Category: The History Show

Kings and queens, princes and princesses have always been in the spotlight. Leaders in general have been in the attention of ordinary people because, according to a social theory, change in society is initiated by the elites. Royals are regarded as privileged people, who have everything they want. Very few people see royals as having a daily life similar to theirs.

The Romanian Royal House, in its 80 years of existence, had various typologies of rulers. After the communist government forced King Mihai I to abdicate on December 30, 1947 and go into exile, an expert team was given the task to make an inventory of all his belongings. The team was made up of experts, historians, art critics and members of the communist party. Art historian Radu Bogdan, member of the communist party before 1945, was part of that team. Interviewed in 1995 by the Oral History Centre of the Romanian Radio Broadcasting Corporation, Bogdan said that the occasion he had at the time, to enter the royal palace and see everything that had belonged to the Royal Family was in fact a chance to find out how the everyday life of the Romanian crowned heads had been like.

The first place he entered was the Peles Castle in Sinaia: I found the archive at the Peles Castle, which was very impressive. My main focus in the upcoming months was to see what it was about. I read a lot and I was eager to know everything. It was an extraordinary experience. I spent my high school years in a society that had a cult for King Carol II, nicknamed the voivode of Romanian culture, and my childhood was quite marked by his presence. Having the intimate palace journals in my hands, I had access to history from the inside, a secret history which was extraordinary.

Unlike what some may imagine, what I found at the Peles Castel was close to the normal cultural standards that any Romanian could have had access to. Radu Bogdan: The library of the Peles Castle was not that impressive. I liked more the library at Bran Castel, which had books with the autograph of Queen Victoria. That was no common thing. There were a few luxury editions. At Peles Castle, there were many books published by the Royal Foundations. The first book out a series of 50, published by the Royal Foundations, went to Carol II and the second one to Prince Mihai I. Some books had the autograph of the author, who was obviously unaware of the fact that no autograph is allowed to be given to a sovereign. The King of England, for instance, does not give autographs and no author is allowed to write anything on a book sent to him.

Once in the royal palaces, Radu Bogdan stepped into a fabulous world, who was nevertheless dominated by a daily routine. He found a personal notebook of King Carol II in which he wrote daily. He also found documents that helped him understand just how normal the lives of the people who ruled a country were. Unfortunately, the ideological ferocity led to the destruction of valuable objects, as Radu Bogdan noticed: The communists did everything in their power to annihilate the monarchy cult, and showed zero respect for memory and monarchy. For instance, they quickly changed everything in the office of King Carol I, who had so far been kept untouched since the day of his death. They even erased autographs from the books, before sending them to various libraries in Bucharest. Everything contrary to the idea of monarchy was attempted. Interior decorations, objects and furniture related to monarchy were all vandalised.

Radu Bogdan was particularly impressed with the everyday life of the Romanian royals: What is interesting is that monarchy itself did not keep its documents in order. They were kept in all sort of boxes. I am not sure if documents were also kept in hat boxes, but there were many square boxes and some of them had a locker. Most boxes, however, were unlocked. The only one locked was the box with the diaries of Queen Mary. Petitions from mad people, letters from historian Nicolae Iorga or writer Octavian Goga and letters from diplomats and crowned heads were all kept in the same place.

Royals have always had a daily life of their own, and that can clearly be seen today. Unfortunately, in the case of Romanian royals, this daily life was made public in the harshest way possible. (EE)

Mihai Eminescu was a poet, prose writer and journalist who, due to the great beauty and originality of his literary work, received the unofficial title of “national poet”. He is Romanias greatest cultural personality and his birthday, January 15, is celebrated as the Romanian Culture Day. Eminescu is considered a genius by most people, but there is also a myth built around him, as historian Lucian Boia wrote in his book about the poet. Unfortunately, there was also Eminescu the patient, not just Eminescu the brilliant poet. In his short life, of only 39 years, the poet struggled with mental illness and was the patient of mental institutions.

