"They believed that they could defend their freedom and honor in the mountains. The enthusiasm characteristic of their age made them believe that it was their duty to resist the Communists and that it would have been shameful for the Romanians not to take a stand and say 'No'" Some historical landmarks In 1946 Romania organized elections. With the support of the Russian troops stationed in the country the Communists won the elections by fraud (Cioroianu 2005; Voicu-Arnăuțoiu 2009; Petrescu 2012; Miroiu 2014). The Romanians were surprised by the results because there were few Communist supporters among the people. Then, they believed that Western democratic powers would not tolerate the breach of democracy and would interfere to re-establish the natural order. Communism did not seem to have real chances to be established, let alone be in power in the long term. Some of the military officers of the Romanian army viewed it as their duty to lay the ground for Western (especially US) intervention (Coman, 2004). They began to gather weapons, store them in safe places, organize support networks with trustworthy locals and even train these. That is how the anti-communist resistance movement emerged in the middle of the ‘40s. It was first organized in Bucovina, in the north-east of Romania, but there were resistance groups all throughout the main mountain ranges in the country. There was no central coordination of these groups at national level. The National Resistance Movement established in 1945 could have assumed such a role but it failed because of bureaucracy and financing difficulties and it was de-structured shortly afterwards (Coman, 2004). With a view to the prospective intervention of Western powers to free Romanians from Communism, straightforward armed opposition was considered the natural attitude. Guerilla war also seemed an appropriate way, along with civil disobedience manifested by people when confronted with the abuses of the new regime. However, Western military support did not materialize. Meanwhile, the newly sworn Communist regime consolidated its power. On 30 December 1947, King Michael was forced to abdicate. The former royal army went through a process of political purge. Many officers were forced to retire, then they were accused of anti-Soviet attitude for having participated in the military campaign conducted in the East during WWII. Liberal professions became expensive and professional autonomy began to dwindle in many fields. Previous political affiliation or the “unhealthy” social origin became reasons for firing people and, sometimes, for threatening their lives. In the spring of 1948 the leaders of the opposition parties were imprisoned (Ionițoiu, 1993). The Legionnaire movement (the Archangel Michael Legion), a far-right political group active during the interwar period, in power between 1940 and 1941 and then declared illegal, was initially courted by the new regime. The Communists were willing to forget about the movement’s anti-communist agenda for the sake of better covering the territory with the Legion’s local organizations and paramilitary forces. Thus, they hoped to use these resources for their own gain. That only happened occasionally and hence the movement’s members became a potential threat for the new regime. They were accused of Nazism and a search for their arrest was started. The leaders of local groups were mostly targeted. In reality, all local leaders, politicians, professors, priests, teachers and wealthy peasants were considered dangerous for a regime that could not rely on the genuine sympathy of the people. Meanwhile, the Communist regime began to consolidate the power of the Security (Securitate in Romanian), its instrument of repression. In this context, what had started as a patriotic movement meant to lay the groundwork for the rescue intervention of Western democratic powers gradually gained increased personal stakes for those involved. Feeling threatened, many of the people living at the bottom of the mountains withdrew in the mountains to avoid being arrested. They thus refused to become subjects of a regime which they viewed as unjust. That was a point of no return for them. The attempts to maintain people’s anti-communist feelings by sanctioning the collaborators and/or the beneficiaries of the new regime soon turned into a grapple for survival. The external support was nowhere near, the idea that it would never be granted became clearer by day and the group leaders in the mountains knew that without the expected aid their opposition was doomed to fail. On the other