Vladimir Tismăneanu

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Vladimir Tismăneanu
BornJuly 4, 1951
Brașov, Romania
NationalityRomanian-American
Occupation(s)Political scientist, political analyst, sociologist, professor
Employer(s)University of Maryland, College Park
Known forScholarly works on Stalinism, Romanian communism, and nationalism

Vladimir Tismăneanu (Romanian pronunciation:

Romanian Television Company. As of 2009, he is Academic Council Chairman of the Institute for People's Studies, a think tank of the Romanian Democratic Liberal Party. Between February 2010 and May 2012, he was also President of the Scientific Council of the Institute for the Investigation of Communist Crimes in Romania
.

Acclaimed for his scholarly works on

post-1989 history, the latter of which include collections of essays and several published interviews with literary critic Mircea Mihăieș [ro
]. Tismăneanu completed his award-winning synthesis on Romanian communism, titled Stalinism for All Seasons, in 2003.

Tismăneanu's background and work came under scrutiny after his 2006 appointment by Romanian President Traian Băsescu as head of the Presidential Commission for the Study of the Communist Dictatorship in Romania, which presented its report to the Romanian Parliament on December 18, 2006. There has been much controversy about the choice of Tismăneanu as commission president, about Tismăneanu's choices for commission members, and about the conclusions of the report.

Biography

Born in

Marxism-Leninism department of the University of Bucharest. Progressively after Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej acted against Ana Pauker, the Tismăneanus were sidelined inside the Romanian nomenklatura; in 1960, Leonte Tismăneanu was stripped of his position as deputy head of Editura Politică.[1][2][3]

Vladimir Tismăneanu grew up in the exclusive Primăverii quarter of Bucharest. During his years of study at the Lyceum No. 28 [ro], which was then largely attended by students belonging to the nomenklatura, he was in the same year as Nicu Ceaușescu, son of communist leader Nicolae Ceaușescu, as well as the children of Leonte Răutu, Nicolae Doicaru [ro], and Silviu Brucan.[4]

In his preface to the Romanian-language edition of his 2003 book Stalinism for All Seasons, Tismăneanu indicated that, starting in 1970, he became interested in critiques of Marxism-Leninism and the Romanian communist regime in particular, after reading banned works made available to him by various of his acquaintances (among others, writer

Georg Lukács, Leszek Kołakowski, Leon Trotsky, Antonio Gramsci, and the Frankfurt School).[5] According to Tismăneanu, his family background allowed him insight into the hidden aspects of Communist Party history, which was comparing with the ideological demands of the Ceaușescu regime, and especially with the latter's emphasis on nationalism.[5]

He graduated as a

Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School and Contemporary Left-Wing Radicalism").[6][7] During the period, he was received into the ranks of the Union of Communist Youth (UTC), authored several articles which displayed support for the regime, and, as vice-president of the UTC's Communist Student Association, allegedly took part in authoring and compiling propaganda aimed at students.[8] He was also contributing to the UTC magazines Amfiteatru and Viața Studențească, where his essentially neo-Marxist essays were often mixed for publication with endorsements of the official ideology.[3]

Between 1974 and 1981, Tismăneanu worked as a sociologist, employed by the Urban Sociology Department of the Institute Typified Buildings Design in Bucharest.

protochronism advocated by Edgar Papu and Luceafărul magazine. His thoughts on the matter, published by Amfiteatru alongside similar writings by Milca, Gheorghe Achiței, Alexandru Duțu [ro], and Solomon Marcus.[11]

In September 1981, a short while after the death of his father, he accompanied his mother on a voyage to Spain, after she had been granted a request to visit the sites where she and her husband had fought as young people.[10][12] Unlike Hermina Tismăneanu, he opted not to return, and soon after left for Venezuela, before ultimately settling in the United States in 1982.[3][6][10][12] During his time in Caracas, he was the recipient of a scholarship at the Contemporary Art Museum.[3]

He lived first in

Radio Free Europe and Voice of America,[3][6][10][12][13] beginning with an analysis of the "dynastic socialism" in Romania, centered on the political career of Nicu Ceaușescu.[10][12] His essays on the lives and careers of communist potentates, requested by Radio Free Europe's Vlad Georgescu and aired by the station as a series, were later grouped under the title Archeology of Terror.[3]

In 1990, Tismăneanu received a professorship at the

American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies for his Stalinism for All Seasons.[3][7] During the late 1990s, he collaborated with the German-based radio station Deutsche Welle, with a series of broadcasts, most of which he published in Romania as Scrisori din Washington ("Letters from Washington", 2002).[15] He also worked as editor of Dorin Tudoran's Agora, a political journal of the Romanian diaspora.[2][13]

Since the

Romanian Army General Staff.[13] Tismăneanu resumed his articles in the Romanian press, beginning with a series on communist leader Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, which was published by the Writers' Union magazine România Literară during the early 1990s.[17] He contributed a weekly column in Jurnalul Național, before moving to Cotidianul, and was regularly published by other press venues: Revista 22, Idei în Dialog, and Orizont.[18] He later began contributing to Observator Cultural and Evenimentul Zilei.[19]

Tismăneanu received the

SNSPA university in Bucharest.[7] In its Romanian edition of 2005, Stalinism for All Seasons was a bestseller at Bookarest, the Romanian literary festival.[2][3]

In 2006, Romanian President Traian Băsescu appointed him head of the Presidential Commission for the Study of the Communist Dictatorship in Romania, which presented its report to the Romanian Parliament in December of that year. As of 2009, Tismăneanu is also Chairman of the Academic Board, Institute of People's Studies—an institution affiliated with the Democratic Liberal Party, which in turn is the main political group supportive of Băsescu's policies.[20] The institution is presided upon by political scientist Andrei Țăranu.[20] The following year, Tismăneanu was chosen by Democratic Liberal Premier Emil Boc to lead, with Ioan Stanomir, the Institute for the Investigation of Communist Crimes in Romania, substituting the National Liberal Party's choice Marius Oprea.[21][22] Tismăneanu was dismissed by the newly formed Victor Ponta government in May 2012.[23]

Vladimir Tismăneanu is married to Mary Frances Sladek, and has fathered a son, Adam.[6]

Views and contributions

Overview

Vladimir Tismăneanu is one of the best-recognized contributors to modern-day political science in both the United States and Romania. Historian Cas Mudde referred to him as "one of the foremost American scholars on Eastern Europe",[24] while Romanian literary critic and civil society activist Adrian Marino wrote: "The works of the political scientist Vladimir Tismăneanu, who owns a double cultural identity, American and Romanian, indicate a full-scale research agenda. His books are first rate, both in Romanian and in English .... They are representative of what has effectively shaped up nowadays into the Romanian political science .... When reading and studying Vladimir Tismăneanu, one enters a new realm, where, most importantly, one experiences a novel approach to writing. He rejects the usage of empty and inordinate formulae. He saves the characteristic Romanian creative writing, with its inconsistency and amorphousness, only for the literary trash bin. He sports a jaunty style, utterly lacking any inhibition or obsequiousness. ... His activity also fills a considerable void. It informs and it disseminates ideas. This is, undoubtedly, his fundamental virtue."[13][25] According to historian Adrian Cioroianu, the insight provided to Tismăneanu by his family's oral history is "unique", amounting to "actual lessons in history, at a time when [it] was being Orwellianly processed by the [communist] system".[17]

Sociologist Mihai Dinu Gheorghiu sees Tismăneanu and George Voicu as the two main contemporary Romanian sociologists to have "reconverted [to political science] while preserving a rather symbolic link with sociology".[26] At the end of this process, he argues, Tismăneanu "has enjoyed the greatest authority in his field in Romania",[26] while, according to critic Livius Ciocârlie: "Not so long ago, to the question of who is the greatest Romanian politologist, any other politologist would reply that there is only one possible answer: Vladimir Tismăneanu."[3]

According to Vasile, Tismăneanu's contribution, like those of historians

Revolution generation of political scientists and historians. Vasile credits his colleague with having influenced "an entire generation of young researchers of Romania's recent history."[3] As one of them, Cioroianu, writes: "quite a lot of us in the field of historical-social analysis in this country have emerged from underneath Vl[adimir] Tismăneanu's cloak".[17] In Cioroianu's definition, the group includes himself, alongside Stelian Tănase, Mircea Mihăieș [ro], Marius Oprea, Stejărel Olaru [ro], Dan Pavel, Dragoș Petrescu and others.[17] The same author notes that his predecessor had an early and important contribution, equivalent to a "generative enlightenment", by presenting younger researchers with a detailed account of previously obscured phenomena and events.[17] Most of Tismăneanu's works have English and Romanian-language editions, and books of his were translated into Polish,[7][13] Lithuanian, and Ukrainian.[7]

In addition to his analytic contribution, Vladimir Tismăneanu earned praise for his literary style. Romanian critics, including Tismăneanu's friend, philosopher Horia-Roman Patapievici, admire his "passionate" writing.[3] Essayist and România Literară reviewer Tudorel Urian, who contrasts Tismăneanu with what he sees as the regular "self-styled 'analysts' [who] abdicate logic and common sense", opines: "The American professor's articles impress by their very solid theoretical structure, by their always effective argumentation, by their author's correct positioning in relation to the facts invoked ... and, not least of all, by the elegance of their style. In the world of contemporary politology, Vladimir Tismăneanu is an erudite, doubled by an artist, and his texts are a delight for the reader."[18] According to Tismăneanu's fellow Commission member, historian and political scientist Cristian Vasile, such perspectives are especially true for the choice of "piercing epithets" defining persons or phenomena discussed in his works.[3] Literary critic Mircea Iorgulescu [ro] notes in particular the many nocturnal and ghostly metaphors used by Tismăneanu in reference to totalitarianism, proposing that these reflect "perfectly natural psychoanalytical suggestions, for wherever there are ghosts, there are also neuroses, or, at the very least, obsessions."[15]

