freedom of speech. Unfortunately, the Ancien Regime left deep wounds: the way Romanians think, act, vote still. But change will come in time. What most of the people need to understand is that road to normalcy is long (maybe decades to come), especially in that part of Europe. With external support the journey is not impossible. It requires lots of patience, though.

    • andrei spune:

      Revolutions are not necessarily linked to wealth, people dying or truth. They are all about a total change of the regime. And that is what happened back in 1989, a new regime emerged. Yes, it could have been much better but, in the same time, it could have been much worst. It really does not matter. What matters is the total and sudden change of the regime and that is what happened in Romania.

      • Lupul Monarhist spune:

        No, it did not, there was no new regime….there were the 2nd rank communists and members of the Securitate that took power from Ceausescu, taking advantage by the revolt on the streets. It’s just as simple as that. No Revolution whatsoever, considering the true meaning of the word.

        • andrei spune:

          It’s easier to play the victim but just think for a moment: could we have had this discussion if no revolution took place? I doubt that very much. Even in the first days of 1990 and even when the miners come to Bucharest there was a real opposition in Romania a thing that could have not occurred during the communist regime. There was freedom of the press although not every newspaper or TV station (of course, after more have appeared) was a voice of the opposition.
          To my mind, this is revolution enough although I would have liked for more positive changes. And, by the way, maybe you have a different understanding of what a revolution is but, by the book, a revolution does not have to bring the changes everyone expects. It only has to bring significant changes.

      • Gabi M. spune:

        In Romania but also in other former communist countries, “revolution” means the transition from communism to capitalism, from totalitarianism to pluralism, from a single party system to a multi-party system. I think the Romanian Revolution lasted 15 years, from december 1989 to december 2004. The French Revolution lasted 10 years (1789-1799), so a revolution has different phases. In december 1989 was a popular uprising, but this is only the first phase of the “true Romanian Revolution”.

  6. Erasm spune:

    Clear and simple: the best article on Romanian Revolution, ever! But we, Romanians, are the most fatalist people of the World. We would never recognize that we did something good in our history. That’s it.

  7. Andrei spune:

    Nothing could really be fictional when the extras are being killed left and right. Otherwise, it would have made for a good Le Carre script, which at best ends on a sour note, if not tragic. The ultimate price for the so called “independence” vs. USSR was paid by the people in the streets. Had Romania been more integrated in the Soviet system and less of a nuisance rather than a “threat” to the Warsaw Pact, this would have ended pretty much in a way similar to the other Communist Block countries. “Thank you”, Russia House- I just wish you’d chosen to shoot this script on your own turf. Actually, I take that back, it was your turf.
    On the other hand, and not being proud of it, had we all been less permeated by the cancer of fear and repression, this could have had a better ending.

  8. Gogu Bosorogu spune:

    It was, most certainly, not a fake. But it was a bit like the first war against Sauron:
    “Fruitless did I call the victory of the Last Alliance? Not wholly so, yet it did not achieve its end. Sauron was diminished, but not destroyed. His Ring was lost but not unmade. The Dark Tower was broken, but its foundations were not removed…”
    We are proud, at least some of us, yet there is room to feel a lot more proud…

  9. Geos Costan spune:

    I am sorry, but you are wrong! 1989 was a year of revolution anywhere but in Romania. A revolution doesn’t imply violence and the mob – for example, I give you the Industrial Revolutions and even the 1688 one, mainly because there was a change and MAYBE the mob was there, but only as pawns. I don’t think you’ve learned the difference between revolution and revolt, the last one implying the involvement of the mob, but the absence of long-termed changes.

    For me, a revolution for democracy came only in 1996, for four reasons:
    1 – in 1989, people were fed up with Ceauşescu’s regime, ussually identifying it with communism, while Iliescu, trained as his succesor, came to power due to the control of the state institutions (including the media) and propaganda, miming democracy.
    2 – while in 1991 people voted a Constitution, all but a few knew what it contain.
    3 – the collapse of the Soviet Union, of the Romanian economy, together with the isolation of the country forced a political liberalisation and not the 1989 revolution.
    4 – despite the state-controled institutions, the propaganda and the fake economical improvements in Iliescu’s Romania, the people/the mob, influenced by the political force of RDC (Romanian Democratic Convention), with an elite trained even outside Romania, voted a political transfer by democratic means – the simple vote. The transfer of power and not the free elections is the real revolution, since before 1990, Romanians had the right to vote, but only one option: RCP.

