Holocaust in Romania? (7)

Annex 3

A “Voice” from the Public
Barbul Bronstein (Sinaia) :

In light of the publication in your journal of the protest addressed by Senators Alfonse D’Amato and Christopher Smith to President Emil Constantinescu, concerning their disapproval of the posthumous rehabilitation of certain members of the Antonescu government, I feel it is my obligation to make the following statement:
“My name is Barbul Bronstein, I was born and live as a Romanian in this nation – third generation – I am now 73 years old and I can tell you, without any fear of mistakes, that I, along with a great number of my religious brethren, however many remain, as well as with their descendents, with whom I have the occasion to meet and speak and remember about our lives during those past years as well as the difficult times which affected most the entire globe, we now more clearly appreciate that, in light of all that has occurred in the last half-century, that the greatest mistake and historical injustice are made by labeling Ion Antonescu a fascist, Legionnaire, extremist, a man who led Judaism in Romania to extinction. I do not know what source of information has the Congressional Senators, on which they based their affirmations made to President Constantinescu, but I do know that it is a complete exaggeration as well as inexact…
We would have expected and received with sympathy and understanding any intervention of behalf of the above-mentioned senators concerning to quicken the action of authorized parties, to cast light and vigorously reveal the truth and those guilty in connection with the communist repression and genocide committed in Romania during the last half of the aptly-named Red Century, not to mention the human rights, rights of minorities, property rights… Those who lived in Romania, before of during the war and unfortunately after it, no longer wish to accept the communist theory of a massacre of Jews during the war, particularly the aberrant figures that have been released like soap balloons and which contradict each other. Do the senators know of the testament left in 1957 by Wilhelm Fildermam, President of Jewish Communities in Romania during the war and until run from the nation by communists, a person most qualified to treat this problem?…”
From “Romania Libera, 11.12.1997”

Annex 4

A Letter to the American Senate

Esteemed Mr. President of the American Senate
Esteemed Members of the American Senate

At the beginning of June (1998), a public debate on the Jewish situation in Romania in the period 1940–1944 took place in Bucharest. A large number of those who investigate this problem participated at this reunion. Among them was also Mr. Radu Ioanid, Director of the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. Mr. Ioanid drew the attention of those present to the fact that the U.S. Senate is directly implicated in the foundation of this museum and in its program of activities and investigations. Of course, this event becomes for the Romanian public and Romanian historians a guarantee of the seriousness of this scientific institute, of the humane and professional qualities of the personnel who operates the Holocaust Museum. The Holocaust Museum evidently has a unique role for the future of our planet, therefore none of us are interested in compromising or devaluing the intentions for which the U.S. Senate decided to found this important museum.
I write you, Messrs. Senators, considering it to be my responsibility to alert you of the shameful, demoralizing and dishonorable actions committed by Mr. Radu Ioanid in Bucharest. His declarations about the subject of discussion were profoundly disappointing due to their lack of honesty and respect for the truth. Rarely have I encountered such a lack of research and correctness at a meeting of historians and scientists, with this lack being manifested repeatedly by the same individual, i.e. Mr. Radu Ioanid. Esteemed Messrs. Senators, it is important for you to know that the deontological poor level of the “historian” Radu Ioanid created a state of confusion among the participants in respect to the role of the U.S. Senate in the functions of the Holocaust Museum. I ask if the U.S. Senate, which offers a moral guarantee and a material support for this museum, is not somehow interested in this museum serving only the truth and not, through lies, the mercantile interests of a group?
The manner in which Mr. Radu Ioanid presented his position on the history of events in Romania from 1940–1944, and especially the manner in which he responded to objections raised by several participants at the above-mentioned debate, clearly revealed that the Holocaust Museum in Washington, either by the omission of presenting information or by the presentation of absolutely false information to its visitors, has deviated gravely from the mission assigned to it by the U.S. Senate.
As you probably know, Honorable Sirs, at the Holocaust Museum the Romanian authorities are blamed for the murder of 400,000 Jews. This grave accusation has been rejected by Romanian historians, whose arguments and proof are in any case systematically ignored. This includes Mr. Radu Ioanid who, at the meeting in Bucharest, refused to respond to those questions and objections which reveal and, in part, demonstrate the lack of foundation for the accusations of genocide brought against the Romanian authorities. Among others, Radu Ioanid refused to recognize the value, as a historical document, of the declaration made in 1946 by the President of the Federation of Jewish Communities in Romania, Mr. Wilhelm Filderman, jurist. His declaration states, “in not one other nation dominated by Nazis did such a large proportion of the Jewish population survive as in Romania.” This declaration was repeated by Mr. Filderman in 1957 at the International Congress of Statistics at Stockholm and represents the most authorized account of the fate of Romanian Jews from 1940–1944. For us Romanians it is inexplicable why such important historical documents are ignored or hidden at the Holocaust Museum.
On that same occasion we were all very surprised and even shocked to learn from Radu Ioanid that the Holocaust Museum is not interested to find out how many Jews died in the Soviet Union or because of Soviet authorities between 1940–1945! It is difficult for us under these conditions to understand which is the rationale for the existence of the Museum. In any case, it was impossible for us to find out from Radu Ioanid.
We remain at your disposition with the details concerning the accusations that I make against Radu Ioanid, and implicitly, the Holocaust Museum. I hereby state that I can conclusively present the evidence of which I speak in the presence of Radu Ioanid, if he has nothing against it.
Because the falsehoods spread by Radu Ioanid throughout an organization created by the U.S. Senate concerns a nation – Romania and a people – the Romanian People, I am convinced that the U.S. Senate, as a representative institution of the American People and American State, will not think twice about returning the complete truth with the utmost speed and urgency. I place myself at the disposition of those who will judge in order to state the reasons that oblige me to contest the correctness and honesty of Radu Ioanid and, implicitly, that of certain affirmations made at the Holocaust Museum under the high patronage of the U.S. Senate.

With My Deepest Gratitude,

Prof. Ion Coja, former Romanian Senator

Bucharest, 4 July 1998

Annex 5

Selections from the Declarations of Marshall Ion Antonescu at the meeting of December 4, 1941, held at Chisinau, on the Report Presented in connection with the “Irregularities Discovered At the Chisinau Ghetto”

