bogdan
Administrator
Data inscrierii: 06/Noi/2008
Mesaje: 15
|
 Trimis Titlul subiectului |
    |
|
R. Chris Davis
Rescue and Recovery:
The Biopolitics and Ethnogenealogy
of Moldavian Catholics in 1940s Romania
*
Introduction
This article outlines a methodological framework for re-examining the Moldavian
Csángós
1
in the context of Romanian biopolitics and population policies during WWII.
I intend to build upon existing scholarship
2
by examining the immediate impact of such
discourse and policies on minority communities subject to Romanianization or expatria-
tion – that is, by examining these phenomena from the bottom up. In this way, we can
better gauge the impact of prevailing nationalist discourses and policies on Romania’s
ethnic and religious enclaves. The Csángós provide an important case study for several
reasons: they were considered not only an ethno-linguistic minority (Hungarian) but also
a religious minority (Roman Catholic); they were targeted for expatriation not only to
Hungary but also, in 1945, to the Soviet Union; moreover, they had an active clerical
intelligentsia with support from the Vatican; and yet their homeland had always been
in Moldavia proper – they had lived for centuries in what few people today realize was a
multi-ethnic Moldavia
3
and had played no active role in the modern Hungarian national
movements.
Research in Romanian archives and a number of journals published in wartime
Romania suggests that biopolitical discourse was not limited to government and intellec-
tual circles; it also had direct and indirect impacts on Romanian’s minority communities,
penetrating their political and even religious discourse. In an increasingly nationalist
1
I use the non-neutral Hungarian term Csángó for reasons of economy and convention, and acknowledge
that to some it is pejorative. A more inclusive term for the community might be Hungarian- and Romanian-
speaking Roman Catholics of Moldavia. Nevertheless, both the Hungarian Csángó and the Romanian
Ceangăi were used in government, academic, and even confessional documents in Romania during the
period under investigation. Throughout this paper, use of the word Catholic refers to Roman Catholic.
2
On biopolitics, race, and eugenics in interwar Romania, see Turda 2007a, Turda 2007b, Bucur 2002. On
the topic of Romanian population-exchange plans in the early 1940s, see Solonari 2007, Achim 2001, Achim
2005, Bolovan, I.–Bolovan, S. 2000.
3
For a description of the ethnic and linguistic diversity in late medieval Moldavia, see Baker 1996, Spinei 1986.
*
Research used in this article was supported by a Fulbright Student Grant in Hungary (2006–2007) and
an American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS) Dissertation Research Grant in Romania (2007–2008). I
would like to thank Marius Turda and Eric Beckett Weaver for reading drafts of this article and offering their
feedback. Any errors in the article are, of course, my own.
Page 2
R. C
HRIS
D
AVIS
96
environment, Romania’s ethnic minorities were seen as incompatible with the homog-
enous nation-state. What then, was to be done with them? For Romania’s ardent nation-
builders the answer was unequivocal: either dispatch the dysgenic minority groups or
else incorporate them into the national ethos and ultimately the national body.
Taking into account these discourses and policies in wartime Romania – and their ef-
fects on Romania’s minority communities – we can arrive at a more holistic understand-
ing of localized events such as those involving the Catholic communities in Moldavia.
In this way, we re-examine the appropriation and instrumentalization of ethnicity and
national identity and the representation of communal national self-consciousness.
The Csángós and other minority communities were engaged in what I describe as a
process of national induction. The aim of this process is to demonstrate that the historical
experience and identity of the minority is congruent with that of host nation, and further-
more to secure for a given minority a place within the homogenizing, unitary national state.
Often this entails the historical deconstruction of the “ethnic other” and a recovery of those
aspects that can be merged into the national metanarrative of the ethnic majority.
4
When
this process of national recovery and historical-narrative reconstruction occurs under the
pretense of scientific objectivity – e.g. the racial biology, philology, and historicism of early
1940s Romania and Hungary – it can produce a seemingly irrefutable epistemology of na-
tional belonging, one that can outlast the very evidence originally used to support it.
Historical Context
The formation of Greater Romania, which in 1918 nearly doubled the size and population
of the Old Kingdom, included large numbers of ethnic and religious minorities who had
no desire to live under a Romanian national state, yet had no more desire to abandon
their property and homelands. As a consequence of this territorial reconfiguration, many
of the minority communities within Greater Romania became socially and politically dis-
located. For its part, the Romanian ethnic majority had to reconcile the presence of large
swaths of ethnic others, most of whom had been ethnic majorities in their respective na-
tional homelands prior to joining Romania. Once inside territorial Romania, their ethnic,
religious, or linguistic differences excluded them from the new, ideologically-informed
conception of the Romanian national body and its national essence.