Early works

Tismăneanu began his writing career as a dissenting

Georg Lukács, Herbert Marcuse, and Jean-Paul Sartre.[2]

According to Marino: "Some label [Tismăneanu] as 'Marxist

Radio Free Europe years,[3] while political scientist and critic Ioan Stanomir defines him as a "liberal-conservative spirit".[28]
American scholar Steven Fish writes:

[Tismăneanu] is animated by a passionate liberal spirit, albeit one of a particular type. [His] liberalism is less intimately akin to that of

L. T. Hobhouse or John Rawls, than it is to that of Isaiah Berlin and, less proximately, John Stuart Mill. Tismăneanu shares with Berlin and Mill an uncompromising commitment to pluralism as the highest political value; a celebration of difference, nonconformity, and tolerance; a deep skepticism concerning ultimate solutions, political blueprints, and unequivocal policy prescriptions; and a wariness regarding the subtler danger of majoritarian authoritarianism.[29]

Tismăneanu himself discusses the personal transition:

Originating as I was from the milieu of illegalists [that is, communists active in the pre-1944 underground], ... I discovered early on the contrast between the official legends and the various fragments of subjective truths as they revealed themselves in private conversations, syncopated confessions and biting ironies. I was also discovering a theme which was to puzzle me throughout my professional career: the relation between communism, fascism, anti-communism and anti-fascism; in short, I was growing aware that, as has been demonstrated by François Furet, the relationship between the two totalitarian movements, viscerally hostile to the values and institutions of liberal democracy, was the fundamental historical issue of the 20th century.[5]

He credits Ghiță Ionescu [ro], noted historian of Romanian communism, as his "mentor and model."[5]

In her review of The Crisis of Marxist Ideology in Eastern Europe, political analyst Juliana Geran Pilon calls Tismăneanu's book "the best analysis of Marxist philosophy since Leszek Kołakowski's monumental trilogy Main Currents of Marxism."[30] The work is Tismăneanu's study into the avatars of Marxism within the Eastern Bloc, and a contribution to both Kremlinology and Cold War studies. It proposes that the Soviet Union's policies of Perestroika and Glasnost masked an ideological crisis, and that the Bloc's regimes had reached a "post-totalitarian" stage, where repression was "more refined, less obvious, but by no means less effective".[30] He criticizes Marxist opponents of Soviet-style communism for giving in to the ideological allure, and proposes that, although appearing reform-minded, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev was, in effect, a "neo-Stalinist".[30]

The 1990 collection In Search of Civil Society: Independent Peace Movements in the Soviet Bloc is structured around the transformation of the

People's Republic of Poland, the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and East Germany. It notably includes articles by two participants in such movements, Hungary's Miklós Haraszti and Russia's Eduard Kuznetsov. American University reviewer Laszlo Kürti called the volume "a milestone that will remain on reading lists for many years to come", but criticized Tismăneanu for not explaining neither the end of such movements nor their absence from other countries.[31] Writing in 1999, scholar Gillian Wylie noted that, with In Search of Civil Society, Tismăneanu was one of the "few academics beyond those involved in the peace activist community" to have dealt with the topic of peace movements in Warsaw Pact countries.[32]

Arheologia terorii and Reinventing Politics

With 1992's Romanian-published Arheologia terorii ("The Archeology of Terror"), which reunited the Radio Free Europe essays of the 1980s, Tismăneanu was focusing Romania's communism, in an attempt to identify what set apart from the experience of other Eastern Bloc countries. Cristian Vasile believes it to have been, at the time of its publishing, "one of the few researches on the Romanian communist elite to include prosopographic nuances."[3] Among this group of essays, historian Bogdan Cristian Iacob singles out one dedicated to chief ideologist Leonte Răutu, the so-called "Romanian Zhdanov", as purportedly the first ever analytical writing dedicated to his career.[33]

Much of the text focuses on Romania's dissidents after the start of De-Stalinization, and the peculiarities of this process in Romania. Tismăneanu notes how communist leader Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, whose dictatorial rule of the 1950s and early 1960s preceded and survived the start of De-Stalinization, was able to exert control over the local intelligentsia even as civil society and nonviolent resistance movements were being created in other parts of the Bloc.[34] It is also noted for its treatment of Gheorghiu-Dej's successor, Nicolae Ceaușescu, who associated himself with a message of liberalization and nationalist revival, and who made a point of opposing the 1968 Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia. This gesture, Arheologia terorii argues, was in actuality Ceaușescu's attempt to ideologically legitimize his grip on Romanian society.[3] In his review of the book, literary critic Ion Bogdan Lefter concludes: "One finds here, in the subtext, the premises for an extended debate on themes related to the philosophy of history: what are, in reality, the effective relations between the collective destiny of a community and the destinies of individuals who compose it? ... The [book's] answers are ... shattering. Looking back into the communist regime's back stages ... one finds not the faithful prophets of a utopia, but the morass of disgusting spiritual filth—and one cannot but be horrified by seeing who has been entrusted with the destiny of an entire people".[3]

With the 1994 book Reinventing Politics, the Romanian author looked into the European revolutions of the previous decade, exploring the shades of repression, the differences in political culture, and how they related to the fall of communism in various countries. Calling it "a significant contribution", New School sociologist Jeffrey C. Goldfarb argues: "Tismăneanu is very good at ordering the often confusing details of what he calls 'the birth pangs of democracy.' "[35] Goldfarb objects to the text being "long on historical detail and short on social theory", arguing that: "As a result, [his] attempts at generalization often miss the mark."[35] According to Goldfarb, although Reinventing Politics cautions that the former communist societies risked folding into nationalism, xenophobia and antisemitism, its author "does not provide a clear sense of how [this] can be avoided."[35] Goldfarb contends that, while the book expresses support for embarking on the road to an "open society", it fails to explain how the goal is supposed to be reached.[35] In his review of a 2007 reprint, Romanian cultural historian Cristian Cercel comments on Vladimir Tismăneanu's belief in politics being "reinvented", which implied that power in former communist countries could be shifted to "the powerless" by following the example of Czechoslovak writer and activist Václav Havel.[36] Cercel, who sees this as proof of "well-balanced idealism", writes: "Instead of an absolute critical distance, Tismăneanu presents us with a critical engagement at the core of the problem."[36]

From Irepetabilul trecut to Balul mascat

The volume of essays Irepetabilul trecut ("The Unrepeatable Past") also saw print in 1994, and largely dealt with

left-wing group, the National Salvation Front and those of its successor, the Social Democratic Party (PSD), arguing that their policies were a political hybrid designed to block the path of genuinely anti-communist liberalism.[13] Irepetabilul trecut was the first such work to be noted for its biographical sketches of communist leaders.[13][37]

In 1995, Tismăneanu was again focusing on Gheorghiu-Dej, analyzing the part he played in both the violent

Jesuitism and lack of principles, opportunism and cruelty, fanaticism and duplicity."[40]

Historian Lucian Boia highlights the clash between such a vision and that of a patriotic, liberal and congenial Gheorghiu-Dej, retrospectively advanced in the 1990s by some of the leader's collaborators, among them Alexandru Bârlădeanu, Silviu Brucan and Ion Gheorghe Maurer.[41] Boia writes: "In between Bârlădeanu and Tismăneanu, may we be allowed to prefer the latter's interpretation. ... oblivion is not what we owe [Gheorghiu-Dej], but condemnation, be it moral and posthumous."[42] Vladimir Tismăneanu's reflections on a self-legitimizing, "Byzantine", discourse in Romanian communism, Ioan Stanomir notes, were also being applied by Tismăneanu to the post-Revolution President of Romania, former Communist Party activist and PSD leader Ion Iliescu, who, both argued, did not represent an anti-communist social democracy, but a partial return to Gheorghiu-Dej's legacy.[28]

Also in 1995, Tismăneanu published a collection of essays, Noaptea totalitară ("The Totalitarian Night"). It includes his reflections on the emergence of totalitarian regimes throughout the world, as well as more thoughts on Romania's post-1989 history. Writing in 2004, Ion Bogdan Lefter described it as the embryo of later works: "The author moves with essay-like dexterity from the concrete level, of history 'in movement', to the general, that of political philosophies and great 'societal' models, from biographic narrative to the evolution of systems, from anecdote to mentalities. ... From [such] reflections ... emerged Tismăneanu's studies on 20th century ideological and political history, and his articles on Romanian subjects have prepared and accompanied the completion of his recent synthesis [Stalinism for All Seasons]."[37]