Eminescu lived between 1850 and 1889. He was born in Botoșani, as the seventh of eleven children. He made his literary debut at the age of 16, while in high school. He became a law and philosophy student in Vienna and Berlin but did not finish his studies. Returning to the country in 1874, at the age of 24, he settled in Iași where he worked as a librarian, substitute teacher and journalist for “Timpul”, a conservative newspaper. At the same time, he had a fervent literary activity interrupted, unfortunately, in 1883, at the age of 33, due to the disease. Among his many poems of great impact on Romanian culture, Eminescu wrote between 1873 and 1883 his masterpiece, “The Morning Star”.

Literary historians have been trying to find the cause of the disease that Eminescu was suffering from and which, in the end, ended his life. Most of them agree that all information indicate a mental illness, but no clear diagnosis could be made at the time. Doctor Octavian Buda, a professor with the “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy and psychiatrist at the “Mina Minovici” Forensic Institute in Bucharest was part of a team of specialists who re-examined the case of patient Eminescu.

Octavian Buda: “Professor Irinel Popescu and academician Eugen Simion gathered together a number of doctors to discuss the case. This team included neurologists and psychiatrists. I made an introduction to what is called pathography, the idea of ​​health biography and how a certain mental illness may or may not indisputably impact a personalitys biography. Hence the question of whether we can make a connection between work and biography, taking this into account. “

In the summer of 1883, Eminescu was hospitalized with a diagnosis of “acute maniac episodes.” It was his first hospitalization. He was also treated in the famous mental hospital “Mărcuța”. According to Octavian Buda, the data available at the moment shows that Eminescu had a bipolar disorder: “There is a diagnosis that some made. Dr. Ion Nica wrote a book in the 70s, entitled “Eminescu – the psychosomatic structure”. There is another pathologist, Ovidiu Vuia, who studied this case. Judging by the latest clinical and diagnosis updates, I think Eminescu suffered from bipolar disorder. So, in his case, it was an episode of completely unusual creativity, with elements of agitation, accompanied by depressive episodes. Biographic elements and information that we were able to collect about him, all suggest mental instability. The hospitalizations at the “Mărcuța” mental hospital and then at Dr. Suțus private hospice, “Caritatea”, located on Plantelor Street, where his death also occurred support this theory. “

Dr. Buda pointed out that there was a mismatch between Eminescus mental illness and the treatment he received, but for which doctors cannot be blamed: “Do these change the extraordinary value of his work? Quite the contrary, I would say. There are people with overwhelming creativity, completely out of the ordinary. It is important that the connection between Eminescu, as a patient, and the doctors who treated him, in this case Suțu and the others, should be seen in the context of what was known and understood at that time in psychiatry. If in terms of diagnosis we can find some equivalents in todays language, the tragedy, in my opinion, is the treatment he received. I think Eminescu was actually treated with mercury, which was thought to be a kind of sedation. It was unknown, at the time, what its long-term effects were. It was not until much later that scientists established that the use of large amounts of mercury is more than toxic and causes neurological damage.”

Mihai Eminescu is, without a doubt, an outstanding personality of the Romanian culture. Unfortunately, the circumstances of his untimely death are also found in other famous cases. (EE)

January 1, 2022, is the celebration of 15 years since Romania realized one of its major policy objectives after the pivotal year 1989, and enough time has passed for a historical evaluation. These have been 15 years of significant and steady progress, that have also shown that the European project is feasible. The European adventure of CEE countries started after the year 2001. In the first wave of integration, in 2004, the union was joined by 10 states: Czechia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenis. In 2007, two more joined, Romania and Bulgaria.

In any analysis of such a recent past, history is marred by perceptions that are not always objective, especially political ones. Which is why a realistic look at the past 15 years since Romania joined the European bloc is mandatory in order to compare past and present situations, but also to envisage alternative situations, such as the scenario in which Romania did not join. Mihai Sebe, with the European Institute in Bucharest is an expert in European issues, and together we sought to see what the significance of the 15 years of common history between Romania and the EU:

“Belonging to the EU had and continues to have a positive impact, be it a direct impact, such as European funds financing projects, or by exercising the rights of free circulation, of working and living anywhere in the EU. There are also indirect advantages to the European connection, such as modernizing Romanian society and the economy as a result of being a part of European processes. Also, the benefits of being a member state of the EU are intangible benefits, whether we speak of the country belonging to a space where rule of law and democracy reign, in which fundamental rights and liberties are observed, or we speak of unequaled opportunities for personal and social development in the last century.

