30 September, 2023
Article at a Romanian Navy League magazine
Rousse as seen from the Friendship Bridge (source: YouTube)

Dr. Gabriel-Felician CROITORU

This article was originally published in “Marea Noastra”, Romanian Navy League magazine, new series, year XXXIII, no. 2 (133), May-June 2023, pp. 31-39 and is republished with the consent of the author.

In his work Communist propaganda in Romania (1948-1953), which has become a landmark in Romanian historiography, historian Eugen Denize stressed that the general objective of Communist propaganda in Romania was to consolidate the political power of the new regime. And this at a time when it had gained power neither through a referendum nor through democratic elections, but through the establishment by force of a government that gradually, with Soviet support, took over all the decision-making levers, succeeding in making the transition from the Kingdom of Romania to the Romanian People’s Republic. The same Eugen Denize also mentioned that the specific objectives of communist propaganda in Romania were represented by two Soviet concepts: cultural revolution and the formation of the new man, the aim being to win the adherence of the masses to the new regime. 

But we have to admit that in some cases, beyond the colossal exaggerations or forcing the interpretation of some situations, the communist regime was able to take full advantage of the political, social and economic strengths of the former regime in Romania. Such as infrastructure, an area in which significant milestones could be counted on one’s fingers and where, although efforts had been made, they were far from meeting needs. Moreover, in the field of infrastructure there were also some achievements of the regime that it could easily boast of, both in terms of their symbolic value and their usefulness.

A very good example of this is the bridge built across the Danube between Giurgiu and Ruse, about the need for which Romanian decision-makers began to talk as early as the second half of the 19th century and which remained at this stage, as a project, until 1952. This is when the new power in Bucharest, together with that in Sofia and with massive support from the suzerain power, the Soviet Union, started building the bridge.

The bridge over the Danube with steel deck between Giurgiu and Ruse – the largest combined bridge (railway and road) in Europe at that time – has a total length of 2,223.52 metres, crossing the Smârda arm, the Mocănașu island, the Ara arm, the Mocanu island and the Danube river , being located at kilometre 488.7 of the river1. The structure has a two-lane roadway and pedestrian sidewalk at the upper deck and a single track at the lower deck. For navigation when the Danube is at very high levels or for the passage of large vessels under the bridge, the central opening of 86 m – a movable deck – can be raised to leave a clearance of 24 m under the bridge.

Inaugurated on 20 June 1954 with great fanfare and nicknamed the Friendship Bridge (although the official name, including in the project documents, was the Danube Bridge), it had a wide economic perspective, not only because it linked two very close cities that had developed together and two regions that had much in common, but it also made the road and rail link between Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans easier, to Athens and Istanbul, and from there to Asia.

As it was normal, the Friendship Bridge was one of the favourite subjects of the Romanian propaganda, as it was important for its symbolic value, for highlighting the strengthening of relations between the countries of the communist camp, in general, and the “twinning of the Romanian and Bulgarian friendly peoples”, in particular. But above all, the bridge began to be promoted from 1954 onwards in the Romanian central media from various perspectives, ranging from regime events and political meetings to sports events, economic, tourist and cultural actions.

Immediately after the inauguration, the political factor was the main vector for the presentation of the bridge, which had several supporting elements: the designer of the bridge was a Soviet engineer, it was built in a Moscow Design Institute, most of the technology and specialists came from the Soviet Union, the direct beneficiaries were Romania and Bulgaria and several countries from the camp of people’s democracies contributed to the construction of the bridge.

Thus, a number of reports appeared in the press about the awarding of diplomas and disticates to those who contributed to the bridge. On 13 August 1954, several Romanian engineers, technicians and workers were honoured with orders of the Bulgarian People’s Republic at the Bulgarian embassy in Bucharest for their “special contribution to the construction of the bridge over the Danube between Giurgiu and Rousse”. The orders were presented by the Bulgarian ambassador to Romania, Stoian Pavlov, in the presence of members of the embassy. The event was also attended by Alexandru Samoilenco, Deputy Minister of Railways, Dionisie Ionescu, Director of Protocol in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I. Crișan, Director ad-interim in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, etc., and on behalf of those who were decorated spoke the mechanic Ion Șoptăreanu2.