Balul mascat ("The Masquerade Ball", 1996), was Vladimir Tismăneanu's first book of conversations with

integration process. Tudorel Urian describes the volume and its successors in the series, all of them published at the end of electoral cycles, as "a most reliable indicator of tendencies", and to the authors as "important intellectuals of our age."[43] Urian writes: "Although, at the time when these volumes were published, not everyone was pleased by the precise X-rays to which Vladimir Tismăneanu and Mircea Mihăieș subjected [Romania's politics], excessively vocal counterarguments were never produced. The distance (not just in kilometers) between Washington and Bucharest, the superior analytic accuracy, Professor Tismăneanu's international scientific prestige, the almost exclusive use of readily available sources ..., the democratic values at the core of the interpretations (ones which no honorable political actor could afford to contest publicly) have given these books a considerable dose of credibility ...."[43]

Fantasies of Salvation

With Fantasies of Salvation, published in 1998, Vladimir Tismăneanu focuses on the resurgence of authoritarian,

Holocaust antisemitism in the absence of sizable Jewish communities.[44] He also focuses on the revived antisemitic conspiracy theory according to which Jews had played a leading role in setting up communist regimes (see Jewish Bolshevism).[45]

Tismăneanu thus sees the political elites and the authoritarian side of the intelligentsia as responsible for manipulating public opinion and "rewriting (or cleansing) of history in terms of self-serving, present-oriented interests".

far right.[24][29] Part of the volume deals with "the myth of decommunization", signifying the manner in which local elites may take hold of political discourse and proclaim lustration.[29] Although he disagrees with the contrary notion of collective responsibility and sees calls for justice as legitimate,[24][29] he notes that the special laws targeting communist officials may pose a threat to society.[29]

Steven Fish calls the book "a major contribution to our understanding of the postcommunist political predicament" which "will stand the test of time", noting its "searching treatment of the connection between intellectual and political life", "incorporation of cultural conflict into the analysis of politics", "unabashed

antiziganism.[44] Researchers comment favorably Tismăneanu's rejection of cultural determinism in discussing the Eastern Bloc countries' relation to the Western world and to each other.[24][29][44]

As editor of the 1999 collection of essays The Revolutions of 1989 (Re-Writing Histories) (with contributions by Kołakowski and Daniel Chirot), Vladimir Tismăneanu was deemed by British historian Geoffrey Swain an "obvious choice to assemble the contributors."[46] Swain, who called his preface "excellent", states: "It is difficult to argue with [Tismăneanu's] notion that 'these revolutions represented the triumph of civic dignity and political morality over ideological monism, bureaucratic cynicism and police dictatorship'."[46] However, he disapproves of the author's decision to treat all bloc countries as if they were still a single entity: "What made historians address the diverse countries of Eastern Europe as a common unit was communism; with its collapse the logic for such an approach disappeared. ... The book works when a common approach works, and fails when a common approach fails."[46] Between Past and Future. The Revolutions of 1989 and Their Aftermath, a 2000 collection published in collaboration with Sorin Antohi, Timothy Garton Ash, Adam Michnik, Radim Palouš, and Haraszti, is another overview of the dissidents' contribution to the end of communism.[24]

Încet spre Europa and Scrisori din Washington

His second book of conversations with Mihăieș, titled Încet spre Europa ("Slowly toward Europe", 2000), touches on various subjects in Romanian society and world politics. Much of it deals with the events of 2000, in particular the country's management by the

right-wing Romanian Democratic Convention. According to historian Victor Neumann, "[The book] suggests the measure to which the public debate needs to be fundamental in educating the elite and the public at large, in structuring civil society and in promoting an articulate discourse for the rejection of extremist political orientations. However, it also shows how such debates have not yet found the right framework or the institutions to promote it. Responsibility for the delay of [social and economic] reforms is not placed on not just the—as yet invertebrate—political class, but also on the cultural milieus and the media, which favor sterile discussions, world play, obsolete ideologies."[47] He also notes: "The dialogue between Vladimir Tismăneanu and Mircea Mihăieș demonstrates the role of analysis and confrontation of ideas over hasty judgment or temperamental criticism, providing in the end an image as unembellished as possible. [It] places a magnifier over high-ranking institutions such as the Presidency, the Orthodox Church, the school. The observations are always based on knowledge of the facts."[47]

Part of the volume focuses on the Holocaust,

Is the Holocaust Unique?, Încet spre Europa uses the polemical term "comparative martyrology" on comparisons made between the Holocaust and the Gulag (or other forms of communist repression).[45] Although he agrees that communism is innately genocidal, Tismăneanu views the latter claims as attempts to trivialize the Holocaust.[45][47] He also criticizes some versions of historical revisionism which, he argues, make it seem like the victims of communism were all "friends of democracy" and "adherents to classical liberalism", but agrees that: "The manner in which communism dealt with [its victims] is utterly illegal and this needs to be emphasized."[47] Tismăneanu, who theorizes a "very complicated, bizarre, perverse, and well-camouflaged" relationship between communism and fascism, preserved in both national communism and the political discourse of post-communist Romania, also argues: "Romania will not un-fascify until it decommunizes, and will decommunize until it un-fascifies."[47] Such conclusions were also present in the Spectrele Europei Centrale ("The Specters of Central Europe", 2001), where he notably argues that the popularity of fascist ideology within the defunct Kingdom of Romania was exploited by the communist regime, leading to what he calls a "baroque synthesis" of extremes (an idea later expanded upon by essayist Caius Dobrescu).[3][48]

With 2002's Scrisori din Washington, Tismăneanu constructs a retrospective overview of the 20th century, which he sees as dominated by the supremacy of communism and fascism. Structured around reviewed Deutsche Welle broadcasts, it also includes short texts on diverse subjects, such as essays about Marxist resistance to established communism, an analysis of the Western far right, conclusions about the Kosovo War, a debate around the political ideas of interwar novelist Panait Istrati, and praises of the Romanian intellectuals Virgil Ierunca and Dan Pavel.[15] Mircea Iorgulescu criticizes the work for not discussing other relevant phenomena (such as the successes of feminism, decolonization and the environmental movement), and argues that many of the pieces seem American-centered, unfocused or outdated.[15] Iorgulescu also objects to the book's verdict on Istrati's political choices after his split with communism, claiming that Tismăneanu is wrong in assuming that Istrati eventually moved to the far right.[15] He nevertheless argues: "[the book] provides an impressive image of the extraordinary American effort to research, analyze and interpret communism and post-communism."[15] Iorgulescu, who views Tismăneanu as a Romanian equivalent to Michnik, adds: "The circumstance of his living in the United States ... protects him, for it is not hard to imagine how one would have viewed and behaved toward a Romanian from Romania who has the courage to speak, for instance, about the existence of an anti-Bolshevik Bolshevism. Being himself a critical intellectual, one would understand the origin of his continuous plea for [the intellectual critics] always hunted down by the authoritarian regimes."[15]

Stalinism for All Seasons

With Stalinism for All Seasons, Tismăneanu provides a synthesis of his views on Communist Romanian history leading back to Arheologia terorii, documenting the

conspiracies and inner-Party struggles for power is constant throughout the book. In a 2004 review published by Foreign Affairs magazine, political scientist Robert Legvold sees it as "less a political history of communism than it is a thorough account of leadership battles in the Romanian Communist Party from its origins at the turn of the nineteenth century to its demise in 1989."[49] Also according to Legvold, the author "shed[s] light on the paradoxes of Romanian communism: how a pariah party that was Stalinist to the core eventually turned on its Soviet master and embraced nationalism—how 'national Stalinism' was acceptable to the West as long as it meant autonomy from [the Soviet Union]. That is, until it became grotesque in Nicolae Ceaușescu's last decade, leading to the regime's violent death."[49]

The book title is a direct allusion to

Annales School, which, he argues, would allow more room for "small personal histories".[37]

Initially, Vladimir Tismăneanu had planned to write a review of Romanian history covering the entire modern period, before deciding to concentrate on a more limited subject.[37] Part of the volume relies on never-before published documents to which he had gained access as a young man, through his family connections.[5][49] It also incorporates his thoughts on the communist legacy in Romania, and in particular his belief that the modified communist dogma endured as a force in Romanian politics even during the post-1989 period.[49] Cioroianu reviews the high praise earned by the volume throughout the Romanian intellectual and educational environments, as "all the appreciations a history volume could have expected".[17] American historian Robert C. Tucker calls it "the definitive work on Romanian communism",[13] and Stanomir "a monument of erudition and laconicism".[28]

Democrație și memorie and Cortina de ceață

The 2004 volume of essays, Scopul și mijloacele ("The Purpose and the Means") is largely an expansion of Noaptea totalitară.

Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev—and those of Cold War figures such as US President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II.[18] The book also included his earlier calls to have the Securitate archives, then managed by the Romanian Intelligence Service, opened for the public, in the belief that liberal democracy has transparency as its prerequisite.[18] Other segments of the book voiced calls for a public debate on the moral legacy of communism, and for the assumption of the "democratic ethos" by regular Romanians.[18]

A third volume of Mihăieș-Tismăneanu dialogues was published in 2007, as Cortina de ceață ("The Fog Curtain"). According to Tudorel Urian, it is directly linked to its author's involvement in political disputes, and in particular those created around the

Chamber representative Mona Muscă and Tismăneanu's own colleague Sorin Antohi had been informants of Communist Romania's secret police, the Securitate; and criticism of the Commission itself.[43] The book expresses its author's support for the political agenda of Romanian President Traian Băsescu, impeached by Parliament and reinstated by an April 2007 referendum.[43] Urian writes: "supporters of [Băsescu's] agenda will be enthusiastic about the book, and those who reject it will be searching for flaws under a microscope. All shall nevertheless have to read very carefully. This is because, beyond the generic, predictable, direction, it is rich in punctual analyses of a great finesse and in information too easily lost in the daily turmoil, but which, once brought to memory, may render things in a new light."[43]

Refuzul de a uita and Perfectul acrobat

Points similar to those made by Cortina de ceață were present in another 2007 book, Refuzul de a uita ("Refusing to Forget"). A collection of scattered articles, it also partly responds to criticism of the Commission.

