Romanian & Hungarian war-crimes

Hi Imperialist,

In a society where there is no independent publishing industry for political reasons, it is always necessary to be suspicious of official publications that touch on the political sphere.

Romania is one such example. In the military field, the years 1941-44 disappeared almost completely from puiblications between 1947 and the 1980s.

While one cannot dismiss everything written in those years, one must view it in the knowledge that it was not produced in an era of academic freedom and so might be prone to distortions or omissions.

The mere fact that there was an English-language edition of "Horthyist-Fascist Terror....", for which there was no demand or market, tends to imply that, whether accurate or inacurate, the book was seen as a propaganda tool. The copy I have got was originally a gift to the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Cheers,

Sid.

Not true. For example I have at hand (meaning its visible in my bookcase, I dont have to search it harder) "Marea Conflagratie a Secolului XX. Al Doilea Razboi Mondial", written in 1974! Yes, it politically interprets the political side of WWII, but an average intelligence person can spot the propaganda a mile away. The propaganda I ignore, and I use the good fruits. Why should I throw the whole book away?
So I wonder where you got the info from. That should say something to you about the source you got it from.

Completely agree. But thats not something new.
Besides, what was the act of propaganda, putting the info in english to have better circulation or falsifying the info?


Look for example here:

http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/rum.htm

Why would someone publish a book "Genocide in Transylvania - Nation on the Death Row" or "The Origins of the Rumanians"; "The Daco-Roman Legend" or "Witnesses to Cultural Genocide".

Is(nt) that propaganda?




take care

Mr. Imperialist, I don't know to which post you have answered to, but apparently not mine. Let me point out why.

Your interpretation of what I've said is totally erroneous. The logic you're referring to is certainly not mine.

What I've said is that books related to Rumania's recent history [not the entire spectrum], published by Editura Politica [not the entire Rumanian book publishing industry], in the 1980s [not in the entire post-war period], in my eyes, are suspicious and I wouldn't use them in my research.
Just as an example, there are many interesting books published by Editura Militara, related to the Rumanian Army (the anti-Axis campaign, of course, as the whole anti-Soviet campaign was mostly ignored), which I already used and would use in the future, too. But I would disregard historical works about Rumnaia between 1930-1989, issued by the publishing house of the Communist Party, in the 1980s.

The book I was originally referring to is not the opinion of certain authors, but is rather a collection of twisted 'historical facts', which were meant to be shown as the ultimate truth. A big difference.
You're approach is valid when directly quoting a certain person in order to clash ideas. I agree with it. However, my point was totally other.

See above.

Again, completely off the target. Thus all your following reasonings are irrelevant to my original point.

Let me repeat my original question:

If you intend to engage in a debate, then please stick to the other party's exact words and don't try to add a spin to them. I don't like when people put words in my (virtual) mouth that I've never said.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on June 19, 2005 12:29 pm

If you intend to engage in a debate, then please stick to the other party's exact words and don't try to add a spin to them.

Would that change anything. I'd say I've found it reliable, you'd say no.
I did say I found the Editura Politica a very useful and informative publishing house. 1960s, late 1970s or mid-80s, this remains to be seen depending on the books I have at hand. I will not go about ransacking my book place to find exactly a mid-1980s book. If I do, I'll let you know.
The spin can appear due to various causes. Like the other parties' initial attitude, the evolving discussion, misunderstandings, incomplete data or faulty reading (happened before too). Are you implying it a conspiracy and I intend to discredit you or something? Please dont.

take care

I believe it was the last phrase, which was taken a little out of context by Denes, not the Traznea incident, which IMO you researched pretty well. That particular phrase could be interpreted as a dangerously radical generalization. There were Romanians that also comitted attrocities. That does not mean by default that any Romanian was pre-disposed at making such crimes. The same goes for Russians, Hungarians, Germans etc.

Trying to prove that Secicar was skinned by relating to other warcimes comitted by other Hungarian soldiers/civilians isn't a viable solution IMO and should be avoided. The men that killed Secicar were most likely others than those that killed the people in Traznea and other villages in 1940. We don't know who they were exactly, we don't know their psychological profiles. We just have an eye-witness (the old woman) that told a story. Wether it is correct or "embelished" (I heard even more horrible accounts of Secicar's ordeal) it will be difficult to establish. However, we can't reject it on the simple grounds that it is just an oral testimony. Until someone will dig out an official report on Secicar's death (maybe from the Gendarmerie archives) it is all we have and specullations on the "culture of skinning" should be avoided as they usually lead to faulty generalizations. To an old woman, "skinning" could be just several cuts made on the body of the victim.