“Marshall Ion Antonescu, Head of State:
Sirs, you have seen why I have brought you here: It has been the greatest deception – I can tell you – of my career, for that which has occurred to take place under my regime, and for my regime to be speckled by a few malefactors. (…) If I had been there, this foulness would not have occurred, which is not only a stain on you, General Voiculescu, but it stains me as well, and the entire Romanian Homeland. In foreign nations they now take advantage of this example. The propaganda of our enemies has as its base this attitude of ours toward Jews (emphasis added).
When I make an effort to lift the Romanian People up where it is necessary I appreciate being helped. Now there is no alternative but for the guilty to be found and punished accordingly and without hesitation. To cover up this incident would mean to stand in solidarity with wrongdoing and I do not subscribe to such behavior.
Therefore, I have called you here together with the Minister of Justice to come to a resolution for the naming of judicial commissions, which will work with urgency. You must appraise the instructions you will give so that the truth comes out.
I have been told from Bukovina by General Calotescu that he was forced to close his eyes, because an officer decorated with the “Mihai Viteazu” (translator’s note: a high military honor) was among the guilty. This does not interest me! The higher is the moral profile of a person, the higher is his guilt! So I shall do as I said yesterday: the cavaliers of the Order “Mihai Viteazu” who commit such dishonorable acts lose the right to continue wearing this decoration. In Romania a scoundrel cannot be a cavalier of this Order. If he becomes a scoundrel, this means that he also stole the decoration, and therefore he is not capable, as one with such a petty soul, as a person who exploits human misery, to continue to wear the highest of decorations.
(…) I, when I took measures against the Jews, did not take them against the individual, but against the collective, which preyed upon the Romanian People. I defend the nation. The Jewish Collective must pay and the business must be orderly. As I said in the month of July: everything must be prepared in Transnistria and these people must be treated as people. (…)
I demand this from you, esteemed Minister of Justice and Esteemed Head of the Military Judiciary and National Bank, find a method for the Romanian Nation to enter in possession of the gold which was in the hands of the Jews. This gold was not won through work, but from two heists committed in two years, in 1940 against the Romanian population (emphasis added), when this population, composed of officials and native-born Romanians, was robbed. (…) The second theft was committed by Jews when we entered Chisinau. Chisinau was burnt in order to be looted. Otherwise, we would have saved it like Cernauti. Under cover of panic the greatest looting took place: Jews looting Jews, Jews looting Christians, so that the gold found in their possession (editor’s note: in the possession of the Jews of Chisinau) was also gold stolen from the Romanian People.
When I decided to seize this gold and to place it in the possession of the state, I understood that I seized an object that did not appertain to the Jews. I decided to take it for the state, and the sole National Bank must come to possess it. (…)
I desire a magistrate, a man who will not make one concession, a man who will not work only on the surface, but in depth. And because there are soldiers involved, Esteemed Head of the Military Judiciary, take rigorous measures. This must not drag on for years, public opinion sees that we imprison all the prowlers while the major transgressors, who stole hundreds of millions, are loose on the street. Public opinion would ascribe this to inaction on my part. (…)
It is one thing to seize gold in an organized fashion, it is entirely another to take it in a disorderly manner. There follows the second operation, in which Jews receive money in return (emphasis added). I respect the properties and assets of everyone. I respect this in the form of the compensation that I will make. (…)
I have forewarned you that I intend to send the Jews to the Bug (emphasis added). Instead of eating bread from the Romanian Motherland, better to eat it from there. I have told you to organize so that the execution can be perfect. The operation began in November. We, from August to November, have had three months and we have organized it as we have organized it. It is the same problem as well in Bukovina.” (from Anatol Petrencu, In serviciul zeitei Clio, Chisinau, 2001, p. 242)


Commentary: Evidently, the intervention of General Ion Antonescu does not resemble the accusation exhibited in the Courtyard of Lies as by that date (December 4, 1941) there would have been 200,000 Jews already maliciously murdered. The focus of the meting was precisely this: the abuses of the army and Romanian authorities toward Jews. These abuses from which “profit is made in foreign nations” as stated by the Head of the Romanian State. Therefore, the foreign groups at that time produced documents (of chancelleries, of the press, etc.), “profited” from this subject: the treatment of Jews under Romanian authorities. The War Propaganda of the Allies was directly interested, and had the required ability to uncover and reveal the crimes and evils of the Axis, to which Romania also belonged. And Antonescu himself proved to be particularly worried about not providing water for the propaganda mill.
We ask: why have the documents resulting from the action of “profiting” from that which occurred in Bessarabia and Transnistria not been placed in circulation by those who maintain that by December of 1941, 260,000 Jews had been “maliciously slain by Romanians” (and Germans)?
Our response: such documents cannot be placed in circulation because they do not exist, and they do not exist because the respective facts, the murder of 260,000 Jews, is the post-war invention of Judeo-communists.
The abuses which Antonescu did not hesitate to vehemently accuse subordinates of were abuses committed against ordinary criminals, against persons who perpetrated the looting of civilians found in a crisis, as in June–July of 1940, as well as later, in June of 1941, when Jewish criminals did not hesitate to steal from other Jews (“the second theft committed by Jews: Jews looting Jews, Jews looting Christians”). The historiography of the holocaust does not speak one word about these Jewish crimes, or about the crimes in general committed by (certain) Jews in Bessarabia. In a way this reticence to mention and discuss one of the most shameful chapters in Jewish history is understandable. But this shame (and barefacedness) becomes greater when these same criminals are transformed into martyrs, into the innocent victims of Romanian anti-Semitism, an invented anti-Semitism, as any “anti-Semitism” manifested was only a reaction to the irresponsible and insufferable provocations of a very real anti-Romanian terrorism and of Judeo-communist sources extremely active after 1918 (see also Annex 10)

