Romania for Romanians?

8/6/2019 Romania for Romanians?

1/21

U[IVX]YMSTEWHJKLNOP^\GZFRQU[IVX]

YMSTEWHJKLNOP^\GZFRQU[IVX]YMSTEWH

JKLNOP^\GZFRQU[IVX]YMSTEWHJKLNOP^

\GZFRQU[IVX]YMSTEWHJKLNOP^\GZFRQU

[IVX]YMSTEWHJKLNOP^\GZFRQU[IVX]YM

STEWHJKLNOX]YMSTEWHJKLNOP^\GZFRQU

[IVX]YMSTEWHJKLNOP^\GZFRQU[IVX]YM

STEWHJKLNOP^\GZFRQU[IVX]YMSTEWHJKLNOP^\GZFRQU[IVX]YMSTEWHJKLNOP^\G

ZFRQU[IVX]YMSTEWHJKLNOP^\GZFRQU[

IVX]YMSTEWHJKLNOP^\GZFRQU[IVX]YMS

TEWHJKLNOP^\GZFRQU[IVX]YMSTEWHJKLNOP^\GZFRQU[IVX]YMSTEWHJKLNOP^\G

ZFRQVX]YMSTEWHJKLNOP^\GZFRQU[IVX

]YMSTEWHJKLNOP^\GZFRQU[IVX]YMSTE

WHJKLNOP^\GZFRQU[IVX]YMSTEWHJKLNOP^\GZFRQU[IVX]YMSTEWHJKLNOP^\GZFR

QU[IVX]YMSTEWHJKLNOP^\GZFRQU[IVX

]YMSTEWHJKLNOP^\GZFRQU[IVX]YMSTE

Romania for Romanians?The Ambivalent Definition of Romanias Jews

Benjamin Rogaczewski

Dr. Lisa Silverman

Holocaust and Memory


2/21

2

About a year and a half ago, I had the pleasure of taking a holiday in Romania. I

was studying abroad in Rome at the time, and in fact, when I told one of my professors at

John Cabot University that I was spending a winter break in Romania, he asked me

why? The question was not so much concerned with the actual reason for my visit to

Romania, but rather the question of why would anyone want to go to Romania? I

wanted to see something different, something other than Western Europe. Considering

Romania was close enough to post-Communist Europe, I was guaranteed to see

something completely different, to enter a world I had never seen before. I must confess

that before going to Romania, my main concerns were to find trappings of VladTepes,

also known as VladDraculya. What I did not realize is that I would be traveling where the

Holocaust had taken place. I did not know anything about Romania and its involvement

with the Holocaust, and considered the Holocaust to be an affair within Central Europe,

rather than the Balkans.

While in Sighisoara, I had the chance to speak with a young Romanian, who I

found out was named after governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. After talking about

different cultural aspects, I brought up the topic of the gypsies. Arnold seemed to be

disgusted by the gypsies, stating that they should be removed from the country. He

even claimed that tourism would have increased if not for the gypsies. Looking back

upon the conversation, I could see faint similarities between modern prejudice against the

Roma, or gypsy population within Romania, and that of the anti-Semitism of interwar

Romania. An idea spreads from prejudice and the youth confess and profess it.

In my final days within Cluj-Napoca, the capital of Transylvania, I decided to see

a production ofTurandot at the National theatre. Sitting in a box seat, looking down upon


3/21

3

the stage and the people, all the while I never thought that perhaps an Iron Guardist

stood on that stage professing anti-Semitism and Romanization. With the rise of the

curtain, I noticed after watching a few minutes of the play, that I was not watching

Turandot. Rather, it was a comedy mocking Communism. I could understand little parts

of the dialogue, but the scene I had seen showed a Communist soldier getting information

from his informant, a drunken country bumpkin. No doubt a farce upon the previous

Communist regime.

