Romanian & Hungarian war-crimes

According to the description of eye-witness Ciro Spontoni (related in the May 2005 issue of Magazin Istoric) Baba Novac and his priest were slowly burned at the stake, not skinned alive. They died following an extreme torment of one and a half hours. Afterwards, Baba Novac's body was impaled outside the city walls, near the Taylors' Tower.

According to mr. Antoniu, Franz Secicar hid away for a few days before being captured. He and the old lady that hid him were taken to be executed, but it seems tehrewas a change of plans and he was hanged upside down from a tree and skinned. The old lady was set free after being forced to watch this and she was the one that came later with other villagers to cut him down and bury him.

The author recorded teh story from three different sources: cdor. av. Fotescu Constantin, adj. av. Bouru Alexandru and adj. av. Lazar Victor.

Wether this story is true or false, we might never find out for sure. Sadism doesn't take in to account ethnical background. There are sick people in every nation and in times of war many come out in the light.

I think you're overreacting.
Also, 60 or 70 years ago large number of people were turned into soap, or thats what we've learned. One could say thats even worse than the Middle Ages.
So why would it be so far-fetched?

During the collectivization of agriculture in the late `50s, the people in the village Flamanzi revolted against the local communist apparatus and beheaded every communist official in the village. The result? The village is now destroyed, most of its former residents were either deported in the south or placed in prisons...

Another example, from Africa....

Economist: "Even by the standards of war, some of the atrocities in eastern Congo are shocking. Zainabo Alfani, for example, was stopped by men in uniform on a road in Ituri last year. She and 13 other women were ordered to strip, to see if they had long vaginal lips, which the gunmen believed would have magical properties. The 13 others did not, and were killed on the spot. Zainabo did. The gunmen cut them off and then gang-raped her. Then they cooked and ate her two daughters in front of her. They also ate chunks of Zainabo's flesh. She escaped, but had contracted HIV. She told her story to the UN in February, and died in March." http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayS...tory_id=4054895

What is your source ?

One of our professors, Dragos Petrescu, the director of IRIR (Romanian Institute of Recent History), told us that story. He said that the most important part of the story is still in hiding in the archives of the Securitate, but from some witness reports, some inner documents of the Party and an important testimony of an ex-Securitate colonel (unfortunately "off-topic" in journalistic slang, therefore he was unable to get his version printed) they were able to get much of the truth. Nowadays, few people even remember of the whole affair and informations are scarce (mainly because the story would make us seem like barbarians).

I think that the info can be found in some books about the period, but unfortunately I am not familiar with even one...

Edit: by destroyed, I don't mean that the village doesn't exist anymore (it very much exists). But a lot of its former denizens were "evicted" from it... But the battle spirit of Flamanzi won't ever die!

This post has been edited by Alexandru H. on June 16, 2005 09:59 pm

Hi Victor,

I would suggest that while Mr. Antoniu may have heard the same story from three different individuals, as all are aviators it is likely that their source was the same one. Does he say if any of them were personal witnesses? If not, do we know how many intervening links there are in the chain of reportage between witnesses and them?

I would suggest that if it cannot be ascertained with any certainty whether this story is true or false, it should only be repeated with the severest of qualifications.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Imperialist,

The story of large numbers of Jews being turned into soap is largely an urban myth. However, it is apparently true that Himmler was once presented with a lamp shade made of skin from Jewish corpses. He was reportedly disgusted.

However, leaving that aside, there is a very large gulf in credibility between stories of what went on in the extermination camps and what allegedly happened in this instance. The amount of primary witnesses, physical and documentary material attesting to what happened in the concentration camps is overwhelming. However, in this case primary witnesses, physical and documentary material appears to be entirely lacking.

I have no problem with this story being repeated if it is demonstrably true. However, it would not appear to be demonstrably true on the evidence we have so far. That being so, it cannot be presented as a hard fact.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Alexandru H.,

A consistent feature of conspiracy theories is that the "authorities" are hiding something in the archives (in this case those of the Securitate). (See Feldgrau for threads on Oradour and Shingle Street, where some people claim that French and British archives contain material that the authorities are deliberately holding back, but for which they can provide absolutely no evidence).

In these instances the stories should only be reported with warnings that they are unconfirmed. Had Dragos not asked you a question, we might have been led to believe the Flamanzi story as you originally reported it, rather than with the qualifications you gave in reply to him.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In short, I would suggest that we should not be too ready to accept things as fact without good evidence, and we should not repeat them without qualification.

Cheers,

Sid.

Sid, no offense intended, and in a peaceful tone, I just wonder what if ever will satisfy you.

Let me give you an example:

In the notes section, at number 13, we find:

source: Mária Gál, Attila Gajdos Balogh, Ferenc Imreh; "The White Book. Atrocities Against Hungarians in the Autumn of 1944"; KOLOZSVÁR, 1995; pg.46

Obviously, I too can challenge that "record" for being biased and unclear. Who wrote it, how many witnesses, how many intervening links, etc. Plus the conflict of interest of it being compiled for the Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

In this way, apart from the large scale massacres in history, the rest of the atrocities in this world are "unreliably referenced".

