Reference Type: Book Section
Author: Glass, Hildrun
Year: 2011
Title: Restitution Issues in Post-War Romania
Editor: Ciuciu, Anca - Crăciun, Camelia
Book Title: Istorie şi memorie evreiască. Volum omagial dedicat doamnei dr. Lya Benjamin
City: Bucureşti
Publisher: Hasefer
Pages: 200-207
Language: English
Keywords: Jewish minority, history, post-second world war, communist era, expropriation, anti-Jewish legislation, legislation, politics, holocaust survivors
Abstract: (En) In what follows I will treat the question of theft and restitution of cultural assets in Romania from the perspective of theft and restitution of moveable assets. I can only treat the issue within this larger perspective because, up to now, the question of stolen Jewish cultural assets in Romania as such has hardly been addressed. As for the theft of Jewish cultural assets during the years of the Antonescu dictatorship, the current state of historical research provides us with few concrete details. Thus, for example, if one examines the report in 2004 of the International Commission for the Study of the Romanian Holocaust, one will search in vain for information on this topic. One will have the same experience if one consults the works of the two pioneers of historical studies on the persecution of the Jews in Romania, the late Jean Ancel and Lya Benjamin. Indeed, as recently as 2007 Jean Ancel's work, The Economic Destruction of Romanian Jewry, offered only sparse, anecdotal references to the theft of Jewish cultural assets. As for the restitution of Jewish cultural assets in the afterwar period, the situation is very much the same. Scholarly literature does not provide a clue; a public discussion on the issue never took place. Therefore, we will first have to ask: Why is this the case? Why do we have such a dearth of information? Why, when the Holocaust in Romania is discussed, is the theft of Jewish cultural assets not a part of the discussion?
As I cannot go into detail concerning the question of cultural assets, I will explore the issues involving immovable and movable assets in general. The principles and problems that emerge here are the basis for formulating the questions concerning the restitution of cultural assets. In this regard it will be useful to sum up some basic facts on two areas:
1. What restitution issues were raised by the Holocaust in the territories controlled by the Antonescu regime?
2. How was the question of the restitution of movable assets treated in the afterwar period in Romania?
On this basis I will try in my conclusion to formulate some hypotheses on the reasons why, to this day, hardly anything specific can be said concerning the issue of Jewish cultural assets in Romania.
1. What restitution issues were raised by the Holocaust in the territories controlled by the Antonescu regime?
The responsibility for the Holocaust on Romanian territory is born by the dictatorship of Ion Antonescu that lasted from September 1940 to August 1944. There had been anti-Semitic laws before this regime, the equality of the Jews had been undermined step by step. But Ion Antonescu moved from discrimination to mass murder.
Antonescu‘s anti-Semitic policy was not applied to all Jews in the same way. The differences in treatment were based on considerations of the degree of assimilation, social class, the date that Romanian citizenship had been acquired, and place of residence. It was primarily this last factor that proved decisive for the individual‘s fate.
One must distinguish between three separate geographical areas:
URL: http://www.csier.jewishfed.ro/public_html/documente/istoriememorie.pdf