COURAGE

povezivanje zbirki

From 1964 until the end of the 1970s, Hedwig Ulrike Ruşdea, a museologist at the Museum of Folk Technics, conducted multiple pieces of field research on the technology of windmills and on their history and role within rural communities in the region of Dobrogea. In this file, she compiled specification sheets for the researched windmills, notes on the history of artefacts, interviews with former owners, who had been labelled as kulaks (chiaburi in Romanian) by the communist regime because of their owning a windmill, observations on the economic and social role of windmills, analyses of their numeric evolution, photographs of windmills rescued from the villages of Enisala, Dunavăţ, Frecăţei, and Mahmudia in Dobrogea, and reports on the acquisition of these windmills. The information included in this file persuaded the leadership of the Museum to rescue and reassemble the four mills at its open-air exhibition located on the outskirts of Sibiu. The various data gathered in the file are also a valuable historical source on the history of the region's cultural heritage and on the impact on this heritage of the economic and social modernisation policies implemented by the communist regime.

Posebnu pažnju časopis Polja su privlačila svojim tematskim brojevima. Među njima je i temat posvećen smrti (br. 236, oktobar 1978.godine).Ovaj broj obuhvatio je niz analitičkih tekstova posvećenih smrti, poput Irninga Fičera, „Sigmund Frojd i strah od smrti“ Vladete Jerotića. Urednik Jovan Zivlak je na ovaj temat dobio komentare od strane viđenijih podržavalaca vlasti poput „zar nije moglo nešto drugo da se izabere za temu?“ Problem je prvenstveno viđen u tome što je ovaj broj direktno postavljao pitanje o marksističkom viđenju smrti, tj. marksističkom stavu da smrt biva prevaziđena istorijskim herojstvom.

Zivlak procenjuje da je godišnje po dva-tri puta, kao urednik, bio izvođen pred Komisiju za kulturu Saveza komunističke omladine Vojvodine, što je nazvao tiranijom. “Čovek, koji nema elementarne pretpostavke da razume šta ja radim, to su izuzetno analitički složeni tekstovi o određenim fenomenima, o sreći, smrti, književnosti, ironiji, postmodernizmu... raznim fenomenima modernog društva i moderne kulture koji otkrivaju novu stvarnost i uvode u našu kulturu pitanja koja nisu postojala. On napravi referat od 40 stranica. Pa ja treba da se ubijem?! Da slušam te gluposti i onda strepim hoću li biti smenjen. I svi, sa poslovno mrkim licima, listaju papire i diskutuju, kao da je to poslednji sud u prostorijama Pokrajinskog saveza omladine. (...) Dođu ljudi iz Partije, iz PK (Pokrajinskog kominteta Saveza komunista Vojvodine, prim. Aut). Oni nadgledaju. Ja sam mlad čovek bio. A omladinci su dobili zadatak da me zbrišu. I čitavu redakciju.“ Među pritiscima navodi i kao primer činjenicu da je dva meseca, svaki dan u isto vreme, bio legitimisan ispred redakcije. Jovan Zivlak  je otvoren povodom psiho-somatskih tegoba koje je pretrpio zbog ovih pritisaka. Smatra da je uspeo da ostane glavni urednik časopisa Polja osam godina zbog toga što Novi Sad nije imao medije koji bi uspeli da sprovedu lični napad na njega.