    P.S.: Even if we’ve had a revolution in 1989, after 22 december, when Ceauşescu fled from power and was arrested, we can NOT speak about a revolution, because the orders were clear – pave the way for the NSF (communist to the core) to come to power.

  10. nicu spune:

    It depends from where one looks: if one looks from Ilescu’s perspective and in general from left’s perspective, it was certainly a fake. If one looks from the perspective of those genuinely involved in the anti-communist movements, it wasn’t. However it is clear that 4.5 millions Romanians and their current representatives (USL) did not wish a true Revolution but more salami. It is clear that the 4.5 millions are communists and will never change their opinion. As for the rest of the Romanians, many left, some were brainwashed by the Western and American left, many simply do not care anymore. Hard to quantify. However if the Romanian revolution became a fake that is also thanks to the Western European left. Let us not forget that it was Hans Swoboda who screamed in Bucharest: “Ponta, Ponta, Ponta” Now Western European and Romanian communists got what they wanted.

  11. dusu spune:

    Esential:Revoltatii strigau Jos comunistii! asta in zilele de 16-20dec
    Cei care au fost scosi la revolutie strigau Jos dictatorul!din 21 dec

  12. costelus spune:

    It is a real shame people still think that in 1989 there was a revolution.

    Ceausescu was not a lone dicatator, concentrating the whole power into his hand. Ceausescu was the face under which the Communist Party presented itself to the people. The Communist Party held all the power and continued to do so even today. In 1989, facing a deep economic crisis, it simply changed the face. The switch in 1989 was also beneficial for all the communist leaders in Romania: they were able to steal resources freely and become influential “capitalist” businessmen.

    For what it means a true revolution, please go and read about the French Revolution.

  13. dusu spune:

    am citit o recenzie a articolului din Huffington Post aparuta intr un ziar ruminesc:
    nu am nici pe departe competentele dvs si sigur educatia comunista pe care o am, face ca sa vad lumea diferit de un capitalist,dar am trait acele vremi:
    in romanica dizidenta era aproape inexistenta.ne era frica si sa schimbam doua vorbe in strada cu un strain.Doina Cornea a avut luni in shir(poate ani)militian la poarta,care o insotea pe femeia in virsta cind ieshea din casa.
    un alt aspect:intre un comunist si un necomunist diferenta era de morala.comunistii rumini aveau ideologia banului.sint mai mult o secta mafiota decit un partid.89 a venit din exterior,de la Gorbaciov!ceausescu a refuzat slabirea friielor.
    o banala decizie administrativa luata impotriva pastorului Tokes a produs scinteia in Timisoara.I au omorit imediat.au durat citeva zile pina citiva tineri in Cluj au strigat Jos comunistii!i au omorit imediat.in aceeasi zi dupa ora 13 au iesit si citeva grupuri de muncitori.Au omorit si atunci.
    Important:cred nimeni in aceea tara nu a crezut inainte de 16dec ca comunistii vor pune armata sa traga in ei!cind s a intimplat frica a crescut dar si ura.
    la nivelul de jos,comunistii au avut poate citeva ore de teama,incertitudine in acel 21.atit!apoi,ca prin minune,au iesit si au mobilizat lumea la revolutie.a fost ceva incredibil domnule Murray!o pelicula a absurdului.lumea era invatata sa fie condusa si s a supus fara sa se intrebe dar cum e posibil?oricum,acum revolta incepea incet sa se deplaseze spre conducator.el era vinovatul!dupa victoria revolutiei,ha ha au trecut la organizarea democratiei:au organizat sindicate libere,au mobilizat oameni din afara pcr sa se inscrie in fsn,dar atentzie:shtiau cum sa procedeze:pe care individ trebuiau sa l foloseasca ptr care functie ptr a l avea sub observatie si control.
    spunetzi i dvs cum vretzi,dar ptr mine nu a fost revolutie.am scris astea ptr ca sufar cind un strain educat imi spune ca a fost revolutie.da,sistemul legislativ s a schimbat,dar cel valoric nu.si sa mai stiti ca rascoalele au fost in Transilvania,revolutia a fost televizata in direct in toata tara.