hand, Security forces were massively deployed in the areas where the groups were located and concocted increasingly elaborated strategies to capture the resistance fighters and de-structure their networks of supporters (Dobrincu, 2007). The prestige of the new regime was at stake. The more the resistance movement continued, the more its members escaped the traps set for them, the weaker the regime proved showing that opposition was possible. Gradually, the term “resistance” changed its connotations getting closer to the meaning of survival under siege. After the first confrontations with Security forces, the group members had to choose only between surrendering to stand trial as enemies of the people, being rehabilitated in exchange for betraying their comrades, or fighting to the end. Most of them chose the latter. They put up resistance until the end of the 50s (1958) with the aid of the village dwellers at the bottom of the mountains. The latter were severely punished for having hosted, supplied food, medicine and news to the fighters (Dobrincu, 2007; Ionițoiu, 1993). With no possibility to hide, they were also intimidated, arrested, put under investigation, tortured, convicted to prison or death. The arrests and the torture gradually weakened the support networks, unveiled some of the hideouts, food and weapons storages. The Security slowly annihilated the resistance movement by resorting to armed confrontation, infiltration, betrayal, arrests, and executions. The fighters were progressively defeated either in direct confrontation or as a result of the traps set up by the Security forces. In some cases they were betrayed by people they knew and who had been blackmailed or offered considerable benefits. Many of the resistance fighters and supporters died in prison. Mihalcea și Stănescu (2014) estimate the number of those convicted to prison for political reasons under the Communist regime at around 200,000. The criminal records of 93,000 of these have been found. At the beginning of 1963 there were 16,327 people imprisoned for political reasons (Deletant, 2001). In 1963 and 1964 pardon decrees were issued for these, followed by surveillance instructions for their day-to-day life. Survivors returned to a world where social hierarchies had been upturned. Consequently, outside their circle of close friends they were viewed as weird or incapable of adaptation, and were marginalized. It was a world in which Communist propaganda would persistently call them bandits or people’s enemies - that would push for the change of the official representation of the resistance movement. The Outlaws of Muscel The group known as Arsenescu- Arnăuțoiu, the Outlaws of Muscel, was the most important resistance group. They acted on the southern slope of the Făgăraș Mountain - the highest mountain in the Meridional Carpathians. Colonel Gheorghe Arsenescu was a trained military- he had been the commanding officer of Regiment 30 Muscel and General Staff commandant for Division III which had been deployed on the Eastern front. He had been decorated by both Romanians and Germans. After the war he was removed from the armed forces at the age of 39. At the beginning of 1948 colonel Arsenescu organized a resistance network in the north of Muscel County. With the aid of supporters from his former regiment he got hold of weapons and logistic means to survive in the mountains. This first resistance group was de-structured in 1949, but Arsenescu had already negotiated with Toma Arnăuțoiu to expand the resistance network in the area of Nucșoara township, Muscel County, which was the latter’s place of birth. Toma Arnăuțoiu, in his turn, had been a lieutenant of cavalry in the Royal Guard and had been forced to retire. On 19 June 1948 the first confrontation between the Security forces and the members of the Arsenescu- Arnăuțoiu group took place in the house of teacher Iancu Arnăuțoiu from Nucșoara, Toma’s father. Injuring some Security members, the fighters managed to break the encirclement and reach the mountain (Ionițoiu, 1993). A long period of confrontations, searches, watching and armed response followed as part of a guerilla war. An operative detachment of the Security forces was deployed in the township and the ties of the township with the outside world were cut. The Securitate employees disguised as shepherds or workers in the forest spread around the area. Toma and Petre Arnăuțoiu’s parents and sister, along with other relatives and friends were arrested, beaten, and/or convicted to prison. Many other relatives of the fighters took it to the