Yugoslavia; and a posthumous critique of political analyst and former communist activist Silviu Brucan.[19] A section of the volume refers to the controversy surrounding journalist Carol Sebastian, exposed as a Securitate informant after a career in the anti-communist press. Tismăneanu contrasts Sebastian with open supporters of the Ceaușescu regime, grouped around Săptămîna magazine during the 1970s and never exposed in such a manner, and concludes that Sebastian's case stands as "a warning that we must as soon as possible progress to the condemnation of the institutions who have made possible such tragic moral collapses."[19]

With the 2008 volume Perfectul acrobat ("The Perfect Acrobat"), co-authored with Cristian Vasile, Tismăneanu returned to his study of

Miron-Radu Paraschivescu.[33] It attempts to explain in detail how the regime resisted genuine De-Stalinization without meeting many public objections from the leftist intellectuals, a situation defined by Bogdan Cristian Iacob as "the painful absence of an alternative, of an anti-systemic tradition."[33] Răutu's high-ranking career and overall guidelines, both of which survived all changes in the system under Gheorghiu-Dej and Ceaușescu, are taken by the authors as study cases in Romania's post-Stalinist Stalinism.[33] In addition, Iacob notes, "the two authors bring forth irrefutable proof for the unshakable link between word and power in communism".[33] He cites Răutu's own theories about the role education and agitprop had in creating the "New Man".[33] Tismăneanu, who deems Răutu "the demiurge of the infernal system to crush the autonomy of thought in communized Romania", lists the creation of a New Man among the ideologue's main goals, alongside the atomization, mobilization, and homogenization of his target audience.[33] According to Stanomir, "the biographical examination ... gives birth to a narrative on the rise and fall of a modern possessed man", while the documents presented reveal Răutu's willingness to show fidelity to all policies and all successive leaders, in what is "more than a survival strategy."[28] For Stanomir, the ideologist as Tismăneanu and Vasile show him is a man who replicates religious belief, guided by the principle that "outside the Party there can be no salvation" (see Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus).[28] In its introductory section, Perfectul acrobat includes a dialogue of the two authors with a first-hand witness to Răutu's actions, philosopher Mihai Șora. This piece, coupled with a final documentary section, are rated by Stanomir as "outstandingly innovative ... at the intersection of intellectual discourse, testimonial and the document itself."[28]

Other contributions

Outside the realms of history, political science and political analysis, Vladimir Tismăneanu is a noted author of memoirs. This part of his work is centered on the volume Ghilotina de scrum ("The Ashen Guillotine"), also written on the basis of interviews with Mihăieș. The book offers an account of his complicating relationship with Leonte Tismăneanu, postulating a difference between the everyday father, who has earned his son's admiration for being marginalized by his political adversaries, and a "political father", whose attitudes and public actions are rejected by Vladimir Tismăneanu.[3]

This approach earned praise from two influential intellectual figures of the Romanian diaspora, critics Monica Lovinescu and Virgil Ierunca, whose letter to the author read: "the distances you take from your own background are of most-rare authenticity and tact. You accomplish a radical break, being at the same time participative, negating things only after you have understood them, being dissociated from both roles of judge and defense counsel."[3] Cioroianu also notes: "He is not the only son of (relatively) well-known communists; but he is one of the few to have reached the level of detachment needed in order to X-ray, in a cold and precise way, a political system. Does this seem easy to you? I do not know how many of us would be capable of introspecting with such lucidity our own parents' utopias, phantasms and disappointments".[17] The historian opposes Tismăneanu's approach to that of Petre Roman, Romania-s first post-1989 Premier, whose attempts at discussing the public image of his father, the communist politico Valter Roman, are argued by Cioroianu to have "failed".[17]

Tismăneanu has contributed the screenplay for Dinu Tănase's documentary film Condamnați la fericire ("Sentenced to Happiness"), released in 1992.

Romanian Television Company.[6]

2006 Final Report and related controversy

Early objections

Some who oppose or criticize Tismăneanu's appointment to head the Presidential Commission, his selection of other commission members, or the conclusions in the commission's final report, have drawn attention to several texts he authored in Romania, which they perceive as being

Marxist-Leninist in content, and his activities inside the Union of Communist Youth. Among the critics of Tismăneanu's early activities was philosopher Gabriel Liiceanu, who stated that they were incompatible with the moral status required from a leader of the Commission.[51] However, Liiceanu endorsed the incrimination of communist regime and eventually the report itself.[16][52][53]

After the presentation of the Final Report and the official condemnation of the communist regime by

Humanitas, published in volume format the Final Report. Furthermore, Liiceanu, in the homage to Tismăneanu, when the latter was granted the award of the Group for Social Dialogue (January 2008), openly retracted his initial statements about Tismăneanu's academic and moral stature: "Vladimir Tismăneanu was the perfect person for completing the task of coordinating the Commission, considering that those who spoke after being exposed to this ideology explained it best. Vladimir Tismăneanu, besides owning such insider knowledge on what is communism at multiple levels, he then had an ideal competence, acquired and validated within the American academic environment, in order to be able to study this subject with both familiarity and distance."[54] Liiceanu concluded: "He is the most qualified intellectual in the world for analyzing Romanian communism. His book Stalinism for All Seasons is the classical study in the field."[13][54]

Early criticism of Tismăneanu based on allegations of communism was also voiced by writer Sorin Lavric.[51] The author revised his stance soon afterward and, in four separate articles, gave his endorsement to both the Final Report and Vladimir Tismăneanu's later publications.[55]

Political party-level reactions

Several commentators have argued that the negative reception of the Final Report in sections of the press and the political establishment was partly due to the investigation's implications, as the latter's overall condemnation of the

Chamber representatives.[19][43][59][60] One televised incident saw the group making attempts to force several audience members, including intellectuals Liiceanu, Horia-Roman Patapievici and Andrei Pleșu, out of the balcony overlooking the Parliament Hall.[16][59][60][61] Several commentators have described the behavior of anti-Băsesecu parliamentarians during the public reading as "a circus act"[43][59][60] (an expression also used by Patapievici).[16]

Although Iliescu and PSD leader Mircea Geoană abstained from participating in the session,[59] the Final Report was soon after approved with certain reserves by Geoană.[60][62] Support for the document was also voiced by academic and Social Democratic parliamentarian Vasile Pușcaș, who noted that his group's objections addressed "working methods" and the perceived notion that the Commission claimed access to an "absolute truth".[62] Pușcaș also took his distance from Iliescu's successive negative comments on the document.[2][62] Similar assessments were made by Pușcaș's party colleague, sociologist Alin Teodorescu, who called the document "the work of a lifetime, [written] for sure in a perfectible manner, but ... an exceptional study", while stating that he objected to "Băsescu [having] climbed on Tismăneanu's shoulders."[63] According to journalist Cristian Pătrășconiu, the conflict between Iliescu and Tismăneanu explained why, in the second edition of Tismăneanu's book of interviews with Iliescu, Marele șoc din finalul unui secol scurt (tr. The Great Shock of the Twentieth Century, first edition 2004), the latter's name was removed from the cover (a decision he attributed to Iliescu himself).[64]

Among the consequences of the scandal, Urian states, is Vladimir Tismăneanu's "descent into the arena", leading some to perceive him as "a component of the never-ending political scandal and a predilect target for the president's adversaries."

Democratic Union of Hungarians, and ultimately resolved in Băsescu's benefit by an impeachment referendum. During this crisis, Tismăneanu joined 49 other intellectuals in condemning the anti-Băsescu parliamentary opposition, signing an open letter which accused it of representing political corruption and the legacy of communism, and referred to its attitude toward the Commission.[65]

On the anti-Tismăneanu side, the controversy involved political forces most often described as extremist, in particular the Greater Romania Party. Such groups have an ideological objection to Tismăneanu's condemnation of both

protochronism, to be found at the source of "media and historiographic ambuscades".[3] In this context, claims of an antisemitic nature were issued, targeting Tismăneanu and his family. As Tismăneanu recalls in an interview with Jim Compton from the Washington Post, "A Greater Romania Party senator made a speech in Parliament, about 'five reasons why Tismăneanu should not head the commission,' and reason number three was that I was a Jew."[66][67]

In July 2007, Tismăneanu sued the Greater Romania Party journals

Oglinda Television, which called Tismăneanu, among other things, "one of the most idiotic persons ... in Romania" and "an offspring of the Stalinist Jews who brought communism to Romania on top of Red Army tanks."[2] Such attacks, Tismăneanu contended, "cannot but lead to polluting the public discourse and rendering hysterical those persons who belong the category of what [Romanian writer] Marin Preda called 'the basic aggressive spirit'."[2]

Tismăneanu and Gallagher

Beginning in 2004, Tom Gallagher, a Professor of Ethnic Conflict and Peace at the University of Bradford and author of influential works on Romanian politics, expressed criticism of Vladimir Tismăneanu on various grounds. He authored a series of articles critical of Tismăneanu's involvement in local Romanian issues in the post-1989 era, and especially of his relations with Ion Iliescu.[70][71][72] According to Gallagher, Tismăneanu "was useful to Iliescu in 2004 because the then President recognised the type of figure he was beneath the western reformist image he has cultivated".[73]