Everywhere I went I heard tales of the Communist regime and the proud collapse

of said regime. I saw proud nationalism everywhere, from the tricolored flags waving, to

the Ursus

beer I drank. I would never have even guessed the Holocaust had a place

among such proud people with a rich culture. I never thought about the fact that the

railroad tracks I had been using could have carried freightcars full of Jews, or the fact that

I could have been in a pub where members of the Iron Guard had met to discuss matters,

or drink to their Captain Codreanu. In a way, my study of Romanias Holocaust has

revisioned my memories of Romania. Certainly not the people, who I found to be some

of the nicest people I have ever met. It is a revision of the importance of where I had

been, and who had been there before I had arrived.

The argument of my paper is that since anti-Semitism in Romania wasfor the

most part ambivalent and static, the definition of Jew was ambivalent and static as

well. Romania was under three kinds of anti-Semitism before and during WWII.

When A.C. Cuza took control of the Romanian government, his Romanian anti-

A famous beer of Cluj.


4/21

4

Semitism became policy adopted by Cuzas successors. However, since each of the

new governments took control, each added their own ideals. For example, when the

Iron Guard took power, they kept anti-Semitism within the government; but

stressed an attack on all minorities. When Ion Antonescu took control of the

government, he adopted NicolaeIorgas notions of anti-Semitism, utilizing it for anti-

Communist purposes.

Therefore, certain Jews were targeted above other Jews. In addition, a

xenophobic sentiment became the adopted norm, and so other minorities were

persecuted along with the Jews. Strangely enough, this did not end friendships in

places such as Bucharest. For the most part relationships remained the same, albeit

strained. However, Jews in Moldavia were targeted as Judeo-Communists, bearing

the full brunt of the Romanian Holocaust. This is not to say that anti-Semitic

legislation did not take place in areas like Bucharest, anti-Semitic legislation being

national policy, all Jews were affected by the legislations forbidding higher

education, the possession of radios, and the right to hold office.1 However, when

considering pogroms, or other anti-Semitic acts of violence within Romania, no

other region in Romania contains more pogroms than Moldavia. As for modern day

historians, Romanian anti-Semitism affects the historiography of Romanias

Holocaust. My paper will also stress this affect and the detriment of said affect.

The first part will examine the origins of Romanian anti-Semitism in Iasi with

A.C. Cuza, NicolaeIorga, and Codreanu. The second part will examine the diary of

Mihail Sebastian, a Jewish playwright, for his connection with Iron Guardists of

1 Randolph L. Braham, ed., The Tragedy of Romanian Jewry, ed. Randolph L. Braham(New York, New York: Columbia University Press, 1994). P. 119.


5/21

5

Bucharest. The third and final part will examine the historiography of Ion

Antonescu, and how A.C. Cuzas Romanian anti-Semitism, essentially anti-

Communism, affects the historiography. When finished with this examination of

Romanian anti-Semitism, I hope that the read receives an enlightening outlook on

Romania, as much as I was enlightened with the research.

Part I: The Origin of Romanian Anti-Semitism

Of the 756,930 Jews reported in the 1930 Romanian census, more than

160,000 lived in Moldavia, the northeastern region bordering the Ukraine.2

According to Raphael Vago, the Jews of Moldavia resembled an Eastern type of

Jewry, in both religious practice and distinctive clothing.3 It is no surprise than that

the region of Moldavia was suspected to be inhabited by Judeo-Bolsheviks.4 It was

men like A.C. Cuza, CorneliuCodreanu and NicolaeIorga, who gathered the prejudice

of anti-Semitism, and rallying under xenophobia and anti-Communism.

A.C. Cuzawas raised in Moldavia taught at the university of Iasi. Called the

oldest and most virulent of Romanian anti-Semites5, Cuza taught his anti-Semitic

view to his students, and defended their own anti-Semitic actions. On November 10,

1926, a group of Jewish students was put on trial. During the trial, a student in the

crowd shot one of the Jewish students, killing the student. The student who shot the

2 Ibid. pgs. 32-33.3 Ibid. p. 31.4 Ibid. p. 17.5 Eugen Weber, "The Men of the Archangel,"Journal of Contemporary History1, no. 1(1966): 101-126. P. 114.