mountain. In July 1949 the group split because of their disagreements over the strategy to follow. Some of the members followed colonel Arsenescu, whereas the others followed the Arnăuțoiu brothers. They knew about one another’s whereabouts, they would travel often, occasionally showing up at the hunting lodges or sheepfolds to confuse the Security workers, punishing the collaborators of the new regime and those who terrorized the locals (Ionițoiu, 1993). They managed to keep under control vigilante violence or the terrorist inclinations of some of the members by maintaining rigorous military discipline. Under these conditions the last fighters retained their foothold in the area until 1958. The impressive local support (many locals did not yield to torture, protecting the fighters) was the result of the prestige colonel Arsenescu and the Arnăuțoius had. Teacher Iancu Arnăuțoiu had built schools in all the villages of the township and was the financial adviser of the peasants in the area. He was a personal friend of Ion Mihalache, the head of one of the most important political parties during the interwar period (Petrescu- Muscel, 2019). The fighters resorted to the natural hideouts offered by the mountain.These hideouts were supplied with food brought by girls and women from the neighboring villages. Their resolution to support their loved ones was one of the distinct features of the group. Elisabeta Rizea, a peasant from Nucșoara, was one of these women. She was arrested in 1949, beaten, incarcerated, sentenced to seven years of prison in 1951, arrested again in 1961 and sentenced to 25 years in prison. She was released in 1964 along with most of the political prisoners. She was known among the convicts as the “woman with torn hair” (Dobre, 2006). Her story was made public in one of the episodes of the series Memorial of Pain in which she was the lead figure (the series is a 120 episode documentary on the political prisoners, prisons, and camps of the first decades following the establishment of the Communist regime in Romania, made by Lucia Hossu-Longin for the Romanian state television). Elisabeta Rizea’s biography was politically capitalized on during the 1992 and 1996 election campaigns. According to Dobre (2006), the heroine embodies Romanians’ traditional values of courage, loyalty, honor and perseverance, as well as silent, undefeated resistance and hence could become “lieu de mémoire”. Many girls and women followed their fathers, lovers, brothers, husbands or sons to the mountains. Toma Arnăuțoiu had his daughter born in one of the fighters’ hideouts. The child was given up for adoption after the arrest of her parents and she only found out about them after 1989 (Voicu- Arnăuțoiu, 2009). Another feature of the group is the large number of priests and their wives who acted as supporters. One of these was Gh. Cotenescu, senior lecturer at Nicolae Iorga’s Summer University and the latter’s supporter (Petrescu, 2013; Petrescu-Muscel, 2019). Iorga is a well-known Romanian historian and politician murdered by the legionnaires in 1940. In May 1958 Toma and Petre Arnăuțoiu met engineer Grigore Poinăreanu, one of their old collaborators, whom they trusted. They were planning to secure the departure of the last survivors of the group for Yugoslavia. They were betrayed, though. A powerful tranquilizer was put in the plum brandy they had been given to drink. When they woke up the Arnăuțoiu brothers were taken near the hideout where Maria Plop along with her daughter (she was also Toma Arnăuțoiu’s child) and another member of the group were. The woman and her daughter came out of the hideout and surrendered. Constantin Jubleanu refused to give himself up and fought until the last round was fired. The Arnăuțoiu brothers were executed in 1959. Maria Plop died in prison in 1962. After the group was de-structured hundreds of arrests followed in the area. All those who had helped the fighters were sentenced to prison, even for minor offences like occasionally offering cigarettes, clothes, food. That was possible because the notebooks where the group members had written down the names of those to whom they considered indebted were found buried (Petrescu, 2012). Colonel Arsenescu was captured in 1961 and executed in 1962. He was turned in by one of the neighbors of the host where he had been hiding all alone. The Făgăraș Carpathian Group The group headed by Ion Gavrilă Ogoranu and known as the Făgăraș Carpathian Group operated on the northern slope of the Făgăraș Mountains. Unlike Arsenescu and Arnăuțoiu who were military, the core of