1 / 2011

Romania and : Delicate Reappraisal of a Fateful Past

Guest Editor: Daniel Ursprung (Zürich)

Hidden in plain sight. The Holocaust Memorial in Bucharest. (Photo: Daniel Ursprung)

Online Journal of the Center for Governance and Culture in Europe University of St. Gallen www.gce.unisg.ch Managing Editor Maria Tagangaeva Center for Governance and Landis & Gyr Culture in Europe Last Update 26.11.2012 stiftung University of St.Gallen Table of Contents

Romania and the Holocaust: Delicate Reappraisal of a Fateful Past Editorial 3

The Cult of Antonescu and the Delayed Reappraisal of the Romanian Holo- caust Mariana Hausleitner, Free University of Berlin 4

Reception of the Final Report of the International Commission for Investiga- tion of the Romanian Holocaust (“Wiesel Commission”) William Totok, Berlin 7

Perceptions of the Holocaust in Contemporary Romania: Between Film and Television Victor Eskenasy, Frankfurt am Main 10

Romanian Interest in the Deportation of Roma to Transnistria (1942-1944) Viorel Achim, Nicolae Iorga Institute of History, Bucharest 13

Euxeinos 1 (2011) 2 Romania and the Holocaust: Delicate Reappraisal of a Fateful Past

uring the Second World War, Romania of it throughvaluable new archival discover- Dwas directly responsible for the deaths ies and findings, outside this circle of spe- of between 280,000 and 380,000 Jews and ap- cialists there has not been a broad societal proximately 11,000 Roma. This is one of the debate about Romania’s responsibility for the most important insights of the final report persecution and murder of Jews and Roma. of the Historical Commission led by Nobel The following articles illuminate the Peace Prize laureate , which was theme from diverse perspectives. Mariane

Editorial appointed in 2003/04 by Romanian President Hausleitner traces an overview of the nature Iliescu to investigate the role of Romania un- of engagement with the Antonescu regime in der the regime of the military dictator Ion the postwar period, especially focusing on Antonescu. The Romanian authorities only the flourishing Antonescu cult after 1990, and acknowledged the responsibility of the An- briefly discusses the current state of research. tonescu Regime reluctantly. The trigger for In William Totok’s article the reaction to the the establishment of the Wiesel Commission Wiesel Commission’s report is described. The was not the desire to deal with the past, but author notes that in purely quantitative terms rather the increasingly apparent outrage in a hostile-revisionist reception prevailed, Western countries over the denial or trivial- while a historical-critical reception only ap- ization of the Romanian role in the Holocaust, peared to a limited extent. Victor Eskenasy including by official representatives of the notes a similar phenomenon in terms of pop- state like Iliescu himself. The official acknowl- ular depictions of the Holocaust in film and edgement of the responsibility of the Roma- television. Despite an impressive number of nian state for the mass murders must also serious scholarly works and document col- be seen in the context of the country’s then lections, in this area a very ambiguous han- forthcoming admission to NATO and the EU. dling of the issue still prevails. There are three Nearly seven years after the state officially main reasons for this: the prevalence of deni- recognized its responsibility for the crimes of alism as a result of traditional anti-Semitism, the Antonescu regime, there is no sign of a the reluctance of prominent intellectuals to critical public discourse on this dark chapter address the general public, and finally the of Romanian history and no general aware- inaccessibility of the specialist literature due ness of this tragedy in wide circles of the to high prices and limited editions. Finally, public. Some of the recommendations of the Viorel Achim’s contribution focuses on a too commission have indeed been implemented often forgotten aspect of the Holocaust: the – like the establishment of a Holocaust Me- deportation of about 25,000 Roma in Roma- morial in Bucharest. As the items in this is- nian-occupied Transnistria (the area between sue of Euxeinos show, however, indifference the rivers Dniester and Bug), nearly half of and apathy continue to prevail, while the whom did not survive. Compared to the popular treatments of the topic in the media nineties, the reappraisal of Romanian History get bogged down in vague statements in the in relation to the Holocaust and the Second best case, while in the worst case they deny World War has indeed made some progress. responsibility. Although by now not only for- Nonetheless, as these articles demonstrate, a eign historians, but increasingly also Roma- critical examination of its own history on a nian historians have dealt with the topic and broad basis may still be a while in coming. brought to light many specific aspects Daniel Ursprung, Zürich Euxeinos 1 (2011) e-mail: [email protected] 3 The Cult of Antonescu and the Delayed Reappraisal of the Romanian Holocaust

