Despre Holocaust
Despre Holocaust
Tribunalele Poporului. Despre responsabilitate, dreptate și justiție (2/2)
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Dialogul dintre Marius Cazan și Emanuel Grec continuă cu o discuție despre ASUMARE. Despre cum se raportează societatea din România de astăzi la trecutul traumatic al exterminării populației evreiești și rome în perioada celui de-al Doilea Război Mondial. Despre mituri, confuzii, distorsionări și promovarea memoriei publice a celor condamnați pentru crimele comise în timpul Holocaustului din România.
Un podcast care ne arată ce nu trebuie să uităm!
The Holocaust Holocaust study in Romania, Elie Wiesel. Holocaust is not a history lesson. It is an honest dialogue through which we try to rediscover, to recover and learn to accept that the Holocaust is part of our recent past. In the third season of the podcast, Ana Bărbulescu and Marius Kazan, researchers at the Elie Wiesel Institute, invite us to an open discussion about stereotypes, prejudices, the promotion of the Holocaust memory in Romania and the intersection with the memory of those condemned for war crimes. A dialogue about responsibility and acceptance.
Speaker 2We are usually told that the state thing, society, can do. In Romania, society evolves and the state is the last thing. I've heard it at the level of education, at the level of perception, at the level of rights. Well, in this case, the recognition of the Holocaust, I think, is the opposite.
Speaker 1The dialogue between Marius Kazan and Emanuel Grec continues about the assumption, about how the Romanian society reports today the traumatic past of exterminating the Jewish and Roma population during the Second World War, about myths, confusions, distortions and promoting the public memory of those condemned for crimes committed during the Romanian Holocaust.
Speaker 3Can you compare, do you dare compare, the process of denazification in Germany with the trial of war criminals in Romania or, if you want, in a broader context, with the states allied to Germany in World War II? Do you think we can talk in Eastern Europe about the same type of introspection or dynamic of public consciousness as the federal space? We should talk about this space from the late 50s, soon from the 60s.
Speaker 2That's a very good question. I don't think, I think they can be compared, but I don't think they're similar and I think that's where the problem comes from. You see, germany, the federal, also had problems. I mean, let's not believe that in the 50s, everyone accepted that the majority of the population collaborated with the Nazis and they were all very good. No way it happened. They passed. They were hard-working. In the 80s, in the 90s, only in the late 80s did they get to this. But they could, because they went to some educational policies to finance some institutions that had this role.
Speaker 2This didn't happen in Romania, and because of the communists the communist regime to be clear, it's not the only one that's against the communist regime which was a totalitarian regime and which didn't talk about the Holocaust, didn't talk about the Assumption, didn't talk about anything. That was part of the problem. And in 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948, where did Romania come from? It came from a regime, a dictatorial regime, which was followed by another dictatorial regime, and this means a certain mindset, a certain type of thinking and a thing that didn't exist in many other countries dictatorial regime. And this means a certain mindset, a certain type of thinking and a thing that has not been in many other countries. Ok, you can tell me that Poland was also a communist state and yet the rate of condemnation was a lot higher. Poland also had further solidarity, it had a whole network. It was not the same thing with these countries.
Speaker 2These states have separate histories. They have histories, ok, entangled. They have histories together, but they also have experiences of separate civil societies. In a general sense, for the way in which communism was developed in Romania, and that it was so hard, it was not exclusive to the Soviets, it was inclusive to the way in which the Romanian society was. The communists learned very well from the Antoniești government, which in turn, learned very well from the anti-semitism before him, and which learned very well from the anti-semitism before him from the formation of the state. So from 1800, in the middle of the 19th century, communists did not appear in a void. That's what we need to understand and this explains the difference in mentality. Not only in mentality, but also in practice, in the way in which this period after the 90s can be seen.
Speaker 2Now let's understand in all post-communist states. If we look at Lithuania, if we look at Poland, in all there is this effort, but there it is a little different because those people weren't allies of Nazi Germany as we were. Romania, let's understand, during the war was, from my point of view, the main ally of Nazi Germany against the war in the USSR. It was number two, the main one. Germany number one, romania number two. So it wasn't, as I say, they were forced by Nazis or things like that, not even a word.