this northern group was made of students or young college graduates, who had been high school colleagues in “Radu Negru” high school în Făgăraș. In the aforementioned high school there had been a powerful Brotherhood of the Cross group. Brotherhoods were legionnaire groups of young people. At the end of the ‘40s many of those who had been members of legionnaire youth organizations or had participated in students’ anti-communist movements were hiding in their homes, in the villages from Făgăraș Country (the area between the Olt river and the mountains) for fear of arrests on political grounds. In 1947 Ion Gavrilă Ogoranu was a student in Cluj (the most important university center from Transylvania) and, according to him (apud Dobrincu, 2007), the head of the Brotherhoods of the Cross in Transylvania. In 1946 he had participated in the confrontations between the students from Cluj and the police forces serving the new regime (Coman, 2004). In 1948 he was convicted in absentia to 15 years of prison for his legionnaire activity. In May 1949, the Old Man (as he was nicknamed for his advising skills) went up the mountain along with 13 young people. They were all familiar with the mountain, where they felt like home for it had been the place where they had grown up. They believed that they could defend their freedom and honor in the mountains. The enthusiasm characteristic of their age made them believe that it was their duty to resist the Communists and that it would have been shameful for the Romanians not to take a stand and say “No” (Dobrincu, 2007). They tried to encourage the people in the region that things would get back to normal, which meant the removal of Communism. Some of the group’s members had been at war, others (Ion Gavrilă Ogoranu was one of these) had graduated from the military school and acquired books on guerilla war. Former officers supplied them with weapons and equipment. They had raised huts where they held supplies of food and weapons. They were never the first to open fire against the Security troops, nor did they display violence towards the civil population with whom they came in contact (shepherds, forest workers, tourists). When they requisitioned goods, they would leave vouchers in exchange (Coman, 2004) so that people could justify the missing goods. Their correct behavior towards civilians was acknowledged by the Security officers and mentioned in their documents (Dobrincu, 2007). They did not rob individual households. They did not undertake any actions against local authorities, but they sometimes intimidated the agents who were trying to convince the locals to enroll in the agricultural associations (Pop, 2020). The process of establishing agricultural cooperatives by the Soviet model was traumatic for Romania which was a rural country. It was started in 1949 and closed in 1962. It was performed despite the fierce opposition shown by the peasants (especially by the wealthy ones and by those with middle income) and resulted in another category of disgruntled people who took it to the mountains. Between 14 and 16 November 1950 massive arrests were made in the area (Dobrincu, 2007). As a result of concerted actions taken by the Security in the villages from Făgăraș Country, around 30 people were arrested in each township (Ionițoiu, 1993). These were fighters from other anti-communist groups and also supporters of those. The group headed by Ion Gavrilă Ogoranu was not directly affected. Then, the Security established its own informative network in the area. Some of the locals who had been arrested accepted to collaborate, many of them playing the role of double agents: they would provide the fighters with precious information on the intentions of Security troops while giving the latter fake, confusing, unreliable information on the fighters (Coman, 2004; Dobrincu, 2007). Partially due to these people, the fighters managed to avoid the traps set up for them, circumvent monitoring posts and patrols, and thus cross the area under surveillance. What is more, the Security troops deployed in the area were not very well trained, at least in their first years of operation. The soldiers were unenthusiastic, the conscripts (fortunately) got scared when the fighters fired warning shots above their heads (Coman, 2004). Some young officers were impressed by the moral values and the military training of the fighters they encountered (Dobrincu, 2007) and tacitly showed understanding for them (Coman, 2004). The members of the resistance group had the reputation of good shooters and they were better than the