by Mariana Hausleitner, Free University of Berlin

fter General Antonescu came to power there was no earning potential, and the de- Ain September 1940, Romania became an portees could only secure food by selling important ally of the German Reich. Ion An- their meager portable possessions to farmers. tonescu ruled for five months jointly with the Jews from Bessarabia, in particular, came to , a widespread fascist movement. Transnistria without any possessions follow- In January 1941, the Iron Guard attempted ing long marches. Hundreds of thousands to oust the general through an insurrection. starved or died of deficiency diseases like Hitler sided, however, with the general, as epidemic typhus. In Bucharest Ion Antones- order was the German Reich’s priority in Ro- cu, who had risen to Marshal, had allowed mania. The country was intended as a staging a plan to ethnically cleanse Romania to be ground for the scheduled attack on the Soviet drawn up. In October 1941, Sabin Manuilă, Union and its oil wells were of central impor- director of the Central Statistical Institute, tance to the German war effort. During the devised a plan for the systematic expulsion insurrection a pogrom occurred in Bucharest, of 3.5 million non-Romanians. Communities in which over one hundred Jews were mur- of Romanian minorities from abroad were dered. to be settled in place of the Hungarians and In the first weeks after the attack on Ukrainians, while Manuilă spoke cynically the Soviet Union, the persecution of the Jews of a “one-way transfer” of Jews and Gypsies/ took on a new dimension. In the city of Iaşi Roma. The first 20,000 Roma were deported in northeastern Romania on June 29, 1941, in 1942. In 1943, the intended expulsion of around 13,000 Jews were murdered by gen- over one million Slavs from Bessarabia and darmes, soldiers, armed legionnaires and ci- North Bukovina remained in its earliest stag- vilians. There were many more victims in the es, because the condition of the Romanian summer of 1941 in Bessarabia and North Bu- army had drastically worsened after the de- kovina, districts which the Romanian army feat at Stalingrad. Already by the spring of had been forced to evacuate in June 1940 due 1944 the Red Army had captured Bessarabia to a Soviet ultimatum. After the recapture of and North Bukovina. On August 23, 1944, these areas, through the end of 1941, between Marshal Antonescu and Prime Minister Mi- 45,000 and 60,000 Jews were murdered by hai Antonescu were arrested by the King. the Romanian army and small units of the As a result, the Romanian army was able to German Einsatzgruppe D. In August 1941, make an about-face, fighting thereafter on the German Reich ceded the Ukrainian terri- the side of the Red Army to recapture North tory between the Dniester and Southern Bug Transylvania, which Hungary had gained by rivers, called Transnistria, to its Romanian the Second Vienna Award of 1940. ally as an occupation zone. Afterwards, the Ion and Mihai Antonescu were put to Gendarmerie deported Jews from Bukovina death on June 1, 1946, after a trial in which the and Bessarabia to that area. This region was mass murder of the Jews and Roma played utterly devastated throughout the war, and only a marginal role. At its center stood the roughly 130,000 Jews fled or were killed. The Romanian army’s devastation of the territory largest massacres were carried out here: in of the Soviet Union. However, the magnitude Odessa the Romanian army murdered about of the mass crimes was known, because in 20,000 Jews in October 1941. In Transnistria 1946 Matatias Carp, the secretary of the Fede-

