Final Report of the International Commission on the - Minority Rights ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

documents) into a “military-fascist” one. The authors here scrutinized strive to argue that <strong>the</strong> acts <strong>of</strong> repression by Antonescu regime’s were not based on ei<strong>the</strong>r an antisemitic ethos or on ethnocentric policies, which would have associated Romania with Nazi Germany; instead, preference was given to presenting those acts as politically-motivated repressive measures or as measures imposed by military circumstances. In <strong>the</strong> late 1980s, <strong>the</strong> linguistic construct “military-fascist dictatorship” was in turn sidelined, as it suggested an involvement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> army in politics and its support <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> dictatorship. Antonescu’s regime would henceforth be labeled ei<strong>the</strong>r a “personal dictatorship” or as a “totalitarian regime” and military historians would insist on <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> Marshal took all decisions himself and responsibility for <strong>the</strong>ir outcome rests only on his shoulders. Yet <strong>the</strong> effort to absolve <strong>the</strong> army <strong>of</strong> any responsibility is encountered not only among military historians As is well known, nationalist ideologies (and Ceauşescu’s brand <strong>of</strong> national communism was one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m) perceive <strong>the</strong> army as being <strong>the</strong> epitome <strong>of</strong> statehood. Deflective and selective negationism are both reflected in <strong>the</strong> claim that is made to an alleged Romanian exceptionalism. According to <strong>the</strong> authors <strong>of</strong> Romania during WWII (a collective volume), “Romania was <strong>the</strong> only country in Nazi Germany’s sphere <strong>of</strong> influence where <strong>the</strong> so-called <strong>Final</strong> Solution adopted by Hitler for exterminating <strong>the</strong> European population <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Mosaic rite was not implemented.” Similarly trenchant statements about Romanian exceptionalism can be found in Bloody Days in Iaşi, especially in <strong>the</strong> preface signed by Nicolae Minei, who makes <strong>the</strong> argument, “The Holocaust did not occur in Romania precisely because—with few and ra<strong>the</strong>r insignificant exceptions—<strong>the</strong> swastika-wearing executioners not only did not enjoy self-volunteered local cooperation, but also encountered outright refusal when <strong>the</strong>y attempted—<strong>of</strong>ficially or o<strong>the</strong>rwise—to recruit accomplices in <strong>the</strong> organization <strong>of</strong> deportations or o<strong>the</strong>r genocidal actions.” Minei goes on to argue that “<strong>of</strong> all countries under Nazi occupation Romania distinguished itself as <strong>the</strong> only country that had no ghettos or extermination camps and [as <strong>the</strong> only country that] did not deport [Jews] to <strong>the</strong> ovens <strong>of</strong> Auschwitz or Majdanek, <strong>the</strong> only country that <strong>of</strong>fered asylum to foreign Jews.” It is worth noting that Minei was <strong>the</strong> first in communist Romania to argue that during <strong>the</strong> war Romania did not exterminate Jews, but massively saved <strong>the</strong>m. Interestingly, this is precisely <strong>the</strong> argument made by representatives <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Antonescu regime in <strong>the</strong> postwar trials <strong>of</strong> criminals <strong>of</strong> war. h.) The quotations above demonstrate that terms such as “Holocaust,” “<strong>Final</strong> Solution,” or “genocide” are systematically avoided when reference is made to <strong>the</strong> fate <strong>of</strong> Jews under Romanian administration, but are perfectly in order when used to designate <strong>the</strong> actions <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs. For example, according to Contributions to <strong>the</strong> Study <strong>of</strong> Political Regimes: “The exacerbation <strong>of</strong> violence by some fascist regimes, such as those in Germany and Hungary, up to <strong>the</strong> point <strong>of</strong> [<strong>the</strong> perpetration <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>] Holocaust was an expression <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir aggressive, expansionist and annexationist policies directed at o<strong>the</strong>r countries and peoples.” Similarly, <strong>the</strong> contributors to Romania during <strong>the</strong> Second World War write: “From <strong>the</strong> very outset <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Horthyist occupation [<strong>of</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Transylvania], <strong>the</strong> measures taken by authorities bore <strong>the</strong> incontestable mark <strong>of</strong> a genuine ethnic genocide that had been prepared in detail in order to change <strong>the</strong> ethnic realities <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> area.” In <strong>the</strong> chapter where this quotation appears, <strong>the</strong> term “genocide” is used to describe <strong>the</strong> Horthyist policy toward <strong>the</strong> Romanian population. One notices that Hungary is paid particular attention and is depicted as being associated to Nazi Germany’s systematic policy <strong>of</strong> physical destruction <strong>of</strong> Jews; one also remarks that Hungary is presented as pursuing <strong>the</strong> same type <strong>of</strong> policies toward <strong>the</strong> ethnic Romanian population in occupied Transylvania. This is a specific trait <strong>of</strong> Romanian historiography under Ceauşescu: while atrocities perpetrated on Romanian territory or Romanian-administered lands are ei<strong>the</strong>r ignored or minimized, <strong>the</strong> antisemitic policies <strong>of</strong> Horthy’s Hungary are thoroughly scrutinized. An emblematic example is The Horthyist- Fascist Terror in North-Western Romania, edited by Mihai Fătu and Mircea Muşat, which would also