A similar activity took place on August 16, 1954, when the Romanian Ambassador to Moscow, Ion Rab, presented the orders “Star of the Romanian People’s Republic cls. I”, “Star of the Romanian People’s Republic cls. II”, “Order of Labour cls. I” and “Order of Labour cls. II” to a group of Soviet engineers and technicians, represented by Alexei Grebovich Petrov, stressing in their speeches that the decorations were awarded in gratitude “for the high appreciation of their work” and that the bridge at Giurgiu-Ruse represents “the new proof of the unbreakable friendship between the Soviet Union and the countries of popular democracy”3. As a natural follow-up, a few days later, on 25 August 1954, the Giurgiu bridge was visited by a Soviet government delegation, led by N.M. Shvernik and G.I. Rudi, who came to Romania on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of 23 August, with Gheorghe Apostol and Alexandru Moghioros present on behalf of the Romanian officials4

The year of the bridge’s inauguration was used by official propaganda to promote it by describing the huge concentration of forces that led to its construction. In two extensive reports published on the same day on the front pages of the official press organs of the Romanian Workers’ Party5 and the Young Workers’ Union6, the film of the construction of the bridge, the fantastic effort of those who took part in the work, the qualification at work of hundreds of young people who came from the country and their prospects of contributing to the development of the country’s infrastructure were presented in a particular style. In the same vein, the development of the towns of Giurgiu and Ruse was described, with the construction of housing blocks, hostels, crèches, shops, clinics, clubs, sports grounds, etc., emphasising the very good working and living conditions of the workers on the huge site on the banks of the Danube, including from a medical and cultural perspective.

From a political perspective, the most concise and comprehensive presentation of the Friendship Bridge was made by engineer Alexandru Lungu7, the former general director of the construction of the bridge over the Danube, in an article published on the occasion of the National Day of the Bulgarian P.R. He tried to describe the complexity of the work, but also to thank the Soviet protective power. In the article, he said: “From the first days of 1952, the builders of the bridge over the Danube had to face the harsh nature – rain and snow, the high and rushing waters of the Danube. But all these hardships were overcome with manliness. A characteristic feature of the bridge’s construction was mechanisation, applied for the first time in our country to works of this kind in such a high proportion in all work areas. This was possible thanks to the permanent help received from the great Soviet Union, which took the form of deliveries of highly technical machinery and the daily guidance and support received on the job from Soviet specialists (…) All these factors led to the construction of the bridge in record time: 2 years and 3 months, 7 months ahead of schedule”8.

On 19 June 1955, in the main newspaper of the Young Workers’ Union, with national coverage and distribution abroad, appeared the anniversary article “The Friendship Bridge is one year old”, in which it was said that “it represents a great facilitation for the development of economic and cultural exchanges between the Romanian P.R. and the Bulgarian P.R. as well as exchanges with other countries”9. The material, written in an almost epic form, evoked some key moments of the construction period, insisting on the determination of the builders and the difficulties they faced during the construction of “the biggest bridge in Europe”10.

After these more or less official elements, state propaganda began to promote the Friendship Bridge along a line that we could call “proletarian tourism”, in which the main actors were either directly the Soviets (for the most part), or representatives of Romania or socialist countries, their actions being related to a series of official events with strong political charge. 

Thus, on 3 July 1955, the Friendship Bridge witnessed the handover of the international baton of the 5th World Youth and Student Festival to be held in Warsaw, Poland. In the presence of the leaders of the youth organisations of the communist parties of the two countries, the Bulgarian delegation handed over the baton to the Romanian one, and “the honour of being the first to carry the friendship baton on Romanian soil went to young Dumitru Cristea, a graduate of the Technical High School for Agricultural Mechanisation in Giurgiu, a leader in education and sport”11.

Also at the beginning of July of the same year, the Friendship Bridge turned out to be the perfect place for the meeting of women’s delegations from Romania and Bulgaria, who were going to participate in Bucharest in a big rally in support of the World Congress of Mothers, organised in Laussane, Switzerland. The Bulgarian delegation consisted of “34 leading women in production, intellectuals, mothers with several children, led by the secretary of the Democratic Women’s Committee, Țvetana Kiranova”12. Each of these visits also targeted the city of Giurgiu, with the two women’s delegations meeting the people of Giurgiu and visiting the city hospital.