Euxeinos 1 (2011) 4 Mariana Hausleitner

ration of Jewish Municipalities published presentatives of the Hungarian minority left many documents in Black Book. The Suffer- the room in protest. Streets were named af- ing of the Jews of Romania 1940-1944 (Cartea ter Antonescu and busts of himinstalled in neagră. Suferinţele evreilor din România several large cities. Countless publications 1940-1944). This book disappeared from Ro- appeared celebrating him as a patriot who manian libraries, however, after Stalin or- reclaimed Bessarabia and the Bukovina in dered the confiscation of the corresponding 1941. Many Romanian politicians themselves Black Book about the mass murder of Jews in hoped for annexation of both regions af- the territory of the Soviet Union. ter the collapse of the Soviet Union. At that After 1949 only the murders in Iaşi time Romanian historians in the Republic of were discussed in Romania and the Weh- Moldova also took up the Cult of Antonescu, rmacht was blamed for them. Nothing was while members of the Slavic minorities vehe- published about Bessarabia and North Bu- mently criticized it. kovina. After 1986 occasional publications Some Romanians called for a judicial appeared on the deportation of the Jews from reha- bilitation of Antonescu and when the North Transylvania, which belonged to Hun- first step to this end was taken in November gary between 1940 and 1944. 1997 by the chief public prosecutor, eight Outside Romania, however, research members of Antonescu’s regime were reha- was carried out from the 1980s about the bilitated. Two United States Senators vehe- mass killings in Romania and Transnistria: mently protested against this, and as a result the Israeli historian published a only a few state secretaries from the regime comprehensive document collection on the were rehabilitated in 1998. Besides family subject. Randolph R. Braham covered the members, the initiators of the rehabilitation deportations from North Transylvania in a were notably politicians of the Greater Roma- benchmark work on the Hungarian Holo- nia Party. This party, led by a former “court caust. In Germany, Armin Heinen wrote his poet” of the Communist Party, has made a dissertation on the fascist movement in Ro- name for itself by its hate campaigns against mania. Even after the fall of Ceaușescu in De- Jews, Hungarians, and Roma. In the elections cember 1989, only a few intellectuals in Ro- of November 2000, the party gained 20% of mania took an interest in these works. It was the vote, making it the second largest force above all the members of the Federation of in parliament. Governmental responsibility Jewish Communities who, through the pub- passed to the Party of Social Democracy, led lication of documents, attempted to clarify by Ion Iliescu, which between 1993 and 1995 the dimensions of the mass murder of Jews in had ruled with the support of the Greater Ro- the Romanian peripheral regions. In contrast, mania Party. many Romanians contributed encomia on the Iliescu’s party wished after Novem- struggle of Marshal Antonescu against Bol- ber 2000 to distinguish itself from its former shevism. On the petition of members of the allies and positioned itself in opposition to ruling “National Salvation Front,” on June 1, the Greater Romania Party and in favor of a 1991, Antonescu was honored with a minute quick integration into NATO and the Euro- of silence in the Senate on the occasion of the pean Union. In the course of the war against 45th anniversary of his execution. Only the re- Afghanistan, a close cooperation with the

Euxeinos 1 (2011) 5 Mariana Hausleitner

United States began and this new alignment before the end of his term in office, Iliescu brought about a renunciation of the cult of granted the same decoration to two anti- Marshal Antonescu. Afterwards, General Semites who had been vehemently criticized Chelaru, who until February 2000 had been a in the report: it was given to Corneliu Vadim member of the General Staff of the Romanian Tudor, the leader of the Greater Romania Army, took active part in the ceremonial dedi- Party, as well as to the historian Gheorghe cation of an Antonescu bust in Bucharest while Buzatu, a long-time representative of the in uniform, which was criticized in the United Party in the Senate. Buzatu also directed an States. Soon afterwards Mihai Chelaru lost his endowment for the rehabilitation of Marshal post. In March 2002 Prime Minister Năstase, Antonescu. As a result, Elie Wiesel and Ran- jointly with the ministers of the interior, jus- dolph R. Braham indignantly returned their tice, and culture, issued an edict banning racist decorations to Iliescu. agitation and , under penalty The report of the Holocaust Commis- of a prison sentence. For a long time the edict sion first appeared in 2005 in Romanian and could not be adopted in parliament, largely English. Shortly afterwards, the creation of a because the delegates of the Greater Romania research institute in Bucharest named for Elie Party opposed it. Wiesel was announced (Website: http://www. In October 2003, to secure support for inshr-ew.ro/). It published analysis of the Ho- himself Ion Iliescu, as Romanian President, locaust and current anti-Semitic trends. 2005 provided for the creation of a “Commission also saw the introduction of an education on the Holocaust and its Aftermath in Ro- ministry-approved textbook which informed mania” (see the article by William Totok). It high school students about the history of was chaired by writer and Nobel Prize win- Jews and the Holocaust. A Holocaust com- ner Elie Wiesel, who had been deported from memoration day was designated. The streets North Transylvania to Auschwitz as a child. that had been named after Antonescu were Half of the commission’s members were renamed. well-known historians from Romania, Israel, Still, not all remnants of the 13 years Germany, and the United States, while the of a persistent Antonescu cult have been other half were representatives of Jewish or- erased, although in public only extremist ganizations. Exactly one year later the Com- fringe groups deny the Romanian Holocaust. mission presented a voluminous report, the But there is no debate about the comprehen- central point of which was the mass murder sive plans for ethnic cleansing during the war committed against the Jews on Romanian and years. The report compiled by the commis- Ukrainian territory. The total number of fatali- sion compiled in one place research findings ties was estimated to be between 280,000 and which had not been previously discussed in 380,000. It also referred to the 11,000 Roma Romania. For American and Israeli research- who died in Transnistria. The report also not- ers the crimes against the Jews have stood in ed the strength of the Greater Romania Party, the foreground, while much less work has which had denied the Romanian Holocaust. been done on other peoples discriminated In December 2004, Iliescu commend- against during the war years like the Roma ed the commission’s report and decorated the and the Slavs. Even less is known about the writer decoration for their direction of it. Yet deportation to Transnistria of Romanians