Romania sought to consolidate its expanded territory and to incorporate its citizenry
into the political and ethnic nation, lest these large blocks of disaffected minorities be
the undoing of its post-WWI gains. At this time, the prevailing solution to the minority
problem was integration and assimilation,
5
rather than plenar “ethnic purification” (Achim
4
For a broader discussion of this process and the region, see for example Wingfield 2006, King 2002.
5
For a discussion of the „cultural expansion project” and assimilation policies in interwar Romania, see
Livezeanu 1995. For a broader examination of ethnographic reordering and nationalizing spaces across
eastern Europe, see Brown 2004 and Snyder 2003.
Page 3
T
HE
B
IOPOLITICS AND
E
THNOGENEALOGY OF
M
OLDAVIAN
C
ATHOLICS
...
97
2001: 596). Over the course of the interwar period, and in response to the above challenges,
Romanian intellectual and scientific communities re-conceptualized the very nature and
organization of the state.
6
These concepts had an overriding aim: the Romanianization
or ethnic homogenization of the national state. To this end, demographers, sociologists,
biologists, and anthropologists worked specifically to identify those people – and by ex-
tension, the territories they inhabited – who could be authenticated as Romanian, even
if their linguistic, religious, or cultural attributes suggested otherwise. Consequently, the
ethnic and national identities of some minority communities were appropriated to the
dominant Romanian ones. Thus did the Csángós undergo a process of induction into the
Romanian nation. Once their Romanian-ness could be demonstrated – biologically, an-
thropologically, linguistically – their historical narrative could be refashioned and their
place within the Romanian nation secured.
Where the anthropological, sociological, and historical Romanian-ness of a minority com-
munity could not readily be inducted into the nation, another solution was proposed: popula-
tion transfer. This was the means by which incompatible others could be removed from the
nation whilst Romanians living outside territorial Romania could be introduced (or reintro-
duced). In this way the interwar concepts and goals of the homogenous ethnic state could be
realized through policies that would physically reconfigure the nation along ethnic lines.
After Hungary’s invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, a number of Hungarian intellectu-
als and some clergy – whose sympathies lay with Hungary – were keen on relocating the
Hungarian-speaking Csángós to the Hungarian Bácska and Baranya (Hungarian-occupied
Vojvodina).
7
Anticipating this, as early as the autumn of 1940, László Bárdossy – then
Hungarian Ambassador to Romania, and later Prime Minister of Hungary from April
1941 to March 1942 – commissioned the ethnographer Peter Pal Domokos to help identify
those Csángó families in predominately Hungarian-speaking villages who were suitable for
repatriation to southern Hungary.
8
Domokos used the Romanian census data from 1930
alongside his own fieldwork and research in the 1930s to generate a number of studies
and maps for the Hungarian repatriation scheme [hazatelepítés – “resettlement home”],
formally undertaken by the Hungarian government’s Foreign Magyars Repatriation
Committee.
9
According to Hungarian archival documents, Domokos not only supported
the resettlement of the Csángós and but was also instrumental in the formulation and
implementation of these plans. In a letter to the Foreign Ministry written from Bucharest
in December 1940, Domokos gives the following update on his work: “I have made a list of
6
This gave rise to such notions as, among others, Iuliu Moldovan’s ethnic state or biopolitical state and
Nichifor Crainic’s ethnocratic state. See works by Turda, Bucur, and Solonari listed in footnote 2.
7
For an examination of the repatriation schemes initiated from Budapest, see Davis 2007, Vincze 2001,
Vincze 2002, Sajti 2003.
8
Magyar Országos Levéltár (MOL) K28 ME, 163/271, Bukovinai magyarok támogatása – Magyarországra
tortenő áttelepíiésének ügzei. 1941–1944: 7. Memo from Pál Bella. Bucharest, 10 Dec. 1940. The Külföldi
Magyarok Hazatelepítő Kormánybiztosság [Foreign Magyars Repatriation Committee] was created after a
Bárdossy cabinet meeting, led by Miklós Bonczos, in the spring of 1941.
9
Ibid. 9–16. Report by Peter Pal Domokos. Bucharest, 28. Nov. 1940.