Annex VI


Against the Defamation of the Romanian State
Through the Accusation of Genocide

– project –

Art. 1 (1) Pogroms, genocide and holocausts are crimes against humanity of the greatest gravity.
(2) For pogroms, genocide and holocausts there can be no extenuating circumstances (none can ever be considered), nor is there a statute of limitations.
Art. 2 (1) Those actions and activities which are against certain persons or groups of persons exclusively for their ethnic, national, racial or religious affiliation, whose scope is the physical disappearance of those respective communities from Romania and which provoke or result in the provocation of the death of members from those respective communities, are considered to be a pogrom, genocide or holocaust (hereby referred to as acts of genocide).
(2) The accusation of genocide brought against the Romanian authorities with the rank of head of government or head of state, constitutes an accusation against the Romanian State.
(3) The Romanian State is guilty of acts of genocide to the degree that the respective acts were committed by order of a government leader or the head of the Romanian State currently in office.
(4) The accusation of genocide brought against persons other than these mentioned in the preceding paragraph is of a private, individual or personal character which does not place any responsibility upon the Romanian State, but only those legal and penal sanctions applicable to the respective persons.
(5) The accusation of genocide cannot be brought in an impersonal manner against Romanians or the Romanian People in general.
(6) The accusation of genocide cannot be brought against the Romanian State unless the conditions described in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this article are met.
Art. 3 (1) Before being made public, the accusation of genocide brought against the Romanian State must be sustained with sufficient evidence, presented in advance to specialists and accepted by them as sufficient and conclusive evidence that warrants an accusation of genocide.
(2) These specialists mentioned in the pervious paragraph are:
– The International Court of Justice at Hague or the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg;
– The Romanian Academy;
– The equivalent academy or institute from the state in which there is a majority population with the same ethnic or religious status as those presumed to be victims of the purported genocide.
(3) If the presumed victims of genocidal acts belong to an ethnic or religious community that does not exist as a majority group in any state, the Court at Hague will decide which academic authority, from nation other than Romania or the Republic of Moldova, shall render its opinion about the validity of the evidence of genocide.
Art. 4 (1) In order to be accepted, the evidence which sustains an accusation of genocide against the Romanian State must present:
a. the premeditative character of the acts considered to be acts of genocide;
b. the intentions of the authorities corresponding to Art.2 paragraphs 2 and 3, that the prescribed actions or activities provoked the death of persons affected by the implementation of the respective actions;
c. the implementation of these actions conforming to a government decision, with the signature of a minister, head of government, or the head of the Romanian State, which explicitly and unequivocally details the desire of the signatory to provoke the death of persons exclusively identified on the basis of their ethnic, national, racial or religious affiliation;
d. the lack of any criminal guilt on the part of those affected by the action presumed to be an act of genocide.
Art. 5 (1) Those acts or activities committed during war, which meet the conditions of that which the laws and regulations of war accord under the title suppression of criminal acts committed in rear areas against Romanian soldiers and other Romanian citizens, are not considered acts of genocide.
(2) The organization, in times of war, of deportation or concentration camps for persons or groups suspected of disloyalty toward the Romanian State conform to the laws of war and do not in any way incriminate the Romanian State, but constitute a legitimate act of defense.
(3) The deportation and concentration in ad-hoc camps of all persons who belong to an ethnic, national or religious community living in Romania is not acceptable as a legitimate act of defense.
(4) The Romanian State does not bear responsibility for the surviving conditions in these deportation and concentration camps if one of the two following statements is true:
a. it has permitted persons subjected to this regimen to be supported, aided or assisted by the community to which they belong, under the conditions that the majority of persons from the respective community were not placed under the regimen of deportation and concentration;
b. they have accepted international aid and help for the persons involved.
(5) The Romanian State is responsible for the lives of those persons deported and concentrated in camps only under the conditions that more than half of the persons belonging to the respective ethnic or religious communities are placed under this regimen.
Art. 6 (1) Accusations of genocide addressed to the Romanian State and made public by deceased persons may be used as a bibliographical source, with documentary value, only with the condition that the respective accusations are proven to fulfill the conditions outlined in Articles 2, 4 and 5 of the present law.
Art. 7 (1) The accusation of genocide brought against the Romanian State is considered to be credible through the unanimous agreement of those institutions mentioned in Article 3 and hereby referred to as tribunals.
(2) The arguments for confirmation or rejection of the accusation of genocide are placed at public disposition, including all motivations which the respective tribunal considers necessary.
(3) In the case of a divergence of opinion, each tribunal is free to publicly discuss the motivations of the other tribunals.
(4) The solicitation and reception of the investigation by the three tribunals for the establishment of guilt is to be made by the accuser. The Romanian Government, at the solicitation of the accuser, will support the request for cooperation of the three tribunals.
(5) By this law, the Romanian Academy is obligated to respond to such solicitations, establishing through specific regulations the parties charged with the investigation of the evidence of genocide as noted by the accuser. The response of the Romanian Academy will be given within a period of not less than six months and not more than two years from the date of the deposition of documents by the accuser.
(6) The accuser may be a person or judicial body, Romanian or foreign.
Art. 8 (1) Persons or judicial bodies who, before the effective date of this law, have already made public accusations of genocide that thereby incriminate the Romanian State, are obligated within a year after the ratification of the law to produce evidence of genocide to the three aforementioned tribunals, explicitly detailing the public medium in which the accusation of genocide was formed and mediated.
(2) In the case that the evidence is not presented on time, or has been rejected by one of the three tribunals, the person who formulated and promoted the accusation of genocide is obliged to publicly ask forgiveness from the Romanian People and the Romanian State, to ask forgiveness for the disingenuousness of their grave accusations.
(3) The presentation of apology shall be made one month after the expiration of the term from the deposition of evidence or upon the receipt of a rejection of the accusation of genocide by one of the tribunals.
Art. 9 (1) The presentation of apology shall be made under conditions that assure a publicity at least triple than the one available to the announcement of the accusation of genocide.
(2) The Romanian Academy will approve the terms and form in which such a person presents their apology, and if necessary will stabilize the method of presentation of the apology: via the press, radio, TV, Internet, etc.
(3) The presentation of apology shall be paid for by the accuser and by the agent of dissemination which gave space for the publication of the slanderous accusations. In the case of total or partial inability of the above-mentioned parties to cover the costs of the dissemination of the apology, the Romanian State, through the Ministerul de Interne (Interior Ministry) will assure the dissemination of this apology according to the conditions established by the Romanian Academy, followed by recompense at a later date by those implicated in the case of expenditure for the dissemination.
Art. 10 (1) The refusal to present an apology to the Romanian State for the groundless accusation of genocide shall result in the confiscation of properties and expulsion from Romania, in the case of a Romanian citizen.
(2) If the libelous accuser is a foreign citizen or stateless, and refuses to present an apology to the Romanian People and State, this person will be declared persona non grata in the Romanian territory.
(3) A term of five years is accorded to those above-mentioned persons, starting from the date of application of penal sanctions, in order to present an apology to the Romanian People and State, and a year after the presentation of apology said person shall recover the suspended rights, less the confiscated properties.
Art. 11 (1) After the ratification of this law, the public proclamation of an accusation of genocide against the Romanian State, without respecting the statutes of this law, is considered an infraction and punishable by expulsion from the nation and confiscation of properties, as detailed in Article 10.
(2) The agent of the media which made possible the publication of the accusation of genocide, without respecting the statutes of this law, is considered to be in solidarity with the libelous accuser concerning the legal responsibility for their actions if, from the manner in which public dissemination was achieved, the libelous content of the disseminated message could be understood beforehand.
(3) The Ministerul de Interne (Interior Ministry) shall elaborate the instructions for application of this law, by which it shall establish in detail the procedures which the media are obligated to respect and apply, in order to avoid the dissemination, without their consent, of accusations of genocide against the Romanian People and State.
Art. 12 (1) The accusations of genocide about whom the tribunals have pronounced to be valid, may be disseminated without restriction.
(2) If, at a later date, these accusations are proven to be groundless, the authors of the accusation are not in violation of this law and shall suffer no punishment, with the condition that they do not repeat these accusations after the tribunals have reexamined their position.
(3) Any person may report to the tribunal the fact that they have erroneously appreciated the basis of accusations of genocide, asking them to reconsider their position.
Art. 13 (1) Each Romanian Embassy will have the obligation of registering and cataloguing every accusation of genocide against the Romanian State formulated in those respective nations.
(2) Foreign individuals or judicial bodies who have already made accusations of genocide against the Romanian State may be notified by the Ministerul de Externe (Foreign Ministry) of this law and shall be invited to publicly present the already-publicized accusations before the tribunals, in compliance with the statutes of Articles 4-5 of this legislation.
(3) To the solicitation of these foreign persons, the Romanian authorities will provide support for the collection of all necessary information, but only after the respective person clearly explains about the evidence upon which the accusation of genocide was based when he/she formulated the accusation.

Annex 7

The Letter of a Legionnaire to a Jewish Rabbi

Honorable Rabbi Dr. D. Safran,
I have read Cronica rebeliunii legionare (trans. The Chronicle of the Legionnaire Rebellion). The mystical visions of your book profoundly impressed me. I am also joyous of the fact that you have made the honest, open leap from communist to Zionism and democracy. More precisely, I would say: from atheism and hate, to God and love. And this is a big deal. This is all. From now on, we will understand each other.
Given the internal change, the conversion to internal light, I would not have published that which was written before 1954, before arriving in Israel, in the Fatherland, that is: again – under the umbrella of faith. Between the job of rabbi and the politics of hate and terror of communism, the distance is so astronomical, that there are no connecting points. Your book is as it is, and I wish to discuss its contents.
First, I note: the goodness of heart at which you have arrived through suffering and bitterness. In fact, this suits a rabbi, who makes the connection between God and man. Let him be good, forgiving, full of a perspective of eternity, of human divinity.
Second, I am immensely joyful for the fact that you have realized the great good which having a Homeland has brought to the Jew. Jews now have a home, here on Earth. They have something to defend with their blood, something to love with their hears, to wet with their tears, to rise to the highest level of nobility and cultural and spiritual creation.
That which I want to tell you, as a brother, is that I do not understand the title of the book: Rebeliunea legionara (The Legionnaire Rebellion). It only lasted from January 21–23, 1941. You alone state that during that time c. 140 Jews died in Bucharest, murdered by thieves who controlled the streets and profited from the battle between the Legionnaires and the troops of Marshall Antonescu. The rest of your book concerns the massacre at Yassy, which the Germans and Antonescu bathed in blood, where 12,000 Jews met their death. On that date, in June of 1941, the Legionnaires were no longer in power, nor even in the nation. They were at Buchenwald or at Rostock, in German captivity. Then why this title for your book?
Of course, the 140 Jewish lives at Bucharest are precious, they weigh heavily on the balance of destiny and heaven. As you love the truth, I believe that the information that I shall give you will help you and will explain.
I was in Bucharest on January 21, 1941. Destiny somehow wanted me in the middle of that maelstrom. I recall how we went at night with the Secretary of the Legionnaire Movement to the German Embassy, in order to demand certain explanations. And in the borough of Dudesti I ran into looters, Gypsies who were stealing items from stores. I stopped some of them from even lighting fire to houses. I screamed, I was revolted, I called the police. And from discussions with the malefactors, I heard something truly sensational: “Minister Riosanu sent us.” Then I understood what the Interior Minister Riosanu, not even a Legionnaire (he was a mason), the friend of Ica Antonescu and a great anglophile, even the agent of the Intelligence Service in the Balkans, had in connection with the depredations and fires in Dudesti. Later on I understood. Antonescu wanted the compromising on the Legionnaires with any price. How could they be compromised? As likely as not, with depredations, with fires, with murder of Jews. You will believe that I wish to defend the Legionnaire Movement. No. I am also a mystic. If I have erred, I shall pay for everything in front of God, to the last pinpoint. Crimes are repaid with sorrow. I wish to bear witness, to a brother who also believes in God, how the words of the criminals and thieves in Dudesti were confirmed to me later, in October of 1941, at Cernauti.
I returned home to Bukovina, and there I ran into Neagoe Flondor, the son of the important Bukovinan boier (boyar in translation) Iancu Flondor, and, among others, one afternoon we went to call upon Riosanu, who had had a difficult operation on his kidneys and was close to death. At Bucharest I did not know Riosanu. I controlled dissemination (of printed materials). I was occupied with typesetting and the distribution of books. But Neagoe Flondor told him who I am. And we talked for a long while, at the side of the bed. He had drainage tubes in his kidneys. Even though the occasion was not appropriate, I do not know how mention of the new persecution came about, and I had to ask him what was true of the affirmations made by the thieves, that he (Riosanu) sent them to light fire to Dudesti. And poor Riosanu began to stutter, “It was more complicated. Agents of the Intelligence Service wanted to morally dismantle the Legionnaires, to help Antonescu in light of the approaching war. I executed the orders of the Marshall.”
I was silent for a long while. A great shame fell upon me, Flondor took my hand and we left. “Let’s leave him in peace, he is a tortured sour. He has nightmares. He is afraid that Legionnaires are coming to kill him. He, their Interior Minister, betrayed them, he ridiculed their image and name.”
After three days, Rioseanu died. He truly had a nightmare. He dreamed that the Legionnaires demanded restitution from him, he turned in his bed, tearing out the tubes in his kidneys and provoked a fatal hemorrhage. Neagoe Flondor stated this to me, in front of his uncle, the former Palace Marshall, with whom I wanted to open the hotel Pajura Neagra.
It is easy, good Rabbi, to judge and condemn people. I have grown from a small boy with the Legionnaires. I know well that at the same time as the rise of the Legionnaires in the universities the beating of Jewish students ceased. The Jewish problem was number seven on the Legionnaire Movement’s Program. We were for the creation and growth of a new Romanian, with faith in God, and great love of nation and ethnicity.
You see why the title of your book appears incorrect to me. It opens old wounds which do not contribute a thing to the righteousness and honor of Israel. I know well that the Legionnaires did not murder Jews. If I would speak to you of my life in exile, from German concentration camps, I am sure that you would better understand the perspective of love and redemption, of the inner peace from which I write. We shall continue our correspondence.