This post has been edited by Imperialist on June 17, 2005 11:26 am

The Flamanzi episode is quite real. I've heard it about two years ago, and last summer, when I went into Bucovina, I passed through Botosani and had the chance to ask some of the locals about it. While the normal number of morons were present, some of the others confirmed parts of it. You should know that the village was the original starting point for the last great peasant uprising in Europe, the 1907 debacle, and even in this day the villagers are fighting bitterly with the state autorities for the control of Dracsani pond.

Now, I don't want to seem like a conspirator, but the one that originally told me this story runs a very important historical institution that deals with the communist era. And since most of our archives are still closed from the general public, the little bits of informations we get doesn't seem reliable enough...

About the problem of the stuff hidden by the state in the archives: some months ago i went to the archives of the Romanian Army General Staff in Bucharest. I was very surprised to find out that many documents are still classified, including many dossiers from WW2 and even files from WW1 and before.

I don't know what WW1 secrets they're hiding but the procedure if you want to find out is very complicated. One has to write a long letter with his motives and present his arguments to a large commision in charge of acces to these files.

So, if Romania still has so many secrets, i'm sure that Britain and France have many more.

For a Hungarian war crime (attested by all the survivors from the village, including the Hungarian ethnics) see this: The Treznea massacre
As you can see in the thread, Denes still dismissed this crime because one of his books said otherwise. So, every crime is disputed, no matter how many first-hand accounts you get.

I think we should return to the original topic.

You should not use your ignorance for denial. If you want to know the truth you should start searching for yourself instead of dismissing everything that does not fit to your view of the world.

The name of the priest was Aurel Munteanu (protopop, that is a rank in the Orthodox Church hierarchy) and that of the civil guard Gheorghe Nicolae, and his brutal killing is pretty much common knowledge in Romania. There are more than 5 books (in Romanian) and numerous articles which mention the fact. It generated a big scandal in the contemporary press (Romanian and international), Romanian diplomacy protested at to the Hungarian authorities and eventually the criminals were brought in front of the Hungarian justice for this crime. Today in Huedin there is a street named Protopop Aurel Munteanu.

The books I mentioned present the whole range of excesses and abuses which occurred after the 1940 annexation of North-Western Transylvania, which are also rather common knowledge. And when I say abuses I mean almost anything you can imagine, from forced expulsion and expropriation to randomly killing civilians, pregnant women (with the bayonet), pulling out nails, torturing and beating to death, burning alive... The books are well documented and use multiple contemporary sources and archives documents; although some of them are faulted from the writing style/conclusion point of view, being conceived as a response to the Hungarian nationalistic propaganda.

The 1989 episode is also common knowledge for the people who lived in (were in contact with) Romania in these years. I’ve read it in the newspaper, as I told you. The facts were everywhere in the media, the situation analyzed, a parliamentary commission instituted and its report published. The perpetrators were convicted and then pardoned by the president (Iliescu, at that time). So come to Romania, learn the language and start studying the archives.

For the atrocities occurred during 1956 revolution, I’ve read this in a book, in my first or second year of faculty, and I was quite shocked. I don’t remember what book it was but it surely did not seem to be garbage, plus I found it in an American cultural center (I don’t know if this could/should be an argument). It is true that it was the only time when I red such a thing related to the Hungarian revolution, but than again this event was not of major interest to me.

I have a question for you, but I don’t want you to give me an answer, just give it to yourself: if I’ve described, in a much more detailed manner but without giving the sources, crimes against Jews, would you reaction have been the same, saying that I incite to Ethnic hatred? Or in your pattern of thinking it would have been better not to be aware/to ignore outrageous and painful realities like the Holocaust was, in order to keeping the people happy and not allowing them to hate each other?

In my previous reply I gave an answer to the question you asked. Here I want to say something about the style you use. I find your post rude, offensive and your personal remarks completely unwelcome; I’m insulted by your innuendos that I incite to ethnic hatred and I expect you to apologize.

Now a few subjective remarks: the inflation of your posts, on every subject, started to be annoying for me; not because you have to say something about everything, but because in most of the cases the background of what you say is nothing more then your willingness to have a saying in everything. As I said this is a subjective perception, which I did not express until you started making personal remarks. But what is most disturbing in your stile is your condescending and patronizing attitude, lecturing everybody. In almost any of your posts there is a line where someone is told what he/she should do or think. Moreover, you often try to impose your own subjective views, which I think is at least ridiculous. An example is what happened when you implied that Indrid was not at all useful around here. First of all this was another denial based on ignorance: you did not know what he posted, so you wisely decided he was rather a burden than an asset. After you said that (rude how it was, but it was your subjective opinion) people learned what you think and many of them, one after another, started saying good things about Indrid - their subjective opinions. But you didn’t let go and reasserted what you have said, on and on, trying to convince them that your opinion is the true one and the best. The same thing in the thread about the gay parade: if you didn't get it until now, I’m telling you that some people around here (including me) do not love that particular lifestyle. But you are a man with a mission; you insist and go on lecturing them until they will step on the right path. What’s the point? In Romania the gays have legal rights (only making proselytes is banned by the law, but as we could see that law is not applied) and nobody in here said something against them or suggested anything about interdictions, penalties, persecutions. Some only said that this lifestyle is not normal in itself, and in my opinion it desn’t take more than common sense to be able to see that. And personally I find the politically correctness-type, sophistical assertions of the type “what is not socially injurious is normal” offending to my common sense and intelligence. One thing is to ban/allow an activity legally, and another to preach its normality. Most of the psychical affections, for example, are not injurious for society, nor is the ridicule. I don’t want to waste my time with this kind of discussions, but I don't welcome anybody to push its version to the limit against the opinions/options/moral choices of the others.

