Acest proiect editorial este dedicat lui Henri H. Stahl (1901-1991), unul dintre puținii gînditori de orientare marxistă din România interbelică și unul dintre cei mai cunoscuți colaboratori ai lui Dimitrie Gusti, cel considerat fondatorul sociologiei românești. Un intelectual multidimensional, cu preocupări în domeniile sociologiei, etnografiei, antropologiei culturale și istoriei sociale, provenit dintr-o familie de ascendență alsaciano-elvețiană perfect integrată însă în mediul cultural al Bucureștiului pre-comunist, H. H. Stahl și-a văzut cariera întreruptă după 1948 datorită marginalizării cercetărilor sociologice sub comunism. După propria lui formulare: ”Am ajuns cu toţii la concluzia că Şcoala românească de sociologie, sau cum îi spun eu mai curând, Şcoala de sociologie românească a fost asasinată. N-a murit de moarte bună. Ni s-a tăiat cariera. ” Bazat pe interviurile realizate de Zoltán Rostás cu H. H. Stahl în anii 1980, acest proiect are o importanță deosebită tocmai pentru că recuperează memoria disciplinei sociologice din România interbelică. Cât de mari au fost schimbările în această disciplină academică după venirea comunismului la putere, se poate deduce din următoarea evaluare făcută de H. H. Stahl: ”Păi, toţi ştiau că nu vor răzbi prin calităţile lor intelectuale, ci prin poziţiile politice, administrative pe care le pot obţine. Erau mai bine văzuţi cei care aveau activitate socială. Foarte puţini care să fie oameni de carte, să înveţe carte. (...) Mai ales că a fost o vreme când a fost aşa de mare lipsă de oameni care să poată să fie folosiţi, cu încredere, de către partid, încât au făcut apel la cine s-a găsit. Deci, s-au înscris două categorii de oameni, nişte escroci pur şi simplu, arivişti, fără nici un fel de credinţă, care au fost utilizaţi în vremea aceea, şi o serie întreagă de băieţi foarte buni, care şi-au dat seama că nu puteau să muncească efectiv, să facă treabă, dacă nu aveau şi o activitate de partid, care credeau în comunism, credeau. ”
Prin realizarea acestui proiect, Zoltán Rostás nu a avut intenția de a spune ”în sfîrșit, adevărul,” ci aceea de ”a introduce experimentul în istoria culturală, în speță în istoria sociologiei, în speranța de a descoperi unele mecanisme ascunse ale creației” (Rostás 2000, 5). În spatele acestei cărți se află mai multe zeci de ore de înregistrări, după metodologia istoriei orale, întinse pe o perioadă de trei ani (1985-1987). Discuțiile dintre cei doi interlocutori durau, în medie, aproximativ 90 de minute. ”Țin minte că după ce trecea o oră, o oră și jumătate, venea la noi soția domnului Stahl și ne semnala că soțul său este deja obosit. Nu era deloc așa, ar mai fi vrut să stea. Dar doamna Stahl era extraordinar de protectoare cu soțul său,” rememorează Zoltán Rostás. Unele discuții, își mai amintește Zoltán Rostás, se terminau independent de voința celor aflați în locuința familiei Stahl: se întrerupea curentul și nu revenea decît a doua zi, aceasta fiind o situație des întâlnită în România la mijlocul anilor 1980. Versiunea audio a acestor interviuri se regăsește pe mai multe benzi de magnetofon care se află în colecția privată a domnului Zoltán Rostás. Cartea care a rezultat în urma acestor interviuri, Monografia ca utopie: Interviuri cu Henri H. Stahl este cartea cu cel mai mare impact public dintre toate lucrările publicate pînă acum de Zoltán Rostás. Publicat în anul 2000, volumul se află în bibliotecile de specialitate ale facultăților din România și este una dintre cele mai des solicitate cărți pentru lectură. ”În sfîrșit, acest volum este și prima dovadă a faptului că un proiect asumat ca un hobby, deci fără sprijin oficial și asistență academică – ba, mai mult, fără perspectiva publicării – putea să fie desfășurat în direcția nu a unei istorii ”obiective,” ci a unei istorii alternative a Școlii Sociologice de la București” (Rostás 2000, 7).










The digital collection of the Oral History Center contains more than 2000 interviews with twentieth-century witnesses, which are divided into different themes and topics, thus presenting a unique collection of professionally created interviews and memories, many of which are related to the theme of cultural opposition.











From early 2000 the Institute of National Remembrance started to acquire documents from the archives of The Ministry of the Interior and Administration (Ministerstwo Spraw Wewnętrznych i Administracji), the Internal Security Agency (ABW – Agencja Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego), Office for State Protection (UOP - Urząd Ochrony Państwa), Police Archives, Military Information Services (WSI - Wojskowe Służby Informacyjne), Polish Border Guard, Prison Guard, Ministry of National Defence (Ministerstwo Obrony Narodowej) and others. Most of those acquisitions were hasty and done without preparations, so the process of cataloguing and managing the files is still ongoing.



