(purely personal views as always, based on information collected during the 1990s while in academia)

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2014/11/26/doru-teodor-maries-despre-decembrie-1989/

http://www.tvrplus.ro/editie-memorial-90-270303

In the video available above, Doru Maries, President of the Asociatia 21 decembrie 1989, makes a series of extraordinary claims…

26:00-27:00 (min.) Maries claims the army executed a single battle plan from 17 December 1989 in Timisoara until sometime after the events of Targu Mures in mid-March 1990.

27:30-28:30 Maries claims the Army and the National Salvation Front bear all and singular responsibility for the bloodshed and death after the Ceausescus fled on 22 December 1989.  The goal he claims was to protect those responsible for the bloody repression prior to 22 December in Timisoara, Bucharest, and elsewhere, including generals Stanculescu and Chitac.

30:00-33:45 Maries claims that Army General Nicolae Militaru in his televised address on the afternoon of 22 December 1989 in which he called on all forces of repression, including the Army, to “stop the massacre” (Opriti macelul!), in reality was saying, “unleash the massacre” (“dati drumul la macel,” according to Maries…).  He repeats that the FSN and Army were responsible for all the bloodshed.

36:00-37:00 Maries claims Caramitru admits “we fired into our own people”

38:00-38:30 The replacement of Ceausescu with Iliescu, “a dictator with a communist,” per Securitate General Iulian Vlad, was a solution “imposed by Moscow,” according to Maries.  He refers again to the sovietici at 42:00.

42:45 Maries claims Stanculescu asked to go to Timisoara to order the repression because he had done so in 1956

43:00-44:00 Maries focuses on all the bullets expended by the Army per their Jurnal de Lupta

44:00-46:00 Maries claims this was not just a “crime against humanity” but a “crime against culture” because of the intentional destruction of books and the organized theft of paintings “from all museums along Calea Victoriei.”

It is appropriate to compare Maries’ comments in the above video with his claims below.

Nicusor Vlase, Doru Teodor Maries, si presa romaneasca din 1991

Marturii (intre 1990 si 1992) din zilele fierbinte in CC-ul (decembrie 1989): Doru Teodor Maries, Mircea Boaba, Sergiu Tanasescu, si Ernest Maftei

DORU MARIES (13 iunie 1991, interviu luat de Angela Bacescu, revista Europa):

“Am citit aproape toate interviurile luate de dumneavoastra.  Ati facut lumina prin interviul colectiv luat in penitenciarul din Timisoara prin care a fost demascata activitatea de tradare de tara a lui Laszlo Tokes.”

“Doamna Bacescu, dupa mirarea dumneavoastra ar rezulta ca Ceausescu ar fi avut dreptate:  Agenturile straine…”

“Eu n-am sa-l regret niciodata pe Ceausescu.  Singura calitate pe care i-o atribui este ca a fost UN MARE PATRIOT.  A tinut la granite.  Dar in schimb ne-a tinut in frig, foame, teroare, iar nevasta sa ne ura efectiv.”

“Eu sustin ca martor ocular ca [securistii] nu au tras.  Ba, mai mult, si-au lasat armele si munitia.  Acum inteleg de ce.  Probabil ca aveau informatii ca gogorita cu “teroristii” o sa fie pusa in spinarea lor.  Au fost bine informati.  Nu s-au implicat in conflict, nu au tras.  Altfel ar fi fost razboi civil, se omora frate cu frate.”

Doru Maries:  Atite timp eu am avut acces la balconul Universitatii, vazind ca televiziunea nu arata nimic despre atrocitatiile facute de unguri in ARDEAL (eu sint ardelean) unde s-a desfiintat invatamintul in limba romana si au fost izgoniti romanii, nu arata cum domnul ministru Sora facea reforma invatamintului in timpul trimestrului 1 al anului 1990 (nicaieri in lume nu se face reforma invatamintului in timpul unui trimestru scolar), la televiziune nu se arata ce se intimpla cu granitele, cu furtul si scoaterea din tara a avutiei nationale, era normal ca eu sa vorbesc impotriva televiziune si a executivului care nu se luau nici o masura si despre care acum vorbiti si dumneavoastra de la revista Europa si alte reviste.