6/21

6

Jewish student was N. Totu. At Totus trial, Cuza defended Totu, stating, Totu does

deserve to be condemned, but rather to be canonized for all time to come.6Cuza

taught anti-Semitism to his students, such as CorneliuCodreanu, but his views on

anti-Semitism were different from Codreanus, or even Cuzas compatriot,

NicolaeIorga. For both Cuza and Iorga, nationalism was the song of the pulpits.

However, Iorga was on an anti-Semite on the fence. On one hand, he is know to have

coined the nationalistic phrase Romania for Romanians, and only Romanians;

while on the other hand, Iorga delivered statements such as

In the evening the decree to suppress the Jewish pressis published. Unfortunately, it is founded on a totally

unacceptable doctrine. You cannot createlegalprinciples through ministerial decisions alone. I am

extremely determined to bring this matter to the

attention of the King. I could not stay on in a countryguided by such principles.7

NicolaeIorga was an anti-Semite, but he was an anti-Semite in a country in

which anti-Semitism was socially accepted. This does not excuse the matter, but

explains this nature and the nature of the country Iorga lived in. However, Iorga

differs from Cuza in manner of morals and ethics. Where Iorga was willing to give

audience to a Jewish electorate, Cuza would rarely give the time of day to a Jew.8So

on one hand we have the militant monomaniacal anti-Semitism of A.C. Cuza, and on

the other we have the ambivalent, non-violent anti-Semitism of NicolaeIorga.

6 I. C. Butnaru, The Silent Holocaust: Romania and Its Jews (Westport, Connecticut:

Greenwood Press, 1992). P. 42.7 Radu Ioanid, "Nicolae Iorga and Fascism,"Journal of Contemporary History27, no. 3

(July 1992): 467-492. P. 477.8 Ibid. p. 474.


7/21

7

For the most part, nationalism remained the focus of both ideals. To

NicolaeIorga, a Bolshevik could never be Romanian; to A.C. Cuza, a Jew could never

be a Romanian. For both men, nationalism and a new sense of Romanianism were

the focal point. However, in this case, Iorga was an anti-Communist, and Cuza was

an anti-Semite. Iorgas worry regarding Jews and Bolshevism was the influence of

Bolshevik mysticism on foreigners, especially on the Jews.9However, it was Cuzas

protg, CorneliuCodreanu, who would combine both ideals to create this new sense

of Romanianism, or Romanian anti-Semitism.

CorneliuCodreanu, like his mentors in reading (Iorga) and teaching (Cuza),

was raised in Iasi, the capital of Moldavia. Codreanu, raised by a rabid anti-Semitic

father, essentially created the Legion of Archangel Michael based upon the ideals

of these men. However, due to Codreanus actions, Cuza did not back up his protg,

and so Cuza and Codreanu split. While Codreanu recruited numerous members to

the Legion, Cuza had joined with Octavian Goga to create the Goga-Cuza Party; a

party which was not as popular as Codreanus new movement. Although many

Romanians had an anti-Semitic feeling of some sort, the Jewish Problem was not

the only issue for Romanians, or even one of the highest priorities. Therefore,

Codreanucombined a multitude of prejudices under one roof: Romanianism.

Combining both ideals of Cuza and Iorga, Codreanu believed in a Romania cleansed

off all minorities, including the Hungarians of Transylvania, the Bolsheviks of

9 Ibid. p. 475.


8/21

8

Moldavia, and of course the Jews of Romania.10Although the movement was popular,

the chaotic violence of Codreanus Legion spelled its doom and sealed its fate.