In August 1955, the Friendship Bridge was visited by two foreign delegations, present in the country for the anniversary of 23 August 1944: the governmental delegation of the P.R. Albania, headed by Rita Marko, Secretary General of the Central Committee of the Albanian Labour Party and the governmental delegation of the R. P. Mongolia, led by Tegib, Vice-Chairman of the Presidium of the Great People’s Hural, the members of both delegations being impressed by the technical achievements of the specialists from the countries of people’s democracy, first and foremost from Romania and Bulgaria13.

On September 11, 1955, Soviet agricultural specialists S.S. Praksin, A.A. Berezovsky, F.I. Dubkovetsky and N.S. Korobkin, accompanied by Virgil Gligor, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, visited the city and port of Giurgiu and the Friendship Bridge14. Just one week later, on 17 September, the bridge was visited by Andrè Langevin, Vice-President of the France-Romania Friendship Association, who was in the country at the invitation of the Romanian Institute for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries15.

In the same year, on 21 October, on the last day of their stay in Romania, a group of Soviet tourists made up of workers, civil servants, engineers and technicians from several economic units of Moscow, as well as people of science, art and culture, architects and journalists made a trip to the cities of Giurgiu – where they were welcomed with songs and flowers by the population of the city – and Ruse, where they also visited the Friendship Bridge, where they took a series of photographs, and then took a “beautiful boat trip on the Danube”16.

On May 2, 1956, the Friendship Bridge was visited by a delegation of educational workers from the Soviet Union, led by A. N. Malysheva, Deputy Minister of Education of the Russian S.S.F.R. The group of foreign guests was accompanied by Tudor Bugnariu and Constantin Dinculescu, Deputy Ministers of Education of Romania17. Just one month later, on 4 June 1956, the Friendship Bridge was visited by A. I. Savoian, member of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, who was accompanied by Alexandru Rogojinschi, deputy in the Grand National Assembly. In the same year, Otto Grotewohl, President of the Council of Ministers of the German Democratic Republic, and his wife spent their holiday in Romania, among the sights they visited was the Friendship Bridge, at the end of a trip on the Danube, between Galati and Giurgiu, on the ship “Nicolae Balcescu”18.

A somewhat unusual event took place in the context of the celebration of the 8th of March in 1957, when two delegations of women from Giurgiu and Ruse met on the Friendship Bridge. The message of the women’s delegation from Giurgiu was brought to the Friendship Bridge by a group of more than 90 motorcyclists and motorcyclists, who were in the city on the occasion of the “8th March Cup” motorcycling competition in Giurgiu. On the occasion of the meeting of the delegations on the bridge, an exchange of gifts took place and Dumitra Gheorghe, on behalf of the delegation from Giurgiu, and Radka Gheceva, on behalf of the women from the city of Ruse, spoke, the location being seen as “a symbol of the strong friendship between the Romanian and Bulgarian peoples”19

On the occasion of the crossing of the Romanian governmental delegation over the Friendship Bridge, in the context of a state visit to Sofia at the end of March 1957, it was mentioned in the press of the time that “at the Friendship Bridge across the Danube, a military guard of the border guards gave the honour. On the great columns of the bridge waved twin Romanian and Bulgarian tricolour flags. Under the portraits of comrades Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej and Chivu Stoica, a large banner reads in Romanian: “Welcome, dear guests!”20. On the same occasion, the mayor of Ruse, Pencio Kubadinski, gave a speech in which, in line with the rapprochement between the Romanian and Bulgarian peoples, he also recalled the great engineering achievement of the Friendship Bridge, but from a political perspective: “As a symbol of this friendship, the bridge over the Danube was built. This bridge is the symbol of the desire of our peoples to move forward, with ever greater success, hand in hand, shoulder to shoulder, with other peace-loving peoples, led by the Great Soviet Union, on the road to building socialism!”21.