enefit from translation into English. The volume places side by side Hungary’s participation in <strong>the</strong> Holocaust and <strong>the</strong> anti-Romanian policies <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Horthy regime. Blatant as it might seem, this discrepancy in treatment may be explained by <strong>the</strong> anti-Hungarian nationalist policies practiced by <strong>the</strong> Ceauşescu regime, particularly during <strong>the</strong> 1980s. A considerable number <strong>of</strong> history journals from those years as well as <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficial media were mobilized to take part in <strong>the</strong> “image war” against <strong>the</strong> neighboring country. The Chief Rabbi <strong>of</strong> Romania, Moses Rosen, became involved in <strong>the</strong> campaign, <strong>the</strong> more so as his anti-Hungarian resentments were perfectly in line with <strong>the</strong> regime’s policies on this particular issue. The same anti-Hungarian policies <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> regime help explain <strong>the</strong> special status enjoyed at that time by Oliver Lustig, a Holocaust survivor from Hungarian-occupied Transylvania, who is allowed to publish several studies on <strong>the</strong> Nazi extermination policies because <strong>the</strong>y also contain anti-Hungarian undertones. Taking advantage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir special status with <strong>the</strong> regime, Moses Rosen and Oliver Lustig on several occasions managed to mention publicly or in print atrocities committed against <strong>the</strong> Jews under <strong>the</strong> Romanian administration, yet <strong>the</strong> impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir gesture was limited. Several conclusions can be drawn from this content analysis. First, given that <strong>the</strong> contributions reviewed were made by different authors living in different time periods, it is striking how uniformly distorted were <strong>the</strong> discussions on <strong>the</strong> Holocaust, on fascism, and, in general, on <strong>the</strong> events that occurred during WWII. This is evidence that historiography was on one hand strictly controlled and on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, it respected RCP-issued ideological blueprints. Besides, all <strong>the</strong> historians authorized to write on such sensitive topics as <strong>the</strong> Holocaust were well positioned in <strong>the</strong> RCP as affiliated researchers <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> RCP Institute <strong>of</strong> Historical and Socio-Political Studies or <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Center for Research on Military History and Theory headed by <strong>the</strong> president’s bro<strong>the</strong>r, Ilie Ceauşescu. Second, it is obvious from <strong>the</strong>se texts that <strong>the</strong> ideological message prevails over science and that <strong>the</strong> historiography on <strong>the</strong> Second World War is fully mobilized in <strong>the</strong> service <strong>of</strong> Romania’s selfvictimization, self-lionization, or acquittal <strong>of</strong> guilt. As a consequence, it is not surprising that <strong>the</strong> undertones <strong>of</strong> historical discourse changed with shifts in <strong>the</strong> regime’s pr<strong>of</strong>ile: as <strong>the</strong> 1980s progressed and <strong>of</strong>ficial nationalism and <strong>the</strong> cult <strong>of</strong> personality became more strident, historiography became even more nationalist and selective. Third, <strong>the</strong> way fascism was approached continued to be heavily influenced by Dimitrov’s definition <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> phenomenon. Romanian historians would distance <strong>the</strong>mselves from Dimitrov only when necessary to embellish Romanian history even fur<strong>the</strong>r. They did not perceive antisemitism as crucial for <strong>the</strong> characterization <strong>of</strong> fascism or as relevant to Romanian political culture. Subsequently, <strong>the</strong> Jews are not perceived as <strong>the</strong> main victims <strong>of</strong> Nazi-like murderous policies. The volumes scrutinized reveal a clear intention to distort <strong>the</strong> specificity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Holocaust by positing that communists and ethnic Romanians in general were its main victims. This pattern is contemporaneous with <strong>the</strong> revival <strong>of</strong> antisemitism—a development tolerated by Ceauşescu—in <strong>the</strong> works <strong>of</strong> various “court writers” who, after 1989, would become leading figures <strong>of</strong> postcommunist Romanian negationism. In general, <strong>the</strong> policy <strong>of</strong> communist Romania vis-à-vis its Jewish citizens was extremely ambiguous, as communist Romania <strong>of</strong>fered, in <strong>the</strong> words <strong>of</strong> B. Wasserstein, “one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> most paradoxical blends <strong>of</strong> tolerance and repression in Eastern Europe.” Unlike all o<strong>the</strong>r Communist bloc countries, Romania entertained good relations with Israel. This policy was generally motivated by considerations <strong>of</strong> foreign policy as well as by <strong>the</strong> economic benefits <strong>of</strong> Jewish migration to Israel. Ceauşescu’s concern for his image abroad meant that antisemitism was formally repudiated and <strong>the</strong> Jewish community was granted a certain degree <strong>of</strong> autonomy. The same considerations prompted <strong>the</strong> signing <strong>of</strong> an agreement on cooperation (involving <strong>the</strong> exchange <strong>of</strong> documents and holding joint symposia) between RCP historians and Yad Vashem historians in 1980s. Yet powerful ideological constraints prevented Romanian historians from taking advantage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
Page 1 and 2:
Final Repo
Page 3 and 4:
Germany’s war against the
Page 5 and 6:
which includes reputed experts led
Page 7 and 8:
BACKGROUND AND PRECURSORS TO THE HO
Page 9 and 10:
against which antisemites in <stron
Page 11 and 12:
declaring in the p
Page 13 and 14:
them. Thus, he con
Page 15 and 16:
We must organize ourselves for a wa
Page 17 and 18:
ureaucracy of wart
Page 19 and 20:
this direction by Nicolae C. Paules
Page 21 and 22:
promising leader of</strong
Page 23 and 24:
organized a tariff and tax strike.