Gallagher writes that Marele șoc "was ready to depict Ion Iliescu as an enlightened leader who, despite some flaws, had been instrumental in consolidating Romanian democracy", and that the volume, which he called "one of the strangest books to emerge from the Romanian transition", did not include, to Iliescu's advantage, any mentions of the controversial aspects of his presidency ("any serious enquiries about the mineriads, the manipulation of nationalism, the denigration of the historic parties [the National Peasants' Party and the National Liberal Party], civic movements and the monarchy, the explosion of corruption, or indeed the continuing political influence and fabulous wealth of the heirs of the pre-1989 intelligence service").[74] In addition, he wrote that, in agreeing to interview Iliescu, Vladimir Tismăneanu had come to contradict his own assessment of the post-Revolution regime, which he had earlier defined as "of a populist, corporatist and semi-fascist type".[64] In contrast to this assessment, Ion Bogdan Lefter challenged that Tismăneanu had taken "unnecessary precautions" in stating his bias during the dialogue with Iliescu, given that the latter was "at the end of his political career", and stresses that the interviewer had preserved "a researcher's perspective" throughout the conversation.[37] Also according to Lefter, the interest of the book does not reside with Iliescu's views on politics, which express "the already familiar 'official' version, formulated in his hardly bearable 'wooden tongue' ", but in his recollections of childhood and youth.[37]

Gallagher expressed further criticism on Tismăneanu, writing that "he wishes to build up a vast

Romanian-French businessman Adrian Costea, a person close to Iliescu who stood accused of encouraging political corruption, and claiming that he was using the academic environment as a venue for lobbying.[64] He also took a negative view of his colleague's earlier collaboration with Jurnalul Național, a newspaper owned by Conservative Party leader Dan Voiculescu (who has been officially linked with the Securitate).[64] Additionally, Gallagher complained about the publicized visit Tismăneanu paid to Gigi Becali, leader of the nationalist New Generation Party – Christian Democratic, at his residence in Pipera.[64]

Tismăneanu replied to some of Gallagher's accusations in a manner described by Cotidianul's Cristian Pătrășconiu as "discreet".[64] In an interview with Jurnalul Național, arguing that Marele șoc largely reflected Iliescu's own beliefs, which he had wanted to render accurately, and stating that "all I could do was to obtain the maximum of what can be obtained through dialog with [Iliescu]".[75] He depicted Gallagher's attitude as "an outbreak of resentments", and indicated that "the only praise I could offer [Iliescu]" was in regard to the latter's respect for pluralism in front of authoritarianism.[75] In later statements on the issue, he argued that Gallagher concerns about a supposed change in political views had been unfounded, while expressing regret over the fact that "I had not highlighted ... in those sections I authored, certain elements that would have made it clear for the reader where I stand".[76] Elsewhere, he responded to claims made about his contacts with Becali by admitting that the visit was inappropriate.[64] Cristian Vasile, who notes that concerns similar to those of Gallagher were expressed by historian Șerban Papacostea and by himself, argues that Tismăneanu effectively dissuaded fears of a "moral resignation" by not accepting any form of "privilege or public post" from the political sides he was alleged to favor.[3]

By spring 2007, Gallagher and Tismăneanu reconciled, explaining that this was largely owed to their common support for Băsescu, who was then faced with impeachment.[64] In that context, Gallagher explained his earlier position: "Marele șoc ... was published [at] a time when the Social Democratic Party were going through a lot of trouble to quiet international voices in order to cover the lack of significant reform of key state institutions. Tismăneanu argued at the time that because of agreeing to the NATO and EU accession, Iliescu was signaling his wishes of reconciliation with the democratic quarters in the country. Both the author and others gradually became convinced that Iliescu's intentions were far from targeting pluralism. He only aimed at legitimizing the elite whose leader he was and which he propelled out of communism to a new era essentially defined by violence, abuse and repression, as it was obvious already by 1990-91. For purposes of revealing such interest groups, the political scientist risked both his name and life. Both his results in the academic field and his unwavering determination must be appreciated and treasured, more so considering the insults and calumny showered upon him by the post-communist clique and their followers in the mass-media. I wish to express to Vladimir Tismăneanu my gratitude and utmost appreciation for his and the Commission's efforts, hoping that our initial disagreements are from now on belonging only to the past."[77] Commenting on the developments following the impeachment referendum, Vladimir Tismăneanu indicated that he and Gallagher, together with British historian Dennis Deletant, had decided to campaign against the Parliament's decision and in favor of Traian Băsescu, a measure which he equated with support for "pluralism and transparency".[64] Gallagher himself noted that the initiative was motivated by "the need to display solidarity in order to prevent the replacement of democracy with the collective autocracy of economic barons and their political allies. That would destabilize the Balkans, would discredit the EU and would place the country on the Eastern trajectory."[64]

Ziua allegations

In 2006 and early 2007, Ziua newspaper repeatedly published accusatory claims that Tismăneanu had left with support from the Securitate, that he had settled abroad with assistance from the Communist Party of Venezuela, and that, after escaping Romania's communist censorship, he continued to publish materials supporting official communist tenets.[10][12][78][79] Tismăneanu has rejected all allegations, indicating that they contradicted data present in, among others, files kept on him by the Securitate and the official conclusion reached by the National Council for the Study of Securitate Archives (CNSAS).[12]

The article was also criticized by intellectuals such as Ovidiu Șimonca, Ioan T. Morar and Mircea Mihăieș.[79][80] Writing for Observator Cultural, Șimonca argued that it was evidence of "defamation", that the information, which he deemed "horrific" and "hard to believe", was not substantiated by evidence, and that Ziua had vested interest in spreading rumors about Vladimir Tismăneanu.[79] He also asked if Ziua's campaign was not itself motivated by "Securitate structures".[79] In an editorial for the local newspaper Monitorul de Suceava, titled Prietenul meu, Vladimir Tismăneanu ("My Friend, Vladimir Tismăneanu"), Morar dismissed the article as "hogwash, egregious lies and let-ins", commenting that the claims made in regard to Tismăneanu's stay in Venezuela were "an aberration stemming from a rather obvious psychiatric diagnosis".[80] He also made references to the fact that Ziua's editor in chief, Sorin Roșca-Stănescu, was himself a proven Securitate informant, arguing that the tactics employed by the newspaper in question were the equivalent of "blackmail".[80] Soon afterward, Roșca-Stănescu issued a formal apology for those particular claims (while expressing further criticism of various aspects of Tismăneanu's biography).[66][81]

Based on data which he indicated formed part of his CNSAS file, Tismăneanu also specified that he was the object of constant Securitate surveillance after his departure, that his mother was subject to pressures,

Radio Free Europe [who has] settled in the USA."[9] Ioanid also referred to Tismăneanu's family in Romania having been "heckled" by the Securitate, especially after he himself had been made suspect by his historical research into Romanian antisemitism.[9]

In January 2007, Ziua contributor Vladimir Alexe published in facsimile a text which he considered part of a separate file kept on Tismăneanu by the Counter-Espionage unit of the Securitate, dated 1987.

United States Republican Party, and relying on the assertion that Tismăneanu had settled in the United States only after 1985.[82] Several months before, Alexe had himself been accused by Cotidianul newspaper of having been a Securitate informant and confronted with a CNSAS file which appeared to confirm this, but had rejected the claim as manipulative.[83][84][85]

As leaders of anti-communist opinion inside the former Eastern Bloc, invited by President Băsescu the Final Report reading, Lech Wałęsa and Vladimir Bukovsky had been requested by Ziua to comment on the Commission's activities. When asked if he knew Tismăneanu, Wałęsa replied "No, I don't know, I don't have such a good memory",[86] while Bukovsky stated "I don't know Tismăneanu, I know nothing about him. I would like people to understand what they did in the past. He too should understand the part he played".[87]

Writing for

Antena 3, were repeated during subsequent interviews.[2][16]

In July 2007, Gabriel Liiceanu and former Ziua contributor Dan Tapalagă sued the latter newspaper for calumny, referring to various allegations made against them—Liiceanu considered that, in his case, Ziua had organized a campaign of libel after he had decided to rally with supporters of the Report.[68][69] According to Adevărul journal, the three argued that their initiative was an attempt "to purge the language of the Romanian press, and to put a stop to the publishing of articles that 'poison' public opinion."[68] Patapievici also expressed his concern that the anti-Băsescu section of the Romanian public made little effort to condemn Ziua for its "mudslinging".[16]