In July 1957, on the occasion of the 6th World Festival of Youth and Students to be held in Moscow, the Friendship Bridge was once again the host of the relay taking over ceremony from the Bulgarian delegation by the Romanian cyclists: “On the Friendship Bridge, the master of the sport Liubomir Zlatarski, the relay bearer, rode the last few hundred meters on the territory of the P.R. Bulgaria. Gheorghi Kolcev, First Secretary of the Russian Regional Committee of the Dmitrovist People’s Youth Union, handed over the baton to Ion Manciuc, First Secretary of the Bucharest Regional Committee of the M.T.U.”22

October 20, 1957 was a special moment for the inhabitants of Giurgiu, which was visited by N. V. Turbin, member of the Academy of the Belorussian SFSR and Director of the Institute of Biology of the Belorussian SFSR, his visit being made in the context of the Belorussian SFSR Festival in Romania: “On Sunday, since the early hours of the morning, hundreds of citizens of Giurgiu gathered on the streets of this beautiful Danube port. Upon the arrival of the guest, comrade Stancu Tudor, President of the Executive Committee of the Giurgiu City People’s Council, welcomed him on behalf of the city’s inhabitants”23. After a visit to the pioneers’ house in the city and to the festivities hall of the block district, “the Soviet guest took a walk to the Friendship Bridge over the Danube. Among those who led him were workers who contributed to the construction of this imposing structure. They got to know closely the Soviet specialists who worked together with Romanian and Bulgarian specialists on the construction of this bridge, they enjoyed the contribution of the Soviet large machines here”24. After this, N.V. Turbin also visited the city’s Sugar Factory, his stop in Jurgenau ending with a boat trip on the Danube.

In 1965, in the context of the 9th Congress of the Romanian Communist Party held in the last decade of July, the Friendship Bridge was visited by a delegation of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

The bridge was also visited in May 1972 by the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Cuban Communist Party, Fidel Castro Ruz, on his visit to the Bulgarian P.R., coming from Russia and without arriving in Giurgiu.

At the same time, with the beginning of the development of domestic tourism, the Danube and the Danube Delta began to be increasingly promoted, with the Friendship Bridge becoming one of the significant tourist attractions. Thus it is that in the very year of its inauguration, in the description of a tourist trip by plane from Baia Mare to Bucharest, the bridge is mentioned rather by its symbolic value: “…and here appears in the white distance Bucharest. Far away, on the horizon, the traveller knows that the steel and concrete bridge of friendship has been built over the blue Danube, one of the most modern achievements of world bridge-building technology”25

The following year, in a presentation material of the Carpathian NTO, it was mentioned that “under the agreement with INTURIST (the Soviet tourism organization), more than 200 Soviet tourists have visited our country so far. Guests from Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, Vilnius or Chisinau had the opportunity to visit our capital, monuments in Bucharest, scientific institutions, factories and other achievements of the People’s Democracy regime, along with the picturesque Prahova Valley, Stalin’s City, Friendship Bridge in Giurgiu, etc.”26. Romanian citizens were not forgotten either, as in the summer of 1957 it was reported that “Workers from enterprises in Braila, together with their families, went to spend a day of rest in the Delta, and a large group of citizens from Bucharest and Giurgiu made a trip along the Danube, visiting the Friendship Bridge”27. In fact, at some of the economic units in Bucharest, such as the “Mao Tze Dun” factories, trips to Curtea de Argeș or the Friendship Bridge in Giurgiu were weekly means of rewarding the leading workers in production.

As a brief aside, it is worth mentioning that in July 1957, the Friendship Bridge was promoted in various other ways: through a crossword puzzle published in one of the central newspapers with national circulation, suggestively entitled “On the Danube”28, but also through various reports or radio and television broadcasts, including in ethnic minority languages. For example, on 12 May 1967, the programme On the homeland – Friendship Bridge was broadcast in Hungarian on the Târgu Mureș territorial radio studio. 