With Great Affection,
Vasile Posteuca

Commentary: If Ion Antonescu erred in face of the Romanian People, and furthermore, in the face of humanity, his mistake would be one alone: against the young Legionnaire. It is not, however, the purpose of these pages to enter in the evidential details of this example. For that which interests us here and now, we are thankful to register the preceding text signed and written by the Legionnaire author Vasile Posteuca, together with other witnesses, more precisely, that “the Legionnaires did not murder any Jews”, and that “in the Legionnaire Movement’s Program the Jewish problem was number seven”. Years ago, when Mrs. Lya Benjamin, that dedicated detractor of Romanians and lead activist of the idea of a holocaust committed in Romania, wrote about the “territorial anti-Semitism of the Legionnaires expressed in their well-known doctrinal texts” (quoted from memory), I asked her, then I respectfully summoned that she specify which are these doctrinal texts in which one is incited to anti-Semitism, in order to provide evidential quotes from these texts. Lya Benjamin (and other falsifiers of the history of the Legionnaires) has not even to this day succeeded in illustrating the so-called Legionnaire anti-Semitism, both territorial and doctrinal.
After the “Legionnaire Rebellion”, on January 21–23, 1944, it is known that thousands upon thousands of Legionnaires were arrested and condemned, the majority young, even very young. And the corpses of 120 Jews were at the same time gathered from the streets. Among the thousands of Legionnaires judged and condemned for the events of those days, not one Legionnaire was accused of the assassination of a Jew! A list of Jews murdered is known, yet none of the assassins is known! The Legionnaires were condemned for disturbing the public order, for a failed coup attempt, and for many other crimes, including looting and lighting fire to houses and shops, but not one was accused of the murder of the 120 Jews. The accusation that thy were murdered by Legionnaires appeared in the press, in anti-Legionnaire propaganda texts, but in the judiciary, even though thousands of Legionnaires were condemned, not one was confronted with the accusation of murdering Jews!
Strangest of all (and most suspect!) is that neither the Jewish Community nor the families of those assassinated made any demand for the identification of the criminals! There was no known protest by the Jewish community on account of the inability of the Antonescu/Romanian Judiciary to discover even one of the assassins! Not then, in 1941, nor later, after August 23, 1944, did the Jewish community show itself to be concerned with identifying the assassins. Not even the assassins from Abator (Slaughter House)! This did not hinder her later insistence that the horrible carnage occurred! In spite of the declarations of Jews who worked at Abator, that the existence of corpses hung on hooks like beef could not be confirmed by a single eyewitness. Not after January 23, 1941, nor after August 23, 1944.
The reference made by former Interior Minister Alexandru Riosanu at the English Intelligence Service is also interesting. It is well known that green shirts, worn by Gypsies and other proletarian vagabonds, were brought in from Russia during the time of the Legionnaire “Rebellion.” It is no surprise that the English were also interested in the diversion perpetrated at Bucharest on 21–23 January, 1941. According to the information that appeared at one time in England, during the mid-1980s, the Intelligence Service was also implicated in the assassination of Nicolae Iorga. Probably it was the same: in strict collaboration with their Soviet comrades. The scope was the same: Romania would enter the war without the Legionnaires, already weakened after the tribute paid by the removal of the Legionnaires from the political scene, a part of them obliged to hide in Germany, a part condemned to swamp the prisons where they wasted away, those who survived, until 1964! From January, 1941 to 1964