Euxeinos 1 (2011) 6 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 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. Proce- sul stalinist împotriva “spionilor Vaticanului“ been no prosecutions against either Holocaust in România [The Bishop, Hitler, and the Se- deniers or extreme right-wing organizations. curitate: The Stalinist proceedings against the “Vatican Spies” in Romania], Iasi 2008; and Translation from the German by John Kenney the study “The Timeliness of the Past: The Fall of Nicolae Paulescu” in Peter Manu and Horia Bozdoghina, ed. Polemica Paulescu: sti- inta, politica, memorie [The Paulescu Polemic: Scholarship, Politics, Remembrance], Bucha- rest 2010. e-mail: [email protected]

Perceptions of the Holocaust in Contemporary Romania: Between Film and Television

by Victor Eskenasy, Frankfurt am Main

n spite of the relatively large number of stu- widely popular public intellectuals, made Idies and collections of documents published known particularly by television, to take part in the twenty years since scholarly research in in debate. In contrast, these opinion leaders Romania was liberated, be it under the aegis — admirers and students of the philosophy of the Elie Wiesel Institute for the Study of the of the interwar cultural figures Holocaust or the Hasefer Publishing House (of and Constantin Noica, among others, who in the Jewish community), the Holocaust and its their youths were followers of the pro-fascist perceptions continue to be subjects of contro- movement the Iron Guard — have distanced versy, contestation, and confrontation. themselves as much as possible from debating The limited impact of studies comple- the Holocaust. Their excuse has most often ted or advanced in the two decades following been to put an equals sign between Nazism the opening of Romanian archives, whether and Communism, enabling their insistence on they come from Germany, Israel, or Romania supporting the study of what, through abuse itself, has at least three major explanations. of analogy, has been called “the Red Holo- The first is denial of the Holocaust, one caust.” Finally, a third explanation for resis- of the faces of the well rooted anti-Semitism tance and indifference manifested towards the that has a long history in Romania. The second results of the research on the Holocaust as it may be the constant refusal of influential and happened during the war years in Romania

Euxeinos 1 (2011) 10 Victor Eskenasy

and its territories, is the ridiculous low number International Commission, led by Elie Wiesel, of copies printed at usually exhorbitant prices about the Holocaust in Romania and in the of the published books, which have made territories occupied by the Romanian army them unavailable to the ordinary people. during the Second World War, had the good In such an atmosphere it was to be effect of awakening young documentary film- expected, and to a certain extent in the nature makers’ interest, their projects encountered in- of things, that the task of educating, engaging, difference and substantial financial obstacles. and making the public aware of the horrors and particular aspects of the Holocaust in Ro- “The Odessa Project” is a typical mania would be taken up by the state televi- case. Begun in 2008 by Florin Iepan, a young sion and cinema, two areas that, alongside the director from Timişoara, the film intended to Internet, are extremely accessible and popular. document the extermination of c. 20 thousand Russian and Ukranian Jews, an Antonescu go- However, over the last twenty years, vernment reprisal following the occupation of a single Romanian film production, produced Odessa and the explosion that distroyed the with modest means, has addressed the Holo- Romanian headquarters, but as of today (April caust. Directed by Radu Gabrea, the 2009 2011), it has not been finished. „Gruber’s Journey” (Călătoria lui Gruber) is A veritable intimidation campaign a direct reference to the great pogrom of Iasi, was launched against the project and the in June of 1941, and the „creative” means the film›s director with, according to Iepan, “ex- Antonescu regime used to exterminate Jews: tremely violent, hysterical, anti-Semite and moving thousands of Jews in convoys of sea- xenophobic” commentaries, accompanied led train cars, lacking ventilation, water, and by the refusal of the competent institutions, food, under a terrible heat, until their deaths Romanian Television among them, to follow by suffocation. Radu Gabrea, who models his through with promised financial support. work on Andrzej Wajda, states in an interview The director changed his project, in the hope that he attempted, purposely, to bring to light of highlighting “this nationalist, conservative „a case carefully hidden by the Romanian au- group that blocks any serious discussion of thorities.” „The film is a metaphor for deceit, coming to terms with our history.” Iepan›s for the fact that the truth of what really happe- desire to “make people aware that Romania, ned in Iaşi had been concealed”. too, has a fascist past” remains, so far, only a The reception of the film, whose final good intention. Romanian subtitles, for the main character Curzio Malaparte and the comander of the The case of the Odessa documentary German garrison in Iaşi, omit various „unplea- calls into question, among other things, the sant” remarks about the Romanian army, was attitude of the Romanian Television Society, mixed. The editors of a Romanian film data- with its choices and strategies that change base went so far as to add an “explanation” to according to Romanian diplomatic priorities the site, stating that this was the first film to (entering NATO and the European Union), treat “the massacre of Jews in Iaşi in 1941 (an the international context (dominated by rela- event which, it seems, remains to be proved).” tions with the United States), and the personal If the 2005 publication of the final report of the convictions of various Television chairmen. It