The economy is a concern for every one of us, it has to do with our standard of living. We asked Mihai Sebe what were Romania’s economic gains were across these 15 years of membership:

“15 years from joining the EU, the main concrete advantage, one of many, was granted by the European funds granted to us. Economic estimates show that the country has taken in over 60 billion Euro in the last 15 years. Romania continues to have a positive balance, in the sense that European funds surpass the funds that Romania contributes to the Union. Also, the GDP almost tripled in the last 15 years. We have also a plan for implementing the funding that come in through the Plan for National Recovery and Resilience, a program to make reforms across society.

The pandemic that has been haunting the world for the last two years has triggered a European response. This common response is paralleled by each individual state, including Romania, and Mihai Sebe told us about it:

“There are aspects and advantages that don’t necessarily have to do with economics, but rather with solidarity. The most recent example is the present pandemic, in which Romania was a direct beneficiary of support from the EU, be it privileged access to vaccines, medication, and medical equipment, or the fact that it has been a key state involved in solving the pandemic at the European level. Let us not forget that Romania has sent medical teams to Italy, or that, because of how seriously it tackled the pandemic, it was the first member state to host the strategic medical reserve of the EU.

“Over the last 15 years, Romania has proven serious and reliable as a member. It managed to contribute directly to the consolidation of the EU as a member state. It was either in direct involvement in climate change issues, digitization, and resilience, or in support towards the EU as a provider of security in the region, and not only. Let us not forget that Romania has managed to pass the test of European maturity, that of holding the rotating presidency of the EU Council between January 1 and June 30, 2019. It was a very important moment at the European level, in the context of the Brexit and European Parliament elections, but also from the point of view of the future of the Union. Let us also not forget that, during the Romanian presidency, a declaration was adopted on May 9, 2019, about the Sibiu spirit, Romania’s involvement in the development of the Union, and the consolidation of European solidarity and values.

The history of Romania in the EU in the past 15 years is positive, in spite of contrary perceptions. It is a history of voluntary options, open projects, and sticking to commitments.

On December 1st 1918, at the end of WW1, following the vote in Alba Iulia, Transylvania, a territory in Austro-Hungary, inhabited mostly by Romanians but having a large Hungarian community, became part of the Kingdom of Romania. The war between the Kingdom of Romania and the Hungarian Soviet Republic in 1919 ended in the occupation of Budapest by the Romanian army and consolidated the act of December 1st 1918. The Treaty of Trianon, signed on June 4, 1920, which concluded WW1, was signed by representatives of Hungary on the one hand and the Allied Powers on the other. By the terms of the treaty, Hungary was shorn of at least two-thirds of its former territory – Slovakia, Transylvania, Banat, Maramures and Croatia. In keeping with the commitments taken before the great powers and the minority protection policy promoted by the League of Nations, Romania offered minorities the rights stipulated by international treaties.

In the interwar period, between 1918 and 1940, the Romanian-German bilateral relations were almost frozen. The revisionist policy conducted by Hungary culminated with Germany and Italy forcing Romania in 1940 to give Hungary North Transylvania, almost half of this province s territory. Circumstantial allies with Germany in WW2, Romania and Hungary were looking towards the future of bilateral ties. On August 23, 1944, Romania broke the alliance with Germany and joined the coalition of the United Nations. The main reason for this move was, according to diplomatic documents, to retrieve North Transylvania. Stefano Bottoni, a professor with the University of Florence, is the author of the book entitled Stalin s Legacy in Romania – The Hungarian Autonomous Region, 1952-1960. He explained that, according to Stalin, neither Hungary nor Romania had to be rewarded because they had both behaved badly. Romania, however, had a big advantage because it changed sides, and this is the merit of the Romanian political and military class, that understood the situation. Stefano Bottoni explains that the same leaders who committed massacres on the East front were now complying with the rigors of their new alliance with the Soviets.