    • Gabi M. spune:

      Eu zic sa stabilim niste lucruri, desigur dumneavoastra ma puteti contrazice.
      1. Populatia iesita pe strazi(the crowd or the mob) nu poate face o revolutie, ea face o revolta populara.
      2. Revolutia este infaptuita de elita revolutionara.

      Daca ne uitam la Revolutia Franceza observam ca avem o multime de oameni saraci si analfabeti care se revoltata pe strazile Parisului. Cine ii baga in seama? Regele? NU! Acesta trimite soldati sa puna capat revoltei. Atunci? Elita revolutionara, domnul meu. In cadrul acestei elite gasim oameni cu situatie materiala bunicica. Robespierre e cel mai cunoscut revolutionar, dar el nu a fost un luptator pe baricade, nu a fost un sarantoc. Robespierre era avocat, politician, deputat care reprezenta Starea a 3-a(burghezia). El devine aparator al poporului atunci cand intelege ca revolta populara trebuie mentinuta tocmai pentru a-l obliga pe rege sa semneze o noua constitutie. Deci multimea devine o masa de manevra, nimic mai mult.
      Formarea unei elite revolutionare este un fenomen interesant, care merita studiat. Revenind la Revolutia Romana, observam ca inainte de 89, nu exista o disidenta(aspect pe care l-ati sesizat bine). Atunci cine vroiati sa devina elita revolutionara, daca nu tot fostii comunisti. Dar si acest caz obervam 2 factiuni: autohtonistii(FSN, PDSR, PSD) si europenistii(PNTCD, PNL, CDR, ADA). ( Daniel Barbu-Politica pentru barbari)
      Domnul meu, in 1989 a inceput o revolutie, ea nu s-a terminat pe 25 decembrie, odata cu executia cuplului dictatorial, asa cum nici Rev. Franceza nu s-a terminat cu executarea lui Ludovic 16, ba chiar a continuat mult timp dupa.
      Dumneavoastra dar si alti comentatori, va tot axati pe originea elitei revolutionare, dar nu luati in seama ca in Romania a incetat sa mai existe un regim totalitar si represiv. Pai daca nici asta nu mai e revolutie… Revolutia nu inseama doar o revolta populara nici simpla schimbare de regim, ea presupune schimbari puternice in societate, in special la nivelul elitei. Faptul ca astazi suntem membru UE si NATO si nu un stat ca Belarus, dovedeste ca in Romania a fost o revolutie. Mentalitatea unui popor si particularitale culturale nu au legatura cu regimul politic. Nemtii au fost la fel sub conducea lui Wilhelm II, Hitler, Adenauer sau Merkel.

      • dusu spune:

        doamna ori domnule gabi:tocmai ca elita revolutionara este formata din tovarasii:iliescu,roman,magureanu,stanculescu,birladeanu,brucan,chitac,militaru…mai vretzi?

        • Gabi M. spune:

          @ dusu
          Corect! Dar in Romania nu a existat o disidenta puternica asa cum era in Polonia(Solidaritatea). De aceea cred ca putem sa vorbim de o “revolutie neterminata”, dar sa nu uitam ca in 1989 s-a pus capat regimului neo-stalinist condus de Ceausescu. Cei care au fost anchetati de Securitate, stiu la ce ma refer.
          PS: sunt un domn.

          • dusu spune:

            pai vedeti domnule!de aia nu a fost revolutie!in romanica nu a existat disidenta!nici puternica nici slaba.au existat citiva disidenti.organizare ioc.
            daca vreti dvs puteti sa spuneti ca revolutia continua si azi.cu ponta si compania.ca nu degeaba tot comunistu trebuia sa fie revolutionar.scris in statutul lor!
            ca sinteti un domn,asta am inteles;da sinteti si tinar?metodele folosite de securitate sint dintre cele mai variate.