Euxeinos 1 (2011) 11 Victor Eskenasy

is notable that state television produced the a national legislation that prohibits the venera- documentary, in three episodes, directed by tion of war criminals. Cristian Hadji Culea, “The Holocaust under The Holocaust was practically omit- the Antonescu Government”, broadcast in ted from remarks on a documentary praising 2009. The film has been distributed under the General Ion Antonescu, broadcast by TVR 2 aegis of The Association of Jewish Romanian and widely distributed over on the Internet. Victims of the Holocaust, an NGO created Instead, also well distributed on the Internet, in 1991 with the aim of “offering legislative, the TV show “True History” (sic!), hosted by moral, and material support to the surviving one of the most eloquent revisionists and anti- victims of the Holocaust and maintaining its Semitic historians in Romania, Colonel (reti- memory.” red) Mircea Dogaru, produced under the aegis Following the model of the famous of TVRM Educational, in June 2010, often fo- “Shoah” by Claude Lanzmann, the well- cused on the Holocaust, in order to completely known documentary film-maker, by brin- reject all available historical data. The show, ging together testimonies from survivors and which had as a pretext and title, “The Jewish commentaries by Romanian scholars of the Situation in Romania (1939 – 1945)”, consisted Holocaust, contributed, to a certain extent, to of a series of attacks on the government and the development of a public discussion, but the 2002 government order (which prohibited its real impact is difficult to quantify. The fact anti-Semitic and racist propaganda and the that it was broadcast by the state television veneration of war criminals) on the grounds late at night, and that the discussions of it were that it “limited free speech.” Produced with held largely in shows only broadcast abroad, another prominent denier, professor Ion Coja, on TVR International, had obviously limited, the TV program went so far as to declare that any serious public debate of the event and any the Ion Antonescu regime did not exterminate actual increase in awareness of the Holocaust the peoples deported to Transnistria during in the Romanian society. the Second World War, that Jews and Gyp- sies were only put in “isolation, so they could The year 2009 was something of a not do any harm to the Romanians”, that the watershed. Accepted into NATO and the Eu- concentration camps were pure fiction, the ropean Union, tentatively released from the Jews being actually ”sheltered” in village monitoring and attentions of western states, abandoned houses, etc. Romania and its politicians seemed to return The poisonous effect of Romanian to their old traditions, attitudes, and convic- Television’s ambivalent attitude, shown in tions. On the historical level, denial is in the programs and documentaries mentioned bloom, encouraged by the indifference of the here, is beyond any reasonable discussion. media. Television continues to play an ambi- And a survey by the Bucharest Soros Foun- valent role, but recent developments reveal dation, published April 2011, on the subject that some negative perceptions of history are of “Youth Civic and Political Involvement”, encouraged, developments such as the violent shows that young people born after the fall of denial of the Holocaust and of studies under- Communism, after 1989, believe 41% of their taken under the aegis of the Elie Wiesel Insti teachers are nostalgic for the Communist peri- tute in Bucharest, as well as the rejection of the od, that 50% of high school students believe