TEODOR MARIES:

“In primul rind in timpul lui Ceausescu nu erau arestati.  Spun acestea pentru ca triplul spion Silviu Brucan, tradatorul neamului romanesc, Laszlo Tokes, si altii sint liberi, si ei sint liberi si acum, inseamna ca atunci tradau tara pusi de catre cei care acum nu-i trag la raspundere cind s-a confirmat vinovatia lor.  In timpul lui Ceausescu daca faceai greva foamei in trei zile venea procurorul militar si rezolva problema.  Dar asta nu-l scuza cu nimic pe Ceausescu.”

Angela Bacescu (ziarista revistei Europa):  Erai manipulat de cineva, de ce ai facut in nenumarate rinduri afrimatia la microfonul din piata [Universitatii, intre aprilie si iunie 1990] ca securitatea este 80 la suta cu voi?  La ce te refereai?

Doru Maries:  Ma bucur pentru aceasta intrebare.  Este afirmatia pentru care am fost mult controversat si boicotat, dar va explic acum.  Eu nu consider intreaga securitate romana niste criminali cum au fost etichetati in evenimentele din decembrie 1989.  Numarul celor vinovati este foarte restrins.

Angela Bacescu:  Dorule, mai sus mi-ai precizat ca tu ai fost dezinformat.  De unde aceasta informatie?

Doru Maries:  Aceasta informatie si imagine mi-am format-o inca din data de 22 decembrie 1989 dupa discutia cu generalul Iulian Vlad in sediul fostului Comitet Central.  Timpul a dovedit ca generalul Iulian Vlad nu si-a tinut in brate degeaba majoritate subalternilor.

…

Doru Maries:  Nu, va intrec doamna in curaj pe dumneavoastra care cu orice prilej amintiti ca Brates si Stark incitau in 22 decembrie  la omor deosebit de grav.

Angela Bacescu:  Si ce–nu este adevarat?

Doru Maries:  Ba da.  Dar va este frica sa nu ramina nepedepsiti.  Fiti linistita ca le vine rindul la fiecare.

Teodor Maries, martor pentru Generalul Iulian Vlad (Securitate)

But NO!  Romania’s emigre intellectuals  http://www.johnfeffer.com/the-state-of-romanian-extremism/ they know better!  Petru Clej would do well to listen to his own advice rather than to dispense it:  “Westerners and Americans especially tend to dislike things that are complex. They want the good guys and the bad guys. In Romania, more often than not, the good guys turn out to be not as good as they seemed.”  Clej has absolutely no clue about Maries, but instead seeks to disseminate a poorly-researched, context-free, feel-good story.

Page last updated at 01:02 GMT, Monday, 21 December 2009 E-mail this to a friend Printable version