Annex 8

The case of the “Executioner” Legionnaire Stefan Bolintineanu Herisescu

Two well known persons to the Romanian public: Mr. Cornel Dinu and Mr. Cezar Tabarcea told me about this case, in identical terms. Mr. Stefan Bolintineanu Herisescu – I don’t know whether he is still alive or not, served hard years in jail (about five or six) after 1944, condemned for kicking in the back a Jew during the Legionnaire “Rebellion”. After August 23, 1944, the molested Jew complained to the new, socialist justice about the “executioner” Stefan Bolintineanu Herisescu, who was arrested and condemned to long years of jail. As I understood, Stefan Bolintineanu Herisescu admitted his act in front of the justice; in this regard, things were certainly positive: the kick have been given! In the mentioned part of the Jew’s body!…
Being one of those who, in his childhood, gave and received lots of such kicks (I agree, most of them were given by me!) – I think that under the influence of the movies of Charlie Chaplin, if I am not mistaken!, I almost cannot understand such a sentence of long, hard years of jail for such a childish gesture! But trying to imagine how does it feel to have such a treatment applied upon you after a certain age, at maturity, I began to understand that such a gesture must not be done, and that such a gesture should be brought to an end and punished. Even more when this cannot be assigned to an anti-Semitic effusion!
The proper commentary is actually connected to other facts, already mentioned in the previous annex: along with the victim of Mr. Stefan Bolintineanu Herisescu, other Jews fell victims, they actually fell dead as victims. I’m thinking, first of all, to the 120 Jews “maliciously killed” in January 1941. For them, the Romanian justice gave not even one month of condemnation! And did nothing to identify and condemn them! The assassins! Thus, the Jews are condemning a kick in the back, and the author of this is sentenced to hard years of jail, in Aiud, at the Channel, at harvesting thatch! But the authors of the 120 killings are not hunted up, nor in the days of the murder, nor afterwards. Not even after August 23, 1944 when, as we could see, the justice did not hesitate to punish with hard years in jail a kick in the back, for the sole purpose that this was given to a Jew! Probably as a gesture of territorial and doctrinaire anti-Semitism!
I do not know if another peer case could be found in the Romanian or European jurisprudence. But, today, we should be grateful to the ones who made this event happening. Grateful to Mr. Stefan Bolintineanu Herisescu, as well as to his victim and to the ones who judged and condemned him, since thus they gave us reason to really wonder, with endless stupefaction, of the fact that after August 23, 1944 no one came to stake out a claim on any of the assassins of the 120 Jews murdered in January 1941, as well as very few Romanians have been accused and condemned for the Jews killed in Yassy in June of 1941; and more than everything, the hundreds and thousands of Romanians accused and condemned for the 300,000 Jews maliciously murdered in Bessarabia and Transnistria, who are missing!
How unforgiving for killing, Jews killing, should have been a justice which condemned to hard years of jail a kick in the back?! Therefore, not only the bodies of the ones killed are missing, but the assassins too! And any interest to identify the assassins is also missing! Again, the Jewish community is active in accusing on a general basis – “Romanians have killed 300,000 Jews”, but it is completely disinterested in identifying the real assassins!
How come that the families of those murdered have “swallowed” this complicity of the justice and of the Jewish community? I mean the complicity between those institutions and the assassins! If I would be in the place of any descendant of the Jews murdered in January 1941, I would also accuse of complicity with the assassins policemen and magistrates, as well as the leaders of the Jewish community! I would have liked, and requested to precisely transpire which of the arrested Legionnaires killed my parent or my brother!
From all this story, which is so ugly, you feel that everyone was happy with the existence of those 120 dead Jews and that they could be placed on the Legionnaires’ account, but not particularly on some of them, but on all of them, as if you could say that the poor people died of a sickness, of a pestilence, of a plague, the green plague, of course! No one cared to carry on, since the result, the purpose have been reached: the compromising of the Legionnaire Movement as a bunch of criminals!
The up-mentioned are a part of the reasons why you start asking yourself whether the Jews died in January 1941, the 120 ones, are as real and as dead as the 300,000 Jews, maliciously murdered in Bessarabia and Transnistria!
Thus, one of the two things: (1) either the 120 bodies registered in January 1941 were indeed belonging to Jews, as victims of the Legionnaire savagery, and in this case, the Jewish community is guilty for not trying in any way to find out who were the criminals, the very authors of the assassinates, or (2) we are facing a diversion which might be discovered by a detailed and neutral inquiry made by a justice focused on identifying the criminals. A diversion of which, obviously, the Jewish community was aware, by its leaders, therefore those leaders were very quiet and never protested to the passivity of the justice. This second hypothesis, as guilty to the memory of the victims, to their suffering as it can be, is in concordance with a series of other facts, among which are also the declarations made by rabbi Alexandru Safran on the National Television (TVR), in 1995: “the second day after the Legionnaire rebellion, I moved very fast and, by the night fall, before the authorities to intervene, I buried all the Jews murdered by the Legionnaires!”
Why such a hurry?
Why rabbi Safran did not allow the authorities to develop the criminal investigation in order to be discovered the murderers of each Jews?
Is it normal that a kick in the back given to a Jew to produce more effects of penal substance than the assassination of 120 Jews? In what world are we leaving?

Annex IX

Esteemed Mr. Ambassador Michael Guest,

The recent visit of Mr. Adrian Nastase in America has come to an end, as you know, with a veritable scandal, provoked equally by Adrian Nastase and by those who participated in the discussion involving the subject of the relationship between Marshall Ion Antonescu and Jews in Romania. As a Romanian, interested on the most elementary level of public consciousness in the quality of relations between Romania and the United States, and as an expert (I hope!) of Romanian History, in connection with the history of other peoples, including the American People, I must relate to you certain dates and considerations which, I am certain, will aid you in your noble and difficult responsibilities as an ambassador of the United States of America in Romania:
1. I consider that on the occasion of a visit in America by a Romanian political leader, a Romanian-Jewish consortium may normally be discussed only in the presence of Romanian-Israeli contacts, or at the United Nations and other international bodies. Therefore, the visit of Adrian Nastase to the United States was an excellent opportunity to inspect the Romanian-American consortium, that is, to make a reference to the history, both past and present, of Romanian-American relations.
2. From this point of view, with consideration to Romanian-American relations, the United States has no reason to cast guilt upon Ion Antonescu or consider him a war criminal. On the contrary! And I must remind you, or to make you aware if you did not know, that during the Second World War a relatively large number of American pilots were made prisoner in Romania, after they bombed Bucharest and Ploiesti with great loss of life and material destruction for Romanians. Do you know somehow, Esteemed Sir, how the authorities of the Antonescu Regime treated these prisoners? I am ashamed to note that neither the American government nor the American public opinion, or that of the home nations of the other prisoners (English and Russian), has expressed a word of thanks and recognition – I repeat: a word of thanks and recognition for Ion Antonescu, for Romanians in general. It shames me to inform you the fate of American and English prisoners in Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. Also, I know well that the Americans under Roosevelt did not at all behave in a more humane manner with Japanese or German prisoners than the Romanians of Ion Antonescu behaved with the American prisoners!
Note: According to Bruce Bigelow of the Kansas City Times, the number of American prisoners in Romania was over 1000.
3. A huge majority of Romanians reject the condemnation to death of Marshall Ion Antonescu and of his governing colleagues, and even more so the accusation of being a war criminal. One of the reasons why we reject this sentence is because the same communist judiciary, the same jurors who condemned Ion Antonescu also condemned thousands, tens of thousands of Romanians simply because they listened to the Voice of America! Just because they loved the United States and American values! They were condemned to death by the jurors of that period just because they received letters from America! (As in the case of the engineer Corado Popescu, executed after the Canal Process, because American technical magazines were found in his office!).
To be in solidarity with those who condemned Ion Antonescu, Mihai Antonescu, Picky Vasiliu and George Alexianu to death means being in solidarity with those who arrested thousands of students, peasants, priests, officers, whose courage in opposing the communist regime was intensified by the hope that America would not tolerate forever a Bolshevik regime in Romania. Those who condemned Ion Antonescu for imagined war crimes are those who, in the same period, persecuted the pro-American sentiment of Romanians with a savagery hitherto unknown in Romanian history. I remind you that among the initiators and promoters of this institutional anti-Americanism were many Jews, agents of the Moscow COMINTERN, and among these anti-American Jews the majority would later become American citizens!
4. “Tovarich” Radu Ioanid was one of these anti-American, anti-capitalist and anti-Occidental activists, a specialist in Marxism-Leninism, therefore a specialist in the denigration of Occidental democracy and of America itself! No description better fits a professor of Marxism-Leninism!
Romanians and Jews who know this individual are bewildered by the value given in the United States to this Radu Ioanid and his activities against the truth and interests of Romanians. I am certain that the lies invented against Romanians at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, will someday become an embarrassment to the spirit of truthfulness that America has always purported to follow! Thus it is not possible that the same people, the same leaders who in their treatment of prisoners of war proved to be a humane people without peer, indulged themselves in maliciously murdering the Jews, as the acolytes of lies place upon the shoulders of Romanians at the Holocaust Museum!
I cannot understand why the voice of those Jews who speak the absolute truth and contested the idea of an anti-Jewish holocaust in Romania have not been heard by the American authorities! I cannot understand how the testimony of those who personally witnessed the truth of the Jewish existence n Romania during that period have been ignored in the United States! I refer to Wilhelm Filderman, President of the Jewish Communities of Romania, who was himself deported to Transnistria, I refer to Rabbi Moshe Carmilly Weinberger who now lives in America, I refer to the investigation made at the time by representatives of the Vatican, of the International Red Cross, and of the Swiss Embassy! From these sources, precise observations of the situation in the so-called Jewish concentration camps have remained for us! These were not concentration camps for Jews, but isolation camps for persons with communist sympathies, who had already shown their lack of loyalty to the Romanian state!
In similar camps in the U.S.A., Americans of Japanese origin, deported and concentrated as hostile or potentially hostile persons, lived in conditions infinitely worse, with human losses much larger than those of the Jewish communists deported to Transnistria.
In Romania, during the years 1940–1944, Jews who respected Romanian laws and values did not suffer practically at all in the shadow of the Antonescu Regime which, to those who wished that, offered the possibility of emigration to Palestine or anywhere that they wished. This situation was also without parallel in all of wartime Europe!
I offer for your consideration and reflection, Esteemed Mr. Ambassador, the declaration made by Wilhelm Filderman, American citizen, in 1955, during a trial in Switzerland. The liars in Washington, who have invented the Romanian section at the Holocaust Museum, have for years hidden this exceptional document:
“I, Wilhelm Filderman, Doctor of Law at the University of Paris, former President of the Union of Jewish Communities in Romania and President of the Union of Romanian Jews, with residence in New York, U.S.A., at the Alameda Hotel on Broadway at 71st Street, hereby declare the following:
“(…) During the period of Nazi dominance in Europe, I was in sustained contact with Marshall Antonescu. This man did all that he could in order to ease the fate of Jews exposed to the Nazi German Persecution (emphasis added). I must underline that the Romanian population is not anti-Semitic, but the offenses suffered by Jews have been the work of Nazi Germany and the Iron Guard. I have been witness to moving scenes of solidarity and assistance between Romanians and Jews in moments of great hardship during the days of the infernal Nazi in Europe. Marshall Antonescu successfully resisted Nazi pressure, which imposed tough measures against the Jews. I recite but a few examples:
– Due to the energetic intervention of Marshall Antonescu, the deportation of more than 20,000 Jews from Bukovina was prevented;
– He issued unrestricted passports, in order to spare the Hungarian Jews – who’s lives were in great danger – from the Nazi terror;
– Thanks to his politics, the goods in propriety of Jews were placed under a transitory administrative system which, making them appear to be lost, assured their conservation with the idea of restitution at an opportune moment.
I mention these in order to emphasize the fact that the Romanian People, as much as they had, even in a limited measure, control of their nation, demonstrated their humanitarian and moderate political sentiments.”
I also remind you that from this same Wilhelm Filderman remain several volumes of memoirs and journal entries, of a great documentary value, which the experts of deception and confusion do not wish to publish or place at the disposition of proper historians. Perhaps with the high authority granted to you as United States Ambassador to Romania you can find out, Esteemed Sir, why the testimonies of Wilhelm Filderman have been hidden at the Holocaust Museum!
Wilhelm Filderman is not the only Jew who has made remarks of this type. But certainly he was the most authorized Jew to know and uncover the truth. If, between Wilhelm Filderman, a Jew exiled from Romania by Jewish communists, and Radu Ioanid, a Jewish communist activist, America prefers the latter, a professional liar, this is of course America’s right to decide. With one condition, however: the right of Americans to correct information must be respected! Evidently, the American public has been completely misinformed about Romania, about Romanian History, and about the Antonescu Regime. And this is not from a simple and partially innocent ignorance, but due to a program of disinformation and confusion, of the introduction of falsehoods into American public opinion, a program associated with the activities of Radu Ioanid, whose life is completely dedicated to lies and anti-Romanian bias. These activities being generously funded by the American taxpayer!

