 |
|
| Anatol Țăranu | |
Attempts to influence the content of these textbooks go beyond the scope of a simple academic debate, becoming a political tool used to shape national identity and collective memory. Thus, interventions in historical content not only distort the past, but can have a direct impact on future generations' perception of their own history and national belonging.
National Emancipation and War of Two Historiographies
The national emancipation movement in the years of perestroika in Soviet Moldova began with a wave of cultural and identity claims. Following the relaxation of Soviet control, intellectuals, writers, the most active part of society, asked for the officialization of the Romanian language and the return to the Latin alphabet, as part of a broad process of recognition of national identity.
In addition to the linguistic dimension, the movement also aimed to eliminate the historiographical distortions imposed by the Soviet regime, bringing back to the fore censored events, such as the Union of 1918, the annexation of Bessarabia by the USSR in 1940, the organized famine of 1946-1947 and mass deportations.
The struggle for the sovereignty and independence of the Republic of Moldova from the USSR was also manifested through a direct confrontation between two opposing historiographical perspectives: national and Soviet historiographies. This "war of histories" plays an essential role in defining the identity and collective memory of the population between the Prut and the Nistru rivers, remaining to this day an open conflict on whose outcome the future of the Republic of Moldova depends.
Soviet historiography – an ideological construction
During the Soviet period, historical science was transformed into a propaganda tool of the communist regime. The history of Bessarabia and Moldavia eastward the Prut was rewritten to justify the imperial policy of the USSR, falsifying the facts and distorting the historical reality.
One of the main narratives promoted by Soviet historiography was the theory of Moldovenism, which supported the existence of a "Moldovan" identity distinct from the Romanian one, including through the invention of a "Moldovan language" separate from the Romanian language. This theory aimed to break any cultural and identity link between Bessarabia and Romania.
Another central myth was that of the "liberation" of 1940 – the annexation of Bessarabia by the USSR was presented as an act of reunification of the "Moldovan people" with the Soviet homeland. In this ideological logic, Bessarabia's Romanian past was either minimized or completely denied. The interwar period (1918-1940) was presented as "Romanian occupation", characterized by "bourgeois-landowner exploitation", without recognizing the economic and cultural progress of that period.
At the same time, Soviet historiography imposed censorship on the crimes of the communist regime. Mass deportations, the organized famine of 1946-1947 and the political repression were either passed over in silence or justified as measures necessary to "consolidate socialism". This falsified version of history was imposed through the educational system, school textbooks, state propaganda, and strict control of historical research.
Thus, Soviet historiography was not a science of truth, but an ideological construction, meant to support the expansionist policy of the USSR and to maintain Moscow's domination over the occupied territories.
National historiography and recovery of historical truth
With the beginning of the national emancipation movement, historians, writers, the predominant part of the Bessarabian intelligentsia actively challenged Soviet historiography, demanding the recognition of Romanian identity. An essential first step in this process was to affirm the truth about the language spoken in the Republic of Moldova, demonstrating that it is Romanian, and not a distinct "Moldovan" language, as Soviet propaganda claimed.
Another major objective of national historiography was to rehabilitate the truth about the annexation of Bessarabia by the USSR in 1940. The event called "liberation" from Soviet propaganda was, in fact, a forced occupation, followed by repression, deportations and suffering for the local population.
Also, the historians placed special emphasis on reconstructing the history of Bessarabia through studies dedicated to the interwar period, the Union of 1918 and the real impact of the Soviet regime on Moldova. A crucial dimension of historical research was also the documentation of the crimes of communism – the revelation of deportations, organized famine and political repression, recognized as acts of genocide against the local population.
This struggle for historical truth had a profound impact on public opinion, contributing decisively to the rebirth of identity. The highlights of this process were the adoption in 1989 of the Romanian language as the state language and the return to the Latin alphabet, followed, two years later, by the declaration of the Independence of the Republic of Moldova.
Consequences of historiographic war
The conflict between the two historical visions did not end with the declaration of the Independence of the Republic of Moldova. It continues to influence politics, national identity and society, maintaining identity division: part of the people identify themselves as Romanians, while others consider themselves "Moldovans", being influenced by Soviet and post-Soviet narratives.
The politicization of history persists with pro-European governments, promoting the values of national historiography, while pro-Russian forces, influenced by Moscow's propaganda, seek to maintain and adapt Soviet narratives according to the geopolitical interests of the Kremlin. This historiographical confrontation is fueled by the influence of Russia, which, through propaganda, continues to support the myths of Soviet historiography in order to maintain its control over the Republic of Moldova.
A recent example of this conflict was manifested by the political attacks on the "History of Romanians and Universal History" textbook for the twelfth grade, which was published in 2024 by “Știința” Publishing House. The accusations brought against the textbook – regarding the denial of the Holocaust and the rehabilitation of the Antonescu regime – are unfounded and speculative. In reality, the textbook presents a clear, balanced position that complies with international standards. The Holocaust is treated as a tragic page of history, and the Antonescu regime is explicitly condemned for crimes against humanity.
The controversy was generated by the fact that the textbook deals with the Holocaust in parallel with other crimes against humanity, such as the Gulag and the Katyn massacre, committed by the Soviet regime. This approach, consolidated in national historiography, debunks the myths of Soviet propaganda and highlights the complicity of the Stalinist regime alongside the Nazi regime in the outbreak of World War II. The textbook thus reflects the position of national historiography, aligned with the decisions of the European Union, which equates the crimes of the communist regime with those of Nazism. This perspective underlines the firm condemnation of totalitarianism, regardless of its form.
Another chapter speculatively criticized is "The policy of the 'Center' in the MSSR: economy, society and way of life". It contradicts the Soviet narratives about the "brotherly aid" granted to Moldova in the post-war period, demonstrating, on the basis of historical truth, the colonialist and assimilative character of Soviet policies. Instead of a voluntary development, the Soviet regime imposed denationalizing and repressive policies meant to suppress the Romanian identity and keep Moldova under Moscow's control.
Conclusion
Thus, the historiographical war in the Republic of Moldova is not only an academic debate, but also an essential struggle for identity, memory and historical truth, with direct implications for the future of Moldovan society. The national historiography of the Republic of Moldova reflects a confrontation between the Soviet legacy and the affirmation of the Romanian identity.
The dominant direction at present is the pro-Romanian one, but Soviet influences and political pressure that promote a distinct Moldovan identity persist. The political factor often neglects the contributions of national historiography, which generates discontinuities in the process of consolidating the unity of Moldovan society.
This dispute is not only an academic conflict, but also a struggle for identity, memory and future. If Soviet historiography served as an instrument of imperial domination, national historiography represents a means of emancipation and reaffirmation of historical truth. This debate continues to influence both the public discourse and the content of school textbooks, having a direct impact on the formation of national consciousness.
In this connection, acknowledging the efforts to restore historical truth is essential to consolidate an authentic perspective on the Republic of Moldova's past. And, an appropriate response to the falsifiers of national history, who are in the camp of those who criticize the current history textbook for the twelfth grade, would be to award the State Prize to the authors of this textbook for their consistency and courage to reflect the historical truth, despite the hybrid attacks staged by the representatives of the pro-Russian fifth column and its backers in Moscow.
IPN publishes in the Op-Ed rubric opinion pieces submitted by authors not affiliated with our editorial board. The opinions expressed in these articles do not necessarily coincide with the opinions of our editorial board.
