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

<strong>the</strong> “Judeo-Bolshevism” argument was much more popular. Yet in many contexts, <strong>the</strong> two arguments
were used interchangeably. There was a sudden increase in <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Judeo-Bolshevism argument
after <strong>the</strong> June 1940 Soviet ultimatum, which resulted in territorial losses and Romania entering <strong>the</strong> war on
<strong>the</strong> side <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Axis against <strong>the</strong> Soviet Union, since many in <strong>the</strong> press regarded <strong>the</strong> Soviet Union as a
product <strong>of</strong> Jewish militancy.
If <strong>the</strong> representation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Jews as being disloyal and traitorous toward <strong>the</strong> Romanian state was not
new, <strong>the</strong> punishment, which began in January 1938, was justified after <strong>the</strong> 1940 territorial losses, and <strong>the</strong>
media perception, derived from <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficial one, <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Jewish minority was simplified even more: <strong>the</strong>
inclination toward communism was considered as defining for <strong>the</strong> Jews. In accordance with <strong>the</strong> belief <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong> Romanian authorities, <strong>the</strong> journalistic discourse insinuated that <strong>the</strong>re was an irresistible link between
<strong>the</strong> Soviet Union and <strong>the</strong> Jews from <strong>the</strong> Romanian state, especially those from Moldova.
The October 1917 Bolshevik revolution was regarded as “<strong>the</strong> most daring move <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Jews in all
times,” which was “prepared by Lenin and a long list <strong>of</strong> Kikes: Trotky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Uritzky… as,
in fact, all <strong>the</strong>se Russian name conceal those <strong>of</strong> Bronstein, Radomirsky, Apfelbaum. The secret meeting
<strong>of</strong> October 10, 1917, which triggered <strong>the</strong> armed revolt, included seven Kikes, five Russians (three <strong>of</strong>
whom were married to Jewish women) and a Pole.” A regime installed this way could mean only Jewish
dominance; for example, it was said that “ferocious Stalin had <strong>the</strong> Jew Kaganovici as an advisor, and this
was a clear sign for <strong>the</strong> Kominern’s orientation.” Mihai Antonescu himself paid special attention to this
topic when he stated, “in <strong>the</strong> Soviet Union intellectuals are slaves, peasants are stones, and Jews are
masters.” Nichifor Crainic never hesitated to speak <strong>of</strong> “Judeo-Russians” and “Judeo-Bolshevik Russia”
and blamed <strong>the</strong> loss <strong>of</strong> Bessarabia and Bukovina on <strong>the</strong> Jews.
Not only dailies used “Judeo-Bolshevism” in reference to <strong>the</strong> Soviet Union, but so did <strong>the</strong> most
respectable magazines and reviews, such as Convorbiri literare (its op-eds contained references to “<strong>the</strong>
Judeo-communist Bolshevism <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Soviet republics,” “<strong>the</strong> Judeo-Bolshevik Bela Kun,” “<strong>the</strong> crusadelike
and apocalyptic confrontation between <strong>the</strong> Judeo-Bolshevik superstate and <strong>the</strong> civilized peoples <strong>of</strong>
Europe.” ) The Judeo-Bolshevik argument was, needless to say, widespread in journals with a tradition <strong>of</strong>
right-wing extremism (Sfarma Piatra, Porunca Vremii). Media representations, always molded
propagandistically, <strong>of</strong>ten used “Jew,” “communist,” and “Bolshevik” interchangeably, and this move
went unchallenged.
Under such circumstances, after June 1940 <strong>the</strong> Soviet Union’s perceived fascination with Romanian
Jews became a sort <strong>of</strong> leitmotif in contemporary newspapers. In July 1940, Curentul published a “report”
from <strong>the</strong> post-June 1940 Romanian-Soviet border. The report stated: “It is interesting to note that most
people now crossing <strong>the</strong> Prut (into <strong>the</strong> Soviet Union) are Jews, with no distinction <strong>of</strong> social class or years
<strong>of</strong> residence in our country. On Portului Street I saw long columns <strong>of</strong> carriages full <strong>of</strong> luxury suitcases
and crates full <strong>of</strong> fine clo<strong>the</strong>s and expensive things; and near or beyond <strong>the</strong>m, we saw groups <strong>of</strong> Jews
who, judging by <strong>the</strong>ir clo<strong>the</strong>s, were cultured people <strong>of</strong> a certain status.” The author did not use <strong>the</strong> term
“Judeo-Bolshevik” or “Judeo-communist” to designate <strong>the</strong> travelers, but he was convinced that something
irresistible attracted Jews toward <strong>the</strong> Soviet world, something irrational or chimerical; that is, something
befitting <strong>the</strong>ir “spirit.”
The belief that Jews in Bessarabia and Bukovina celebrated Moscow’s annexation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> two regions,
thus cultivating <strong>the</strong>ir anti-Romanian, pro-Soviet sentiments, was widespread and knew a variety <strong>of</strong>
expressions, from blunt assertions to <strong>the</strong> presentation <strong>of</strong> irrefutable “evidence.” For example, a November
1941 article in Viata (Life; a journal edited by novelist Liviu Rebreanu) about <strong>the</strong> demographic problems
<strong>of</strong> Chisinau and based on unassailable statistical data (furnished, however, by <strong>the</strong> Romanian authorities),
asserted: “When Soviet Russia conquered Bessarabia last year, <strong>the</strong> city <strong>of</strong> Chisinau had 120,000
inhabitants. Because for <strong>the</strong> Jews in Romania, <strong>the</strong> Bolshevik heaven represents a powerful point <strong>of</strong>