Romania had at least one major advantage at the Peace Treaty in February 1947: it had stopped fighting against the Soviets and had joined the offensive against the German-Hungarian armies. Freed by the Romanian army on October 25, 1944, North Transylvania had remained under Soviet occupation. The Romanian authorities were allowed to return only after King Mihai I gave in to the Soviet blackmail and commissioned Petru Groza, a friend of Moscow, with forming a new government controlled by the communists. However, the situation was far from clear. The new Romanian diplomacy was lobbying Moscow for their cause, something that the Hungarians were also doing.

At the end of WW2, the Romanian-Hungarian border of 1920 was re-established. Nevertheless, the fate of North Transylvania had not been decided yet. The USSR had agreed to Romania s arguments but also wanted to please the Hungarian communists. Thus, the Hungarian Autonomous Region was established in central Transylvania, made up of the counties of Covasna, Harghita and Mures. Stefano Bottoni explained Stalins new solution to end the Romanian Hungarian conflict: ”Ever since 1944-1945 Stalin had the strategy of a great power. He knew, for instance, that if Hungary had been forced to accept around 2 million people from the neighbouring countries, it would have exploded from a social, political and economic point of view. This would have had a negative impact on the Hungarian Communist Party and on Matyas Rakosi directly. The Hungarians would have said that he was incompetent, that he was responsible for everything, that he was a Jew and he was unable to do things right. Then, it was important not to reward Romania. Romania had to receive Transylvania in compensation for losing Bessarabia and Bukovina. Romania was given Transylvania, but not entirely. Here is a clue that leads to the Hungarian Autonomous Region: the Hungarians were told they could stay there, but that they had to behave. That meant no more revisionist policy, no more Horthy, no more mediation from Vienna, no more external help. Romanians, on the other hand, were told: we know how you behaved during the two wars and it was not OK. You did nothing to integrate minorities. On the contrary, you treated them like second-hand citizens.”

The Hungarian Autonomous Region functioned until 1956, when the anti-communist revolution in Hungary made the country lose the support of Moscow. Reformed in 1961, it was dismantled in 1968, when Nicolae Ceausescu implemented an administrative reform.

During highly repressive regimes such as fascism and communism, art and artists usually comply with the requests of that particular ideology. Creativity, in totalitarian regimes, is almost annihilated, while art and artists become part of the propaganda. For this reason, being familiar with the type of political regime during which an art work was created, helps the viewer better understand that particular work. Whether we talk about painting, sculpture, theatre, film or an architecture, the political and social circumstances of totalitarianism leave their mark on the mind and work of artists.

In 1938, Romania started to slip towards totalitarianism. It was the year when King Carol II installed his authoritarian regime, a predecessor of fascism. Political parties and the free press were banned and replaced by a single party and subservient press. Things continued in the same manner from 1940 to 1944, when Romania was headed by Marshall Antonescu. After 1944-1945, at the end of WW2, the communist regime continued to make use of the previous criminal practices.As expected, artists adjusted their works to the rigors of that time. In the years of the fascist regime, the cult of the nation was the ideology that dominated the art world. After 1945, during the communist regime, proletarianism was the ideology that set the trend in art.

Art critic and historian Radu Bogdan was born in 1920 and died in 2011, at the age of 91. He lived throughout the totalitarian period. He had communist sympathies ever since his youth and worked in the pro-communist press. Bogdan had the reputation of a good professional. In 1995 he was interviewed by Radio Romania s and one of the questions was about the condition of the artist during the communist period. Bogdan gave his own example and that of his colleagues with the Institute of Art History: “If we say that the communist period was the period of a sick regime, are we telling the truth? All sort of sick things were happening. Although we cannot say the institute was made up of incompetent people, it was largely made up of cases. Each of us was a case. None of us, including myself, was a perfectly balanced character.”

Together with art historian George Oprescu, Bogdan was the one who picked the members of the commission that made the inventory of the royal property after the communists forced King Mihai I to abdicate, on December 30, 1947, and leave Romania: ”My recommendation was Edgar Papu. He was an assistant professor and I was a student, so I knew him from the faculty. I invited him to be part of the commission. Zambaccian, who was a party member, was also in the commission, alongside art trader Levi, who was not a party member and had a Turkish passport. The latter was proposed by Oprescu. There was also Nestor, a former legionnaire, a distinguished archeologist and scientist. Ion Jalea was also included to evaluate sculptures. The wife of Mac Constantinescu was part of the commission s secretariat. There was also historian Emil Condurachi, an expert in medals and antiquities. I was the expert in books and documents.”