As the Legion grew in number and popularity, unrest grew as well. When

Codreanus mystic inspired Legion began to infect city life, Iorga spoke out against

the Legions atrocities

I tell them that they are leading the country towards aprecipice with their timid permissiveness: Codreanu

marched like a king behind the hearse, the crowd

dropped to its knees and crossed itself. You must takeaction before the killings resume.11

The action of the Romanians Iorga is referring to show a mystified and

manipulated people. Clearly, a lack of control of the government, creating a sense of

anarchy within Romania, allowed Codreanus Legion to gain power. Even though

Codreanus Legion was dissolved, the government officials could not stop Codreanu

from creating a vehicle of anti-Semitic atrocities: The Iron Guard.

When King Carol II arrested Codreanu, along with several other Iron

Guardists, and had them killed, the Romanian government believed they had

destroyed the Iron Guard for good. However, as I approach in the next part, the

ghost of Codreanu would haunt Romania, long after his death. A.C. Cuza relaxed his

grip on the leash of a mad dog, and Romania would pay for it.

Part II: The Iron Guard Sentiment of Bucharest

10 Eugen Weber, "The Men of the Archangel,"Journal of Contemporary History1, no.1 (1966): 101-126. P. 117.11 Radu Ioanid, "Nicolae Iorga and Fascism,"Journal of Contemporary History27, no.3 (July 1992): 467-492. P. 485.


9/21

9

When the Iron Guard found a stable headquarters in Bucharest, pro-Guard

sentiments began to rise within the capital. Ion Antonescu was friends with

Codreanu, and after Antonescu rose to power through the abdication of Carol II, the

Iron Guard was given special placement in Antonescus circle.However, our focus is

not necessarily on the Iron Guard or Ion Antonescu at this moment. Our focus is a

Jewish playwright of Bucharest named Mihail Sebastian. It is Sebastians friendships

with prominent Iron Guardists of Bucharest, even though he himself is a Jew.

Mihail Sebastian was born IosifHechter, but changed his name to hide his

Jewish ties. A poet, playwright and novelist, Sebastian writes his diary with an

eloquent touch. However, his early entries do not leave the reader with a sense of

fear from the anti-Semitism within Bucharest. Perhaps he sees this as a

commonality, a passing fad not worth worrying about. When he does bring up

notions of fear, those feelings are immediately replaced with a sense of urgency

towards other aspects of his life such as the productions of his plays, and his

plentiful love life. However, one main theme flows throughout Sebastians entries:

his strange relationship with anti-Semites. The anti-Semitism imposed by the

political factors of interwar Bucharest clearly affects this theme.

Sebastian describes the different political changes within Romania between

1935 and 1944 very well. Beginning with the anti-Semitic Cuza-Goga government

set up by King Carol II, the reader is introduced to Sebastians circle of friends.

These include NaeIonescu, the Iron Guard Ideologist; MirceaEliade, a pro-Iron Guard


10/21

10

writer; and CamilPetrescu, a pro-Iron Guard writer. Each one of these friends shows

animosity towards Jews, but never towards Sebastian personally.

With NaeIonescu, Sebastian gives the impression of a student dignifying his

mentor. However, there are moments when Sebastian clearly denounces his

mentors actions. One such example shows:

Nae has signed a declaration of solidarity with the 318comrades from Vaslui. A facsimile of the text appeared

in all the morning papers. When I saw Naes

handwriting in the pictureclear, decisive, almostprint-quality writing that I know so well.12

Even though Ionescu wrote Sebastian an incredibly degrading, anti-Semitic

preface to his novel De douamii de ani, Sebastian still mourned his professors death

in March of 1940. Ionescu suffered illness due to his internment within prison for

his connections with the Iron Guard.

Camil, Sebastians other friend, was anti-Semitic but to a point. One

memorable situation from Sebastians diary shows a humorous situation.

You ought to see how the Jews have overrun the Corso.

The whole caf is full of them. Theyve really takenpossession

What an anti-Semite you are, Camil! Come with me and

Ill show you how wrong you are.I took him by the arm. We went into the Corse, did a

tour of the caf, stopped at each table, and counted up

the suspect faces. In all, there were fifteen Jews in alively and jam-packed caf full of groups heatedly

arguing. With a smile, Camil took everything back.13

12 Mihail Sebastian,Journal: 1935-1944 (Chicago, Illinois: Ivan R. Dee, 2000). P. 192.13 Ibid. p. 150.


11/21

11

Each deliverance is given as if between two close friends, and as such, the

anti-Semitism is not taken seriously. However, when it comes to the anti-Semitism

given by Sebastians friend Mircea, it is taken with the utmost seriousness.