Michael Shafir and Iluzia anticomunismului

Repeated criticism of the Final Report was voiced by Romanian-born Israeli historian and former Radio Free Europe contributor Michael Shafir. In a January 2007 interview with Tapalagă, Shafir had expressed objections to the document's referencing a "genocide" in Communist Romania, arguing that this verdict was exaggerated and unscientific, and objected to Iron Guard activists allegedly being included among the regime's victims, in the same category as members of democratic forces.[89] Shafir, who nevertheless also stated the existence of "chapters in the report where I wouldn't change one comma", rated the text "a seven, no more than an eight."[89] Accusing Vladimir Tismăneanu's adversaries at Ziua of having a dissimulated far right agenda, he added: "Every time Mr. Tismăneanu was attacked unjustly, I took a stand provided I thought my word counted."[89] In late May 2006, Shafir had joined a group of intellectuals (comprising Liviu Antonesei, Andrei Cornea, Marta Petreu, Andrei Oișteanu, Leon Volovici and others) who together issued a formal protest against Ziua journalists, in particular Dan Ciachir, Victor Roncea and Vladimir Alexe, over their treatment of figures such as Tismăneanu and Foreign Minister Mihai Răzvan Ungureanu, and over their allegedly Iron Guard-inspired and antisemitic rhetoric.[90][91] Shafir's perspective on the matter of genocide was supported early on by exiled writer Dumitru Țepeneag, who described the "far from perfect" Final Report as having the "not at all dismissible quality of being in existence", while calling its main author "an opportunist".[92]

In 2008 Shafir joined

clientelistic" reasons (Andreescu); that Tismăneanu was favorably reviewing the works of his friend Dan Pavel, who, it concluded, had lost credibility by campaigning with the New Generation Party (Rogozanu);[93] and that he only answered to marginal and violent criticism from venues such as the Greater Romania Party, being indifferent to his peers' objections, and constructing an image of "good" vs. "bad intellectuals" (Șiulea).[93][94] The group also complained that Romanian publishing houses were unwilling to endorse their critique, on account of which the work was published by Editura Cartier in neighboring Moldova.[93][94]

The new book itself sparked debates in the media. Patapievici sees it as evidence of "extermination criticism, hypocritically presented as impersonal".[16] He also reproached Șiulea his conclusions that the report was not neutrally voiced and that Tismăneanu's background made his moral standing questionable.[16] Essayist and Idei în Dialog contributor Horațiu Pepine proposed that "beyond the visible and unrestrained resentment, it contains an emotional state and a tension that seems to speak of a certain social suffering."[95] Pepine concluded that, among the authors, the "young revisionists" were the voice of a newer social class, which had emerged as a result of Ceaușescu's policies and was faced with becoming "déclassé".[95] According to Pepine, at least some of the authors had already publicly objected to the idea of condemning communism before the Final Report had been issued.[95] Iluzia anticomunismului earned the endorsement of historian Lorin Ghiman, who saw in it a correct evaluation of the Commission's actual goals, described by Ghiman as "the rhetorical and symbolical legitimation for the hegemony of an intelligentsia preoccupied with maintaining a monopoly on opinion."[94] Ghiman also objected to Vladimir Tismăneanu's alleged refusal to engage Iluzia anticomunismului writers in a public debate, but added that he did not perceive a personal conflict, and that "all editors of the volume have publicly expressed their respect for Mr. Tismăneanu, for all the reserves they voice in respect to various of his decisions."[94] Historian Sorin Adam Matei has also criticized the report, on editorial, legal and pragmatic grounds. He pointed to the fact that the conclusions were published before the report was even written and argued that the text incorporates verbatim sections from pre-existing works, suggesting a superficial and non-systematic approach to its writing. Matei concludes that the report generally fails to make a legal, factually grounded case for specific indictments of specific facts or individuals, under legal provisions valid at the time of commission of the acts described in the report. He called for a remake of the project, in a more legalistic and practically oriented manner.[96]

In a December 2008 article, Tismăneanu stated that the allegation according to which he had not engaged his critics in a public debate was "completely false", and indicated several instances which he believed count as such.

Marxism-Leninism" he associates with Slovenian sociologist Slavoj Žižek.[97] He later objected on principle to the implication that he was "expected to answer" to issues raised by Iluzia anticomunismului.[16]

Ramifications of the dispute

Some criticism of Tismăneanu's leadership of the Commission was also voiced by other sections of the Romanian academic environment. One such voice was historian Florin Constantiniu, who, although viewing Tismăneanu's contributions as relevant, saw the Final Report as Tismăneanu's betrayal of his father's memory, likening him to the famed Soviet delator Pavlik Morozov.[3] Cristian Vasile calls Constantiniu's statement "unwarranted and offensive", contrasts it with the incriminated document, where Leonte Tismăneanu is only mentioned in passing, concluding that the accuser had not read the text he was discussing.[3] Rumors also surfaced of a clash between Tismăneanu and Marius Oprea, Commission member and head of the older Romanian Institute of Recent History, which, according to Vasile, was a method for Tismăneanu's detractors to encourage "a destructive competition".[3] This controversy was rekindled in early 2010, when Tismăneanu replaced Oprea at the helm of the Institute for the Investigation of Communist Crimes in Romania.[21] Oprea, who received open support from various Romanian and foreign intellectuals and political figures, claimed that Tismăneanu's term at the head of a reformed institute (which also comprised Romanian diaspora archives) was a political deal aimed at shifting focus away from criminology.[22] Speaking at the time, Oprea mentioned that he felt "shame" for having sat on the 2006 Commission.[22]

Tismăneanu himself referred to criticism of the Final Report from the part of several members of the

Romanian Army general and brother of Nicolae.[3]

An extended polemic was sparked between the Tismăneanu Commission and the

Soviet occupation of Bessarabia.[12] He denied ever having made public his views on this particular matter, and Goma consequently apologized for not having sufficiently verified the information.[12] The Commission justified the exclusion based on Goma's implicit and later explicit refusal to recognize the board as a valid instrument.[12] The fact that Sorin Antohi, who was a confirmed former collaborator of the Communist regime's Securitate, and known to have falsified his academic credentials, was selected for the Commission's panel, has prompted further criticism. Antohi resigned in September 2006.[43][58][102]

The Final Report and the activity of the Presidential Commission received endorsement from the American media and the academic community.

Romanian-American businessman Victor Gaetan wrote a letter, originally published in the op-ed section of The Washington Post and republished by Ziua, in which he referred to the Tismăneanu family's nomenklaturist history and described Tismăneanu's doctoral thesis as "a vitriolic indictment of Western values".[56][104][105]

Further ramifications of the scandal came in summer 2009, when leadership of

vârcolac under the fool moon and eats the newly born".[107] In one of his other editorials, the new Cotidianul editor revisited Tismăneanu's past, quoting statements from the 1980s which, he wrote, made Tismăneanu "a devoted communist activist" incompatible with his later appointments: "The chairman of the Presidential Commission could do anything, except condemning that which he has supported."[109] The events also prompted an article by Tismăneanu's friend, novelist Mircea Cărtărescu. It sarcastically included Nistorescu, alongside Vadim Tudor, Roșca-Stănescu, Voiculescu, Geoană and businessman Dinu Patriciu, all of them adverse to Băsescu, among the "champions of democracy", noting that himself, Tismăneanu and other public figures who did not abandon Băsescu's cause "despite his human flaws", were being negatively portrayed as "ass-kissers" and "blind people".[106][110]

The implications of the scandal also involved several Wikipedia entries, particularly those on Romanian Wikipedia. In June 2007, Vladimir Tismăneanu stated: "I did not make efforts to respond to the wave of calumnies (which have infested the two Wikipedia articles about me in both English and Romanian) because I followed the precept 'You do not dignify them with an answer'."[2] During a 2008 colloquy on "The Campaign against the Intellectuals", organized by Revista 22 and attended by several journalists and civil society members, Horia-Roman Patapievici stated: "How does one respond to the claim that one has no right condemn communism over being what one is? How come so many people are not indignant over this kind of argumentation? ... [Tismăneanu's] page on Wikipedia was vandalized and has stayed that way. Viewers of the page are okay with the tendentious information there. You were outraged, for just cause, when a Jewish cemetery was vandalized, but, please, also express public outrage toward the vandalizing of Wikipedia pages on Vladimir Tismăneanu. ... Why do those who supervise the Wikipedia franchise in Romania allow this grave disinformation of the public, by forcefully maintaining a vandalized page? The absence of such an indignation is the most significant contribution to our country's morally unbreathable air."[16]

Allegations of intimidation and influence peddling

Tismăneanu has been accused by multiple Romanian and foreign scholars and researchers of employing dubious methods to squelch criticism of him and his works. In May 2012, the well-respected scholar Alina Mungiu-Pippidi wrote, "I hope that Volodea will once again become the spiritual creature, subtle and with a sense of humor who he used to be, and that we can forget this sinister alter-ego that he has become, telephoning newspapers and television stations to orchestrate--without being asked by anybody--pro-Băsescu propaganda and putting pressure on independent journalists."[111] According to Michael Shafir, Tismăneanu responded to criticisms by the American researcher Richard Hall as follows: "On the one hand, the vicepresident of the Civic Alliance, Sorin Ilieșiu, a person close to Tismăneanu, reacted by putting the word "analyst" in quotes, so that the journalist Andrei Bădin could then "demonstrate" that Hall wasn't a CIA analyst, but had only served an insignificant "probationary" period of six months. The person who was the object of his criticism knew better: Hall had published in the very journal that he had previously led ("East European Politics and Societies"). So he picked up the telephone and yelled at Richard Hall's supervisor, in a scene that could have been included in "Stalinism for All Seasons."[112] Michael Shafir detailed Tismăneanu's tactics more broadly in an article entitled suggestively, "About Questionable Clarifications, Plagiarism, Being an Imposter, and Careerism."[113] In November 2013, Vasile Ernu told an interviewer how Editura Curtea Veche cancelled a book contract because among a handful of references to Tismăneanu one suggested that "Tismăneanu employs two different discourses, one inside Romania and one outside."[114]