Since 1959, the Friendship Bridge had already earned its place on the list of UN objectives. Carpathians, as part of 7-day circuits, on certain routes with several branches, one of which linked the city of Giurgiu to the Capital: “From Bucharest, coaches will leave for Giurgiu, with a visit to the Bridge of Romanian-Bulgarian Friendship”, the aim of the tourist organization at that time being to “carry out a broad educational and instructive action among young people, by creating opportunities to get to know the beauties of our homeland, places of historical importance, architectural and natural monuments”29

Along these lines, pupils and students were targeted, so that in the autumn of 1959 it was mentioned that 500 students from Bucharest had visited the Doftana Museum and the Friendship Bridge, through ONT Carpathia30. In 1962, a school trip to Giurgiu was described in detail in a report: “…Progresul railway station in Bucharest. The train leaving this morning for Giurgiu has some unusual passengers. Here they are boarding several carriages adorned with garlands of trees and flowers. These passengers are pupils from secondary school No 39. There are 109 students, accompanied by their teachers. The journey to Giurgiu was a long one. Now our friends are guests of the port. Embarkation on the ship “Retezat” is quick, but not without excitement, and the long-awaited ride on the clear Danube begins. The captain of the ship seems to know in advance the wishes of his guests. He brings the boat closer and closer to the Bulgarian side of the river, so that, passing the port of Ruse, the passengers can get a closer look. Here they are now exchanging friendly greetings with those in port. After the ride on the Danube, we visited the Friendship Bridge and the city of Giurgiu. The teachers used the opportunity to remind the pupils, this time on the spot, of a number of things they had learned at school about the Danube, the city of Giurgiu and the Friendship Bridge, and this part of the country in general”31. Similarly, in 1966, pupils enrolled at the Cultural and Sports Centre of the Youth Culture House in the “Nicolae Bălcescu” district made “a wonderful trip to Giurgiu, where they visited the Friendship Bridge, the city and took a boat ride on the Danube”32.

In fact, school excursions became a constant until the 1980s, with schoolchildren coming to Giurgiu from all regions of the country to visit the bridge, the port and to take trips on the Danube, the route being upstream from the city’s port, and downstream the roundabout being right under the Friendship Bridge. These were shortened and then discontinued in the mid-1980s, amid drastic budget cuts to pay off Romania’s foreign debt.

The following year, a feature article in the Communist Youth Union newspaper called on those responsible for developing tourism on the Danube, regardless of the season, but mainly between May and October-November. The author of the material argued that, given the demands of Romania’s population, particularly young people, the Danube is not being exploited in a justified way from a tourist point of view, and even highlighted the shortcomings of Romania’s tourist and passenger fleet: “There is demand! There are many! There are no ships! 11 classic ships (some of them centenarians), 9 hydrofoils and two fast ships with load-bearing wings. Here is the passenger fleet! By 1975, the first ones will be scrapped. The hydrofoils, due to engine failures, can only be used for short distances, not to mention the design they were built to, forcing tourists to travel in enclosed halls. In 1966, the passenger fleet was unprofitable for NAVROM. Unsatisfactory for tourists: between Gruia and Cernavofă, a stretch of over 500 km, there was not a single means of water transport for a single tourist at the height of the summer season”33. In the same article, several proposals were made to boost tourism on the Danube, with Giurgiu and its Friendship Bridge occupying a special place: “Oltenița and Giurgiu, towns located at a distance of… 60 km from the capital, can become oases of recreation, rest and leisure for many citizens of Bucharest. A night on the boat, a walk under the Friendship Bridge, a day of bathing in the Danube, a fish lunch with Greaca wine, can compete with the coolness and ozone of the mountains. It’s just that the initiative of a housewife, the efforts of ingenuity, skill and dexterity can and should enhance one of the proudest beauties of our homeland: the Danube”34.

For its part, sport, encouraged and supported by the Communist regime authorities at the grassroots level, was another vector for presenting the Friendship Bridge in the context of gender activities.

In June 1955, the Bucharest gymnastics teams were present in Bulgaria, and their return journey home was reported in the form of a diary in which the Friendship Bridge was also mentioned: “23 June – We are resuming our journey home from Ruse, crossing the Danube over the bridge inaugurated a year ago. The impressive concrete and steel construction suggests the durability of the friendship between the Romanian and Bulgarian peoples”35. Just one year later, in June 1956, the Friendship Bridge was part of the competition stage of the 2nd edition of the “Romanian-Bulgarian Friendship Race” in cycling, which was to take place on the route between Ruse-Giurgiu-Bucuresti36.