Page 4
R. C
HRIS
D
AVIS
98
the villages that could interest us from a Hungarian point of view…and I will continue as
my next assignment to find people to create a movement to encourage [these Hungarian-
speaking Csángós] to opt for Hungarian citizenship.”
10
To help facilitate this, Domokos re-
quested he be allowed to retain as his “assistants” two unnamed priests already working in
Moldavia.
11
Presumably, Domokos is referring to priests from the recently resettled Székely
villages from Bukovina, priests who were subsequently reappointed as vicars to parishes
in Moldavia (see Davis 2007: 168–171). These priests were later accused by the Romanian
government of spreading Hungarian propaganda and working “in the service of Hungary”
– one of whom was to stand trial for such activities before escaping to Hungary.
12
Domokos
furthermore proposed exchanging the Greek Catholics of Bihar county for the Romanian
Catholics in Moldavia, and indicated that he would ask Áron Márton to inquire with the
Papal Nuncio about transferring these populations.
13
By promoting the Csángó community’s historical, linguistic, and even racial links
to the Magyars, Domokos and others sought to establish a Hungarian national belong-
ing and to justify repatriation to a Hungarian homeland.
14
Confronted by the very real
threat of deportation from their Romanian homeland, the Roman Catholic hierarchy in
Moldavia undertook to retrace the ethnogenealogy
15
and reconstruct the historical nar-
rative of their community in order to demonstrate conclusively their belonging within the
Romanian nation. This effort was led by one man in particular, Iosif Petru Pal, who was
the Superior of the Franciscan Order in Luizi-Călugăra–Bacău and one of the most in-
fluential members of the Roman-Catholic hierarchy in Moldavia.
16
This was also a signal
to the Antonescu regime that the Csángós were not inimical to the Romanian nation and
therefore should not be included in the repatriation schemes under discussion with the
Hungarian Legation in Bucharest, underway since the cession of northern Transylvania in
August 1940. It was also a message to the adjacent ethnic majority (Romanian Orthodox)
10
Ibid. 19–20. Report by Péter Pál Domokos. Bucharest, 8. Dec. 1940.
11
Ibid.
12
Arhiva Naţională Bucureşti, Preşedinţia Consiliului de Miniştri, Serviciul Deosebit de Informaţii (hereafter
ANPCM/SSI), f. 63/1942: 26. Report entitled “Propaganda iredentei ungare faţă de problema ‘ceangăilor’
din Moldova.“ 18. Nov. 1942.
13
MOL K28 ME, 163/271, Bukovinai magyarok támogatási: 19–20. See also MOL K28 ME, 162/270, Moldvai
Csángók ügyei: 34–35.
14
See Mikecs 1941, Mikecs 1943, Baumgartner 1940, Siculus 1942, Györffy 1942. Much of this literature
found its way into Catholic Moldavia and became source of consternation for the Csángó priests and some
local Romanian authorities, who regarded this as Hungarian propaganda. For a discussion on the impact of
this, see Davis 2007: 168–169, Diaconescu 2005: 16–17. Credit should be given to Diaconescu for placing
the perspective and motives of the Moldavian Catholic clergy in a clearer social-historical context, especially
concerning the problem of ethnic origins.
15
By ethnogenealogy, I mean the tracing of a group’s ethnic lineage to its presupposed or predominant
ethnic origins, attempting to overturn an established ethnic identity and to recover a supposedly authentic
one; alternatively, this retracing of ethnic genealogy can be used to authenticate an ethnic identity that
appears dubious or is under assault. In either case, the process serves to validate an ethnic community’s
inclusion into, or exclusion from, relevant categories, e.g. national belonging.
16
For further discussion on Pal and state policy vis-à-vis the Moldavian Catholics in the 1940s, see Coşa 2001,
Coşa 2004, Pozsony 2006: 21–22, 59–64.
Page 5
T
HE
B
IOPOLITICS AND
E
THNOGENEALOGY OF
M
OLDAVIAN
C
ATHOLICS
...
99
and its municipal officials that although the community was entirely Roman Catholic and
partly Hungarian speaking, they were neither de jure nor de facto Hungarian nationals. It
is no coincidence that in both Hungary and Romania the most contentious works regard-
ing the national identity of the Csángós emerged between 1940 and 1944.
In this context, the Catholic clergy in Moldaviasought to remove the guilt by association
(ethno-linguistic, religious) to the Hungarian state. In addition, they sought to stymie low-
level persecution such as verbal denigration in schools
17
and the withholding of nationality
certificates (certificatele de naţionalitate română) by Romanian municipal officials, done
on the pretense that Hungarian-speaking Catholics could not possibly be Romanian.