Euxeinos 1 (2011) 12 Victor Eskenasy

the Communist period was “better” than the About the author: current one and distrust democracy, the mar- ket economy, minorities (Jews especially), and Victor Eskenasy, a Swiss historian and jour- nalist associated with Radio Free Europe/Ra- state that the current situation in Romania dio Liberty in Munich and Prague, was born would only be improved by a dictatorship. in Romania. He has monitored Romanian ex- tremism and anti-Semitism for years. Among Translation from the Romanian by Sean Cotter other books and studies, he is co-editor of The Bibliography of the Jews in Romania (1991) and author of “The Holocaust and Romanian Historiography: Communist and Neo-Com- munist Revisionism” (in The Tragedy of Ro- manian Jewry, ed. R.L. Braham, 1994), Moses Gaster, Memoirs. Correspondence (1998), and other works. e-mail: [email protected]

Romanian Interest in the Deportation of Roma to Transnistria (1942-1944)

by Viorel Achim, Nicolae Iorga Institute of History, Bucharest

he deportation of Roma to Transnistria is also been covered, for example, the attitudes Ta chapter in the Romanian Holocaust. It is of Romanian peasants toward the deportation the story of the tragic fate of more than 25,000 of Roma or the work performed by the de- Romanian citizens of Gypsy (Roma) origin, ported at kolholzes, farms, and other places. who the Marshall Ion Antonescu government The fact that research into the deporta- deported to the Soviet territory between the tion of Roma began late is not necessarily a dis- Dniester and Bug rivers (called Transnistria), advantage. It means that, from the beginning, an area at that time under Romanian occupa- studies on this subject have been based on ar- tion. Between the summer of 1942, when the chival documents, held to standards of some first deportations began, and the spring of 1944, type, and they have not left room for dilettant- when the survivors returned, approximately ish or biased works, although one understands 11,000 Roma lost their lives in Transnistria, that these kind of works have also appeared. largely due to the terrible living conditions, Thanks to the way in which this subject was in- starvation and deseases. The subject has been troduced into historical research, and the way late to come to the attention of researchers, the it was brought to public attention, there is no first studies being published only in 1997, but room here for the imprecision we find in the today it benefits from a relatively good his- treatment of other subjects regarding the Ho- toriographical coverage. Minor aspects have locaust either in Romania or in other places.

Euxeinos 1 (2011) 13 Viorel Achim

Of course, in the ensemble of Roma- fered ethnic or racial persecution between 6 nian Holocaust topics, the deportation of September 1940 and 21 December 1989, that Roma is not the most important, because the is, during the fascist and communist regimes. number of the Jews deported to that territory Survivors who made claims received special was much larger and their topics are more pensions from the Romanian state, according complicated. The deportation of Roma is its to the length of time they were in Transnistria. own, well demarcated subject. The deporta- Today, the Romanian public knows tion is well documented, because almost all that, in the case of Romania, the Holocaust the files created by Romanian authorities and meant the persecution of not just Jews, but institutions which organized these deporta- also Roma, and more specifically, the deporta- tions were preserved, as well as those made tion to Transnistria of some groups within this in Transnistria by the authorities in charge minority. The public was also aware of the de- of the deportees, and these files are available portation of Roma during the war, the clear- today, in various archives in Romania and est evidence of which being the hundreds of Ukraine. The particularity of this subject lies complaints made by the majority population, in the special place Gypsies (Roma) held in the in favor of Roma from the respective village ethnic policies of the Antonescu government, or city who were deported or threatened with and more generally, in the historical charac- deportation. In some places, the memory of teristics of this population in Romania. These the Roma deportation was retained for some details explain why the persecutions (includ- time after the war, but I believe we can say ing deportation) affected only some categories that, before the discussion of the subject that of Roma (the nomads and from the sedentary took place around the year 2000, the great ma- Roma, those who were considered “undesir- jority of Romanians knew nothing of the fact able”) and not the entire Roma population that some of their fellow citizens were deport- (which demographers estimated at 208,700). ed to Transnistria during the Second World In Romania, Roma have been offi- War. They heard of it only recently, from the cially recognized, alongside Jews, as victims mass media or, more recently, from school of the Holocaust. The International Commis- textbooks. As one who follows the portrayal of sion for the Study of the Holocaust in Roma- the Roma deportation in Romanian mass me- nia, established by the President of Romania, dia, I can say that between 1998 and c. 2005, all which functioned in the years 2003-2004, categories of the press showed a certain inter- gave fitting attention to the Rroma deporta- est in the subject, in any case much larger than tion. The commission’s Final Report includes their later, diminished interest. In recent years, a chapter dedicated to Roma (“The Depor- the subject was placed in school textbooks, tation of the Roma and Their Treatment in in the sense that the lessons about the Holo- Transnistria”, in: Tuvia Friling, Radu Ioanid, caust give mention to the Roma deportation. Mihail E. Ionescu (eds.), Final Report, Iaşi: One might have expected the subject Polirom, 2005, pp. 223-241). Other chapters of would have been brought to public attention the report, as well as the conclusion, discuss by the Roma themselves, as happened in the Roma persecution. The report was presented West, where the organizations of the Sinti and to the President of Romania on November 11, Roma were the first to draw attention, in the 2004, and in accepting it, the Romanian state 1970s, to the fact that the Nazi genocide in- accepted responsibility for both the deporta- cluded this population, as well. This kind of tions to Transnistria and the Holocaust, in activity would have been possible in Romania general. Even before the Romanian state of- in the first years after the war and at the begin- ficially recognized the Holocaust, Romanian ning of the communist regime. At this time, law recognized the persecutions of Jews and the authorities encouraged any accusation Roma by including them in Law 19 from the against the Antonescu regime; Jews, for ex- year 2000, regarding persons who have suf- ample, were very active in bringing to public