Security soldiers: they would fire and put out the latter’s cigarettes or put holes in their cans (Dobrincu, 2007). The first actions taken by the Security against Ion Gavrilă Ogoranu’s group were poorly organized, they were not adapted to the features of the terrain and to the relation between the fighters and the locals. The troops deployed in the area were too numerous for apprehending a small number of people hiding in the mountains. What is more, the signals they used were inappropriate and unveiled their position. It is anecdotal the use of a cuckoo bird’s song as a signal in August when it was common knowledge among the locals that the bird had stopped singing a while before (Dobrincu, 2007). The helicopters and small size planes used to surveille the area were hard to miss by the fighters. Under such circumstances troop movement was easy to detect and that allowed the members of the resistance movement to come down the mountain in the villages at their hosts (Coman, 2004). In the spring of 1954 there were four surveillance Security battalions in the area. The officers were poorly trained, the soldiers had been improperly selected. They would be late when assuming their jobs, leave their posts to get alcohol and cigarettes, light up fires overtly in the mountains and throw away hundreds of empty cans on the meadows. When the presence of the fighters was signaled in one of the villages, they only arrived three days later in the area. In 1954 there were six battalions from the Security in Făgăraș Country (Dobrincu, 2007). Under such circumstances, an aura of legend around the resistance movement organized in the mountains emerged. The rumors had it that there were thousands of fighters, that the authorities could not manage them, that they had special weapons brought from Western countries by planes which were landing on the meadows in the mountains, and that they had dug trenches in the mountain stone (Dobrincu, 2007). In August 1952 some of the group members came down to the Balea Waterfall Chalet, one of the most popular chalets among tourists in the Făgăraș Mountains, in broad daylight and took food and clothes leaving a voucher in exchange. Additionally, the Old Man gave the tourists a speech on freedom and the single place in Romania left untouched by Communism, namely the mountain. According to a later testimony of one of the tourists present on that day at the chalet, the party members were forced to chew up their party membership card. This action was more daring and spectacular than others and its aim was to lure the Security troops away from another area where they had surrounded some of the group members (Dobrincu, 2007). As it was told by direct witnesses it considerably increased fighters’ prestige. The strategy of the Security gradually improved. They began to pay more attention to the group. As of 1952 they described it as more dangerous than the Arsenescu- Arnăuțoiu group. According to them, it was “solely made of intellectuals” who were contributing to “an unhealthy state of mind among the people” (apud Dobrincu, 2007, p. 465). The Security employees infiltrated among the priests (group members were practicing Christians), surveilled the doctors, nurses and pharmacists working in townships, investigated the relations between the fighters and their former colleagues and teachers, searched for their lovers. They increased the number of people working in local police stations. They deployed fresh graduates of the newly established police school specialization “Gangs” to the area. They disguised their people as tourists or fighters from other fighters’ groups. Such a group was unfortunate to encounter a more aggressive group of southern slope fighters on the mountain ridge and was annihilated (Coman, 2004; Dobrincu, 2007). The Security forces severely and exemplarily punished (by beatings, torture, prison sentences) any proven aid granted to the fighters. In 1952 they shot dead one of the group members in the village where he was hiding and displayed his body in front of the Town Hall forcing the villagers to look at him. The new strategy began to bear fruit: until the spring of 1953, 130 group supporters were identified and 70 of these were arrested and convicted (Dobrincu, 2007). Gradually the fighters’ portrayal as heroes endowed with supernatural powers began to fade away (Coman, 2004) and their freedom of movement was limited. Getting supplies from their homes became a difficult task, hence they would come down to the chalets and sheepfolds more often. In June 1955 the student Remus Sofonea got accidentally