Speaker 2Romania had its own agenda and was on the same level at least the military force, with Nazi Germany. And that creates a different dynamic and makes the assumption much harder, just because the world knows that If you're occupied by Germans, you can say fine, were occupied by Nazis. We didn't have a choice. We were collaborators, but we were also anti-communists, and there's another discussion. We went so hard against this idea because people felt like a piece of shit, because society knew these things very well and those who didn't know? They simply believed in their own ideas. I think that's also a and this ineptitude that I've heard.
Speaker 2Excuse me, I'm using a term now, but I've heard a kind of thing like this that there were no concentration camps in Romania, or Jews from Romania weren't taken to Auschwitz.
Speaker 3That's exactly what I was going to ask you. I was trying to provoke you to deconstruct some myths that perpetuate and spread. I make a lot of fans to put it this way. One of them is this one Romania did not send any Jews to Auschwitz. Romania did not send any Jew to Auschwitz, the conclusion being that Lord Romania was not a Holocaust. And for a specialist as I know, or for someone, even if you need to read a single book of Romanian recent history, because this statement seems more like a nonsense, but at the level of common knowledge, it is extremely widespread. Let's try to deconstruct this thing. What are the responsibilities of the Romanian state in the context of the European?
Speaker 2Holocaust. First of all, the responsibilities of the Romanian state are related to if we refer to the numbers and look at the final report of the Wiesel Commission, there are somewhere between 280,000 and 380,000 Jewish killed. Attention, the responsibilities of the Romanian state are not only related to Jews from Romania. They are related to all the areas that he had in administration Transnistria, first of all, which was not annexed. The Basarabia area, which was obviously further integrated into Romania during the war. The Herței area, the Bucurian area of the Romanian state. All these areas, including Romania.
Speaker 2These critics, to put it another way, are focused exclusively on which is a very stupid thing in a way, are focused exclusively on today's map of Romania, even though they are the majority of those who say that Basarabia should be part of Romania, but they don't take the things that happened there for granted. It's nonsense. So these critics take the current map of Romania and try to look at absolute numbers, which is a gross, false and a terrible falsification of history, because somehow that's what Antonescu tried to do. Antonescu said that we don't want to be seen as barbarians. Don't put the yellow star on the Jews in Romania, because if the Westers find out, they will accuse us of being barbarians. But the Soviet Jews, including those from Basarabia, from the occupied territories, do this. Who cares about them? Because they are not ours. So that was Antonescu's vision and this was very well translated into what these people believe today On the territory of Romania. We didn't die. I don't know how many Jews I mean. What do they want to say On the current territory of Romania, ignoring the other side?
Speaker 2And here's another problem related to this issue. Here it's either the guilt or the responsibility, or the debilitating way in which this idea of universalizing the Holocaust took place in the 80s, 90s in Europe and even in Romania. It took place in the 80s and 90s in Europe and even in Romania Because somehow the Holocaust was understood as the supreme evil, and in many instances this argument can be said. But it's another problem. The Holocaust began to be seen exclusively right Auschwitz, hitler, nazi Germany, concentration camps. There was also a whole literature that made of these aspects the only aspects of the Holocaust. The world did not look at the Holocaust through the eyes, did not look at the massive crimes, the shootings, things like that. They were not known.
Speaker 2And automatically you gave these critics ammunition to say that the Holocaust is equal to Auschwitz. Auschwitz was not Romania period, a kind of reductionism. That obviously shows the lack of knowledge. The fundamental problem is with us, with those who somehow study the Holocaust, and maybe we didn't do enough to explain that the Holocaust is more. This happened especially in the 80s. This is not a matter of Romania necessarily. It's a European matter, because Romania took over all these ideas, which is okay, but there must be a lot of nuance in this regard. And this didn't happen, especially in the 90s.