Mircea is quite possibly the one friend who Sebastian speaks about the most.

When the Iron Guard becomes a prominent political group within Romania, Mircea

joins the group. Sebastian, upon hearing this, describes Mircea as neither a

charlatan nor a madman. He is just nave. But there are such catastrophic forms of

naivete!14. Although he does not agree with Mirceas decision to join the rabidly

anti-Semitic political group, he continues to be his friend. When King Carol II began

to arrest Iron Guardists for their involvement in the assassination of the Prime

Minister, Sebastian was at Mirceas home to make sure he was all right.

However, when the anti-Semitic legislations are set in place, and rumors

spread equating Jews with Communists, Sebastians friendship with Mircea slowly

dissolves. Sebastian writes many times throughout the diary about how sad he is

that Mircea will no longer contact him. On the other hand, though, after the murder

of the Iron Guard leader, CorneliuCodreanu, there seems to be rehabilitation to their

friendship. Sebastian writes

This morning at the Foundation, Mircea was in a groupwith Cioculescu, Biberi, and Benador. I went up to say

hello and, to my surprise, Mircea stood up and

embraced me.15

Beyond all of these moments, it can clearly be seen that the anti-Semitic

feelings brought on by political means caused a great rift within the social structure

14 Mihail Sebastian,Journal: 1935-1944 (Chicago, Illinois: Ivan R. Dee, 2000). p. 114.15 Ibid p. 192.


12/21

12

of Sebastians friendships. However, the strange friendship between enemies of

ideals brings about the question of what the Iron Guard considers a Jew. Obviously

to the Iron Guard, Sebastians Jewish heritage was not an issue. Otherwise, if it had

been an issue, Sebastians friends would have ostracized him. Therefore, a

distinction must be made.

When the Iron Guard brought its anti-Semitic ideals into Bucharest, it also

brought along its ambivalence, as well. The ability to target certain Jews as

foreigners came from Codreanus xenophobic and anti-Bolshevik tendencies.

However, as was stated before, Codreanus violence created the undesired chaos

within Romania, and so the Iron Guard was dissembled after the failed January Iron

Guard Revolution. Once the rebellion was quelled, Ion Antonescu was free to take

complete control over Romania, and forge a new sense of Romanianism.

Part III: The Rehabilitation of Ion Antonescu-A Survey of Historiography

When Antonescu took control of Romania, he did not adopt the anti-Semitism

of A.C. Cuza or the Iron Guard. The people of Romania had spent long enough

amongst the chaos of the Iron Guard, and A.C. Cuzas sense of anti-Semitism was not

at all beneficial to Antonescus regime. Antonescu saw NicolaeIorgas ideas on anti-

Semitism as the best fit for his new government for several reasons. First, the Iron

Guard murdered NicolaeIorga. With the Iron Guard disassembled and dishonored,

who better to exemplify than the martyred nationalist, NicolaeIorga. Second, with

Hitlers commencement of the invasion of the Soviet Union, Antonescu needed a


13/21

13

common enemy to rally his Romanian troops. Iorgas sense of anti-Semitism

stemmed from a fear of Judeo-Bolsheviks. If one was a Bolshevik, one was not a

Romanian. Essentially, Ion Antonescu adopted NicolaeIorgas sense of anti-

Semitism. This explains why certain Jews under Antonescus control of Romania

were targeted as Judeo-Bolsheviks, why Jews such as Mihail Sebastian held

relationships with prominent anti-Semites, and why Antonescu was able to

negotiate or listen to prominent Jews with concerns. This also gave the most

evidence and reason for rehabilitation of Ion Antonescu.