In the end a suggestion, if I may: people around here (around being related not only with this site/forum, but also with the country/part of the world) does not like too much to be told what to do. Neither they like the pre-chewed, ready-to-go ideologies or pseudo-ideologies. One of the things people learned during the communism (but which they could practice only after its fall) is to look in a critical way to any ideological statement (like the one that say that if you don’t like the gay sexual preferences or you don’t consider it normal, you’re to blame - and it’s like you don’t like colored people). And this apply to a upside-down ideology like the politically correctness one too. I only speak for myself but I also I think people on this forum don’t like being patronized, neither an aggressive or arrogant stile of interaction, concealed by a few “please”, “should” or “cheers”. So in my opinion a change of attitude is badly needed from you… By the way, how many things do you know about Romania or about this part of Europe (except its place on the map), to act so self-sufficient?

This post has been edited by Agarici on June 17, 2005 11:06 pm

Agarici, this kind of more personal dicussions should be handled via PM, not in public. Its is also off-topic.

Victor, this kind of message is not for PM use, because it is not only intended for Sid's eyes, but for our approval as well. And all I can say is... Two thumbs up, Agarici! Your post really covered everything... I'm kinda of jealous now...

It is also not off-topic, because Sid's interventions pretty much decided the last page of this thread.

I don't even know why Sid insisted we bring forward proofs for this one, as the 1956 events are well too documented by now. Sid, read Silviu Brucan, who went with Gheorghe Gheorghiu Dej in Budapest immediately after the events and saw the secret agents.

Hi Agarici,

You misrepresent my position.

I have no reason to dispute the Flamanza episode. I was questioning internal contradictions in your two consecutive descriptions of the same incident. If the thread had stopped after your first post on Flamanza, we would have a rather different impression than we have now.

My point was about methodology and presentation and applies generally, not just to Romanian history.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Imperialist,

Yes, one should always challenge something when the record is unclear. One should also make the necessary qualifications when one repeats something of less than solid origin.

Yes, you can challenge the particular incident you gave on all those grounds, but at least the description is accompanied by a hard copy source for you to begin following up. Where does one start with the skinning incident?

I have here a copy of "Horthyist-Fascist Terror in Northwestern Romania, September 1940 - October 1944" (Meridiane, Bucharest, 1986), which I bought in a Dutch bookshop about fifteen years ago. It is full of stories about Hungarian brutality and killing of Romanians, all of which are footnoted and sourced. Whether the sourcing is accurate or not I cannot say, but they do leave a trail by which the incidents reported can be checked.

However, the book (which does not go lightly in its accusations and is, I imagine, regarded by some as black propaganda) contains no reference to the skinning of the Romanian airman, nor does it seem to contain any reference to any other accusation of skinning.

I have no reason to doubt the death of the Romanian airman. I also consider it perfectly possible that he was beaten to death and strung up by a mob because this is recorded as happening in several other countries. However, I do question the skinning story, as there is apparently no hard, or even circumstantial, evidence that this occurred. At the moment it has no more weight than a rumour, and as such should only be repeated with qualifications to this effect.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Dragos03,

We have about 1,000 closed files in the British National Archives, the oldest of which apparently go back to about 1910.

They fall into two categories. The subject of the contents of the great majority of them are known, it is just the actual contents that are not. However, there are a minority about which neither the subject, nor the contents are known. In neither case does anyone know whether the contents are incriminating or not.

In some case the files are clearly not incriminating and have merely not been released because nobody had previously asked for them. In my researches about five years ago I inadvertently ordered one of the closed files. The subject was secret British intelligence reports of Hungarian (and some Romanian) troop movements in 1944-45. I was told it was closed, but that on review it would be released to me as they could see no reason why it should have been retained. It appeared to contain Enigma decrypts from German sources.

I have details of the Traznea incident: It occurred on 9 September 1940. According to one source 263 Romanians were reported killed and the bodies of 68 were identified. Another source states that 87 were killed. The sources can apparently be found the Romanian State Archives, Bucharest, Collection Presedintia Consiliului de Ministri, Cabinet file 125/1940, pp.63-87 and in the Archiva M.I., Fond Documentar, file No.10, volume 16, p.217, amongst others.

So Traznea seems to be well documented. The skinning incident doesn't. That being so, they cannot both be given equal credibility and the latter should only be repeated with qualifications.

Cheers,

Sid.