The regime applied the thesis of Marx and Lenin aiming to adjust both artistic taste and public art to the soviet model. In this respect, the Romanian Athenaeum was the first target: ”There had been, at a certain moment, an order from the upper party lines that the fresco of the Athenaeum, painted by Costin Petrescu, should be covered by paintings of revolutionary heroes or accepted rulers such as Alexandru Ioan Cuza. Consequently, Iosif Iser, Camil Ressu and Stefan Constantinescu, seen as the best painters of that time, were commissioned with the new paintings. The project was eventually scrapped, because the paintings were too large. The original fresco was 3 m high, but it had unity. It did not have any particular artistic value, but, as I said, it had unity. This is what the new painting lacked as each of the three artists had its own particular style. Others were purely decorative, had no particular value. This whole project was eventually suspended.”

It is said that the artist, his work and the viewer always share a special bond. Unfortunately, this one was built on sufferance, a type of sufferance generated by the lack of freedom. Art in totalitarian Romania suffered as much as people did. (EE)

Scientific research in a totalitarian regime or a dictatorship is strictly controlled by the state apparatus. Censorship is an essential element in the structure of such a state, and the repressive apparatus is its hard core. The communist state had as its basis ideology. Knowledge of history was essential, and got special attention from the Securitate, the repressive apparatus of Communist Romania, which it controlled ideologically. The process of ideologizing social sciences and the humanities was part of the propaganda. History was no exception, it was subject to ideology like everything else, and part of that was archaeology. Even more than that, the heritage of historical sciences was struck brutally, and in the case of some historians, we can talk about physical brutality. The repressive apparatus jailed historians of the old regime, either for the political positions they held, or for their scientific opinions. Illustrious historians like Gheorghe Brătianu, Constantin C. Giurescu, Petre P. Panaitescu, Silviu Dragomir, and others, were put in prison starting in 1950. Some died there, like Gheorghe Brătianu, others managed to survive until 1964, the year of the general amnesty for political detainees.

Archaeologist Marian Cosac is a professor with the Valahia University of Targoviste, and editor of a volume of select documents from the archives of the former Securitate, about the manner in which the intelligence service of communist Romania directed archaeological research before 1989. It has to be said that archaeology was another area in which the Securitate stepped in with brutality, setting the topics and imposing conclusions. It was about the ideas and theses that could be ideologically supported, and appointing the panels of archaeologists that could do research on a given site. The formation of the Romanian people and their continuity in Transylvania, Maramures, Banat, and Dobrogea were more than ideas that had to transpire from any and all archaeological digs. It was an obsession, it was the most important conclusion. Hand in hand with continuity was historical truth. The above mentioned provinces were assigned special attention because of the historical differences with Hungary and Bulgaria. It had to be that Romania’s arguments must derive from any research into the territories that united with Romania in 1878 and 1918.

However, this was not an exclusive practice of the Romanian Securitate. Other repression apparatuses from other communist states had the same kind of intervention for purposes of justification. We asked Marian Cosac how the Securitate assigned archaeologists research tasks and the conclusions they had to reach:

“The Securitate had a vast, extremely vast, network of informants in all history museums in Romania. This network of informants guaranteed the correct scientific interpretation of archaeological data. The officers of Direction I of the Securitate did not have the ability to understand the language of archaeology. Unfortunately, accusations of non-compliance with historical truth came from colleagues, not Securitate officers. To the extent that the data reached the officers, they intervened by opening a surveillance case. Some archaeologists found themselves in the situation in which, while expressing well supported scientific arguments, they became enemies of the Romanian state, placed in the category of those who warped historical truth.