When the Antonescu regime fell in 1944, and King Mihail handed Ion

Antonescu over to Soviet forces, Communism laid its claim upon the politics of

Romania. Unfortunately, this affected Romanias Holocaust history as well.

No one in Romania, not even the Jews, could know how Soviet-Communism

would affect the Holocaust within Romania. Once Communism became the political

norm, Romanian history concerningthe Holocaust was written with the Communist

pen. The Soviets were declared the heroes within the post-war history books, while

the Jews were left out as the victims. Rather, a nameless group was persecuted by

the fascist and anti-Communist leaders of Romania. Closing the archives to

historians and specialists, no one was allowed to study the Holocaust within

Romania, nor the documents written by the previous anti-Communist regime. For

decades, young Romanians were taught about their previous dictators, the role of

the savior Soviets, but not Romanias involvement with the European Holocaust.

Romanians were led to believe that there was in fact no Holocaust in Romania at all,

and that the figures pertaining to the drastic change in population among the Jews, a


14/21

14

mere falsification of the census conducted by the Antonescu regime. For decades,

the Jews of Romania were forgotten, a collective shadow displaced amongst the

linear history of Romania.

With the fall of Communism in 1991 for Romania, Romanians could breath

easily for once, basking in nationalism from the revolution. It should be noted that

Romania was one of the few, if not the only country under a Communist regime that

rose up in revolution resulting in the death of the Communist leader, a fact that the

modern-day Romanians profess proudly. The Holocaust historians were also glad

for the fall. For the first time in years, historians could view documents from the

Romanian archives. For the first time in years, the Jews would be remembered as

the victims of degradation comparable, if not worse, than that of the Nazi

persecutions of the Jews. However, these newly founded pieces of evidence raised a

great issue of historiography: How to convey the Holocaust in Romania, and how to

write about those who perpetrated the Holocaust of Romania, such as

IonAntonescu? Antonescu especially has been placed within the spotlight recently

and with great fervor.

Many modern Romanians claim Antonescu as a Romanian hero, and a

warrior of anti-Communism. The rehabilitation and revision of Antonescus place

within Holocaust history creates several issues including a surge of Holocaust Denial

within Romania. Liberation from Communism gave Antonescu the right to historical

revision due to his anti-Communist regime. This study examines different written

histories of Antonescus regime, some from the revisionist side, and that of the

standard narrative.


15/21

15

The Silent Holocaust: Romania and its Jews by I.C. Butnaru

Within Butnarus examination of Romanias Holocaust, a linear narrative of

the Holocaust is given. Beginning with the origin of Jews within ancient Dacia, and

followed by the rise of anti-Semitism within the Balkans. Butnaru then goes onward

to speak about the origins of protagonists of anti-Semitism within Romania,

including CorneliuCodreanu, the leader of the Iron Guard, a fascist group of Hitler

admirers inspired by NicolaeIorgas slogan Romania for Romanians, and only for

Romanians.16 While focusing upon the origins of Romanias contribution to the

Holocaust, Butnaru notes the changes of political regimes within interwar Romania,

from the Goga-Cuza government to Antonescus regime. The main purpose of

Butnarus book is to show an honest presentation of what he considers the truth.

Considering Butnaru was in a Romanian labor camp during the Antonescu regime,

his narrative gives an honest picture of the situation in Romania, although his

emotions are very much present within the narrative. As for his views on anti-

Semitism, Butnaru claims that

Anti-Semitism in Romania was not a product of thepeople, but of the leaders and the so-called intellectual

elite.17

As the narrative explains throughout, Butnaru puts much blame upon

professors such as NaeIonescu and A.C. Cuza who taught their anti-Semitic lessons

16 I. C. Butnaru, The Silent Holocaust: Romania and Its Jews (Westport, Connecticut:

Greenwood Press, 1992). P. 37.17 Ibid p. xix.


16/21

16

to the youths at their universities, spreading Iron Guardist ideas. To Butnaru, it is

the teachings of these professors, which create the flame of political anti-Semitism.

