Talk:Mitiță Constantinescu

Untitled

It is ridiculous to say that a foreign politician active before 1945 was supportive of Stalinism, as the term refers to the repressions which were exposed for the first time in 1954 or later. In 1945 many people were supportive of the USSR, the state that liberated Eastern Europe from the fascist yoke. I fail to see how their feelings may be reprimanded. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, we are talking about a post-1945 activity.

Second of all, you obey a Khruschevite outlook on what "Stalinism" is (and do so to a point that Khrushchev himself wouldn't have), and not a world view.

Third of all, there was no question of "reprimanded". He knew that the Communist Party's tactic was based on Stalin's tactics, for better or worse. If he thought Stalinism was for the better (and I suppose all supporters of Stalinism did, by definition) or if he was following an opportunistic line, it still would not matter in applying the term, at he was factually a supporter of Stalinism in all possible instances.

From the article: "Stalinism is the political and economic system named after Joseph Stalin, who implemented it in the Soviet Union. It includes an extensive use of propaganda to establish a personality cult around an absolute dictator, extensive use of the secret police to maintain social submission, and most notably, the promotion of communism as the highest political and economic ideal." There is nothing indicative of "pre-1945", and anyone will tell you that term was in use in the official policy of the Communist Parties (Romanian Communist Party included), as "Stalinism" or "the teaching of Stalin", way before 1945. I would imagine that it had a positive sense.

To clarify further: we are talking about a person who wrote a book encouraging Stalin's personality cult and his directives as applied to the world and Romania. (Incidentally, he did that not long after he had supported a quasi-fascist regime, that of Carol II, which would extend some doubt on the terms you use).

Even if that were not true, the thinking associated with this move would still be remarkably flawed, I'm afraid. It is like me telling me that someone could not have collaborated in or even be a victim of the Holocaust before 1944, because the Holocaust was only exposed in 1944! This is not Fantasia or Eden: things don't begin to exist when you name them. And, again, the name was in use, and it was in use with a positive sense.

I will add, FYI: "Stalinism" was first exposed as a Soviet policy by Trotsky and others. Also consider that, out of many references to do so, Vladimir Tismăneanu specifically named his book about the Romanian Communist Party Stalinism for All Seasons, to indicate that, in pure terms, there was no difference between the Party of before 1953 and the Party of after 1953, which was not the case in the Soviet Union (also note the name of Victor Frunză's book listed in the article). Out of many other "non-Romanian" sources to back this approach, in case you think it is limited for some reason, I have Medvedev, who spoke of various Stalinists that had died before or in 1953 (including Stalin himself).

As for the "fascist yoke" et al, while I am more sympathetic to the Red Army offensive than the average Romanian, that is not a neutral notion (in Romania at least, it was a little more complex than "yoke" - and, indeed, likely to raise more ethical issues for Romanians involved). I can assure you that Constantinescu did not base his ideology on such "priorities". Dahn 14:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)