Căutare Avansată

Caută în Domenii

Căutare Detaliată

Nevoia de redefinire a unor termeni în istorie

  • Subiect: „The paper brought forward for discussion the issue related to the use of some tenns that defined moments from the Romanian history. The main in focus was on the term surrender instead of withdrawal, but also terms such as Romanian imperialism, territorial annexing instead of union, reconquer instead of liberation, etc. The author insisted on the so much debated moment, more precisely the "abandonment" of Basarabia in 1940, which was actually about the aggression of USSR on Romania, an aggression that unfortunately was considered by some people as liberating, taking into account first of all the Soviet historiography, but also for a while the Moldavian and even the Romanian one after the Second World War. The author tried and succeeded in proving that thighs were different, that is: the rulers of Romania did not surrender Basarabia and the North of Bucovina to the USSR, but they were forced, following the invasion threatening, to withdraw the army and the administration from those territories, therefore the term surrender was not correct. Under those circumstances, the Ribbentrop­ Molotov Pact was applied by the two great powers, Germany and USSR that had already ruled over Europe. Thus, Romania, facing a greater threatening did not have any other solution but to avoid the acknowledgement of a teritorial surrender and to find a compromise that was the withdrawal in front of the superiority of the adversary. Some historians, from whom politicians, mass media, etc. took over, unfortunately pointed out the blame of the rulers from Bucharest, accusing them of cowardice, treason, etc. because they withdrew the army without even putting up resistance, "at least for a few minutes" or "to have fired some shots". That was exactly what the author tried to emphasize, that the anned resistance, even a minimum one, could have endangered the Romanian state and national identity. That was exactly the pretext that Russia was expecting that Romania put up resistance so as the Russian armies entered deeper on the Romanian territory. At the same time, at the Western border of Romania, the Hungarian army stood ready to enter in Transilvania and in the South, there was the danger of an invasion from Bulgaria. Without consenting to the surrender, Romania used the term withdrawal which was not the same thing with surrender. There was no document that attested that Romania surrendered those territories. The author resorted to credible statements from that period, such as the Head of the Army General Staff - General Tenescu, Nicolae Iorga, the Prime Minister Gh. Tatarescu and others. At the same time, the paper benefited from judgements made on the grounds of the elapsed time which ensured an objective judgement without unwanted influences and distortions or simplicities.”
  • Limba de redactare: română (rezumat în engleză)
  • Secţiunea: Arheologie şi istorie/ Archeologie et Histoire/ Archaeology and History
  • Vezi publicația: Zargidava - Revistă de Istorie
  • Editura: Docuprint
  • Loc publicare: Bacău
  • Anul publicaţiei: 2016
  • Referinţă bibliografică pentru nr. revistă: XV; 21 martie; anul 2016
  • Paginaţia: 264-273
  • Navigare în nr. revistă:  |<  <  21 / 35   >  >|