I hope, Esteemed Mr. Ambassador, that Your Excellence can find the necessary time, in conjunction with your study of the Romanian Language (a project for which I congratulate you and offer my humble support), to also study the history of Romanian-American relations. As an American, you will be most pleasantly surprised!

With Best Wishes,
Ion Co

Annex 10

The Testimony of Professor Raoul Volcinschi

I, Raoul Volcinschi, with residence in Cluj-Napoca, retired university professor, member of the organization “Asociatia Fostilor Detinuti Politici din Romania (translator’s note: an association of former political prisoners/detainees in Romania), do hereby make the following statement in front of Professor Ion Coja:
I am a native of Cernauti where, in 1940, I lived through the trauma of the evacuation of my family from Cernauti. I was a student at the Aron Pumnul high school and a member of the soccer team Dragos Voda. In Cernauti, young Jews played for three teams: Macabi, Borohov and Hasmonea. Often Romanians and Jews had friendly games, without any racial, anti-Semitic or anti-Romanian tensions. We knew each other well, even if we went to different schools and lived in different neighborhoods.
On the evening of June 27, it was announced on Radio Monte Carlo, to which my family and I regularly listened, that Romania was being obliged to cede Bessarabia and Bukovina. On Radio Bucharest, while we were trying to find out what was happening, they were commenting on the results of the high school exams of Principle Mihai … nothing about the ultimatum! Father, however, started us packing our belongings, in preparation of our departure as refugees to the country. The second morning father sent me to withdraw my school records from the high school, which would be necessary for me to enroll in a school in September. My route from home to the school passed through the Piata Unirii (Unirii Plaza) and in front of the City Hall. When I arrived at the City Hall, I saw that the bodies of five Romanian soldiers lay in the street, their blood had flowed in the dust on the asphalt. A number of people on the roadside looked on with consternation and bewilderment. I asked what happened, had the Russians already arrived in Cernauti? They replied the me that the soldiers had been killed “by them” – and they pointed to two automobiles. Circling around them were about 12-15 young civilians, armed, some of them having two automatics, one in their hand and one on their back, and they had difficulty fitting themselves in the vehicles. I recognized all of them, some on sight, others personally or from their names: Aufleger Feibis, Fisher, Abacumov, Eisinger Siegfried. They played soccer for the junior section of the aforementioned Jewish teams. They left yelling, “Zum Flugplaz!” (“To the airport!”). I returned home on an alternate road, as gunfire was audible on other streets.
The above-mentioned group included Sigi Bainer, who I knew very will because we played football together, in a few games, as adversaries. I encountered him again in the mid-1950s, at the Securitate of Cluj, when I was arrested and several times beaten bloody by this Sigi Bainer. I tried to speak to him as a person, reminding him that we knew each other well and that he has no reason to see me as an agent of the Western imperialist nations, which I had been accused of. He told me several times, “For the past a moment, for the present a bullet!”
I also encountered him several times in Cluj, he was a small-time smuggler before getting a position at the Securitate, as inspector and abuser. When I was released, I learned that he had left for Israel.
Raoul Volcinschi

Annex 11

Paul Goma, Bessarabia and the “Problem”

(…) First there was anti-Romanian bias.
An “anti-Semitic, anti-Russian” history of Bessarabia, written by a Bolshevik Jew

