Reception of the Final Report of the International Commission for Investigation of the Romanian Holocaust (“Wiesel Commission”)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Mariana Hausleitner who refused military service on religious southern Ukraine, the rehabilitation of com- grounds. munism. Selected publications: Die Rumäni- sierung der Bukowina. Die Durchsetzung des Translation from the German by John Kenney nationalstaatlichen Anspruchs Großrumäni- ens 1918-1944, München 2001 [The Romania- About the author: nization of Bukovina. The enforcement of the nation-state claim of Greater Romania 1918- Mariana Hausleitner, Ph.D., is a lecturer on 1944], Munich 2001; Deutsche und Juden in the Cultural and Historical Studies depart- Bessarabien 1814-1941. Zur Minderheiterpoli- ment at the Free University of Berlin. She tik Russlands und Großrumäniens, München is currently curator of the exhibit “Order 2005. [The Germans and the Jews in Bessarabia and Crime: The Police in the Nazi State” at 1814-1941. On the minority policy of Russia the German Historical Museum in Berlin. and Greater Romania], Munich 2005. e-mail: [email protected] Reception of the Final Report of the International Commission for Investigation of the Romanian Holocaust (“Wiesel Commission”) by William Totok, Berlin he history of the scholarly and journalistic jeopardize Romania’s intended European in- Treception of the events of the years 1941 to tegration, an international commission for the 1944 is part of the history of the Romanian Ho- investigation of the Holocaust was created in locaust. The creation of an international com- the fall of 2003. One year later, acting under mission in the autumn of 2003, which investi- the chairmanship of Nobel Peace Prize winner gated the Romanian Holocaust and one year Elie Wiesel, the commission presented its final later issued its final report, was preceded by report, which was subsequently published on scores of press campaigns, in which there was the internet in both English and Romanian. some demand for the rehabilitation of the mili- Later the final report was published in book tary dictator Ion Antonescu and those mem- form by the Romanian publisher Polirom.The bers of his cabinet who had been convicted publication of the report and in particular the as war criminals after 1945. To the post-com- conclusions and recommendations contained munist cult sparked by Antonescu was added within it brought about a variety of reactions. an extremely questionable interview in which then Romanian president Ion Iliescu relativ- In the public reception four tenden- ized the Holocaust. The interview, published cies became apparent: 1.) positive-factual; 2.) in the Israeli newspaper “Ha’aretz” on 25 July distanced-ironic; 3.) historical-critical; and 4.) 2003, took the international public by surprise. dismissive-revisionist. However, a key state- So as not to politically strain and potentially ment in the conclusion of the commission’s fi- Euxeinos 1 (2011) 7 William Totok nal report played a crucial role in the percep- Antonescu dictatorship and the related ra- tion and representation of events: “Of all the cially motivated atrocities against Jews and countries allied with Germany, Romania was Roma. Concurrently the pejorative designa- – after Germany itself – responsible for the tion of the report as the “Iliescu-Wiesel Re- largest number of victims. The murders in port” appeared in this context, thereby mak- Iaşi, Odessa, Bogdanovka, Domanevka, and ing apparent a political alienation from the Peciora were among the cruelest which were post-communist president and also indirectly committed against Jews during the Holocaust. questioning the historical and political cred- Although Romania had actually sent fewer ibility of the holocaust report. Jews to Nazi Germany than neighboring Hun- gary, this does not mean that it did not commit 3. The historical-critical reception genocide against the Jews. The problem of the Holocaust in Romania is in the first place a Ro- Of course, the report also led to a number manian problem, which should be acknowl- of serious accounts, reviews, and debates. edged and dealt with by Romanian society.” Studies drawing on the commission’s report have, however, only appeared in relatively 1. The positive-factual reception small numbers and have only reached a nar- row circle of readers. Many of them also come The articles published in the press after the from the pens of members of the commission, official presentation of the report summa- whose work has been called into question by rized the reasons for the establishment of increasingly ostentatious rejection. the Commission. The historical events were well-described, but the role of Romania was 4. The dismissive-revisionist reception cautiously left aside. A striking feature of the newspaper reports published in Autumn 2004 From a purely statistical standpoint, in the is that the above-quoted conclusion was not period from 2004 to 2011 more hostile articles mentioned. were published than ones which actually sought to promote a critical process of coming 2. The distanced-ironic reception to terms with the past on the basis of the final report. These