The intervention of the Securitate in archaeological research also had personal consequences. There were cases of archaeologists who, to their merit, had the courage to put up opposition to the egregious meddling of the authorities in the meticulous work of archaeologists. Florin Medelet, from the Timis Museum of History had to suffer for his opposition, says Marian Cosac, who found in the archives his surveillance file:

“Florin Medelet was one of the archaeologists who came to the attention of the Securitate because of an unfortunate find. This find consisted of three Roman bricks found while digging near the foundation of a block of flats. The three Roman bricks were interpreted by a historian specializing in the modern period, Ioan Dimitrie Suciu, as being clear proof of the continuity and presence of the Roman factor in the Banat area. He identified the presence of a Roman castrum in the founding area of the city of Timisoara, with the three bricks presented as incontestable proof. As an archaeologist, Medelet rejected this hypothesis. This rejection resulted in a surveillance case being opened, and this had dire consequences on his scientific, and even personal, evolution. He was dismissed from his managerial position, he got demoted to the lowest rank, that of museographer. He was banned from publishing studies in archaeology, he was put under surveillance, and was prevented from applying for a PhD. The direct effects on Florin Medelet were catastrophic. Medelet is an undisputed personality in archaeological research in the Banat area, he shaped an entire school of archaeology.

Between 1945 and 1989, archaeology was a science heavily influenced by ideology. Neutral research had a lot to suffer, and many honest scientific conclusions gathered dust on a shelf, forgotten.

Constantin Ion Parhon was a name often uttered in the 20th century in relation to medicine, but he was nowhere near as important professionally as you may believe. That is because Parhon was a marking personality of the regime that the USSR installed in Romania after 1945. His professional activity was inversely proportional with his political activity, which was what in fact brought him celebrity. He was part of the group that chose to side with the communist regime and take full advantage of that privileged position.

Constantin Ion Parhon was born on October 15, 1874, in Campulung Muscel, a town about 170 km northwest of the capital Bucharest. He studied medicine at Bucharest University, and in 1900 he got his degree as a medical doctor. He worked as a physician in hospitals in Bucharest and in other places in the country, and attended a specialty course in Munich, Germany, in 1906. Parhon specialized in affections of the nervous system, and became a professor at the medical school in Iasi, where he taught neurology and psychiatry. In parallel, he started teaching endocrinology at the medical school in Bucharest. In 1928, he was elected as a member by correspondence of the Romanian Academy, becoming a full member in 1939. Parhon became a part of the eugenics movement in Romania between the wars, and at some point he actually started supporting the idea of experimenting on mental patients.

The communist regime imposed by the Soviets on March 6, 1945, completely transformed Romania in less than three years. Trampling on all human rights and freedoms by legislation, the Communist Party delivered the coup de grace to Romanian democracy on December 30, 1947. On that day, King Michael I was forced to abdicate, and the communists dominated Parliament, who had blatantly falsified the elections in November 1946, and proclaimed a republic. The New Year speech in 1948 was read on the radio by Parhon himself, who was elected head of the Romanian People’s Republic Presidential Forum, which had replaced the constitutional monarchy.

“The Romanian people have now gained their freedom to choose the form of state most suited to its natural aspirations, a people’s republic. The democratic regime, instated after liberation from Hitler’s invaders and their lackeys, through the work, skill, and drive of the best sons of the people, is now strengthened even more. No hurdle stands now in the way of the full development of our popular democracy, to provide to all who work with their arms or their minds, in towns and villages, the material and cultural well-being , guaranteeing our country’s sovereignty and independence.

You may ask yourselves how Parhon had reached the highest positions in such a regime. The explanation may be found in his prior political activity. Before WWI he had been a socialist, influenced by the ideas of Karl Marx, and had founded a small party, the Working Party, which would go on to merge with the Peasant Party in 1919, right after the war. However, after two years, in 1921, he had radicalized, and become a supporter of the Communist Party of Romania, a section of the Komintern.

Romania’s switching sides to join the anti-Fascist coalition on August 23, 1944, was a major turn for Parhon. He became the president of the Romanian Association for Ties with the Soviet Union, and president of the ruling council of the People’s Republic of Romania, alongside writer Mihail Sadoveanu and three other communist activists. Up until 1952, he formally held the position of head of state. From 1946 to 1961 he was continuously a deputy in the Assembly of Deputies, and then in the Grand National Assembly, the communist parliament. In ideological recognition on the part of Socialist countries, he as made a member of the academies of science of the USSR, Bulgaria, Hungary, and the DRG. He also held other administrative positions, such as director of the Institute of Endocrinology and the Geriatric Institute. He was decorated with the highest honor of the communist state, Hero of Socialist Work, and the University of Bucharest was at some point named after him.