18
The
securing of these nationality certificates was crucial. According to the commission that issued
these on behalf of the Antonescu government, “the concept of the nation is synonymous with
the collectivity of individuals of the same race, same blood, same traditions, same customs,
same history, and the same conceptions of morals, etc. Being of Romanian nationality means
being of ethnic Romanian origin. Nationality is not identical with citizenship.“
19
Retracing the ethnogenealogy and historical narrative by the Csángó clerical intelli-
gentsia was prompted not by a historical or scientific epiphany by Pal and others; nor was
it the manifestation of an ultra nationalist or fascist movement, such as the Iron Guard.
Regarding the broader population of Roman Catholics in the late 1930s, it is clear that the
community did not support in any meaningful numbers the program and political party
of Codreanu. In the 1937 parliamentary elections, his “All for the Fatherland” party had a
dismal showing in counties containing the majority of Roman Catholics. Furious over the
lack of Catholic support in these elections – especially considering the martyrdom of the
Legionaries Ion Moţa and Vasile Marin, who had “died defending the Catholic Church”
in the Spanish Civil War – Codreanu instructed the Legionary organizations from Bacău
and Roman to ban all Catholics from joining the movement for the next three years (letter
is dated 14 Jan. 1938)
20
. There is no material evidence that the Roman Catholic hierarchy
was aligned with the Iron Guard, with perhaps one notable exception: according his per-
sonal file in Arhiva Consiliului Naţional pentru Studierea Arhivelor Securităţii (ACNSAS),
the priest Ioan Mărtinaş
21
, mentioned herein, was imprisoned by Antonescu for being a
17
See discussion and references in Diaconescu 2005: 9–20.
18
ANPCM/SSI, f. 63/1942: 1–2. The report is from the Bacău section of the Centrul Contrainformaţii, the
precursor of the DGSP (Securitate) that was established in 1948.
19
ANPCM/Cabinet Civil Mihai Antonescu 1940–1944, dosar 420: 160.
20
See: Codreanu 1981: 238. (I am grateful to Valentin Săndulescu for locating this document and discussing the
issue with me.) Finally, no such link between the Roman Catholics and the Iron Guard is mentioned in any of the
intelligence reports on the Csángós, reports that were compiled in a dossier within the Antonescu cabinet.
21
Ion Mărtinaş (born Tamaş Mărtinaş Gabur) was the younger brother of Dumitru Mărtinaş, author of
Originea ceangăilor din Moldova (Bucharest, 1985). Since its publication, the book has had an enormous
impact on the debate over the ethnic origins of the Csángós. In any case, it is clear from the files below that
Ion and Dumitru Mărtinaş wrote the manuscript together in the mid-1960s, though it underwent a number
of revisions before a draft was completed in 1973 in Buzău, where Dumitru was a pensioner. However, the
book was published only in 1985, after Dumitru’s death in 1979; it was, moreover, credited to Dumitru alone,
presumably because Ion was a cleric and a convicted anti-communist.
Page 6
R. C
HRIS
D
AVIS
100
“şef de sector” in the Legionary movement. Mărtinaş was interned in Târgu Jiu prison on
8 July 1941 but was soon released due to the intervention of Andrea Cassulo, the Apostolic
Nuncio
22
. Mentioned in the Mărtinaş file, moreover, is Bishop Mihai Robu’s disappointed
in the priest for bringing disgrace upon the Church
23
. Nevertheless, Mărtinaş returned
to Iaşi where he continued to write and to publish. According to Securitate interviews
with Mărtinaş in 1963, the priest confessed that his motivation for joining the movement
in 1939 was to protect the Church and, by extension, his fellow Moldavian Catholics.
Accordingly, by having a representative of the Catholic clergy within the Iron Guard, the
Church might safeguard itself with the ruling – and by far the most violent – political
force in the country: “When I agreed to support the Legionaries I carried out negotia-
tions with Codreanu and I put conditions on this, not for my personal favor but for the
advantage of the Church. I asked some favors for the Church – not for me. Codreanu
realized that if we Catholic priests supported him, all the Catholics would support him. I
had guarantees on his part that our word would be decisive when the issue of our Church
was discussed. When I agreed to support the so-called politics of the Legionaries, I did it
not because I wanted to be a minister [in the Legion] but to help the Church, and if I was
punished for these politics then I suffered for a holy cause, and I have all the right to think
about a divine reward. [...] The Legionary Movement was a dream, and they thought that
this dream could become a reality but it remained a dream and is destined to remain a
dream. We ourselves [Moldavian Catholics], we have our own way. We do not walk on
their way, nor on other ways. It is because of this we are persecuted – because we have
our own way.”