The “Sixtiers Museum” Collection is located in a small museum in Kyiv, Ukraine in a building belonging to the Ukrainian political party Rukh. Nadia Svitlychna and Mykola Plakhotniuk founded this museum as way of honouring and documenting the struggles of a cohort of Soviet Ukrainian dissidents during the 1960s-1980s. Included in the permanent exhibition are paintings, graphics, sculptures, embroidery and other artworks produced by artists affiliated with the sixtiers movement. The museum also displays the poems, letters and literary works of the writers in their midst, as well as their typewriters, handcrafted items made while in the GULag, or clothes worn while living in exile, like Svitlychna’s own camp uniform. Also figuring prominently are posters for events and exhibitions organized by this group. The guided tour is a moving, concise rendition of their struggle, aimed at the museum’s target audiences, young students, scholars, and the general public.
These materials depict the lives of a dynamic group of Soviet Ukrainians engaged in a principled creative and ideological struggle with the Soviet regime in the 1960s and 1970s. They were poets, artists, graphic designers, historians, doctors, and even a Soviet army official, all of whom became deeply involved in human rights activism under late socialism. Many were members of large Soviet institutions—like the Ukrainian writers and artist unions, the Literary Institute in Kyiv, the Soviet armed forces. The Soviet government’s ideological retrenchment after Khrushchev transformed these dissidents, who had worked hard to try and reform the system and make it more humane, into individuals in open conflict with the authorities.



The multiethnic, multilingual, and multicultural world of the French Foreign Legion, that throughout its almost two century long past has recruited its volunteers from among 150 nations, is well reflected by the manuscript “The Slang Vocabulary of the Legionnaires,” edited by Sándor Nemes, a Hungarian veteran residing in Course for close to 50 years now. It provides an authentic insight into the odd group identity of its many Hungarian recruits throughout the twentieth century. To better understand this, one needs to become acquainted with some basic facts of the Legions’ history. The French Foreign Legion, founded in 1831 by King Louis Philippe in Algeria, is still an active and legitimate French armed force, today with some 9,000 mercenaries, that still preserves much of its traditions, although since the 1960s it has been transformed from an old-fashioned colonial army into a modern elite force specialized for international missions of peace maintenance, humanitarian and anti-terrorist tasks, both in France and worldwide.
Ironically enough, the French Foreign Legion, due to several grave economic, political, and war crises, preserved for more than a century the traditional dominance of its German-speaking recruits (from Switzerland, Austria, Germany, and elsewhere), who left behind far-reaching effects even on the language use of the Legion’s command and its folklore, e.g., the military marches, which all used to be German songs. Therefore, it is not at all surprising that following 1945 and 1956, when more than 4,000 Hungarians joined the Legion, this newly arrived ethnic group also began to strengthen its cohesion against the challenging dominance of the “German mafia,” as Sándor Nemes and his fellow Hungarian veterans recalled in their accounts. This was, of course, but a limited and rather informal rivalry given the strict hierarchy and the wartime conditions (in Indochina, and Algeria!). Still a “two-front” cultural resistance emerged ever more markedly among the Hungarian volunteers, on the one hand against the mostly native French officers, and the German warrant officers on the other. In fact, at a closer look the Hungarian recruits (who were called “Huns,” “kicsis,” or “Attilas” in the common slang used by the Legion) were not homogenous either, especially as far as their cultural and political identity was concerned. Although the age difference between them was hardly more than 10–15 years, they belonged to two markedly different generations: the ’45-ers, or the “Horthy’s hussars,” recruited mostly from POW and refugee camps after the end of WWII, and the ’56-ers, who fled to the West when the Hungarian revolution was violently suppressed. The main difference between the active ’56-ers and the rest of the Hungarian legionnaires could be felt most in their attitudes and group identity, since the former were much more united in their common engagement in the revolutionary events and battles that they experienced as very young men or even minors. As members of the Hungarian veterans’ circle in Provence, they were the ones who kept in contact for decades and preserved the memory of the revolution up to the present day with their special group rituals (like banquets, memorial meetings, and the sharing of their revolutionary experiences and relics).
These can be best illustrated with a number of funny, original, and telling entries in Sándor Nemes’s “The Slang Vocabulary of the Legionnaires,” especially in its Forward and in Chapters 2–6. (2. Slang and loanwords used by legionnaires; 3. Figures of speech, idioms, and proverbs; 4. The most common German phrases; 5. The most common Arabic loanwords; 6. Bynames of ethnicities and nationalities in the slang used by legionnaires.)




Rudolf Mihle (1937–2008) was one of the most important Czech amateur filmmakers. Some of his films were critical of the communist regime and society. Therefore, they were censored and could not be publicly screened. Mihle was an active member of the Czech Club of Amateur Filmmakers (Český klub kinoamatérů).