Suchergebnisse

The article examines the preconditions for the formation of the cultural policy of Transnistria, stipulated by the socio-cultural situation, socio-economic, demographic and ethnocultural characteristics of the region. The need to establish local priorities is substantiated due to the existing motley composition of the multinational population of Transnistria, which was formed as a result of the assimilation and consolidation of various ethnic groups living in the multicultural republic. The instruments of cultural policy used in Transnistria, formed under the conditions of political unrecognition and economic instability of the country, are considered in a historical context, taking into account financial, legislative, administrative, structural and human resources.The study showed that the institution of presidency has the greatest influence on the cultural policy of Transnistria, which largely determines the state of the infrastructure and the development vector of the cultural space of the region as a whole.The study results in recommendations to introduce such regulators of influence on the cultural space of the region, which will correlate the issues of the influence of sociocultural factors on socio-economic development, by combining the value of traditional cultures with modernization, cultural diversity with ethnocultural identity, taking into account the peculiarity of the mentality of ethnocultural groups of multiethnic Transnistria. ; В статье рассматриваются предпосылки формирования культурной политики Приднестровья, обусловленные социально-культурной ситуацией, социально-экономическими, демографическими и этнокультурными характеристиками региона. Обосновывается необходимость установления локальных приоритетов, обусловленных сложившимся пестрым составом многонационального населения Приднестровья, который образовался в результате процессов ассимиляции и консолидации различных этносов, проживающих в поликультурной республике. Инструменты культурной политики, применяемые в Приднестровье, формируемые в условиях политической непризнанности и экономической нестабильности страны, рассматриваются в историческом контексте с учетом финансовых, законодательных, административных, структурных и кадровых ресурсов.Исследование показало, что наибольшее влияние на культурную политику Приднестровья оказывает институт президентства, который и определяет в значительной степени состояние инфраструктуры и вектор развития культурного пространства региона в целом.Итогом исследования являются рекомендации по внедрению таких регуляторов влияния на культурное пространство региона, которые будут соотносить вопросы влияния социокультурных факторов на социально-экономическое развитие путем сочетания ценности традиционных культур с модернизацией, культурного многообразия с этнокультурной идентичностью, с учетом своеобразия менталитета этнокультурных групп полиэтничного Приднестровья.

With the early "flush of victory" against USSR, and the (under)cover provided by Hitler's "war of annihilation" in the East, Ion Antonescu and his regime turned ethnic cleansing into a top priority policy. Mesmerized by the promise of a Jew free Romania, with other ethnic and religious minorities targeted as well, the government easily accepted mass killing, ghettoization, and brutal deportations as means to achieve envisioned ultra-nationalistic ends. However, with late 1942 and the "pallor of defeat", at a time the Nazi continent wide Holocaust was in full swing, Bucharest decided to reject the International Final Solution proposed by Berlin. Plans to deport the Romanian Jews to Poland were unexpectedly abandoned, and further evacuations to Transnistria halted. The shift came too late, at a time the evil was already done, and Romania stood on the verge of genocide. Transnistria was by now an infamous "kingdom of death". Bullets, famine, hard labor and diseases were effective means in the Romanian process of destruction of the Jews, a process that did not included gas vans and chambers, but in which not one community east of the river Prut was spared. Acting as liaison to the Nazi perpetrators the Romanian ones moved hastily from savage massacres to more bureaucratic ways of killings. The cruelty is striking, and the process is no less structured in its brutality when compared to the Nazi one in the occupied Soviet territories. The importance of Transnistria stays with the staggering number of victims, the expediency of killing operations in the vicinity of villages and towns, very personal, a human butchery that resembles in its mixture of police, military, and bureaucratic violence, efficient and organized, many other killing fields and cases of ethnic cleansing and genocide, and the proximity of the Holocaust in Ukraine, different from the classic Shoah only in terms of framework and method. Moving from here and aiming for clarity, I will try to understand the policy that made Transnistria possible, a development that is not incidental and accidental. Attention is given not only to the Romanian government, institutions and agencies but also to the Nazi perspective on Eastern territories, the empire-building policy in the Ukraine, and the dynamic of the Nazi solution to the Jewish Question. When analyzing the actions and attitudes of the above-mentioned actors in a wider context, my intention is simply to shed some light on the inception and role of Transnistria during the Holocaust.