Works

Originally published in Romanian

Originally published in English

Bilingual

Citations

  1. ^ (In Romanian) Tismăneanu interviewed by Emilia Chiscop, 2005 Archived 2006-01-06 at the Wayback Machine, at the Polirom site; retrieved October 3, 2007
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l (In Romanian) Ovidiu Șimonca, "Vladimir Tismăneanu, amenințat cu moartea", in Observator Cultural, Nr. 375, June 2007
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab (In Romanian) Cristian Vasile, "Cronici de atelier. Trepte către o istorie a comunismului românesc", in Atelier LiterNet, July 23, 2008; retrieved February 6, 2009
  4. ^ (In Romanian) Vladimir Tismăneanu, "Amintiri din copilărie: Liceul 24 și destinul nomenclaturii", in Almanahul Cațavencu 2002
  5. ^
    România Liberă, June 17, 2005. Reprint of his preface to Stalinism pentru eternitate. O istorie politică a comunismului românesc, Polirom
    , Iași, 2005
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h i j (In Romanian) Profile at the Romanian Presidency site; retrieved October 3, 2007
  7. ^
    Russian and East European Institute
    ; retrieved February 6, 2009
  8. ^ (In Romanian) Gabriela Antoniu, "Tinerețe revoluționară - Tismăneanu, întâiul comunist al țării" Archived 2016-03-03 at the Wayback Machine, in Jurnalul Național, December 20, 2006
  9. ^ a b c d e (In Romanian) Radu Ioanid, "Anatomia delațiunii. Istoria unui caz de poliție politică în anii '80", in Observator Cultural, Nr. 139, October 2002
  10. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k (In Romanian) Dan Tapalagă, "Turnat de prieteni, demonizat de Securitate: Vladimir Tismăneanu", in Cotidianul, July 24, 2006
  11. ISBN 973-9224-63-6
  12. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Tismăneanu, in (In Romanian) Armand Gosu, "N-am avut de-a face cu Securitatea" Archived 2007-10-08 at the Wayback Machine, in Revista 22, Nr. 849, June 2006
  13. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o (In Romanian) Bogdan Cristian Iacob, "Persistența liberalismului", in Atelier LiterNet, August 20, 2008; retrieved February 9, 2009
  14. ^ Vladimir Tismăneanu profile at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; retrieved February 6, 2009
  15. ^ a b c d e f g (In Romanian) Mircea Iorgulescu, "Românul transatlantic", in Revista 22, Nr. 651, August–September 2002
  16. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k (In Romanian) "Supliment 22 plus, nr. 264 - Campania împotriva intelectualilor", in Revista 22, Nr. 979, December 2008
  17. ^
    Dilema Veche
    , Vol. II, Nr. 101, December 2005
  18. ^ a b c d e (In Romanian) Tudorel Urian, "Lecții de democrație", in România Literară, Nr. 35/2006
  19. ^ a b c d e f (In Romanian) Tudorel Urian, "Avatarurile anticomunismului", in România Literară, Nr. 26/2007
  20. ^ a b (In Romanian) Despre noi Archived 2009-03-11 at the Wayback Machine, at the Institute of People's Studies official site Archived 2009-09-01 at the Wayback Machine; retrieved June 21, 2009
  21. ^
    România Liberă
    online edition, February 27, 2010; retrieved June 15, 2010
  22. ^ a b c (In Romanian) "Război pe condamnarea comunismului", in Ziarul de Iași [ro], March 1, 2010
  23. ^ (In Romanian) "Victor Ponta l-a îndepărtat pe Vladimir Tismăneanu de la conducerea Institutului de Investigare a Crimelor Comunismului", HotNews, May 23, 2012
  24. ^ a b c d e f g "Book Reviews and Book Notes", in Tufts University's e-Extreme. Electronic Newsletter of the ECPR-SG on Extremism & Democracy, Vol. I, Nr. 4, Winter 2000
  25. ^
    ISBN 973-9248-09-8
  26. ^
    Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Scientific Community
    's Knowledge Base Social Sciences in Eastern Europe; retrieved February 6, 2009
  27. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Scientific Community
    's Knowledge Base Social Sciences in Eastern Europe; retrieved February 6, 2009
  28. ^ a b c d e f (In Romanian) Ioan Stanomir, "Cercul de cretă caucazian", in Revista 22, Nr. 980, December 2008
  29. ^ a b c d e f g h i Steven Fish, "Constitutional Review. Fantasies of Salvation: Democracy, Nationalism, and Myth in Post-Communist Europe", in the New York University School of Law's East European Constitutional Review, Vol. 7, Nr. 4, Fall 1998
  30. ^ a b c Juliana Geran Pilon, "The Crisis of Marxist Ideology in Eastern Europe - book reviews", in National Review, April 7, 1989
  31. ^ Laszlo Kürti, "Book Review Essays. After the Wall Came Down" Archived 2002-11-28 at the Wayback Machine, in DePaul University's Newsletter of the East European Anthropology Group, Vol. 10, Nr. 1, Spring 1991
  32. ^ Gillian Wylie, "Social Movements and International Change: The Case of 'Détente from Below' ", in George Mason University's International Journal of Peace Studies, Vol. 4, Nr. 2, July 1999
  33. ^ a b c d e f g (In Romanian) Bogdan Cristian Iacob, "Jdanovul României" Archived 2009-02-18 at the Wayback Machine, in Revista 22, Nr. 986, January–February 2009
  34. ISBN 973-683-560-X
  35. ^ a b c d Jeffrey C. Goldfarb, "Reviews. Free to Falter", in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 49, Nr. 2, March 1993, p.44
  36. ^ a b (In Romanian) Cristian Cercel, "A fost reinventat politicul?", in Observator Cultural, Nr. 406, January 2008
  37. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k (In Romanian) Ion Bogdan Lefter, "Povestea comunismului românesc", in Observator Cultural, Nr. 214, March 2004
  38. ^ Cristina Petrescu, "Vizitele de lucru, un ritual al 'epocii de aur' ", in Boia, p.241
  39. ^ Boia, p.368-369
  40. ^ Boia, p.368
  41. ^ Boia, p.361-369
  42. ^ Boia, p.369
  43. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k (In Romanian) Tudorel Urian, "Anii vrajbei noastre", in România Literară, Nr. 2/2008
  44. ^ a b c d e f Steven Saxonberg, "Book Review: Fantasies of Salvation: Democracy, Nationalism and Myth in Post-Communist Societies", in Central Europe Review, Vol. 1, Nr. 18, October 1999
  45. ^ a b c Distortion, Negationism, and Minimalization of the Holocaust in Postwar Romania", Wiesel Commission report, at Yad Vashem; retrieved February 6, 2009
  46. ^ a b c Geoffrey Swain, Reviews in History: The Revolutions of 1989, at the Institute of Historical Research; retrieved February 6, 2008
  47. ^ a b c d e (In Romanian) Victor Neumann, "Aspirația integrării în civilizația continentală", in Observator Cultural, Nr. 42, December 2000
  48. ^ (In Romanian) Caius Dobrescu, "Barocul fascisto-comunist ca fenomen global", fragment of Gulag și Holocaust în conștiința românească, Babeș-Bolyai University Symposium, May 2007, at the Memoria Digital Library; retrieved February 6, 2008
  49. ^ a b c d Robert Legvold, "Reviews & Responses. Stalinism for All Seasons: A Political History of Romanian Communism Archived 2007-06-22 at the Wayback Machine, in Foreign Affairs, Vol. 83, Nr. 2, March/April 2004
  50. ^ Condamnați la fericire at the British Film Institute; retrieved February 6, 2009
  51. ^ a b (In Romanian) Sorin Lavric, "Cum se investighează crimele comunismului la români", in Adevărul Literar și Artistic, October 4, 2006
  52. ^ (In Romanian) Șerban Orescu, "De ce este nevoie de un apel la memorie?" Archived 2007-08-13 at the Wayback Machine, in Ziua, March 11, 2006
  53. ^ a b (In Romanian) Sabina Fati, "Politicienii, intelectualii și condamnarea comunismului", in Observator Cultural, Nr. 352-353, December 2006
  54. ^ a b (In Romanian) Gabriel Liiceanu's intervention, "Premiul GDS pe anul 2007. Vladimir Tismăneanu", in Revista 22, Nr. 934, January–February 2008
  55. ^ (In Romanian) Sorin Lavric, "O ruptură definitivă"[permanent dead link], in Cultura, Nr. 110, February 2008; "Patetismul și blândețea", in România Literară, Nr. 39/2008; "Sub semnul dialogului", in România Literară, Nr. 1/2008; "Etica intransigenței", in România Literară, Nr. 50/2008