The "Fascist-Horthyst terror" could indeed be questioned as a reliable source of information. Even the title is a typical Communist manifesto. Fascism was in Italy, not Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Croatia etc. Also "Hortysm" did not exist to my knowledge. Leaving these details aside, I believe that this book should be always double checked with a more reliable source. Unfortunately, there aren't many serious studies on the subject post-1996 (to the best of knowledge). But this book wasn't the source on the info on Secicar's death.

Dragos03, Denes is a moderator only in the ARR part of the forum, where his knoweledge on the subject is superior to most of us here, not also in other sections as well. He is practically similar to the hosts on AHF several years ago.

This is quite funny... If you compare this to Corvinus library "machine", the above mention book is just a scent... - just an observation...

Any answer to my above question regarding the Germans?

This post has been edited by johnny_bi on June 19, 2005 02:00 pm

Hi Imperialst,

As a a matter of interest, how does your reference to a poltical book on a political subject address, let alone contradict, my point about the yawning gap over 1941-44 in the Romanian military historiography of the Communist period before the 1980s?

In a few days I will give you a short book list from my own shelves giving some examples of the yawning gap in the military historiography of Romania between 1941 and 1944 that ocurred in the Communist era.

I am rather surprised you haven't noticed it before.

Cheers,

Sid.

There were indeed some interpretable phrasings in some posts, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that they were extremist, chauvinistic or xenophobic. A little nationalistic maybe. There was no invitation to hate, just a listing of some facts, with sometimes debatable sources. There is a little nationalist residing in all of us. This is why such discussions should be handled with calm.

Actually the question was not for me, but... Regarding those "situations" that involved killings of "others" nationality in Transylvania, one can find many witnesses today... As I have said I have talked to such witnesses myself. Those witnesses have no hardfeelings against one or another...

I ask myself if such witnesses tell their story, would they be called as "nationalist"?

This post has been edited by johnny_bi on June 19, 2005 02:10 pm

Its not a political book!!!!!
Its very much military history, only that the political-diplomatic context is mentioned, and thats where the politics comes in.
The rest of it is listings of Army groups strengths, maps, analysis etc.
Its a military history book. It contradicts you.

take care

There were indeed some interpretable phrasings in some posts, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that they were extremist, chauvinistic or xenophobic. A little nationalistic maybe. There was no invitation to hate, just a listing of some facts, with sometimes debatable sources.

By listing similarly looking barbaric incidents from the Middle Ages, then 1940, 1956 and 1989 - reportedly done in cold blood by Hungarians - and pointing out that such a barbaric 'culture' pertinent to the Hungarians existed all along (and presumably still exists and will ever exist), and implying some sort of pattern typical to the Hungarian people, in my eyes fully fits the adjectives I listed: extremist, xenofobic and chauvinistic.

If one is "little nationalistic", then he/she should present the qualitites of his/her own people and not try to denigrate or villify other people. Once this is done, IMO nationalism turns into chauvinism. Lately, this has happened on this very forum, hence my upset and call for moderation, for the sake of this forum I fully enjoy.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on June 19, 2005 02:28 pm

I repeat: there was nothing extremist, xenofobic or chauvinistic in my posts. I only wrote about the Treznea incident and simply told Sid that, if horrible things happened at Treznea, it is possible that they also happended in other places. I didn't say the pilot was skinned, i only said that it's possible. Also, i am not the one who wrote about the incidents from the Middle Ages or 1989, nor did i imply that the Hungarians are a barbaric culture.

Yet, i was insulted (being the only one quoted in Denes's original post). Now i am insulted again with the same adjectives. The forum rules are for all, including moderators. So, if Denes doesn't apologise (or gets a warning), i will quit this forum.

My point, exactly.

The book of Mr. Chereches, In cautarea eroilor (Looking for Heroes), which gives the fullest account of the incident - as seen by the author - and the most probable source for the story repeated later on, mentions that the old lady was executed on spot by a Hungarian soldier.
I'll return to this book and Secicar's case later on.

Very well said. I couldn't have said it better myself.

My point, exactly.

Questioning my co-moderator status and linking it to my alleged faulty personal character, IMO amounts to a clear personal attack. However, I don't ask for an apology or the issue of a warning to the perpetrator, as I see no point for doing this and, moreover, I am used to be targeted by certain individuals.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on June 19, 2005 03:00 pm

Even without getting into the details of this book (I don't have it handy anyway), it's enough to observe that it was published by Editura Politica (not even by Editura Militara - a much more appropriate publishing forum for such a work that pretends to be a history book), in 1985, at the height of Ceausescu's national-communist regime. This detail alone would classify the book as a politically loaded one, published under strict supervision of Communist apparatchicks, thus clearly having a political goal, so it could be dismissed as a historically reliable secondary source by anyone genuinely interested in history.

