The historiography on the subject does not give us very clear verdicts. He wouldn’t even be able to at this point. However, there are major differences when we analyze the historiographical production. The seriousness of the approach is noticed especially in the way the author defines his working laboratory (methodology, sources, contextualization, literature, etc.). Without specifying these dimensions very clearly from the beginning, in order to understand how they relate to the theme, any study risks being secondary in relation to the relevance for understanding what really happened. Of course, any historical writing is theoretically a step forward in historical knowledge, but we must understand that not everything that is written down on paper is valid from a historiographic point of view. In order for the approach to be valid, a very good preliminary preparation is needed from the methodological point of view of the one who investigates. This can only be done by the professional historian, the only one in a position to approach the information with a sense of measure and, above all, with the honesty specific to the one who does this professionally. And there is something else. In dealing with demanding subjects such as the events of December 1989, a lot, a lot of honesty is also needed. We are at the stage where things are far from being resolved even though three decades have passed. At the level of the Braudellian historical duration, the period actually means very little and that is precisely why the conclusions are left to be expected. There is still much to see, listen and research.