Following his organisation of the wreath-laying ceremony at the statue of Stephen the Great on 11 October 1964, Moroșanu was severely reprimanded and subsequently expelled from the Polytechnic Institute several days later. The expulsion process followed a carefully staged ritual which involved, among other things, a decision of the “student collective” presumably taken from below. This stage was necessary as a formal preliminary step to the official decision signed by the rector. It also served as a confirmation of the loyalty and political reliability of the student body, which acted in solidarity in order to eliminate any “foreign elements” from its midst. A similar strategy was followed in other cases related to accusations of nationalism against Moldavian intellectuals in this period. The decision of the students’ “general meeting” was issued on 14 October 1964. This document is revealing not only due to its contents, but also because of the euphemistic language it used to argue for Moroșanu’s expulsion. After a preliminary report of the secretary of the Institute’s Komsomol cell, the meeting took note of Moroșanu’s “unacceptable behaviour.” This consisted, among other things, in his unmotivated absences, lack of academic discipline and poor performance, displaying of a rude attitude toward the head of department and his colleagues and, most importantly, in his “pernicious assertions concerning different questions related to the economic and cultural development of the republic.” Moroșanu allegedly dismissed, “rudely, incorrectly and with open contempt,” the attempts of his colleagues to point out his mistaken views and behaviour. The euphemism of the document reached its height when Moroșanu was accused of “performing a series of a-political actions” [a veiled reference to the incident at Stephen the Great’s statue] and of “attempting to assemble around himself a group of students, setting this group against the student organisations of the Institute and thus trying to position himself as a spokesman on behalf of Moldavia’s youth.” Moroșanu was also accused of an unhealthy reaction to criticism, “trampling upon” the student newspaper which printed his caricature. Despite his temperamental issues, it is obvious that his political behaviour was the real issue which led to his expulsion. Although the meeting concluded by recommending Moroșanu’s expulsion on the ostensible grounds of his “behaviour, which was incompatible with the rank of a Soviet student” and his “hooligan-like attitude toward the department’s staffand fellow students,” the invocation of his “a-political deeds” shows the limit of tolerance beyond which the Soviet authorities were unwilling to go. The meeting formally requested Moroșanu’s expulsion from the institute, deeming him “unfit to become a Soviet engineer and organiser of production.” Two days later, on 16 October 1964, the rector of the Polytechnic Institute, S. I. Rădăuțanu, signed an order expelling Moroșanu. Significantly, this document reproduced the decision of the student meetingalmost word-for-word, thus underscoring the staged character of the whole affair. However, in the late 1960s, after serving his prison term, Moroșanu succeeded in being readmitted to the Polytechnic Institute after an audience with the Union minister of higher education. This was due to his persistence and to his skilful manipulation of Soviet legislation.  

A short decision of Socialist Republic of Croatia's Secretariat of the Interior on deleting SCA Prosvjeta from the Register of associations of citizens on the grounds that since January 1972 there was no activity of the Association and that it "does not achieve the objectives for which it was established." It also said that there was "no appeal” against the decision but an administrative dispute before the Administrative Court could have been initiated. Along the decision secretary of SCA Prosvjeta, Svetozar Zec has written a note stating that SCA Prosvjeta was banned in December 1972, that formal decision on the ban hasn’t been issued, but the attitude of the leadership of the socio-political organizations of SRC fully prevented any public operation of the Association.

Almost two years after his condemnation, in the spring of 1955, Zgherea filed a petition addressed to the General Prosecutor of the Moldavian SSR, requesting the revision of his sentence. In this petition, Zgherea again admitted his guilt, but emphasised that his conversion to Inochentism was mainly caused by the influence of his parents. He claimed that, due to his young age and to the unsatisfactory level of his education, he did not fully understand the implications of his actions at the time. He also declared that, during his detention in the labour camp, he “fully realised the mistaken nature of his views” and therefore was ready to “cut all his ties to the sect of the Inochentists.” This remarkable example of repentance and apparently successful “re-education” should not be taken at face value, especially given the fact that during the trial Zgherea refused to abjure and renounce his faith. However, in the post-Stalinist Soviet context, this proved an effective strategy for alleviating his plight and for receiving a reduction of the sentence and, ultimately, a full amnesty. In his review of Zgherea’s case, one of the employees of the MSSR’s Ministry of Internal Affairs, Major Rogachev, noted the defendant’s partial admission of guilt and his apparent repentance as alleviating circumstances. In the Resolution he sent to the General Prosecutor of the MSSR, A. Kazanir, on 28 April 1955, Rogachev concluded that, although Zgherea’s “guilt” was not in doubt, the punishment was “too severe and did not correspond to the seriousness of his actions.” Therefore, Rogachev recommended that the prosecutor’s office file a formal protest to the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the MSSR in order to request a revision of Zgherea’s case, which the prosecutor did in due course. As a result of this protest, after reviewing the case, on 9 June 1955 the Supreme Court issued a special decision which reduced Zgherea’s sentence to five years of hard labour and a further three-year suspension of civil rights. The main argument of the court was that Zgherea “did not have a leading position within the sect.” This motivation points to a shift in the authorities’ perception of the social danger of the Inochentists and similar religious movements and to a more differentiated approach to the individual guilt of their members. Moreover, Zgherea was amnestied according to the provisions of the Decree of 27 March 1953, which ended the main wave of Stalinist repressions and secured a legal basis for the gradual release of political prisoners. He was to be released from the labour camp as soon as possible, while his penal conviction was dropped. This case certainly did not illustrate an entirely new attitude of the regime toward religious dissent, which continued to be viewed with suspicion and repressed. However, there was a marked shift in the authorities’ repressive strategies, which became subtler and more differentiated. The case of Gheorghe Zgherea is thus a fascinating example of essential ideological continuity uneasily combined with changing methods of addressing and dealing with dissent and opposition in the religious sphere.