shot in the leg by a Security patrol. He committed suicide several days later in order not to become a burden for his comrades and a danger for his host, the teacher Olimpiu Borzea, leader of an important support group, and for the doctor who was preparing to operate on him clandestinely. He was buried under the grapevine he would see from where he was lying ill (Pop, 2020). Those who had hosted and buried him were later sentenced to many years of prison. The next year one of the support network members, namely professor Ioan Grovu, was convinced to collaborate with the Security (Dobrincu, 2007; Pop, 2020). Many fighters and their close supporters were lured by Grovu’s promises that he could arrange for their departure to Greece. They trusted him because he was an old acquaintance, but once they left from Făgăraș County they were arrested. In 1957 they went to trial and were sentenced to death or life imprisonment. Ion Gavrilă Ogoranu refused to leave for Greece. He was only arrested in 1976, after the political prisoners from Romania had already been released (in 1964) and the crimes for which he had been convicted in absentia became prescribed. He had been hiding for many years in the house of one of his former colleagues’ widow, in the Transylvanian Plain. The Security tried to compromise him by forcing the people who had been arrested to write to their close relatives that they had been betrayed by the Old Man and for that reason the latter had not been arrested. In the ‘90s some of the dwellers in the Făgăraș County were still convinced that such allegations were true (Dobrincu, 2007). After 1989 Ion Gavrilă Ogoranu (1993; 1996; 1999; 2004; 2006a; 2006b; 2007) made his memories public in the books he wrote – Pine Trees Break, but They Do Not Bend, vol. I-VII, as well as in articles, interviews, conferences and films. Similarly to Elisabeta Rizea he became an emblematic figure for the active part played by the anticommunist resistance movement in Romania. The Security attributes to the Făgăraș Carpathian Group nine murders, a deadly accident, the wounding of two policemen and 40 robberies. The number of the families oppressed on suspicion of having provided support to the fighters amounted to more than 1,000 (Dobrincu, 2007). They did not have the option of armed counter-attack and hence the fighters deemed their suffering much higher than their own. The communities at the bottom of the mountain were under psychological and military siege (Coman, 2004). The group’s capacity to operate for a long time (since 1949 and until 1956) was explained by Ion Gavrilă Ogoranu (1995) as the result of several factors: the young fighters had known one another since childhood and that made informants’ infiltration difficult, were familiar with the mountain, had devoted supporters, expanded their activity beyond the area where the search parties were looking for them, worked in small and mobile groups with no permanent center for their operations, and organized an efficient information system in the villages at the bottom of the mountain. A sustainable approach to the anti-communist resistance Ion Gavrilă Ogoranu and Arsenescu- Arnăuțoiu groups forced the Security to resort to the most complex and lengthy annihilation operations ever (Dobrincu, 2007). Between 1959 and 1968 Romania adopted the Soviet model for its administrative and territorial organization, namely by regions and districts. When these were replaced by counties, both Muscel and Făgăraș Counties were removed from the map. Muscel’s territory was subordinated to the neighboring counties of Dâmbovița and Argeș, whereas Făgăraș was placed in the subordination of Brașov and Sibiu Counties. Disregarding the part played by the anti-communist armed movement in Romanians’ recent history does not benefit anyone. Nor does it show fairness towards the fighters in the mountains or towards nowadays’ young people. Such an attitude is not equitable to the former because it implicitly accredits the representation promoted by Communist propaganda. Disregarding the resistance in the mountains is unfair towards young people because it deprives them of a lesson on history dynamics, as well as on the relation between individual lives and great collective events, between the local and the universal context. Additionally, it is unfair because it limits young people’s access to an intangible cultural heritage resource, which has an identity stake and strengthens the links between successive generations of a community. Opening the access to all the facets, nuances and features characterizing