  14. mariusmioc spune:

    Proclamaţia de la Timişoara: “A fost o revoluţie făcută de popor şi numai de el, fără amestecul securiştilor şi activiştilor. A fost o revoluţie autentică şi nu o lovitură de stat”.

  15. mariusmioc spune:

    “my first article was an interview with a Romanian exile who said there is no way that the Communist Party in her country could be overthrown”.
    If you will ask the same person today, he will say that it was obvious for everybody that Ceausescu’s regime will fall.

  16. Diana spune:

    What Romanians should remembered is the 2 attempts before “the Revolutie” to overthrown Ceausescu in 1977 and in 1987 in Brasov.

    Pockets of people in the streets of Brasov marching peacefully for a better life.

    If one of this “mini Revolutie would had happened by now Romania would be a different country altogether.

    Unfortunately for all of us, the regime and the mentality can not change over night. History showed us that takes time to see deeper changes.

  17. dusu spune:

    Cluj,7:30 dimineata zilei de 21dec 89 intr o intreprindere.Incaperea avea trei birouri si comunica cu alta,a carei usa era permanent deschisa,si in care mai erau patru persoane.Un coleg se intorsese din delegatia in Timisoara,dar ciudat,cu doua zile mai devreme!!?il intreb de ce?stiam de la Europa Libera cite ceva.de asta data din gura colegului aflu de amploarea miscarii:singe dimineata pe strazi,femei ce shi urla durerea si si smulg parul in piata la aflarea pierderii sotului sau/si fiului,relatari cum in intunericul noptii,organili ii vinau de pe strada,ii trageau in scari de bloc si ii ucideau.
    Pe usa ce dadea pe coridor,in acest timp ieshisera doi colegi.In intreprindere se afla de dimineatza(!)sefa centralei.(intreprinderile aveau centrala administrativa)
    Pe cind colegul imi relata ce vazuse in Timisoara,intra brusc sefa de centrala(o pozitie inalta administrativ)si cu o voce inalta:N ai vazut nimic,n ai auzit nimic!Ai intzeles?am ramas amindoi tacuti,confuzi si excitati.Unul dintre cei doi,care iesisera din birou,ori ambii fusesera la raport!
    Cam la aceeasi ora,in toate intreprinderile clujene,au avut loc adunari ale oamenilor muncii de condamnare a huliganilor din Timisoara.Vorbitorii ishi luau angajamentul sa creasca vigilenta la provocarili tradatorilor vindutzi celor din afara tarii;frati unguri si imperialisti.
    In aceeasi zi,din capatul industrial al orasului,pornesc un grup de citeva zeci de oameni spre centru, pe jos.De a lungul traseului se aflau si alte intreprinderi.Era ora schimbului,14,si unii urmau sa plece acasa.In una din intreprinderi,directorul,a ordonat pompierilor intreprinderii sa i impiedice sa iasa cu furtun cu jet de apa.Asta,ca sa nu se alature,doamne fereste,celor care pornisera in marsh si urmau sa treaca prin apropiere.
    In acest timp,in centrul orasului,ocupat de armata si blocat cu filtre ale securistilor,erau impuscati primii rasculati.Soldatii erau din valahia si incercind sa vorbesc cu unii din ei am avut impresia ca erau drogati!!?sau poate doar spalati pe creer.

  18. Tio spune:

    Revolutions (are jugded by) have consequences. The Romanian didn’t. At least not from the perspective of an ordinary Romanian. What is there to celebrate?

    Thank you Rupert and Merry Christmas!

  19. Liviu Petre spune:

    I think that struggling to put a sticker like ‘revolution’ or whatever on a social phenomenon like the one we experienced in 1989, gives no real benefit except for some sort of academic debate as a mechanism for venting (justified) frustration.
    Instead of fighting over the proper branding (or not!) as a ‘revolution’ or as a ‘coup’, it would be infinitely more useful to collect as many narrations about those events, as multi faceted pieces of a multi-dimension historical/social puzzle. Only this way we’ll get near and near to assembling ‘the story’ (though never the final one).
    Otherwise, we can also chat about the manipulation of the French mobs in 1789, by infiltrated British agents working on orders to undermine the fabric of the archrival French empire, or about the Russian revolution put on (railway) tracks not only literally but also financed and receiving know-how on coups, by the imperial Germany. And what about the so called American Revolution which was a disguise for promoting the interests of the imperialist circles in Versailles? :-) :-) :-)