Daring to question the Romanian Revolution

On 21 and 22 December 1989, Romania’s revolution reached its tipping point. The dictator Nicolae Ceausescu fled. Millions rejoiced. But, as Petru Clej reports, there are still many questions unanswered over what happened next. “21 – 22, cine-a tras in noi?” (“21 – 22, who shot at us?”) is a question that still haunts Teodor Maries, one of many people in Romania who are convinced that the 1989 revolution was not all that it seemed. Some say that despite appearances, it was not even a people’s revolution – more a coup d’etat by a powerful elite. Mr Maries is still eager for the truth to emerge 20 years after the toppling of the communist dictator, Nicolae Ceausescu, in a bloodbath that ended a year of otherwise peaceful revolution in Europe. Nearly 100 people were killed during the night of 21-22 December, after a desperate attempt by Ceausescu’s henchmen to stave off the tide of protests just a stone’s throw away from the headquarters of the Communist Party’s central committee. There, the beleaguered dictator was holed up with the last of his loyal supporters. Organised chaos Mr Maries, 47, is head of the 21 December 1989 association, a group of surviving revolutionaries from that night. Paradoxically, it is not the events before 22 December – the date when Ceausescu fled the central committee building, only to be caught, put on trial in a kangaroo court and executed three days later – which attracts Mr Maries’ attention, but what happened afterwards. Of about 1,100 people killed during the revolution, more than 900 died after that date, when the National Salvation Front (FSN), headed by Ion Iliescu, had taken the reins of power. Teodor Maries is an impostor, he is not a real revolutionary Ion Iliescu Former Romanian president Mr Maries does not accept the official story of those days – that, following the overthrow of the government, “terrorist” members of the Securitate (the communist secret police), were fighting in desperation to save Ceausescu. For him, the revolution was hijacked, and the bloodshed stirred up by members of the former regime – a form of organised chaos, designed to legitimise their seizure of power. “Mr Iliescu knows, in my opinion, everything that happened in December 1989 and participated in mind-boggling decisions for a normal person to comprehend. [Some] 900 people were killed after he had taken power and [he] tried to build his own plinth as a revolutionary on 900 bodies,” says Mr Maries. “Between the 22nd and the 28th, considering there was no war, brother was killing brother.” Revolution or conspiracy? Mr Iliescu, who was elected president of Romania in 1990, 1992 and 2000, spending 11 years as head of state, has little time for Mr Maries’ allegations, dismissing his credibility altogether. [These documents] tell you unambiguously that after 22 December 1989 there was anything but a revolution Teodor Maries After the campaigner was received by President Traian Basescu earlier this year, Mr Iliescu complained: “Teodor Maries is an impostor, he is not a real revolutionary, and genuine revolutionaries are outraged he dares speak in their name. “He has no moral authority to speak for 21 December or for the revolutionaries and President Basescu is compromising himself appearing with this sort of individuals,” he added. Mr Iliescu has always said 1989 was a real revolution and that the bloodshed was the result of the power vacuum created by Ceausescu’s fall. Recently, Mr Maries scored a victory, albeit partial, in his 20-year struggle to have the facts revealed. After 74 days of hunger strike the prosecutor general’s office sent him documents from the criminal investigation into Mr Iliescu and other leaders of the FSN. Some of these cases have been dragging on for nearly 20 years. Previously, Mr Maries had taken the Romanian state to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and won a ruling which forced the authorities to release the documents. Even so, it was only when Mr Maries persisted with his hunger strike that they agreed. But why are these documents so important? “These are statements from 12,000 witnesses,” says Mr Maries. “When a phenomenon this size is complemented by statements from 12,000 people, you can truly draw a conclusion about what happened.” “Taken together they tell you unambiguously that after 22 December 1989 there was anything but a revolution.” Fight goes on Mr Maries says the picture built by the statements is that chaos was provoked, by arming civilians and spreading disinformation through Romanian television, which urged citizens to defend public buildings against “attacks by Securitate terrorists”. He cites one of the statements in which, he says, an army commander said he had orders “from above” to destroy the Bucharest Central University Library, in order to create the image of heavy fighting. Ion Iliescu was elected three times as president Mr Maries says he is hopeful that the criminal inquiry will now make important headway. But, two months after he ended his hunger strike, the prosecutor in charge of the initial inquiry has still not been re-appointed, and some government offices – the defence ministry and special communications department (formerly a branch of the Securitate) – have still not handed over their 1989 documents. There are many who doubt that the prosecutor, Dan Voinea, even if he were reappointed, could manage to translate this conspiracy theory into viable indictments against Mr Iliescu and his associates after more than 20 years. And Mr Maries says there is not a huge appetite in Romania to rake over the past. “I have been interviewed by many foreign correspondents… But very few Romanian journalists showed any interest at all,” he says. Mr Maries fears the authorities will find a way to bury the investigation, but he refuses to give up his fight. “I have always been an optimist,” he insists. “[But] I am not the state, they are the state, and it is their obligation to continue this inquiry.”