Speaker 2In Romania they were very anti-communist, not in a good way, and so on. And the thing is that Auschwitz in the first place, if we talk about the responsibility of the Romanian state, there was an intention. There was even a document that was not signed but which detailed the transport of Jews to Romania, to Auschwitz. Only Mihai Antonescu, who was the right hand of Ion Antonescu, thought it over and said, most probably out of anger because I don't know what the Nazis will do he decided that the Romanian government decides what to do with Jews from Romania and not Nazi Germans. And they didn't send anyone to Auschwitz. They sent them to other places. Many sent them to Transnistria, many sent them to Golt and so on. So this is the problem. In fact, romania didn't send them to Auschwitz because it was forced to do its own thing because he was forced to do his own thing.
Speaker 3He had his own method, way of exterminating the Jewish population, it's true, but here I'm going to introduce another negationist narrative which is extremely well-respected Maybe one of the most well-respected narratives that that denies Romania's participation in the Holocaust is built around the number of Jews who survived the Holocaust in Romania, which was the source of the Holocaust, and I named about 400,000, a number that is real. It didn't appear anywhere and in most cases, it is quoted or sent to a statement made by Simon Perez, who was the Prime Minister of Israel at that time, in 2009,.
Speaker 3I think he was the Prime Minister of Israel in 2009, I think when he was in a visit official in Romania and in this ceremonious moment he declares that Israel thanks Romania for saving 400,000 Jews in the years of the war. As you said, I think it's a diplomatic or political gaffe that had made operations at that time, forgets the fact that he completed his declaration the second day, it seems to me, and showed that the other side of the state's politics remains in the time of Antonescu. How do you build this narrative that the Romanian state saved Evrein during the Holocaust, making this figure of those who survived the Holocaust in Romania?
Speaker 2Ok, first of all, we are talking about both linguistics and understanding. You cannot talk about salvation in the case of people who are, in fact, condemned to death. I mean if and I'll give you an example if a thief enters your house and there are five people, kills three and leaves two in peace, it doesn't mean that he saved them. It just means that, from certain considerations, he decided not to kill them. That's exactly what's happening here. The idea of saving doesn't apply at all. The idea of survival applies very well Because those people survived. The Romanian state in favor of the actions of the Romanian state. The Romanian state did not save anything. It took some decisions that led to the death of some people and later took some decisions that kept those people alive, because the state followed its own interests and realized that it didn't want to have a place at the negotiating table. That was the problem. The reason why so many Jews survived in Romania was not the will of Antonescu or the regime or the desire to save in Romania was not Antonescu's will or the regime's or his desire to save. It was simply a game that Romania interpreted in a certain way. We let these people live because they want to not believe that we are barbarians. First of all, they had other things to do with the war. The government realized that it was very possible to lose and then all the resources after 1943 led them to the front and to defense and to diplomatic efforts, and these diplomatic efforts by Romania were inclusive. Let's not make fun of them, because if we kill them and the Jews from Romania, we wake up with big problems. We can deal with Soviet Jews and they are not Soviet. We give them the blame, but this is a very problematic issue.
Speaker 2One Two Perez's statement, first of all, as you said, and you took it out of context second of all, is a big mistake. Why? Because you, as a diplomat, cannot say this as a diplomat of Israel, nor a diplomat of Israel today or before today. I would not say anything positive about that period, not even in passing, for no reason. This is not the policy of the State of Israel. They tried, they had internal problems. This is another discussion, but it's a diplomatic gap because you give the exact ammunition to people what Simon Speres said.
Speaker 2S Perez was a very good politician, but his gap was he tried to be too peaceful. He tried to build this narrative of the people as friends, which is a mistake. It's a mistake to talk when we go on diplomatic or historical visits or analysis of the people who have been in one way or another. It's simply a joke. And he did it. But the idea of saving Jews is a totally false thing. No one saved anyone. There was no process of saving in Romania. The only process of saving was if they were made by the Red Cross or if they were made by those who were later called people's rights. Well's rights are exceptions, the exceptions of the people who saved on the basis of those who killed and on the basis of the actions of the state. Romania doesn't know exactly how many people's rights it has, but there are few and there is no such thing as saving.