After the eruption of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, the situation in Bessarabia became other than that in the rest of Russia and similar to that in non-Russian territories with a non-Russian population: Finland, the Baltic States, Eastern Poland. The inhabitants of theses nations swallowed by Russia, exploited by Russians, their identities erased by Russia, saw a change marked not only by social justice, but also by national independence. And the most furious opponents of independence for non-Russian nations and provinces were, on the part of the Russian Empire (formerly tsarist, then Bolshevik) not only Russians (be they Monarchists, Republicans, Anarchists or Bolsheviks), but also Jews who for well-known reasons were virulently hostile to national identity.
As a large portion of them (“not all…”) were Bolsheviks, they militated with great dedication in every agency of transition for the retention at any cost of Bessarabia “as a component” (a celebrated expression) of Russia, later the USSR. And when it followed that Bessarabia finally achieved autonomy, and then – the ultimate affront – asked for unification with Romania, and when the Russians had more urgent business than the preservation of the Bessarabia periphery, the Jews – and not only those born in the area between the Prut and Dniester – remembered the events of March 27, 1918, as a catastrophe, first for their Bolshevik Revolution, then as a personal defeat of the apostles of internationalism. Because of this they transformed the “recuperation of Bessarabia” into a question of honor and tirelessly fought until the “final victory” on June 26, 1940, when Russia – the USSR – again abducted Bessarabia (and, since they already started with a theft, the Russians “borrowed” in their style North Bukovina; until the “total victory” of August 23, 1944, when the “Red Army liberated not just the Romanian territory, but also the shackled souls”, so writes the jubilant and profoundly offensive liar Matatias Carp).
Of course, the Jews never spoke aloud about their interest in maintaining Bessarabia “as a component” of Russia where, in a century of occupation, Bessarabia had received the surrogate status of the eretz (motherland – emphasis added) of those without a motherland. They loudly denounced the “arbitrary seizure made by Romanian nobles”, “the tearing from the bosom of Russia” (alternating between “bosom of Russia” and “Ukrainian Motherland” according to the changing political tides”. From the invention of “Bessarabia” by Russians in the early 19th Century, Jews felt better in this new and meridional Russian territory than in traditional Galicia; so much that in several honest klezmer works (because there did exist, for a period, virulently disingenuous and even openly brash works: those of David Krakauer, for example), one encounters the refrain in Hebrew, “Bessarabia, my country” (graphically: “Basarabia, not the Russian “Bessarabia”, and “my country”); and then even more during a Russian Pogrom, initiated each time that Russia was leaderless after an alcoholic crisis – if the pogrom were not erased from the eternal complex of “the innocent victim of the Russian”), then surely it was minimized, marginalized, placed on the bottom of the list, at the top being the massacre perpetrated by Romanians in Bessarabia, Bukovina and Transnistria, which “eventually surpassed the cruelty of Auschwitz…”
Jews (and not only those in Bessarabia) have become obsessed with Bessarabia Lost in 1918 – by them – and have not ceased trying any option, some even suicidal, because in bourgeois Romania which included Bessarabia, more than three-fourths of the detained communists were Jews. Among other things, the insolent, unintelligent and provocative conditions placed upon, indeed demanded by Jews from the various revolutionary councils gathered on the soil of Bessarabia during the period 1917–1918 (until March 27), are illustrative: speakers must use only the Russian Language, even though all of those present (Jews, Germans, Poles, Bulgarians, Ukrainians, Russians), being “Bessarabians”, knew Romanian, the language of the indigenous population…
These affirmations, “scandalous” from the point of view of some Jews, supported both by official Russian documents as well as the personal accounts of former militant Bolsheviks, appertain to the investigator Mihail Bruhis – the Basarabian, communist Jew (former member of the Revolutionary Council for the Salvation of the Republic of Moldova) author of the monograph Rusia, Romania si Bessarabia – 1812, 1918, 1924, 1940, written in Russian and published at Tel Aviv in 1979, and translated into Romanian by I. Turcanu – Romanian version published at Universitas, Chisinau, 1992).
He – alongside the exemplary honesty with which he treats history – has the boldness to include percentages, even lists of Jews engaged in the fight for…the salvation of Bessarabia from the claws of its owners, the Romanian landlords and capitalists … In his place, a “goi” would have been placed at the Nuremburg Wall, and in present-day France (of the Prime Minister and Chief Editor of the institute Le Monde – both militant Trotskyites) he would have been condemned for “Racist and Anti-Semitic Propaganda”. (…)
8. When you are raised in the cult of being an eternal and innocent victim, it is difficult to accept that you have been a good executioner (…)
I repeat: the great majority of Jews had been hostile toward Great Romania from the start, in 1918. From the founding of the Romanian Communist Party in 1921, the communists – mostly Jews (some living in other countries, having citizenship other than Romanian: Hungarian, Polish, Bulgarian, and a “supra-citizenship”: Soviet) contested the just unification of historically Romanian provinces with Romania, pledged the “reunification” of Bessarabia with the USSR” – and pledged the “reunification of Transylvania with…the Soviet Hungarian Republic” (in 1919). The abduction of Bessarabia and North Bukovina from June 1940 was viewed by Jews from all of Romania with delirious enthusiasm, many outside the ceded terri­tories rushed to move to the Land of Grapes and Bread (the USSR, of course), accor­ding to a notorious poet and agent of the NKVD, otherwise a Frenchman (Aragon).
In conclusion, because Jews from Bessarabia and others living in the USSR before the cessation came to the ceded territories and began activities not associated with social reparations as one might expect from communists, but acts of barbarism based on religion, nationality and race. When a small part of the evidence was revealed for all eyes to see, on the sides of the common graves, then and only then (that is, after June 22, 1941), Romanians began to take revenge upon Jews.
“Why did Jews pounce on Romanians, during the retreat from Bessarabia (during the Red Week of 28 June to 4–5 July, 1940)? Why did they become enraged with unfortunate soldiers after those soldiers had received orders to retreat without responding to provocations? Why, among “hard-working, agrarian Soviets” (narodnici, as presented in the Romanian Language, because no other word existed, for the agitators who hurriedly arrived in trucks from across the Dniester or, as Gr. Vindeleanu, from the interior of Romania – in order to construct the most righteous and prosperous of societies – communism), the Jews in particular ambushed, cursed, treated Romanians as “royalists” or “capitalists-fascists”, “anti-Semitic landlords”, they spat on them, beat them with stones, pelted them with feces, forced many from the column, and after having beaten them, kicked them, clawed at them (women were not the only ones engaged in this hysterical behavior), even cut the buttons from their pants and left them to flee in that humiliated condition, others were retained and made the “first prisoners of a war that did not exist”. And yet: why, when Jews entered en masse in the occupying Soviet administrative, political, police, and security apparatus , did Jews behave toward Romanians from Bessarabia, Bukovina and Hertza as if they were in this order: Babylonians, Egyptians, Romans, Spaniards, Russians, Ukrainians, those peoples who had dispersed, persecuted and massacred them, corresponding to the terms invented by them for Romanians: inquisition, pogrom ?
The Jewish-Hungarian (some Hungarians! Jewish–Hungarians!, something like the Great Russians, Jewish–Russians!) secret police investigators would “respond” to this question – sad, to be sure – after several years, when they beat Romanian peasants from Oltenia, Dobrogea, and Muntenia who did not wish to enter into the collective farms:
“You sent us to Auschwitz!”, “You” meaning the Romanians…
Crystal-clear logic, illustrated by the more-than-advertised Elie Wiesel, he who in 1980 declared on French television that he and his family from Sighet were arrested and sent to Auschwitz – in April of 1944 (April Nineteen Forty-Four) by…Romanian gendarmes! Have I already said that? Fine! I’ll say it again and again. Eugene Ionesco drew his friend’s attention to the truth: Northern Transylvania – Sighet included – was under Hungarian occupation between September 30, 1940, and the spring of 1945, thus the gendarmes were Hungarian, not Romanian. Weisel responded that this “trifle” didn’t matter, in any case the French do not know history and few care about “this”.
I care about “this” – as a Romanian and a Basarabian.
Jews in the last half-century have spoken about their own “this”; and in speaking have monopolized suffering: for them there is only one genocide in history, in which they alone were victims, and they do not accept the Gypsies and Slavs were exterminated in Nazi concentration camps, in specific: Poles, beginning in September 1939, Ukrainians, Russians; after July of 1941, Catholics, nobles, homosexuals, the handicapped; or that, before the Soah, Turkey (strategic ally of Israel that also defends, as the world well knows, “Occidental democracy in the Orient”) in 1915 enthusiastically perpetrated “a small program of purification” (!) – the massacre of Armenians; or that, after the Holocaust there have been massacres of a genocidal nature in the communist world: Cambodia, China, North Korea, and recently in Chechnija. Sadly, the Jewish tragedy in World War II was not the first, nor the last… (…)
Eyewitness testimonies about the retreat – the newspaper “Universul” :
“Thursday, June 28, 1940, 6 A.M. I was at the Command Center of the 3rd Army Corps. Last night they announced Soviet troops will enter Chisinau at 10 o’clock. At 7 o’clock they announced that Soviet troops will enter at 14:00 hours. Bands of terrorists flying red flags have appeared in the public parks. Other armed minority members stop buses, wagons of refugees, steal baggage and purses from women; civilian Jews, extremely agitated, have occupied crossroads and await the refugee convoys, in order to attack and loot them. And this is occurring: they are attacked with stones, with buckets of boiling water, with the contents of chamber-pots, and the same with the military convoys in retreat. The officers’ chevrons are ripped off, the buttons have been cut off of the pants of soldiers, who are then released, with the roaring laughter of the “local population”. Some soldiers have been taken no-one-knows-where, because behind the civilians are the Russian soldiers, who have taken them.”
“At Chilia, Reni, Ismail, Ukrainians, Russians, Bulgarians, Gagauz – more than half of them being incarcerated for law breaking, were freed and have installed ‘Soviet Councils’ of terror, robbery and assassination.”
“At Cernauti, beginning on June 28 at the hour of 10:30, Jews and freed prisoners attacked the transportation means for the evacuation and looted and abused the refugees. Jews shot the priest at the Catholic Church as well as several guards. Young Jews (aged 15–16 years) disarmed soldiers, made them undress, then stabbed them with their own bayonets. Jews have spit upon and ripped the tri-colored flag and climbing on the Unirii monument, have hung the red flag. They have also toppled the Cross from the cathedral and replaced it with the red flag and a portrait of Stalin. Jews on the side were photographing the scenes of abuse, especially the humiliation of soldiers, theologians, priests.”
“At Soroca, Jews led by the lawyer Michael Flexer (Fluchser?) have occupied the city hall and assassinated police commissioner Murafa and his assistant Eustatiu Gabriel in front of the Statue of General Poetas.”
“At Chisinau commissioners Pascal, Nicolae, Mateescu, Severin and Stol have been shot.”
“Statistics communicated by the Officer Corps:
‘The following have been retained and used as prisoners during the
retreat: 282 officers, of whom 100 were active. During the retreat (the six days) slain, disappeared: 356 officers and 42,876 soldiers.’”