the remembrance of the resistance in the mountains is a sustainable approach to the topic. Thus, what is sanctionable will be penalized, and what is commendable will be given credit. By resorting to their own judgment and a stable axiological system, relying on available data, exercising their critical historical thinking in relation to sensitive topics, young people can avoid transforming the references to the resistance in the mountains into a failed history lesson. A sustainable approach to history changes the balance of forces modelling social memory. It diminishes the power of political factors (state, parties, ideologies) while expanding the importance of civil society and local identity. by Daniela Sorea and Ana-Maria Bolborici REFERENCES Cioroianu, A. (2005). Pe umerii lui Marx. O introducere în istoria comunismului românesc. Bucharest: Curtea Veche. Coman, O. (2004). Rezistenţa din munţii României, o formă de alteritate faţă de regimul comunist în perioada 1944 – 1958. Available online: http://www.com unism. ro /fisiere/cercetatori/texte%20PDF/coman.pdf (accessed on 12 May 2020). Comisia prezidenţială pentru analiza dictaturii comuniste din România, 2006: Raport final. Available online: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/article/ RAPORT%20FINAL_%20CADCR.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2020). Deletant, D. (2001). Teroarea comunistă în România. Gheorghiu-Dej şi statul poliţienesc, 1948 – 1965. Iași: Polirom. Dobre, C. (2006). Elisabeta Rizea de Nucsoara: un ”lieu de mémoire” pour les roumains?. Conserveries mémorielles, 1. Available online: http://journals.openedition.org/cm/290 (accessed on 14 May 2020). Dobrincu, D. (2007). Rezistenţa armată anticomunistă din Munţii Făgăraş – versantul nordic.„Grupul carpatic făgărăşan” / Grupul Ion Gavrilă (1949/1950-1955/1956). Anuarul Institutului de Istorie «G. Bariţiu» din Cluj-Napoca XLVI, 433-502. Gavrilă-Ogoranu, I. (1993). Brazii se frâng, dar nu se îndoiesc, Volume 1. Timișoara: Marineasa. Gavrilă-Ogoranu, I. (1995). Rezistenţa armată anticomunistă din munţii României. Analele Sighet 1, 102-103. Gavrilă-Ogoranu, I.(1996). Brazii se frâng, dar nu se îndoiesc, Volume 2. Timișoara: Marineasa. Gavrilă-Ogoranu, I., Baki Nicoară, L. (1999). Brazii se frâng, dar nu se îndoiesc, Volume 3. Timișoara: Marineasa. Gavrilă-Ogoranu, I. (2004). Brazii se frâng, dar nu se îndoiesc, Volume 4. Făgăraș: Mesagerul de Făgăraș. Gavrilă-Ogoranu, I. (2006). Brazii se frâng, dar nu se îndoiesc, Volume 5: La pas prin Frăția de Cruce. Bucharest: Editura Mișcării legionare. Gavrilă-Ogoranu, I. (2006). Brazii se frâng, dar nu se îndoiesc, Volume 6: Episcopul Ioan Suciu în fața furtunii. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Viața Creștină. Gavrilă-Ogoranu, I., Neagoe-Pleșa, E.; Pleșa, L. (2007). Brazii se frâng, dar nu se îndoiesc, Volume 7: Rezistența anticomunistă din Munții Apuseni. Baia Mare: Marist. Ionițoiu, C. (1993): Rezistenţa anticomunistă din munţii României, 1946 – 1958. Bucharest: Gândirea Românească. Mihalcea, A. – Stănescu, M. (2014). 50 de ani de la eliberarea deţinuţilor politici anticomunişti. In: Revista 22. Available online: https://revista22.ro/eseu/alexandru-mihalcea-si-mirel-stanescu/50-de-ani-de-la-eliberarea-de355inu355ilor-politici-anticomuni351ti (accessed on 14 May 2020). Miroiu, A. (2014). Military Operations in Romanian Anti-Partisan Warfare, 1944 – 1958. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 37(2), 185-197. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09592318.2014.982884. Petrescu, R. (2012). Haiducii Muscelului, mişcarea de rezistenţă a colonelului Arsenescu. Preoţii colonelului Arsenescu. Historia 121 (1), 52-55. Petrescu, R. (2013). Un triunghi neobişnuit: profesorul Nicolae Iorga şi studenţii Ilie Cătărău şi Gheorghe Cotenescu. Argesis, studii şi comunicări, seria Istorie, XXII, 391-397. Petrescu-Muscel, R. (2019). De la România Mare la Haiducii Muscelului: Arnăuțoii și Coteneștii. Memoria 107 (2), 128-133. Pop, V. Hățișuri. (2020). Brașov: Century Image. Voicu-Arnăuțoiu, I. R. (2009). Luptătorii din munți. Toma Arnăuțoiu- Grupul de la Nucșoara. Bucharest: Vremea. (a development of the article: The Anti-Communist Resistance in the Făgăraș Mountains (Romania) as a Challenge for Social Memory and an Exercise of Critical Thinking published in Sociológia 53, 2021, No. 3, 266-286, authors: Sorea, D. and Bolborici, A.M., https://www.sav.sk/?lang=en&doc=journal-list&part=article_response_page&journal_article_no=26086 )
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
June 2022
Categories |