Euxeinos 1 (2011) 14 Viorel Achim

knowledge the persecutions they suffered in are, I believe, proof of this; they reveal the fact the years of the military-fascist dictatorship. that the payment programs provided the op- These types of initiatives from Roma organiza- portunity to raise Romas’ interest in their own tions were, in contrast, few and meager, even history. The compensations were also a means though these organizations enjoyed the sup- of legitimization for Roma organizations, whi- port of the new authorities. After the changes ch became intermediaries in these procedures, in Romania in 1989, one might have expected winning the allegience of those people with that the numerous, newly formed Roma or- whom they worked. It should mention that, for ganizations would take up, in one way or some payment programs, the number of appli- another, the question of the deportations to cations reached the thousands, far surpassing Transnistria. This did not happen until much the number of survivors, which was small. later, beginning at the end of the 90s, when Those who wanted to interview the survivors the question was broached of compensation discovered they were difficult to find. Most for victims of war-time persecution, money were interviewed, during those years in whi- offered by governements and organizations ch the respective programs were in operation. in the West. Only then did Roma NGOs be- It was ironic that the oldest survi- gin to show clear and consistent interest in vor of Transnistria—that is, Traian Grancsea, the deportations to Transnistria, helping sur- from the village of Merghindeal, county of vivors to obtain their rightful reparations. Sibiu, today 106 years old—did not receive For the ordinary Roma as well, inter- the compensation awarded him by an inter- est in the deportation period is connected to national organization. The person who helped the question of compensation. From my own him complete the application made a mistake experience, more precisely from the contacts in writing his name in Romanian, and not in I have had with many Roma survivors of the way it was spelled in Hungarian, as it ap- Transnistria, whom I contacted in order to peared in the I.D. of this man born under the hear details I could not find in archival docu- Austro-Hungarian empire. This survivor has ments, I can say that, in the period before the received the greatest media attention of all payments were announced, the interest of the Roma survivors: newspapers have written these people for what they experienced dur- about him; he has given many interviews, one ing the war was low. The communist period, of which was published in a book; he has often in contrast, was of much higher interest. Dur- appeared on television; in 2007, he was deco- ing this period, many families were required rated by the President of Romania for being to become sedentary, to radically change not the oldest survivor of the Holocaust, and on only their habits but also occupations, in the this occasion his picturesque image appeared course of which the authorities often confis- on the front page of the newspapers; etc. The cated their gold (the family’s entire savings), tragic experience of this person in Transnis- etc. I do not believe that the older people re- tria, where his wife was killed and his three sisted discussion of Transnistria due to some children died, did come to public knowledge. fear that these experiences would be repeated; It is certain that, of all the individual depor- rather, they did so because, in the family and tation cases discussed, his is the best known. community’s collective memories at that time, One may say that the memory of the deportation did not play an important role. deportation to Transnistria is preserved to- Now, however, after the respective individual day only in those Roma communities that ex- or family has passed through the procedures perienced it, either as a community in all its of several payment programs, which require members (as was the case for the nomads), the recollection of traumatic deportation expe- or as individuals among them. Those com- riences, the deportation years are the central munities that did not suffer any persecution element of their past. The tens of Roma sur- during the years of the Antonescu regime vivor interviews published in the last years have not retained knowledge of this event