Mituri despre Mișcarea Legionară și procesul de la Nürnberg
Speaker 3Romania as a state didn't save anyone, not even itself and not even its own soldiers. A narrative that wants to take Romania as far as possible from the responsibility it has for what happened in the years of the war. And we allow ourselves to talk about narrative constructions that make a commitment to the legionary movement, namely to the association or umbrella of the generic term of fascism of this movement. There are numerous critical narrative constructions on the post-war processes and the current consequences of them from those who have this rehabilitation agenda of the extreme right movement in inter-war Romania. One of the most widespread myths about the Legionary Movement sounds like this how can it be claimed that the Legionary Movement was a fascist organization as long as it was not judged at Nuremberg? What was judged at Nuremberg, emanuel? How can we answer those who claim that the Legionary Movement was not a political?
Speaker 2organization Exactly Mere and pere. First of all, nuremberg did not deal with the trial of fascists and not even of nazis. Simple Nuremberg dealt strictly with the trial of war criminals responsible for destroying Europe. In Nuremberg there was no talk about Holocaust, there was no talk about Jews, but tangential, and there was no talk about fascism as an ideology. It has absolutely no connection. Nuremberg was simply a successful attempt, in most cases, to bring to justice those who made criminal decisions on an unseen scale during the war. That was it in fact, and I will give you an example. I will give you an example. That's what it was in fact, and I'll give you an example.
Speaker 2The reason why the legionary movement is fascist has something to do with it itself, not with Nuremberg. If we refer to what fascism means, we will find a lot of definitions. The best is that of Roger Griffin, which I use the most, which says that it is a form of ultra-nationalism, palingenetic. What does palingenetic mean? It is an extreme form of ultra-nationalism that tries to create a revolution by regenerating the nation. It means to completely restore, to completely destroy a system in which it does not believe and to restore a certain state or a certain area or a certain nation to its glory another time. And it seems that this definition was made after the legionary movement, because even Griffin, who I know, says very clearly that the legionary movement in Romania is the best example. It's better on the definition of fascism than Nazism, because here the discussion between Nazism and fascism is whole. But if we refer to the regional movement, it to have this revolutionary idea of changing something which the legionary movement had in full, existential and relocated, and it takes you to a form From before, what it was, what it has again, and an extreme form of ultra-nationalism, of exalting the nation, which it has again. And there are more, but it's a question here. First of all, not all fascist movements Are antisemitic. There are many, but not all.
Speaker 2Secondly, the legionary movement had this aspect of the fact that it was very insistent on this area of Christianity, of Orthodoxy, better said Christian, and this is used by some to say well, how? Because it was a Christian movement, not political. I've heard this ineptitude. No, the two are not excluded. And first of all, it was not a Christian movement. It was a political movement that used methods or even Christian ideas and brought them proof that many priests were legionaries. And even if it was. That doesn't excuse anything, but it doesn't make it spiritual. So the movement if we refer to fascism, there is no fascist movement in Europe that fits better the definitions of fascism than the regional movement.
Speaker 2They had this issue of orthodoxy in addition, which made their ideology even stronger because it came from an antisemitic background which existed in the Orthodox Church and existed in Christianity. We don't forget that antisemitism came a lot also from the Christian branch, that is, it has a Christian base. And the Legionary Movement took full advantage of this and brought I and brought violence. It was so high because it combined a kind of anti-semitism how can I say typically Romanian, religious, cultural, not biological with this ultra-nationalism and this palingenes, this regeneration of fascist-type political movements and this came out as a cocktail. The violence of the legionary movement was extreme. There was no comparison. There was no comparison.
Cum se raportează România de astăzi la trecutul traumatic al exterminării populației evreiești și rome în perioada celui De-al Doilea Război Mondial?