The bridge over the Danube between Giurgiu and Ruse witnessed a very important event in the world of sport, namely the entry into Romania of the Olympic flame, lit, according to tradition, in Olympia, Greece, on its way to Moscow, host of the 1980 Summer Olympic Games. Thus, on 1 July, “at 10 a.m., in Giurgiu, on the Friendship Bridge, in a beautiful sporting ceremony, the Olympic torch relay was handed over by Iordanka Hristova, the bearer of the last exchange on the territory of neighbouring Bulgaria and friend of Dumitru Pârvulescu, emeritus master of sport, Olympic champion in Rome, on its way to Moscow, but after a stopover in Bucharest”37. A similar action had also taken place on 13 August 1972, when the Olympic flame that arrived in Munich also crossed the Friendship Bridge, coming from south of the Danube38. Before receiving the Olympic baton, groups of Romanian and Bulgarian pioneers lit the Romanian-Bulgarian friendship torches on the bridge39.

On 25 April 1985, the Friendship Bridge was the venue for the arrival in Romania of the participants in the “Victoria 40” international motor rally, organised in honour of the 40th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, with the participation of representatives of several European and Asian countries, mostly from the socialist camp40.

Since 1954, the year of its inauguration, the Friendship Bridge has been a powerful symbol of the political regime in Romania, and it has been assiduously promoted through various means, modalities and contexts. As a symbol of Romanian technical possibilities, the bridge had and still has a real economic and strategic importance, but official propaganda exploited it in almost every way, from political news to sport and tourism.

The visits of working people, pupils and students, as well as numerous official foreign delegations and foreign tourists, were aimed at demonstrating the stability of the political regime in Romania and its power to transform and modernise the country, as well as winning the support of the masses for the regime.

As the years went by and similar symbolic objectives multiplied, the Friendship Bridge gradually lost its propagandistic value, without it disappearing. Its importance has remained today, as at the time of its inauguration, representing one of the most important links between Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkan Peninsula and Asia, but especially between Romania and Bulgaria and the peoples of these countries.


1 Nicolae Ilinca, Dan Căpățînă, Giurgiu – mic îndreptar turistic, Sport-Turism Publishing House, Bucharest, 1986, p. 91.

2 Romanian workers, technicians and engineers, distinguished with orders of the P.R. Bulgaria, in “Scînteia tineretului”, year X, series II, no. 1.649, Saturday, August 14, 1954, p. 1.

3 The handing over of orders of the P.R.R. to a group of Soviet engineers and technicians, in “The Youth’s Scintilla”, year X, series II, no. 1.652, Wednesday, August 18, 1954, p. 4.

4 Visits of the Soviet Delegation, in “Youth’s Scintilla”, year X, series II, no. 1.658, Thursday, August 26, 1954, p. 1.

5 V. Negru, I. Maricoiu, Constructors of the Great Bridge, in “Scînteia”, year XXIII, no. 3.006, Wednesday, 23 June 1954, p. 2.

6 L. Livadariu, M. Ionescu, The Steel Magistral, in “Scînteia tineretului”, year X, series II, no. 1.604, Wednesday, 23 June 1954, p. 1.

7 He passed away in April 1972 in Bucharest, two decades after the bridge construction began.

8 Alexandru Lungu, Friendship Bridge, in “Scînteia”, year XXIII, no. 3.073, Thursday, September 9, 1954, p. 2.

9 M. Zonis, The Bridge of Friendship is one year old, in “Youth’s Scintilla”, year XI, series II, no. 1.909, Sunday, 19 June 1955, p. 1.

10 Ibid

11 The international relay of the Festival has arrived in our country, in “Scînteia”, year XXIV, no. 3.327, Tuesday, July 5, 1955, p. 1.

12 Meeting of delegations of women from the P.R. Bulgaria and the P.R. R., in “Scînteia”, year XXIV, no. 3.325, Saturday, July 2, 1955, p. 1.

13 Visits of government delegations, in “Labour”, year XI, no. 2,440, Thursday, August 25, 1955, p. 6.

14 The visit of the Soviet delegation, in “Scînteia tineretului”, year XI, series II, no. 1.980, Tuesday, September 13, 1955, p. 2.