Gen. Dénes

These are your only arguments?? I can’t believe my eyes. Seeing how vocal you were against this book I’ve expected to see entire list of reasons - or at least some credible ones - to be put forward. With what you have, you are wasting everybody’s time. I expected some arguments from within the book, dealing with the way the documentation was done and the sources were used, and you come with nothing. You tell us that you have red the book in 1985 and you use your recollections to make assertions about it. Let me ask you, how old were you in 1985 and which was your level of historical expertise back then?

Apparently you have failed to see what my point was in making the difference between the conclusions of a book (aka the propaganda message, in this case) and the facts documented. Even I have more arguments against “Teroarea horthysto-fascista…” that you presented here, but they are entirely insufficient for it’s dismissal as a secondary source and more than that - have nothing to do with the quality of the primary sources used. The authors - Ardeleanu and Musat - were professional historians, although close to the Communist Party line, so that’s why the entire part of the conclusions should be dismisses from the beginning. Probably the most compromising for the book is it’s title.

PS: for those of you too young, or who left Romania for a long time, or who’ve never seen a totalitarian regime from inside, you should do some research about how the censorship worhed and how a book needed to look like to be given the green light for the print. This could give you some hints about how a book published in that period should be revised (this sounds for Victor too). And Denes, maybe you should do a little more documented research about the Romanian communism before uncritically accrediting clichés like “national-communist regime”. We could rather speak of national-communist rhetoric of the regime. For your info I was in Romania that time, quite able to realize what was going around (from my age point of view) and now the study of those realties is not far from my field of expertise.

This post has been edited by Agarici on June 19, 2005 03:11 pm

There were indeed some interpretable phrasings in some posts, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that they were extremist, chauvinistic or xenophobic. A little nationalistic maybe. There was no invitation to hate, just a listing of some facts, with sometimes debatable sources.

By listing similarly looking barbaric incidents from the Middle Ages, then 1940, 1956 and 1989 - reportedly done in cold blood by Hungarians - and pointing out that such a barbaric 'culture' pertinent to the Hungarians existed all along (and presumably still exists and will ever exist), and implying some sort of pattern typical to the Hungarian people, in my eyes fully fits the adjectives I listed: extremist, xenofobic and chauvinistic.

If one is "little nationalistic", then he/she should present the qualitites of his/her own people and not try to denigrate or villify other people. Once this is done, IMO nationalism turns into chauvinism. Lately, this has happened on this very forum, hence my upset and call for moderation, for the sake of this forum I fully enjoy.

Gen. Dénes

Mr. Denes, your appreciation of the facts is irrelevant for me, since in this matter I find you far from being objective. What you presented here is what you think I was trying to imply, and you are wrong with your guess. You could be right only if the facts presented by me wouldn’t have been real, but unfortunately they were, from what I know. You reiterate, again and again, the same pattern of thinking which say “if you bring forward the crimes committed in the past and if they are the product of the members of one community you have something against that community, so you should keep quiet”. I’m quite tired of this so-called argument, it is illogical and leading nowhere. I will not be able to change your mentality. If some conclusions are drawn from the facts mentioned by me towards any kind of responsibility or guilt for the contemporary Hungarians, these belong to you and not to me. But let me tell you this is quite far from what the mind set of a professional historian should be, in my opinion.

And now I will explain that one more time: Sid dismissed the story of the (German ethnic) IAR 80 pilot downed and then skinned alive by the Hungarian locals on two accounts:
- the lack of sources
- the idea that such an event would be implausible up to impossible to happen in modern times unless “a subculture of such facts existed”.

While he was right in both his objections, I suggested with facts that such a subculture could have existed. And culture/subculture, as social science concepts, have little or nothing to do (and in any case do not equal) with genes and innate/inherited treats. I did not come with sources in my first post because the facts were common knowledge and too widely debated to be considered uncertain. So if you have arguments to say that those events didn’t take place please bring them forward. I will not answer to any other general comments, because as I’ve already said this is leading nowhere. And from now on please send your offensive observations about me being racist, xenophobe and chauvinist via PM, it’s not necessary to be (repeatedly) rude in public.

EDIT: In what I’m concerned I also reject the epithet “nationalist”, generously granted by the moderators - but without pointing out to anybody. If you read what I said and correctly understand the concepts used, there are no premises for such a conclusion. And since this is a personal remark and you don’t know me in person you are deprived of that argument too.

This post has been edited by Agarici on June 19, 2005 04:24 pm