Speaker 2The reason why the legionaries were not judged at Auschwitz was because the majority were judged in Romania either in 1945-1946 or later. Many legionaries escaped in 1945-1946, because they were not proofs. They were later somehow banned by some kind of communist authorities, but not so much. Then we find in the courts Legionaries, members of the Legionary movement. They were sentenced and then they were given free hand, they were released from prison. That's what we're talking about when we talk about fascism. Obviously, here is a dissonance between and this is a major problem that I wanted to get to a dissonance between public perception and the opinions of specialists, and people don't understand the terms I'm talking about and people who explain them don't understand how to explain them, and that's always a problem. If we refer to fascism, this means that the regional movement was clearly fascist of the extermination of the Jewish and Roma population in World War II.
Speaker 3Where are we today? Where do we have to work? Where did we make important steps?
Speaker 2This is a very good point, especially since I, who came from abroad and now I'm in Romania, I've been doing research for a long time. I could see both I mean in many contexts, the way in which the population is reported, and you said well, the Roma population, because we haven't talked enough about this that it wasn't just the Jews who were evidently systematically exterminated we're talking systematically by the Antoninian authorities but also the Roma who died 11,000, and their families were destroyed. And the Roma who died 11,000. And the whole families were destroyed because of the racism that still exists today. And that's why I choose what I want to say now.
Speaker 2It's a very good question. I don't know if I'm in a position to do a radiography, but I can say some opinions about the subject, and that is we are usually told that the state we have heard this that the state remains behind society in Romania, that society evolves and the state remains behind. We have heard at the level of education, at the level of perception, at the level of rights. Well, in this case of the recognition of the Holocaust, I think it's the opposite and it's not a pleasant thing to say. I think the Romanian state forced, evidently after 2004, when it was in the NATO and later, after 2007, when it was in the EU, and the critical point was also the visa report here, the final report. I think the Romanian state made major efforts in trying to recognize the Holocaust and thus assume responsibility, and this is something that sometimes even I don't come to believe, because if we look at the states around us, if we look at Poland, lithuania, hungary, bulgaria, bulgaria is a more special case than all. There, the main problem comes from the fact that the authorities do not assume. In Romania, it is the other way around, and this is something to admire. I've talked many times with my colleagues, with foreigners, who ask me how there's so much research on Romania in recent years. One of the reasons is this that the Romanian state, even at the declarative level maybe not enough at the level of public politicians, but it's trying to do that, but at the declarative level, at the level of political declarations that are very important, at the level of symbolism, at the level of message they have taken the decisions they had to make. Unfortunately, society did not follow. This is the fault of society and the fault of the state, because obviously the state is free of some politicians. I don't want to make a contrast between the two, necessarily, but the contrast is more or less a paradox. Society has not followed. Society still exists.
Speaker 2There is still an anti-semitism I hope that even the Vizela Institute has annual reports about anti-semitism and there is a latent, powerful anti-semitism in Romania, not through actions. We don't have the same things we have in the West. People are attacked on the street because there is another dynamic and another context, but there is a latent antisemitism that can explode anytime. There is this anti-communism. It's not about anti-communism. It's very good to be anti-communist as long as you're democratic. You can't fight an extreme ideology with one as extreme or more extreme. There is this anti-communist, non-democratic. There is this very strong Romanian nationalist, this ethnic nationalist who doesn't exist in many places in Europe, very many places in Europe. Nationalism Magyar, for example, which is dubious, of course, but it's civic. You can become Magyar, you can't become Romanian if you're not born. This is an invective, a very hard thing, a hard heritage that comes from the 19th century.
Speaker 2I think society didn't keep the step and I think, somehow, the actions of the state to recognize the Holocaust, to accept the courts, including the courts, to not rehabilitate, with that exception of the 90s, when they I'm talking after 2004. These efforts of the state irritated them and I think society somehow responded to this in a negative way in large part, but also in a positive way. It was seen in various discussions I attended where people no longer accept as easily as people no longer accept fascist arguments as easily as they used to. But at the same time, it was seen that when you enter with a lot of people in discussions, you tend to always give them a conciliatory language that somehow excuses certain types of people. Yes, bad things happened to people. They did good things. Yes, that group of people was bad, but this man was like that. Yes, I don't have a problem with Jews because I don't have a problem with Roma because and if I've always announced Roma, I'll also refer to racism Anti-Roma racism is still very, very powerful in Romania, which is a huge problem.
