The decision of the Liberal Minister of Defense Anatol Salaru to found a Museum of Soviet Occupation caused reactions and polemics not only among the Russian authorities, but also in Moldovan society. Contradictory statements on the issue were made in the program “Fabrika” on Publika TV channel, IPN reports.
Historian Ruslan Shevchenko welcomed the initiative of Anatol Salaru. “It is indisputable that Moldova in 1944 was occupied, not liberated. The people weren’t asked if they want to form part of the USSR or if they want to be governed by the Soviet power. There was held no referendum or discussion. They came with the army and that’s all. Afterward, the new power started its atrocities,” he stated.
Dragos Vicol, expert in education policies, also considers that a Soviet occupation museum is needed in Chisinau. “This is a proof of firmness no matter who put forward the initiative. Anatol Salaru presented the reality. It is a compensatory initiative. We can see that all the monument tanks have their guns aimed at the West. These tanks must be removed from the pedestal and taken to a museum, if there are yet nostalgic persons who would admire them,” he said.
Valentin Krylov, co-founder and former member of the Party of Socialists, expressed a different opinion. “In 1918 the Moldovan people weren’t asked either if they want to be part of Romania. I fully support the reaction of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia,” he stated.
Media analyst Cristian Tabara said this museum could be named “Museum of the Soviet Period” so as to avoid dissension in the heavily split society.