Introduction. During autumn 1943 – spring 1944 the systematic phased evacuation of the German population was carried out from the occupied Soviet regions. Its final phase was the operation of relocating more than 130 000 ethnic Germans from the Transnistria Governorate controlled by Romanian authorities to the territory of Warthegau.

Materials and methods. The presented research is based on the historicism and objectivity principles. In the course of the work, the author uses special methods such as historical-systematic, chronological, historicaldescriptive, and historical-genetic. The Source base of the research consists of documents of archival funds of Germany, memoirs and partly materials from the German press.

Analysis. The decision of the SS leadership to execute the evacuation of ethnic Germans from Transnistria was due to the further advance of Soviet troops in the southern direction. However, even at the planning stage, the German side was faced with serious problems that could disrupt the entire operation. Due to the fact that control over many transport communications was lost, evacuation routes could only run through the territory of Romania, Bulgaria, occupied Serbia and Hungary. Therefore, the German leadership had to initiate urgent negotiations with the authorities of some of these states. Especially difficult was the negotiation process with the Romanian side which did not want to provide any assistance in the evacuation of the Germans from Transnistria. The High Command of the Wehrmacht was also in no hurry to provide assistance (for example, in transport support).

Results. Despite the above-mentioned problems, the SS leadership was still able to carry out this resettlement action for several months. Most Germans decided to leave their homes not under the administrative pressure from the occupying authorities, but voluntarily, guided exclusively by the instinct of their survival.

In the context of the collapse of the Soviet Union, a series of separatist movements emerged in the Soviet republics. Following independence, Moldova had to deal with a separatist movement in the Transnistrian region, supported by Russia. The desire not to lose control in the former Soviet area pushed Moscow to get directly involved in the Transnistrian military conflict in 1992. The Russian 14th army that secured the victory of the separatists has been maintained to this day, and after several transformations, changed its status from participant to peacekeeper. The new created separatist republic survived due to its authoritarian regime and economic interests of the Moldovan political elite in Transnistria, a territory outside of the rule of law. In addition to internal obstacles, Russian interventionism pushed by strategic interests in the region represents the main factor that has contributed to the maintenance of the conflict in the current state. Russia is driven by great power ambitions and preservation of its national security to engage in power politics in the strategic area which it calls its 'near abroad', of which Moldova is also a part. The main purpose of Russian intervention in Transnistria is not the region itself but Moldova. In order to prevent Chisinau from integrating in NATO and the European Union, which are Russia's main rivals in the region, Moscow continues to support the Transnistrian separatist regime. The most important instruments of Russian interventionism in Transnistria are: the presence of military troops, political and economic support for the separatist regime and soft power politics in Moldova and Transnistria. ; In the context of the collapse of the Soviet Union, a series of separatist movements emerged in the Soviet republics. Following independence, Moldova had to deal with a separatist movement in the Transnistrian region, supported by Russia. The desire not to lose control in the former Soviet area pushed Moscow to get directly involved in the Transnistrian military conflict in 1992. The Russian 14th army that secured the victory of the separatists has been maintained to this day, and after several transformations, changed its status from participant to peacekeeper. The new created separatist republic survived due to its authoritarian regime and economic interests of the Moldovan political elite in Transnistria, a territory outside of the rule of law. In addition to internal obstacles, Russian interventionism pushed by strategic interests in the region represents the main factor that has contributed to the maintenance of the conflict in the current state. Russia is driven by great power ambitions and preservation of its national security to engage in power politics in the strategic area which it calls its 'near abroad', of which Moldova is also a part. The main purpose of Russian intervention in Transnistria is not the region itself but Moldova. In order to prevent Chisinau from integrating in NATO and the European Union, which are Russia's main rivals in the region, Moscow continues to support the Transnistrian separatist regime. The most important instruments of Russian interventionism in Transnistria are: the presence of military troops, political and economic support for the separatist regime and soft power politics in Moldova and Transnistria.