  20. dusu spune:

    uite ca sa satisfac opinia d-nului Petre:dupa ce revolutia a invins!!ha ha si primul rivolutionar al tarii s a instalat sus trebuiau invinsi teroristiiaceshtia au aparut imediat dupa shtirea ca revolutia a invins.ce organizare domnule!:revolutionarii rasculati si revolutionarii comunisti aveau acum in sfirsit un dushman comun.si ptr ai invinge pe teroristi,trebuia sa l omorim pe Marele Conducator.lucrurili se leaga.asha ca televiziunea care acum in sfirsit era libera ne putea informa unde trebuie sa fim ca sa ajutam rivolutia.si uite asha,cred era 25dec,ora precis unu noaptea.tovarasul crainic din bucuresti, anuntza ca regionala de partid din Cluj este atacata de teroristi.bun patriot,deloc comunist si nici pe atit revolutionar,dupa o discutie cu sotia,o iau in directia regionalei.pe strazi ocolite,uneori in bezna,erau totusi nopti senine si caldute ptr acea perioada.frica mare era din cauza lunetistilor.cred au fost, cei care au omorit cu discriminare.ajung dupa un inconjur mare in fata regionalei.doua difuzoare mari erau ashezate pe marginea balustradei balconului.jos,vreo 40 de indivizi,unii cu sticle de alcool in mina,strigau:noi nu plecam acasa,pina nu vom cistiga libertatea noastra.sigur ca printre ei erau poeti;ca altfel nu aratau prea educati.Or fi trecut zece minute de cind ajunsesem.iese D na Doina Cornea:oameni buni,plecati acasa!situatia este sub control!
    nici azi nu shtiu la ce control se referea!
    o iau spre casa.din urma ma ajung doi tineri de la care aflu ca Doina Cornea trebuia sa ajunga la bucuresti,dar ca armata care controla tot,datorita cetzei care acoperea Clujul,nu au lasat o sa mearga spre Tg.Mures ci i au spus ca poate lua avionul din Oradea.cu cit mai departe si mai tirziu la capitala patriei,mai sigur.
    In drum ne intersectam cu un grup numeros,poate 100 persoane,cu steaguri care se duceau sa apere regionala de teroristi.se pare ca lor le a fost mai greu cu nevestele decit mie!

  21. dusu spune:

    Domnule Murray,m am gindit sa va fac un cadou de Papa Noel;o amintire a serii craciunului 89;asta asha ca sa va putetzi argumenta mai profesionist teoria:
    La noi in Ardeal in seara craciunului se mergea la colindat.oamenii merg la rude,prieteni.copii chiar cinta colinde.In acea dupa masa de 24,chiar daca teroristii ishi faceau de cap,am respectat traditia si doua familii am mers cu masina mea la o alta intr un cartier dincolo de centru.Cind a inceput sa se intunece,s au auzit impuscaturi razlete.erau de pistol.s a stins lumina mare si s au tras jaluzelele.am hotarit sa plecam.la iesirea din bloc,doi vecini stateau de paza!!?am iesit din cartierul total pustiu si am ajuns la o intersectie:Astoria.Aici,un militian cu un kalashnikov tragea in directia garii foc automat.cind acesta se oprea se auzea un rapait presupun dinspre gara.alaturi de militian erau patru copii,nu cred ca cel mai mare avea mai mult de 16ani.ptr ei era o joaca.de altfel,drept sa spun si militianul parca era acolo aiurea!!?eu am propus sa traversam in viteza.exista riscul ca vreun glonte sa ne loveasca.ceilalti trei au hotarit ca ne intoarcem si o luam pe linga parc.