Parhon died on August 9, 1969, at 94 years of age, and was buried in the communist pantheon in Carol Park. Stefan Barlea, an organizational work activist with the Communist Party, spoke in 2002 for Radio Romania’s Center for Oral History. He said that his demise threw a wrench into the works of the 10th Congress of the Romanian Communist Party, which was taking place around that time:

“The issue was raised, where would we bury him. And at some point, Ceausescu said: ‘What shall we do, he was head of state?’ And we made the decision to take him to the Pantheon. Gheorghiu-Dej had already been buried there. And Ceausescu said that there has to be a special arrangement. But Maurer, the prime minister, told us to bury him such that he himself could have a place there set aside. And Ceausescu patted him on the shoulder and said: ‘Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.’

After 1989, his remains were unearthed and relocated, and the entire complex was put under conservation.

The presence of Jewish communities in the Romanian space has been known ever since the Middle Ages, when they could be found both inside and outside the arch of the Carpathian Mountains, both in rural and urban areas. Before the terrible tragedy of the Holocaust, the Jewish communities in Romania gave the world scientists, doctors, lawyers, engineers, entrepreneurs, people of culture. After the end of WWII, and the birth of the State of Israel, to which Romanian Jews contributed significantly the number of such communities in Romania dropped dramatically. The 1989 census showed that there were only several thousands left in Romania.

In Greater Romania, according to the 1930 census, the Jewish population numbered 756,930 individuals. The largest and strongest communities were in northern Romania, in Transylvania, Maramures, Bucovina and Bessarabia. After 1918, the Romanian state had committed to observing all the minority rights and so the entire legislation was drawn up or amended to that end. Just like the other minorities, Jews in Romania benefited from economic and religious freedom, freedom of expression, of the press in their own language, of Romanian citizenship and the right to vote. Before the start of the anti-Semitic persecutions in 1938, the Jews in Romania were integrated just like any other ethnic Romanian, as shown by interviews made in 1990 and 2000 by the Oral History Centre of the Romanian Radio Broadcasting Corporation.

Nicolae Catone from the village of Salva, Nasaud County, in northern Romania, was a railway worker between the wars. He was a member of the National Peasant’s Party and in 2000 he was recalling the Jews living in his village:

There were Jews, I remember that the richest of them was one by the name of Aaron. He had a gasoline shop, and a cereal shop. On Easter day his gasoline shop burned down. There were many Jews in the village and we got along well. We had two milk cows and I remember a Jewish woman from across the river, with four kids, who would come and get milk for them. She would milk and wash the cows herself. We had no problems with the Jews.

Adela Feiden was from Vatra Dornei and in 1998 she spoke about the celebrations she would attend as a child in the town where there were 3 synagogues:

We would take part in all celebrations. The temple was open, nobody forbade us to keep our faith. We had the Yiddish theatre at the Culture House, at the Casino. For Hanukah we had the chief Rabi coming. Many other would come to the synagogue and we would always go there for Passover.

Ludovic Kahan was from Baia Mare, the son of a cattle merchant. He worked as a clerk with the Phoenix metallurgical works.

In 1885 the synagogue was opened, and it is still there today. The community was always orthodox and Hasidism in Satu Mare had a strong influence. The Zionist movement was also strong. As regards the town population in 1890, according to statistics, the town had 9868 inhabitants, of whom 702 Jews. In 1910, out of 12,877 inhabitants, 1402 were Jews, and then the number increased to 3623, out of a population of 21,404 in 1941. So, the percentage was pretty high, going up from 7 to 16%.

Rabi Ernest Neumann of Timisoara recalled in 2002 how, before the Holocaust, Romanians and Jews had no issues.

Citizens from this part of Transylvania, which used to be ruled by Austria-Hungary, were more tolerant, more understanding towards the Jews, and they really leaved in peace. I grew up in a community of peasants and nobody would care whether people were Romanian, Jew or Hungarian. There were no barriers of nationality, religion or race separating people, barriers which are artificial anyway.

All testimonies from before 1938-1940, before the Holocaust, speak of a normal life for the Jewish communities in the Romanian space. After that, however, history would change dramatically. (MI)