Page 25 and 26:
Legion of
Page 27 and 28:
less so in Romanian society as a wh
Page 29 and 30:
This ambiguous, self-contradictory
Page 31 and 32:
The Gigurtu government began to con
Page 33 and 34:
The Case of Român
Page 35 and 36:
Cuza’s argument that it is possib
Page 37 and 38:
Românesc,” Sociologie Româneasc
Page 39 and 40:
ole in the early 1
Page 41 and 42:
European states, notably Romania an
Page 43 and 44:
Germany's immediate interests at <s
Page 45 and 46:
eligious communities, the</
Page 47 and 48:
counterpart, “when [he] first met
Page 49 and 50:
de Istorie şi Arheologie, “A. D.
Page 51 and 52:
Romania. Muler to Luthe</st
Page 53 and 54:
demands on territorial revisions an
Page 55 and 56:
military mission to come to Romania
Page 57 and 58:
High Command, informing the
Page 59 and 60:
The Jews and the R
Page 61 and 62:
Romanian army. Thus, in Ciudei in <
Page 63 and 64:
antisemitism in Romanian society an
Page 65 and 66:
Ibid., fond Micro-films, roll I.II,
Page 67 and 68:
manifestations of
Page 69 and 70:
power, as this power colonized West
Page 71 and 72:
attraction, many Jews resettled in
Page 73 and 74:
to defend itself; hence its support
Page 75 and 76:
about the Holocaus
Page 77 and 78:
Nichifor Crainic, “Dupa douazeci
Page 79 and 80:
Isaia Tolan, “Revizuirea incetate
Page 81 and 82:
X. Y. Z., “Rezolvarea problemei e
Page 83 and 84:
andom searches and arrests, robberi
Page 85 and 86:
Bucharest Prefectura. Almost two th
Page 87 and 88:
epression was not ordered by Antone
Page 89 and 90:
from villages and small towns. On J
Page 91 and 92:
accident; it was contrived by <stro
Page 93 and 94:
The second train to leave Iasi for
Page 95 and 96:
care of th
Page 97 and 98:
"premilitary," were also placed at
Page 99 and 100:
according to the o
Page 101 and 102:
Tighina Agreement On August 30, Tra
Page 103 and 104:
elieved Transnistria would be occup
Page 105 and 106:
the 331,000 Ukrain
Page 107 and 108:
those inside to take the</s
Page 109 and 110:
[longer] move.” After several wee
Page 111 and 112:
eappear a few seconds later and sig
Page 113 and 114:
operation and that “some
Page 115 and 116:
Bukovina and Bessarabia. Einsatzkom
Page 117 and 118:
other things, <str
Page 119 and 120:
Berezovka district and burn <strong
Page 121 and 122:
them in exchange f
Page 123 and 124:
transport of 2,000
Page 125 and 126:
Bulgarian, Turkish, Italian, or Swi
Page 127 and 128:
were at least 122,000 Jews. Bukovin
Page 129 and 130:
Wilhelm Hoettl, The Secret Front: T
Page 131 and 132:
Ancel, Documents, vol. 2: no. 136,
Page 133 and 134:
Carp, Cartea neagra, vol. 3: pp. 30
Page 135 and 136:
Gosudartsveni Archiv Odeskoi Oblast
Page 137 and 138:
Cable from the Mil
Page 139 and 140:
1-1087, p. 114; list of</st
Page 141 and 142:
Ibid. “Rezolvarea problemei evrei
Page 143 and 144:
child’s birth, would be considere
Page 145 and 146:
Indeed, the system
Page 147 and 148:
Romanianization instead of<
Page 149 and 150:
The Cultural Ghettoization
Page 151 and 152:
The Status of Jewi
Page 153 and 154:
give up any radios able to send and
Page 155 and 156:
Conclusions The anti-Jewish legisla
Page 157 and 158:
L.A., no. 99, p. 344. Trei ani de g
Page 159 and 160:
moral, social, and intellectual nee
Page 161 and 162:
gradually, in reality the</
Page 163 and 164:
except being defined as a Jew. I be
Page 165 and 166:
egulate and authorize, under <stron
Page 167 and 168:
y Lecca: Jews were privileged, and
Page 169 and 170:
through the activi