Euxeinos 1 (2011) 15 Viorel Achim

from the past. Therefore, I believe that the The collections of interviews with Roma discourse of some Roma activists, those who Transnistria survivors make the deportation to Transnistria the cen- tral feature of this minority’s past and base • Lucian Năstasă, Andrea Varga (eds.), Mi- their identity on it, lacks complete coverage. norităţi etnoculturale. Mărturii documentare. In Romania, as in other countries of Central Ţiganii din România (1919-1944)[Ethnocul- and Eastern Europe, the politics of Roma iden- tity privilege the memory of persecutions, tural Minorities. Documentary Accounts. The with the deportation to Transnistria seen as Gypsies in Romania (1919-1944)], Cluj-Na- the extreme example of discriminations and poca: Centrul de Resurse pentru Diversita- persecutions Roma have known in Romania te Etnoculturală [Center for Resources for over the centuries. In recent years, Roma ac- Ethnocultural Diversity], 2001, pp. 591-626; tivists have added another element, that is, the slavery of Gypsies in the Romanian prin- • Luminiţa Cioabă (ed.), Deportarea în Trans- cipalities until the middle of the nineteenth nistria. Mărturii [Deportation to Transnis- century, which they see, mistakenly, as a tria. Accounts], Sibiu: Neodrom, 2005; prologue to the deportation to Transnistria. If we judge interest in the deportation • Luminiţa Cioabă (ed.), Lacrimi rome. Roma- of Roma to Transnistria by the commemora- ne asva [Rroma Tears. Romane asva], Bucu- tions thereof, we must say that neither the reşti: Ro Media, 2006; majority population nor the Roma minority pay much attention to this historical event. • Radu Ioanid, Michelle Kelso, Luminiţa In recent years, on October 8, the Holocaust Mihai Cioabă (eds.), Tragedia romilor de- Remembrance Day, on the official level and in the academic milieus, commemorative portaţi în Transnistria 1942-1945. Mărturii şi events are organized in Bucharest, which documente [The Tragedy of Rroma Deported mention, of course, the Roma deportees as to Transnistria 1942-1945. Accounts and Do- well. There have also been events of this kind cuments], Iaşi: Polirom, 2009, pp. 55-264. organized by some Bucharest Roma organi- zations. Still, the local Roma communities have not had commemorations in honor of those deported to and who died in Transnis- About the author: tria. By the same token, aside from the Holo- caust memorial, built in Bucharest with public funds in 2009, which refers explicitly to the Viorel Achim, Ph.D., is a Senior Researcher two groups of Romanian Holocaust victims with the Nicolae Iorga Institute of History, in (Jews and Roma), there is no other monu- Bucharest. His research fields include popu- ment or commemorative inscription regard- ing the Roma deportation, made with public lation policy in Romania during World War funds or by the Roma organizations. There II, the Holocaust in Romania and the history have, as yet, been no professional historical of the Roma. Recent publications: The Roma exhibitions about the deportation of Roma. in Romanian History (Budapest, New York: I believe that there is room here for more Central European University Press, 2004; to be done. This question is important, be- the Romanian version: Bucharest: Editu- cause we should expect that, in Romania, ra Enciclopedica, 1998);Viorel Achim (ed.), the memory of the Holocaust will be main- Documente privind deportarea ţiganilor în tained primarily by the Roma, who make up Transnistria [Documents Concerning the a powerful minority, considered numerically. Deportation of Gypsies to Transnistria], 2 vols., Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică, 2004. Translation from the Romanian by Sean Cotter e-mail: [email protected]

Euxeinos 1 (2011) 16 The Online Journal ‘Euxeinos. Culture and Governance in the Black Sea Region’ is published by the Center for Governance and Culture in Europe (GCE-HSG), University of St.Gallen, Switzerland with the financial support of Landys & Gyr Stiftung.

The opinions expressed in the online journal Euxeinos reflect only the views of the authors. Free download for noncommercial private, scholarly and educational purposes. Every other form of dis- tribution is permitted only after consultation with the editors.

Euxeinos Editorial Team

Prof. Dr. Dirk Lehmkuhl Prof. Dr. Martin Müller Dr. Carmen Scheide Prof. Dr. Ulrich Schmid Maria Tagangaeva M.A.

Publishing Information / Contact Contact Center for Governance and Culture in Europe (GCE-HSG) University of St.Gallen Gatterstrasse 1 CH-9010 St.Gallen Switzerland

Phone: +41 (0)71 224 25 61

e-mail: [email protected] URL: www.euxeinos.ch, www.euxeinos.info http://www.gce.unisg.ch/euxeinos

ISSN 2296-0708 © Center for Governance and Culture in Europe, University of St.Gallen

EuxeinosEuxeinos 17 (2011)(2012) 17