  22. dusu spune:

    In zona parcului,am stins farurile gindind ca asha sintem mai greu de reperat.era luna plina.nu exista nici o masina pe sosea,nici macar parcate.inca nu mai vazusem asha un pustiu chiar la 12noaptea.cind am intrat in piata m.viteazu,din capatul opus,unde atunci exista un rondou de flori,o lanterna se aprindea si stingea spre noi.am oprit motorul si masina a continuat sa ruleze din inertie.am observat citiva indivizi imbracati in combinezoane albastre ca se trintesc la pamint cu kalashnikovurile indreptate spre noi.am oprit.din intunericul ce acoperea partea stinga,era atunci un magazin de mobila,au aparut doi indivizi imbracati in haine de piele lungi si negre.aveau pistoalele indreptate spre noi.ne au cerut sa iesim din masina si sa punem miinile pe capota masinii.pe femei le au luat cu ei in intuneric,am inteles pe urma ca le au verificat poshetele.ne au spus apoi mai prieteneste ca teroristii sint peste tot si chiar inaintea noastra au prins o batrinica care avea un pistol la ea.m au apostrofat ptr ca am venit fara faruri si m au avizat ca la teatru ma vor opri altii pe care ei deja ii informasera despre noi.piata teatrului era plina de masini militare.erau doar militari acolo.ne au oprit si apoi ne au indicat traseul.la inceputul b-dului B.N.Antal(nu shtiu cum il cheama acum napocistii?)erau insirate pe ambele parti tancuri.sa fi fost 20!?

  23. dusu spune:

    dupa ce am trecut de tancuri am intrat din nou in pustiu.nici tzipenie de om.dar la intrarea in cartierul muncitoresc o multime de grupuri mai mari sau mai mici,multi copii si tineri.unii ne au oprit,ca faceau filtre.am inteles ca asha e la rivolutie.erau copii de 14-16 ani.ne am continuat drumul.nu circula nici o alta masina.inainte de a ajunge acasa insa,a aparut un Aro militar cu indivizi imbracati in uniforme de rezervisti.aveau arme dar cind niste tineri i au abordat nu le au folosit si tinerii au inceput sa se agite ca sint teroristi.au terminat urcind si ei in aro ca sa i insoteasca intr un loc doar de ei stiut.
    orasul se apara deci impotriva teroristilor care puteau apare de oriunde,chiar din spatele unei batrinici.si era impartita apararea judicios:militieni si securisti intr o parte,militarii in alta si poporul rivolutionar sa aiba si el partea de glorie.ma rog,azi si ceva bani.
    nu e fictiune desi pare
    revolutia a invins!


Do NOT fill this !


Rupert Wolfe Murray

Rupert Wolfe Murray

Rupert Wolfe Murray este consultant independent pe probleme de comunicare. Scotian cu resedinta la Bucuresti Citeste mai departe

MIHAI MACI – Cel de-al doilea volum din Colectia Contributors.ro

"Atunci când abdică de la menirea ei, școala nu e o simplă instituție inerțială, ci una deformatoare. Și nu deformează doar spatele copiilor, ci, în primul rând, sufletele lor. Elevul care învață că poate obține note mari cu referate de pe internet e adultul de mâine care va plagia fără remușcări, cel care-și copiază temele în pauză va alege întotdeauna scurtătura, iar cel care promovează cu intervenții va ști că la baza reușitei stă nu cunoașterea, ci cunoștințele. Luate indi­vidual, lucrurile acestea pot părea mărunte, însă cumulate, ele dau măsura deformării lumii în care trăim și aruncă o umbră grea asupra viitorului pe care ni-l dorim altfel." - Mihai Maci

E randul tau

Multumesc, domnule Damian, pentru reactia la comentariul meu postat cu intarziere. Notez, tot punctu...

de: Dumitru Sandu

la "Cum analizam o teza de doctorat. Mic ghid de bune practici de vanatoare jurnalistica. Cu un exemplu despre teza dnei Kovesi"

Cauta articole

octombrie 2016
Lu Ma Mi Jo Vi Du
« Sep    

Valentin Naumescu – Marile schimbari. Crize si perspective in politica internationala. Editie bibliofila


Contributors.ro este intr-o permanenta cautare de autori care pot da valoare adaugata dezbaterii publice. Semnaturile noi sunt binevenite cata vreme respecta regulile de baza ale site-ului. Incurajam dezbaterea relaxata, bazata pe forta argumentelor.
Contact: editor[at]contributors.ro

(An essay by Vladimir Tismaneanu and Marius Stan)