Cornel Mihalache si sursele lui (Amnistia are calibrul 7,62 mm (1998): Valentin Raiha, Mihai Ungheanu, Pavel Corut, “Anul nou se naste in sange” Ministerul de Interne (1998), si Cornel Ivanciuc))

Filmmaker Cornel Mihalache (“Decembrie Rosu”) is incredulous that anyone could accuse him of promoting the narrative of the former Securitate.  Wherever could such a belief come from?  Let us look at some of his films, to answer that question.  The following apparently premiered on TVR1 in the program “In Flagrant” on 22 December 1998.

Mihalache quotes as if stating fact, from the volume published by the Interior Ministry (!) in 1998 entitled “Anul nou se naste in sange.”

These are from the interval of approximately 7:25 – 9:08.  During this interval, Mihalache talks about the research “confirming” the Directorate of Information of the Army’s Marele Stat Major (DIA/M.St.M.) as being responsible for so-called diversion which claimed so many lives after 22 December 1989.  Mihalache seems not to know that this theory originated in 1990 among the former Securitate.  He cites at approximately 8:30 the following as his sources for this claim:

1) Valentin Raiha

2) Ilie Stoian

3) Mihai Ungheanu

4) Pavel Corut

5) “Anul nou se naste in sange” (Ministerul de Interne, 1998)

6) Cornel Ivanciuc

Of these, six sources, one is part institutional successor to the Securitate and Militie, the Interior Ministry.  Two of them, he doesn’t mention this, Raiha and Corut, are former officers of the Securitate’s Directorate IV (Military Counter-intelligence, CI-stii).  Ungheanu was a well-known “protocronist,” part of the group that served as the ideological backbone of the national-communist regime of Nicolae Ceausescu, who in the post-communist era would be elected to parliament as a member of court poet Corneliu Vadim Tudor’s PRM.  Ivanciuc would become a famous case years later as someone who was found to have been a Securitate collaborator.  Only Stoian has no obvious tie that we know of to the Securitate and the former Ceausescu regime.

How is it, or rather why is it, that Cornel Mihalache could present the conclusion of people with clear ties to the former Securitate as the “truth” without any mention that their past affiliation might influence their writings on December 1989?