Butnaru does not give too much about Antonescu, and rather concerns his

work with the actions and ideas of the Iron Guard; the Romanian army, of which

there were many Iron Guardists; and members of Antonescus cabinet, such as

MihaiAntonescu. Within his preface however, Butnaru refers to Antonescu as a

fascist dictator, and brings up Antonescus collaboration with the Iron Guard, and

Antonescus involvement with the Iasi pogrom and the deportations of Transnistria.

Butnaru places Antonescu directly within the Bucharest pogrom of 1941, also

known as the Legionary Revolution, stating that Antonescu knew about the

Legionary revolt when it began, but did not try to stop the pogrom. Antonescu had

called Hitler to see what actions he was to take. Hitler advised him to stop the revolt

immediately, but Antonescu, needing the revolt to secure his authority, waited for

three days before sending in the army to quell the rebellion.18

From this view of Antonescu, we see a leader who does not care for the

concern of the Jews, but rather is concerned with his control of Romania. This idea is

upheld through the writings of Mihail Sebastian, giving the view of Antonescu as an

opportunist seizing power through the abdication of the throne, and a waffling anti-

Semite. This view of Antonescu changes slightly with the revisionist histories.

Hitlers Forgotten Ally by Dennis Deletant

18 I. C. Butnaru, The Silent Holocaust: Romania and Its Jews (Westport, Connecticut:Greenwood Press, 1992). Pgs. 82-83.


17/21

17

Deletant gives the most recent revisionist view of Antonescus regime and

focuses more upon Antonescus relationship with Hitler, and how it does not define

Antonescus regime. Within his introduction, Deletant states that he is concerned

with the labeling of Antonescus regime as fascist, based around the fact that

Hitlers regime was considered fascist. Going against this labeling, Deletant states

that Antonescu led the fascist Legionary state for five months before the Legionary

Revolution ended in January of 1941. After this moment in history, Antonescu led a

dictatorship, which according to Deletant was not necessarily fascist. Deletant also

focuses on Romanias joining of the Axis powers as an inevitability, claiming that in

order to keep Russia out of Romania, Antonescu had to join Hitlers Axis powers.

When concerning Antonescu with the Holocaust in Romania, Deletant gives a

balanced view of Antonescus regime. He acknowledges that Antonescus regime

was responsible for the deaths of between 250,000 and 290,000 Jews, but also gives

credit to the 375,000 Jews saved from the death camps of Poland.19Deletant explains

that this was due to Antonescus wish to retain Romanias sovereignty in the affair.

Whatever the reason, it is true that Antonescudid not go along with the Nazi partys

Final Solution, but still wished to rid Romania of its internal enemy, the Jews.

Deletant gives a further revisionist view of Antonescu within his book.

Antonescuis seen as a rationally concerned leader within the state, whether he is an

anti-Semite or not. In one major statement, Antonescu stated at a meeting

19 Dennis Deletant, Hitler's Forgotten Ally: Ion Antonescu and His Regime, Romania1940-1944 (New York, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006). P. 2.


18/21

18

If we remove the Jews, this enormous void is created in

the Romanian economy, which produce a general,irreparable catastrophe for our state and its recovery

will be impossible.20

Rather than deporting all of the Jews right away, Antonescu realizes the

importance of the Jewish population to the economy. However, since the Jews were

the greatest minority of Romania, this perhaps gives breadth to the stereotype of the

rich Jew, a common stereotype allowing Romanians to state that economic

downturns were the result of Jewish thieves.