  56. ^ a b c (In Romanian) Teodora Georgescu, "Felix, prezentat Americii", in Curentul, July 31, 2006
  57. ^ a b c Lica Manolache, "Efectul Comisiei Tismăneanu", in Evenimentul Zilei, December 17, 2006
  58. ^ a b c Craig S. Smith, "Romanian Leader Condemns Communist Rule", in The New York Times, December 19, 2006
  59. ^ a b c d (In Romanian) Lia Bejan, Luminița Castali, "Ședința festivă de condamnare a comunismului s-a transformat într-un circ ieftin care amintește de o exorcizare în grup" Archived 2008-10-20 at the Wayback Machine, in Gardianul, December 19, 2006
  60. ^
    HotNews.ro
    )
  61. ^ (In Romanian) "Vadim Tudor a încercat să-i dea afară din lojă pe Patapievici și Pleșu" Archived 2007-01-28 at the Wayback Machine, Realitatea TV release, December 18, 2006; retrieved February 6, 2009
  62. ^ a b c (In Romanian) Armand Goșu, "Comunismul a fost condamnat în decembrie 1989" (interview with Vasile Pușcaș), in Revista 22, Nr. 880, January 2007
  63. ^ (In Romanian) Eugen Istodor, "Alin Teodorescu: 'Spălam vase cînd m-a sunat Tăriceanu. I-am dat o aspirină' " Archived 2009-10-29 at the Wayback Machine, in Academia Cațavencu, Nr. 41/2007
  64. ^ a b c d e f g h i j (In Romanian) Cristian Pătrășconiu, "Criza politică îi împacă pe Tismăneanu și pe Gallagher", in Cotidianul, May 11, 2007
  65. ^ (In Romanian) "Scrisoarea celor 50 de intelectuali" Archived 2007-04-03 at the Wayback Machine, Realitatea TV release, February 7, 2007. Other signatories included Adriana Babeți, Hannelore Baier [de], Mircea Cărtărescu, Magda Cârneci, Ruxandra Cesereanu, Livius Ciocârlie [ro], Andrei Cornea, Sabina Fati, Florin Gabrea, Sorin Ilieșiu, Gabriel Liiceanu, Mircea Mihăieș [ro], Dan C. Mihăilescu, Virgil Nemoianu, Andrei Oișteanu, Horia-Roman Patapievici, Dan Perjovschi, Andrei Pippidi, Șerban Rădulescu-Zoner, Victor Rebengiuc, Dan Tapalagă, Florin Țurcanu, Traian Ungureanu, Sever Voinescu, and Alexandru Zub.
  66. ^ a b Jim Compton, "U-Md. Teacher Heads Inquiry in Romania Probe of Communist Past Stirs Backlash", The Washington Post, July 28, 2006, page A16
  67. ^ (In Romanian) Despre Vladimir Tismăneanu și scrierile sale, Political speech by Mihai Ungheanu, Romanian Senate, May 8, 2006
  68. ^ a b c d e f (In Romanian) "Liiceanu, Tismăneanu și Tapalagă dau în judecată publicațiile Ziua, România Mare și Tricolorul" Archived 2007-07-11 at the Wayback Machine, in Adevărul, July 8, 2007
  69. ^
    România Liberă
    , July 8, 2007
  70. România Liberă
    , September 15, 2006
  71. România Liberă
    , October 13, 2006
  72. România Liberă
    , November 1, 2006
  73. ^ a b Tom Gallagher, "A Historian Indispensable for two Romanian Presidents (II)" Archived 2007-08-05 at the Wayback Machine, in Ziua, April 15, 2006
  74. ^ a b Tom Gallagher, "A Historian Indispensable for Two Romanian Presidents (I)" Archived 2007-08-08 at the Wayback Machine, in Ziua, April 14, 2006
  75. ^ a b (In Romanian) Monica Iordache, "Nu cred că găsim în această carte adevărul" Archived 2016-03-03 at the Wayback Machine, in Jurnalul Național, April 16, 2004
  76. ^ (In Romanian) Ovidiu Șimonca, " 'Există un mare interes să înțelegem din ce lume venim'. Interviu cu Vladimir Tismăneanu", in Observator Cultural, Nr. 273, June 2005
  77. România Liberă
    , September 14, 2007
  78. ^ (In Romanian) Vladimir Alexe, "Agentul Volodea", in Ziua, May 13, 2006
  79. ^ a b c d (In Romanian) Ovidiu Șimonca, "Dincolo de înjurătură", in Observator Cultural, Nr. 321, May 2006
  80. ^ a b c (In Romanian) Ioan T. Morar, "Prietenul meu, Vladimir Tismăneanu", in Monitorul de Suceava, May 15, 2006
  81. ^ (In Romanian) Sorin Roșca-Stănescu, "Vladimir Tismăneanu, punct și de la căpat", in Ziua, June 22, 2006 (English-language version: "Vladimir Tismăneanu: End and Beginning" [sic])
  82. ^ a b c d (In Romanian) Vladimir Alexe, Dan Mureșan, "Documentul 'fugii' lui Tismăneanu"; "Unde a fost Tismăneanu patru ani, până a ajuns în SUA?", in Ziua, January 23, 2007
  83. ^ (In Romanian) Vladimir Alexe, "Un nou delict de presă", in Ziua, August 23, 2006
  84. ^ (In Romanian) Liviu Avram, Mirela Corlățan, "Turnătorii din presă, de la Scînteia la Arici Pogonici", in Cotidianul, August 21, 2006
  85. ^ (In Romanian) Mirela Corlățan, "Dosarul 'Presa', alte nume în rețea", in Cotidianul, August 23, 2006
  86. ^ (In Romanian) George Damian, Victor Roncea, " 'Scăpați de structurile Kominternului!' " (interview with Lech Lech Wałęsa) Archived 2007-10-11 at the Wayback Machine, in Ziua, December 20, 2006
  87. ^ George Damian, Victor Roncea, "The Bukovski Proof" (interview with Vladimir Bukovsky) Archived 2007-10-11 at the Wayback Machine, in Ziua, May 15, 2006
  88. ^ a b c d (In Romanian) Vladimir Tismăneanu, "Revoluția forumurilor" Archived 2007-09-18 at the Wayback Machine, in Evenimentul Zilei, May 1, 2007
  89. ^
    HotNews.ro
    )
  90. ^ (In Romanian) Bogdan Cristian Iacob, "Victor Roncea sau problema deficitului de rușine", in Observator Cultural, Nr. 370, May 2007
  91. ^ (In Romanian) "Atac la Ziua" Archived 2007-08-21 at the Wayback Machine, in Ziua, May 31, 2006
  92. ^ (In Romanian) Dumitru Țepeneag, "Șotron. Tigrul din Balcani (I)", in Observator Cultural, Nr. 355, January 2007
  93. ^
    România Liberă
    , November 11, 2008
  94. ^ a b c d (In Romanian) Lorin Ghiman, "Intelectualii invizibili și cărțile lor minunate", in Observator Cultural, Nr. 454-455, December 2008
  95. ^ a b c Horațiu Pepine, "Despre anti-anticomuniști", in Idei în Dialog, Nr. 12(51), December2008
  96. ^ (In Romanian) Sorin Adam Matei, "Condamnarea comunismului 2.0", in Observator Cultural, Nr. 451, November 2008
  97. ^ a b c d e (In Romanian) Vladimir Tismăneanu, "Iluzia normalității comuniste", in Evenimentul Zilei, December 3, 2008
  98. ^ a b c (In Romanian) Mirela Corlățan, "Cenzura a reînviat la institutul lui Ion Iliescu", in Cotidianul, July 19, 2007
  99. ^ (In Romanian) Silviu Mihai, "Goma: 'Eu nu am amănunte de studiat'", in Cotidianul, April 11, 2006
  100. ^ (In Romanian) Adrian Văduva, "Dreptate - Goma îi scrie președintelui" Archived 2016-03-03 at the Wayback Machine, in Jurnalul Național, October 16, 2006
  101. ^ (In Romanian) Adrian Popescu, "Paul Goma îi desființează pe membrii 'Comisiei Tismăneanu' de cercetare a ororilor comunismului din România", in Gândul, May 9, 2006
  102. ^ (In Romanian) Dana Carbelea, "Antohi nu mai e în Comisia Tismăneanu", in Curentul, September 13, 2006
  103. ^ Charles King, "Remembering Romanian Communism", in Slavic Review, Vol. 66, Nr. 4, Winter 2007, p.718-723
  104. ^ Victor Gaetan, "Vinegar on Old, Open Wounds", in The Washington Post, August 26, 2006
  105. ^ (In Romanian) "'Sare pe răni vechi, deschise'. Numirea lui Tismaneanu contestată de Gaetan în Washington Post", in Ziua, August 28, 2006
  106. ^ a b (In Romanian) Andreea Pora, "Nistorescu, dubla deziluzie", in Revista 22, Nr. 1014, August 2009
  107. ^
    Dilema Veche
    , Vol. VI, Nr. 287, August 2009
  108. ^ (In Romanian) Cornel Nistorescu, "Lămuriri necesare și periculoase", in Cotidianul, August 4, 2009
  109. ^ (In Romanian) Cornel Nistorescu, "Anticomunistul V. Tismăneanu - un activist comunist devotat", in Cotidianul, August 12, 2009
  110. ^ (In Romanian) Mircea Cărtărescu, "Confesiunile unui învins", in Evenimentul Zilei, August 7, 2009
  111. ^ (In Romanian) Alina Mungiu Pippidi, "Salvati-l pe Volodea. De el insusi" Archived 2014-02-13 at the Wayback Machine 22 May 2012
  112. ^ Michael Shafir, Radio-grafii si alte fobii, Institutul European, Iași, 2010, pp. 308-309.
  113. Observatorul Cultural
    " 2008.
  114. ^ (In Romanian) "Interviu cu Vasile Ernu: ”Elita noastră este foarte cuminte, deloc curajoasă, și iubitoare de a sluji diverse dregătorii”" 4 November 2013

General references

External links
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Tismăneanu&oldid=1214709339"