articles, which have appeared A few days after the publication of the report again and again since 1990, have put into cir- several newspapers published commentary, in culation conspiratorial, trivializing, relativist, which the authors used the strikingly polemi- and holocaust-denying theories which are cal formulation “Red Holocaust” – as opposed now also particularly expressed and dissemi- to the “Brown Holocaust” – and suggested in nated by active internet users in electronic fo- this way the equivalence of the Holocaust and rums, numerous blogs, and countless letters the Gulag. Basically, these journalistic contri- to the editor. The most commonly expressed butions conveyed the idea, often formulated views include the following indisputable as- after 1990, that the historical process of com- sertions: ing to terms with the past should prioritize the - Romania did not exterminate the Jews and four decades of communist dictatorship, and Roma; the Romanian state in the time of An- only focus secondarily on the four years of the tonescu had in fact saved the Jews; Euxeinos 1 (2011) 8 William Totok - The Romanian state facilitated the emigra- - The casualty figures of 28,000 to 38,000 Ro- tion of the Jews to Palestine and in this manner manian and Ukrainian Jews given in the final preserved them before the annihilation; report are portrayed as exaggerated, and the - Hungary and Germany were in reality the report described as an attempt to find histori- only states responsible for the destruction of cal cover to impute Romanian blame for the the Romanian Jews, because there were no ex- Holocaust, so as to finally force the Romanian termination camps in Romanian-administered state to pay spurious reparations; (occupied) Transnistria; - Radical nationalist politicians and intellectu- - Synagogues and Jewish schools and cultural als, like avowed Holocaust denier Ion Coja, institutions had been able to function undis- the chairman of the Bucharest branch of the turbed under Antonescu; organization “Vatra Românească” (Romanian - Antonescu had not yielded to German pres- Home) and head of the League to Fight Anti- sure and the Romanian Jews had not been de- Romanianism (LICAR), and Corneliu Vadim livered to Nazi Germany; Tudor, the chairman of the far-right Greater - Antonescu had actually maintained friendly Romania Party (PRM), continue to plead for relations with the leaders of the Jewish com- a rehabilitation of the former fascist military munity and ultimately saved Jews from the dictator Ion Antonescu, whom they describe attacks of the anti-Semitic fascist organization, as the victim of a Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy. the “Legion of the Archangel Michael” (also known as the “Legionnaires” and the “Iron Conclusion Guard”); - As evidence for this claim a nonexistent tes- The publication of the final report of the In- tament of Wilhelm Fildermann is repeatedly ternational Commission to Investigate the Ro- cited; manian Holocaust has not necessarily led to a - During the pogrom of January 1941, no Jews new culture of debate free from nationalistic had been suspended on meat hooks in the clichés and prejudices. Bucharest slaughterhouse, but rather Legion- Perhaps the most important success naires; of this document is the official recognition - The rebellion of the Legionnaires against of the responsibility of the Romanian state Antonescu in January 1941 had basically been for events under Antonescu and the favor- nothing more than a production of the mili- able adoption of its conclusions and recom- tary dictator, who was secretly supported by mendations by the Romanian authorities. Communists and Freemasons; The final report’s recommendations were - The authors of the report, along with the ear- partly put into practice. In Romania 9 Octo- lier dissident writer Paul Goma, were given ber is Holocaust Remembrance day; in most the derogatory name “Holocaustologists” textbooks, the events of the years 1941-1944 and it was insinuated that their investigation are depicted accurately; and in Bucharest, the of events under Antonescu was intended to so-called “Wiesel Institute” was established, prove Romania’s anti-Semitic policy so as to which deals with the history of the Romanian place the country in the “New World Order,” Holocaust, finances publications, and organiz- dominated by Jewish organizations, and rob it es memorial events and conferences. In addi- of its national identity; tion, a Holocaust memorial was established in- Euxeinos 1 (2011) 9 William Totok the Romanian capital, which commemorates About the author: the persecution of Jews and Roma. William Totok, M.A., born 1951, lives as a Although in 2002 a government decree freelance writer in Berlin. He was a member (ratified in 2006 as a law) made Holocaust deni- of the International Commission to Investi- al, the glorification of war criminals, the public gate the Romanian Holocaust, which submit- dissemination of fascist symbols, and the estab- ted its final report in 2004, which came out lishment of fascist organizations and parties one year later in book form. Recent publica- into criminal offenses, in Romania there have tions: Episcopul, Hitler si Securitatea.