Page 171 and 172:
oth as a cry of re
Page 173 and 174:
After coming to power, the<
Page 175 and 176:
and then to send <
Page 177 and 178:
their non-evacuate
Page 179 and 180:
villages of <stron
Page 181 and 182:
Return of Roma Sur
Page 183 and 184:
(in many cases, the</strong
Page 185 and 186:
in Romania. History and Contemporar
Page 187 and 188:
THE ROLE OF ION ANTONESCU IN THE PL
Page 189 and 190:
December 16, 1941, meeting
Page 191 and 192:
me from carrying out the</s
Page 193 and 194:
did not do it because…the
Page 195 and 196:
more ironically, this leader’s wa
Page 197 and 198:
THE HOLOCAUST IN NORTHERN TRANSYLVA
Page 199 and 200:
Others 22 968 Magy
Page 201 and 202:
ultimatum but also consented to <st
Page 203 and 204:
military, political, and psychologi
Page 205 and 206:
command over the g
Page 207 and 208:
Huedin. The Jews of</strong
Page 209 and 210:
authorities set up two ghettos in <
Page 211 and 212:
Secuilor counties was carried out i
Page 213 and 214:
the procedure foll
Page 215 and 216:
deportation trains per day. While E
Page 217 and 218:
Deportation Trains from Nor
Page 219 and 220:
Câtcău Kackó Ciuc Csík Ciucea C
Page 221 and 222: Rona de Sus Felsöróna Rozavica Ro
Page 223 and 224: Bözödújfalu Bezidu Nou Budfalva
Page 225 and 226: Nagysajó Şieu (Bistrita-Nasaud Co
Page 227 and 228: (Indictment of Naz
Page 229 and 230: Randolph L. Braham, comp. and ed. (
Page 231 and 232: perceived by a significant part <st
Page 233 and 234: Romanian government not to adopt <s
Page 235 and 236: still alive in the
Page 237 and 238: the Jews who worke
Page 239 and 240: We have been informed that various
Page 241 and 242: church bells announce the</
Page 243 and 244: Mitropolit pleaded with Mihai Anton
Page 245 and 246: Pozdnyakova, Yefrosiniya Starostina
Page 247 and 248: Ibid., pp. 224-225. Ibid., pp. 46-4
Page 249 and 250: the examined cases
Page 251 and 252: escape with negligible punishment;
Page 253 and 254: immense scale, enslaved millions <s
Page 255 and 256: means. The “ethnic Christian stat
Page 257 and 258: it is evident that the</str
Page 259 and 260: face să pară evident că victimel
Page 261 and 262: viaţă, 100 milioane lei amendă
Page 263 and 264: Articolul 15 al Convenţiei de armi
Page 265 and 266: members accepted as authoritative s
Page 267 and 268: camp in January 1945, for several m
Page 269 and 270: Beginning in the 1
Page 271: such access was strictly supervised
Page 275 and 276: furthermore, he ha
Page 277 and 278: lucrative Jewish business ever,”
Page 279 and 280: deaths of thousand
Page 281 and 282: Treptow who was residing in Romania
Page 283 and 284: Finally, it must b
Page 285 and 286: A.) Integral Negationism Although <
Page 287 and 288: other genocides re
Page 289 and 290: mankind, such as wars; the<
Page 291 and 292: age of 44, only on
Page 293 and 294: After deploring the</strong
Page 295 and 296: Michael Shafir, “Ex Occidente Obs
Page 297 and 298: See, for example, Giurescu who make
Page 299 and 300: Randolph L. Braham, Romanian Nation
Page 301 and 302: Mediafax, March 18, 2002, Monitorul
Page 303 and 304: See Ibidem, pp. 3, 54-55. Ibidem, p
Page 305 and 306: Radu Theodoru, Mareşalul, Editura
Page 307 and 308: egained from the U
Page 309 and 310: was a record of an
Page 311 and 312: secondary school use. Those institu
Page 313: including erecting statues, mountin
show all

Final Report of the International Commission on the - Minority Rights ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?