15 Visits of foreign guests to the P. R. R., in “Munca”, year XI, no. 2.461, Sunday, September 18, 1955, p. 3.

16  Soviet Tourists at Friendship Bridge, in “Youth’s Scent”, year XI, series II, no. 2,014, Saturday, October 22, 1955, p. 3.

17  Soviet guests at the Friendship Bridge, in “Youth’s Scent”, year XII, series II, no. 2.178, Friday, 4 May 1956, p. 3.

18 Visit of Comrade Otto Grotewohl to the P. R. R., in “Youth’s Scintilla”, Year XII, Series II, No. 2,266, Wednesday, August 15, 1956, p. 1.

19 Friendly meeting between the women’s delegations of Giurgiu and Ruse, in “Scînteia”, year XXVI, no. 3.846, Tuesday, 5 March 1957, p. 4.

20 The population of Russe warmly received the Romanian guests, in “Scînteia”, year XXVI, no. 3.867, Friday, March 29, 1957, p. 4.

21 Ibid

22 The Festival Relay, in “Scînteia”, year XXVI, no. 3.953, Tuesday, July 9, 1957, p. 3.

23The Belarusian S. S. F. R. Festival, in “Youth’s Scintilla”, year XII, series II, no. 2.629, Tuesday, October 22, 1957, p. 1. 

24 Ibid, p. 2.

25 Ing. Gheorghe Ursu, Travelling through our homeland, in “Science and Technology”, year VI, series II, no. 3, August, 1954, p. 23.

26 From the activity of O.N.T. Carpathians, in “Sportul popular”, year XII, no. 2.759, Tuesday, 24 January 1956, p. 3.

27 On the Danube, at the Iron Gates, in the Delta, in “Scînteia”, year XXVI, no. 3.929, Tuesday, 11 June 1957, p. 3.

28 Game competition – rebus, in “Youth’s Scintilla”, year XII, series II, no. 2.536, Wednesday, July 3, 1957, p. 3.

29 E. Pitulescu, “The season of excursions begins…”, in “Youth’s Scînteia”, year XV, series II, no. 3.082, Friday, 10 April 1959, p. 3. 

30 Excursions for students, in “Youth’s Scintilla”, year XV, series II, no. 3.354, Friday, October 30, 1959, p. 1. 

31 Gheorghe Șovu, Beautiful, rich you are, my homeland. Holiday Diary, in “Scînteia tineretului”, year XVIII, series II, no. 4.087, Thursday, 5 July 1962, p. 1.

32 Missing pages from an attractive book, in “Youth’s Scintilla”, year XXII, series II, no. 5.344, Sunday, July 24, 1966, p. 2.

33 Viorica Diaconescu, The Danube, a tourist masterpiece, in “Scînteia tineretului”, year XXIII, series II, no. 5.781, Friday, 22 December 1967, p. 1.

34 Ibid, p. 2.

35 Bucharest gymnastics teams in the Bulgarian P. R. (II), in “Sportul popular”, year XI, no. 2.645, Tuesday, June 28, 1955, p. 3.

36 Crossing the bridge over the Danube, 40 Bulgarian and Romanian cyclists will compete in a race that is becoming a tradition, in “Scînteia tineretului”, year XII, series II, no. 2.187, Tuesday, 15 May 1956, p. 4.

37 The Olympic Flame in Romania!, in “Youth’s Scintilla”, year XXVI, series II, no. 9.674, Wednesday, July 2, 1980, p. 3.

38 The route of the Olympic flame on the territory of Romania has been fixed, in “Sportul popular”, year XXVIII, no. 7.084, Tuesday, 13 June 1972, p. 1.

39 Friendship Bridge, gateway to the Olympic flame, in “Sportul popular”, year XXVIII, no. 7.144, Saturday, August 12, 1972, p. 1.

40 International motor rally “Victoria 40”, in “Scînteia tineretului”, year XLI, series II, no. 11.168, Friday, 26 April 1985, p. 3.

Subscribe to the channel of the blog “The Bridge of Friendship” in YouTube, where a number of video and audio interviews are published! The blog can also be followed in Facebook and TwitterIts Telegram channel is here. And here is its Substack account.

About Author

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: