In 1949, international peace campaign was formed systematically. The Russian Orthodox Church participated in the international peace movement and played a leading role. In the same year, a column “In Defense of Peace” was newly established in the “Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate”. In the “Peace” column, information on the peace campaign and the Russian Orthodox Church's participation in that movement and the most important documents of the World Peace Council began to be published. However, no specialized research on the peace activities of the Russian Orthodox Church in the 20th century exists in Russia, and this theme has not been reviewed and evaluated academically.

In this paper “war and peace” image presented by the Russian Orthodox Church in early postwar years is considered, analyzing the articles published in the “Peace” column in the “Journal”. The followings are observed as features of the “Peace” column. It closely reflects the trend of the peace organizations both inside and outside the Soviet Union, a wide variety of articles are published primarily as editorials, and authors consist mainly of the Orthodox high priests, such as Metropolitan Nikolai. In addition, as character of the “Peace” column, the most articles relate on the Christian Church and the world peace organizations, about half of the articles include direct criticisms directed toward the Western countries and direct praises to Stalin and the Soviet Union.

Nikolai was a leader of peace activities in the Russian Orthodox Church. He talked about Christian church. He insisted that the Russian Orthodox Church contributed to peace, and that the Christian world had to cooperate each other. In addition, Nicolai wrote about world peace organizations. He reported favorably the condition of the various peace movements including the World Peace Council and praised Stalin and the Soviet Union. Furthermore, Nikolai preached about international relations. While striving for peace activities such as the award of the International Stalin Peace Prize, he condemned fighting acts of the Western countries including the United States of America in the Korean war.

In this way, the “Peace” column is filled with the voice of peace as a Christian. However, the Orthodox Churches are praised in the field of Christian church, the Eastern countries are praised in the field of world peace organizations, and the Western countries are criticized in the field of international relations. The "war and peace" image presented by the Russian Orthodox Church in the early postwar period consists of an image of the Orthodox Church which serves peace, an image of the peace-loving Eastern countries, and a militant image of the Western countries. “Journal” actively discussed peace, but it reflected the intention of the Soviet state under the Cold War of those days.

After Vrancea Earthquake of 1977, Romania faced the hardest period in terms of conservation of religious heritages as Ceauşescu’s socialist regime came to concentrate on the construction of gigantic Casa Poporului in Bucharest. The oppression against the Orthodox Church culminated with the imprisonment of clergies and the destruction of church and monastery buildings. Not a few reports or papers have been published on this vandalism, but use of secondary materials or misreading of the original information has made them incorrect. This paper aims, before everything, at the correction of the reality of the church destruction by finding reliable sources and documents, including the interviews to those who were engaged in these missions. Critical survey of the removal of religious buildings and the systematization plan with socialist ideological connotation is another goal.

The urban planning of Bucharest throughout the 20th century originated from the masterplan of 1935, in which the Royal Palace, the Patriarchy, and the Parliaments were separately allocated in outstanding places with splendid architecture. However, the socialist regime has underlined the priority of socialistic public buildings while converting the palaces into museums and oppressing the church activities. The climax is the transfer of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate to one single Parliament Building, Casa Poporului, to replace actual Arsenal of the Army. In the course of the discussion between Ceauşescu and the architects and engineers, represented by Anca Petrescu, the idea of the Politico-administrative Centre enlarged its dimension, which covers both Uranus and Unirii districts, counting more than 400 ha. Historical monuments, both religious and secular, within this operation zone were to be completely removed while the Patriarchy Complex on the Metropolitan Hill was exempted from the operation. As a result, 17 churches and monasteries were either demolished (totally and partially) or relocated due to this vast systematization operation in the Politico-administrative Center. In addition, another 15 religious buildings were removed by other types of operations such as redevelopment for housing, enlargement of avenues and river/lake modification.

However, the removal of church buildings was not the invention of Ceauşescu government. They had been removed on the occasion of big public projects like the construction of the new Royal Palace or new axis avenues even in the pre-war royal period. In the historical center of the left bank, the renovation of the former New Palace to public museum obliged the demolition of churches for the sake of garden planning. Still the scale of the operation by Ceauşescu was overwhelmingly huge. The case of Enei Church next to the university was exceptional as it happened most probably by an accident of the removal operation of neighboring apartment blocks damaged by Vrancea Earthquake, but the impact of this happening was so strong to Western media that a simplified scheme of Ceauşescu’s anti-Church attitude was amplified through media.

The demolition of former Vacareşti Monastery happened on a completely different level as this complex was categorized the most valuable historical monument of Brâncoveanu architecture. Although its conservation work started in the 1970’s, the operation was overturned to the complete demolition. This attitude of anti-historicism explained another aspect of the regime. Systimatization Policy thus took the position over heritage conservation, but it is limited in one huge district of Bucharest. Relocation technology is the result of compromise between the regime and the church.