Letters (undistributed, retained by Military Censors) –

Soldier Costica Delea of Teleorman writes home:
“What I have seen I shall tell even to the dead. (…) They took our horses, baggage carts, and weapons. Officers were beaten, they had their chevrons ripped off, they were spat upon, stripped. (…) Russian soldiers did not lay a finger on us (emphasis added), they stared and laughed at how Jewish civilians beat us with rocks and clubs, pulled at out legs while we were on horses, ripped off our clothes, mocked us, especially women who seemed crazed. (…) But if God wishes us to return, then they will get their just deserts (emphasis added).”

Report: 4th Army, from the Officer Corps (July 2):
“The evacuated army and population of Bessarabia show their revulsion toward Jews. Even more serious anti-Semitic manifestations on the part of the army cannot be excluded (…) The recovery of the soldiers who stray between the Prut and Siret is urgently requested in order to avoid new crises (emphasis added).”

The 1st Army Group informs the 2nd Section of the Officer Corps:
“On the date of July 1, many soldiers were observed in a state of extreme agitation, which is the sister of madness, against Jews, a spiritual state which has degenerated into beatings and even killings. (…) From their discussions with civilians, this decision (on the part of soldiers) to have vengeance on Jews was made because of the attitude of their cohorts in Bessarabia and Bukovina.”
Commander Army Group No.1, with the approval of the Officer Corps, has decided the following measures:
“In every railway junction, information offices shall be constructed in order to direct soldiers who cannot find their units;
The military guards in these stations shall be strengthened and commanded by an active officer from the respective garrison;
Each passenger or accelerated train shall be accompanied by guars, who will act as police in the train and prevent acts against Jews.”
“Unfortunately the resentment could not be completely prevented: on July 1 (1940), at Yassy, the homes of several Jews were destroyed. The majority of incidents took place in train stations where trains that were taking Jews to Bessarabia converged. Isolated, enraged soldiers abused Jews who waved red flags and provocative signs from the train cars (emphasis added).”
“The Romanian State, via the Minister of Defense and the Interior has made considerable efforts to arrest any acts of revenge.” (…)
“In Bessarabia, under the red sickle of the people from 1940–1941, the following were dynamited or burned by Soviet authorities: 42 churches, 28 schools, 32 public buildings and 79 government structures.
Far too many Jews, some being named directors of schools, institutions, and Soviet collectives by the new authorities, zealously participated in these crimes against the Romanians from Bessarabia and North Bukovina. But most of them participated voluntarily in the politically repressive apparatus: the Party, Komsomol, the union, the militia, the NKVD.
After the retreat of the Soviets from Bessarabia and North Bukovina, in July of 1941, criminals like Rozenberg, Beiner, Pikraevski, Brunn, Sternberg, Derevici, Fluchaeser, Glinsberg, Zuckermann, Burmann, Glaubach – even the Great Russians of Popauti who, when they murdered priests, declared that they wanted ‘Moldova to the Seret!’, hid themselves in the horse trailers of the Red Army, and never paid for what they did. The broken glass was paid for by their innocent brethren, with some (doctors, professors, musicians, merchants, bankers, Zionists) being the victims of Bolsheviks.”
But even if those who write history would want to chronicle the historical truth without manipulating the record, what would transpire? They would be punished in a Nürnberg II (which we envision, in the novel Ostinato, begun in 1965), but the communists, the criminals found for years in the welcome bosom of the Capitalist World?: in the United States (where fascists and Nazis are not tolerated, but Bolsheviks are – with preference for the “workers” of the communist political police – if you are Jewish), in Germany (as receivers of reparations), in France as veterans of the Resistance – even though after the war hundreds were expelled as Soviet spies – and after decades of activity in the repressive apparatus of “People’s democracies”, where they committed every imaginable evil, they sought refuge among the capitalists, complaining that in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria they were persecuted terribly, because they were…communists and Jewish!? And in the “Oriental extension of Western democracy”, Israel, where retired NKVD and KGB agents as well as commissars of all types spend the final moments of their active and tumultuous lives in the peace of capitalism and in “mystical prayer” – there were no euphemisms in their mouths when they hunted down the unfortunate Christians of the Mighty Communist Nation… Unfortunately, not one.
What this does not mean is that those who can give voice to indignation must be still. My maxim: “If I am silent, I hurt even more.” (…)
Ion Antonescu was, and remains for me and all Romanians from Bessarabia, the Emancipating Marshall.
I remind those Jews rescued from the jaws of death in the Nazi death camps of Poland that no one reproaches their eternal gratitude toward the Red Army and Stalin. And we, the non-Jews of Bessarabia and Bukovina have the right to maintain our eternal gratitude toward the Romanian Army and General (later Marshall, after crossing the Dniester) Antonescu. This was the image of Antonescu in my boyhood and adolescent heart: hero. And after he was executed, he became martyr.

Annex 12

King Mihai and the Urgent Order no. 31/2002

The Uniunea Vatra Romaneasca (Romanian Union “Vatra”) and the Liga pentru Combaterea Anti-Romanismului (the Romanian Anti–Defamation League) LICAR, continuously expressing our public protest of the Urgent Order nr. 31/2002 of the Romanian Government, respectfully appeal to His Majesty King Mihai I of Romania, considering that now is the appropriate time for King Mihai to again confirm the truth about Marshall Ion Antonescu and his colleagues, who were wrongly condemned in 1946 and a number of them maliciously executed on June 1, 1946.
The fact that King Mihai was at that time impeded by communists from exercising his constitutional right to accord royal clemency for those condemned by the court, today constitutes today a motive, even a responsibility on the part of His Majesty, to make public his position on the accusations and sentences pronounced in the so-called Trial of the National Treason, particularly those concerning the martyr heroes of the People Ion Antonescu, Mihai Antonescu, Piki Vasiliu and George Alexianu, the accusations and sentences being revived and reanimated by the shameful Urgent Order no. 31/2002. We consider that Romanian public opinion is interested and has a right to know the position held by His Majesty toward Urgent Order no. 31/2002, toward the accusation of holocaust which this order brings against the Romanian authorities of 1940-1944 and, implicitly, the Romanian People. Is His Majesty King Mihai in agreement with these accusations? Is he in agreement with Urgent Order no. 31/2002?
We consider that the Romanian People have the right to ask these questions and to receive an honest and clear answer from His Majesty.

Uniunea Vatra Romaneasca Liga pentru Combaterea
Anti-Romanismului LICAR

Bucharest, May 27, 2002
for conformity,
Ion Coja