Speaker 2This, somehow, this type of racism, has influenced this vision as well, because people refuse to accept that they are bad. We still hear in the Bolivian and the same type of discourse that I am not racist because I have Roman friends or I'm not racist because I have Jewish friends, and that's the problem, obviously at the level and here the state does very well what it does. It assumed this, but it has to do more Because it has to be as aggressive not in a negative sense. Obviously, with such practical thoughts you can't go on a conciliatory aspect of the idea. It has to be hard and the Romanian state did very well after 2004,. But it also hit the bar many times because it wasn't hard enough. We don't have condemnations for anti-Semitism in Romania, for leaving these banners, these streets still exist, and so on.
Speaker 2So I praise the state to a point, to the symbolic point, to the declarative point, to the point of actions in society that change society.
Speaker 2There the state doesn't do things so well, because if we have institutions of the state that are being sited, that the law is being passed and you other authorities from the justice, from the executive, don't do anything, it means that there is a problem with the state and with society and with the state.
Speaker 2That's why I think both can work, but I don't think that something will change until the state authorities will understand that society has not yet fully understood this course of changes that the state initiated in 2004 and, at the same time, the state will understand that the law must be applied. The law must be applied that does not allow normalization, so to speak, of practices that lead to things like discourses, other narratives. Radu Gir is a poet. I saw poetry there. He is not a fascist, so somehow a dilution of responsibility. And I think this is the most important thing to have the capacity as a society, but also as a state, to assume the past and not to talk only about as a friend said very well and in a good way not to talk only about the bad things that happened to us.
Speaker 2The capacity of a society to show that it is democratic is, first of all, to talk and to assume the bad things that you as a society, or the society from which you have been part in the past not you personally, the society from which you have been part in the past they did it to others. The moment you recognize this and it's not just about you, then you can be a truly democratic society. It's a very big mistake to look at the Păptași during the Holocaust as victims of communism, because they didn't. They didn't have anything to do with communism. Their only thing to do with communism was that many of them adapted and swore faith in the new regime.
Speaker 2And I think it's very important to be able to not always talk about anti-communists, anti-communist fighters, to make some criminals some heroes, because Antonescu, macici, trestorianu and many others, whose names have no sense to repeat because there are many of them and many others who were not condemned, were exactly these some criminals. And anti-communism was something else. And I'm not referring to anti-communism from the mountains, where many were also there, or anti-communism from the prisons, where there were also many. I'm referring to anti-communism from the democratic which existed and which must be appreciated with a form of fascist or nazi anticommunism of some people who lived their lives from the pleasure of killing other people or from their utility in quotes of killing other people. And with that I think it's most important to end with this appeal I make to all those who look at the Holocaust or look at the history of Romania in the 20th century not to see the history of the Holocaust, which is part of the history of Romania and of the history of Europe, the Holocaust, which was a European process, not a German one. Not to see from studying these subjects a negative aspect in the sense that someone is degrading the name of Romania.
Speaker 2Not even a word Studiere acestor subiecte. Un aspect negativ în sensul că cineva degradează numele României? Nici vorbă. Oamenii care se ocupă de asta și în general care discute, indiferent de context, de subiectul ăsta nu degradează Și încearcă să-și asume responsabilitatea pentru ceva ce statul din care fac parte a făcut. Nu e vorba de a degrada numele nimănui. The state I'm a part of did it. It's not about degrading names, no one. It's simply a word that doesn't have a translation in Romanian. In German it's Vergangenheitsbewertigung and that's the assumption of the past. That's the most important aspect I wanted to underline.
Speaker 3Thank you very much, Emanuele.