Search results

The author examines the creation and functioning of the Romanian propaganda office at the General Commission of Romania for the New York World's Fair (1939-1940). He analyses two previously unpublished documents from the Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, relevant to the topic under scrutiny. The activity of the office was coordinated by the diplomat Andrei Popovici. His subordinates were the press attach. from the Romanian Legation in the USA, Horia Babeş, Paul Sterian, economic councillor, and Petre Neagoe, writer. The monthly budget was 750 $ (the rate of those years) for the daily expenses and salaries. The propaganda office started its activity in January 1939. It used to publish a bulletin, to help issuing stamps, to prepare propaganda posters, to publish and translate brochures. It also used to send presentations of Romania to journals, such as Cleveland News , Chicago Tribune, Detroit Free Press, New York World Telegram etc., and articles on Romania to newspapers (Annalist, Journal of Commerce etc.), or to occasional publications (Going to the Fair, a Preview, International Guide etc.). The images the propaganda office used to handle were reproducing usual elements of the domestic and foreign official discourse of Charles II: Romania was a totally new country, based on a new social contract ("the royal revolution"), that was looking persistently towards "tomorrow's world" (the slogan of the American fair); this future was build with Romanian resources and strengths, mobilized by "the king of young people and of the peasants".

The survey was conducted between March 9-20, 2022 on a sample of 800 people living in 220 urban and regional localities in all counties of Romania, with a statistical error of +/- 3.5%. He measured the attitude of Romanians towards refugees from Ukraine, but also from other geographical regions. Compared to the similar research in October 2021, there was a 25% increase in the favorable attitude towards refugees, and it is the highest increase among young people, those with higher education, employers, those living in very large cities. Romanians are favorable to the entry of refugees from Ukraine and hypothetically from Moldova, but more reluctant to those from Asia, Africa, Latin America or the Caucasus. Romanians' self-esteem has significantly increased for the exemplary way in which their fellow citizens have been involved in helping refugees in Ukraine, although they are aware that there is a risk of upsetting the Russian Federation.

In the conservative imaginary, at least in the cases of Constantin N. Brăiloiu and Alexandru N. Lahovary, France was not deemed a functioning political model (i.e., a political or constitutional regime) that Romania should have followed. Compared with the English political model (or rather with the Anglo-Saxon one, since the reference sometimes included the United States of America) and with the Belgian regime, France was certainly a less favoured option. However, without exception and despite all discursive artifice, in the perspective of these two politicians, who were evidently Francophile, both by education and by cultural affinities, France undeniably remained a landmark of civilization or administrative and economic efficiency, and sometimes a beacon of legal inspiration. It must be said that the latter perception was in no way related to Constantin N. Brăiloiu and Alexandru N. Lahovary's conservative convictions. It was commonplace in the local cultural imaginary, which, regardless of one's political, social or cultural affiliation, repeated the encomiastic mantra dedicated to imperial France, to whom the Romanians were convinced that they owed the existence of their nation. In fact, one should not overlook another typical belief of this political imaginary, which is illustrated in our case by Alexandru N. Lahovary: the Romanian politicians were persuaded that the ideals included in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen were exclusively due to the France of 1789.