As for Antonescus contribution to anti-Semitism, Deletant gives us the view

that Antonescu was not inheritantly anti-Semitic himself, but rather adopted anti-

Semitism, which had become political policy during his rise to power. Antonescu

does have a history of aiding Jews, while it is incongruent since he was the dictator

to persecute them. With Antonescus concern of the death trains, Antonescu

explained them to be humanitarian stating

It is a military principle: along the front and in the

proximity to it the civilian population must be moved. It

was a measure taken for the political security of thestate, a question of military scrutiny and of military

operations and even a matter of saving their lives. MrPresident, had I left them [the Jews] there where they

were, not one of them would be alive today.21

20 Ibid. p. 107.21 Ibid. p. 132.


19/21

19

The irony of this statement is that if he had not moved them, they wouldhave

survived. Instead, out of several thousand, only 824 Jews survived the death

trains, being tried and found innocent of crimes against the state.22

The revisionist view of Ion Antonescus regime by Deletant sheds some

positive light upon where Antonescu lies in Holocaust history. The work does not

extinguishAntonescus involvement in the Holocaust. Rather, it shows some ways I

which Antonescu rationally considered Jews to be human beings, while still

adhering to some of the Nazi ideals, albeit loosely. For example, Deletant brings up

the legislation in which the Jews of Romania had to wear a distinctive mark, i.e. the

Star of David. However, after Dr. Wilhelm Filderman, referred playfully as the Jews

Fuhrer, spoke with Antonescu to prohibit the distinctive mark, Antonescu cancelled

the distinctive mark, with the exception of Transnitria.23 This exception is no doubt

allied with Antonescus feelings of anti-Communism along with anti-Semitism,

considering Transnistria bordered Communist territory.

Anti-Semitism continues to be a problem for many places affected by the

Holocaust. With a place Romania, some historians have issues with the geography of

Romania, since sections of the country were annexed. This changes many scholars

view of a Romanian Jew. However, the thing to look at is who killed those Jews, not

so much, where the Jews had died. The Romanians began their countrys Holocaust

based upon an ever-changing idea, this sense of Romanianism. This sense shows

us the dangers of things like nationalism and xenophobia. With my own studies, I

22 I. C. Butnaru, The Silent Holocaust: Romania and Its Jews (Westport, Connecticut:Greenwood Press, 1992). P. 98.23 Dennis Deletant, Hitler's Forgotten Ally: Ion Antonescu and His Regime, Romania1940-1944 (New York, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006). p. 114.


20/21

20

found that Romania had experienced three types of anti-Semitisms, based around

the three nationalists that created them: A.C. Cuza, CorneliuCodreanu, and

NicolaeIorga. All of these different types of anti-Semitism affected the Jewish

population of Romania differently, as the definition of Jew changed as well. This

allowed the ambivalent nature of anti-Semitism to remain within Romania.

Unfortunately, this same ambivalent nature allows Romanian anti-Semitism to

survive in todays age. As historians of Romanias involvement in the Holocaust take

up historiography, issues arise from the chance of exonerating me who allowed the

deaths of thousands of Jews. Whether these men can be exonerated is questionable.

The deaths and memories of the Jews of Romania are unquestionable.


21/21

21

Bibliography

Braham, Randolph L., ed. The Tragedy of Romanian Jewry. New York, New York:

Columbia University Press, 1994.

Butnaru, I. C. The Silent Holocaust: Romania and Its Jews. Westport, Connecticut:

Greenwood Press, 1992.

Deletant, Dennis. Hitler's Forgotten Ally: Ion Antonescu and His Regime, Romania1940-1944. New York, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.

Ioanid, Radu. "Nicolae Iorga and Fascism."Journal of Contemporary History27, no. 3

(July 1992): 467-492.

Ioanid, Radu. "The Holocaust in Romania: The Iasi Pogrom of June 1941."

Contemporary European History(Cambridge University Press) 2 (July 1993): 119-

148.

Sebastian, Mihail.Journal: 1935-1944. Chicago, Illinois: Ivan R. Dee, 2000.

Weber, Eugen. "The Men of the Archangel."Journal of Contemporary History1, no. 1

(1966): 101-126.

Yavetz, Zvi. "An Eyewitness Note: Reflections on the Rumanian Iron Guard."Journalof Contemporary History(Sage Publications, Ltd.) 26 (September 1991): 597-610.

Documents

Romania for Romanians?