24
From the episcopate and seminary in Iaşi, and in parishes across Moldavia, the Catholic
hierarchy would have been all too familiar with the rhetoric and political violence of the
Guard. In these circumstances, having Mărtinaş as an intermediary – whether he joined
on his own initiative, and with or without the blessing of his superiors – was probably not
imprudent in 1939–1940. In this way, the Church would not be seen as wholly uncom-
mitted or ill-disposed to the Legionary State, should it prove lasting. In any case, most
of the wartime articles and monographs dealing with the ethnic origins of the Csángós
appeared after Antonescu crushed the Legionary movement in January 1941. Finally, no
such link between the Roman Catholics and the Iron Guard is mentioned in any of the
intelligence reports on the Csangos, reports that were compiled in a dossier within the
Antonescu cabinet.
25
Thus, the retracing of the Csángós’ ethnogenealogy and the reconstruction of their
historical narrative by the likes of Mărtinaş and Pal were reactions to the repatriation
initiatives by Hungary and, to a lesser extent, the discrimination faced by the community
in wartime Moldavia. This refashioning of Csángós’ ethnic origins was advanced primar-
22
ACNSAS, Fond Personal, Ioan Mărtinaş, i141282/1: 50.
23
Ibid., i141282/2: 186.
24
Ibid., i141282/1: 51, 72–73.
25
See ANPCM/SSI, f. 63/1942.
Page 7
T
HE
B
IOPOLITICS AND
E
THNOGENEALOGY OF
M
OLDAVIAN
C
ATHOLICS
...
101
ily through the historiography of the period, particularly in Catholic journals and mono-
graphs but also in scientific literature. However, this was not merely a discursive contest
over the perceived ethnicity, national identity, and history of the Csángós: at stake was the
physical location, livelihood, and citizenship of tens of thousands of Moldavian Catholics,
as well as the preservation of Roman Catholicism in eastern Orthodox lands.
“Gangrene of the National Body”: An Ethnic Majority Perspective
A series of detailed government reports – most of them anonymous – between 1942 and
1943, compiled within the Antonescu cabinet, lend insight into the perspectives of the
ethnic majority and the state vis-à-vis the Csángós. From the outside looking in, these re-
ports assessed the problem of ethnic origins and the attitudes of the Moldavian Catholic
population and their clergy. Understanding the contexts in which these reports were
written is far more important than evaluating whether they were indicative of a broader
ethnic-majority perspective: we should be less concerned with the verisimilitude of these
perspectives and instead deal with the fact that they were perspectives, ones that moved
up and down the chain of command and informed major policy decisions.
26
It should also
be understood that Romanian elites and policy makers knew very little about this popula-
tion, who were mentioned in only a handful of Romanian historical accounts and were
generally presumed to be Hungarian.
27
In the minds Romanian intellectuals and policy
makers, the Csángós represented a religious, ethnic, and linguistic anomaly in the very
heart of the nation. Were the Csángós Romanian or Hungarian? For centuries the answer
(or answers) to this question mattered little if at all. But by the 1930s and 40s – a period
of modernization, national rejuvenation, then national crisis – the answer to this ques-
tion had far-reaching implications. What, then, was to be done? Where was their place
within “Romanian Romania”? If the Csángós were demonstrably Hungarian, could they
still be Romanianized? Irrespective of their ethnic origins, did their staunch Catholicism
pose an even greater danger to Romanian state and society?
Below I will examine four of these reports from the Antonescu cabinet. The first is by
an agent in the Centrul Contrainformaţii [Center for Counter-information] in Bacău. The
agent suggested that, based on the Hungarian language spoken within the community,
the ethnic origin of the Csángós was presumably Hungarian. The author remarked, how-
ever, that if in fact the Csángós were not of Hungarian ethnic origin, then they should be
26
As Irina Livezeanu noted about interwar discussions on the denationalization processes by and against
the Szeklers, “it is not so much whether and to what extent ’Szeklerization’ [of ethnic Romanians]
happened, but that it was noticed, theorized, and ’deconstructed’ by Romanians unwilling to simply
accept a Szekler presence in eastern Transylvania.” Denationalization theories, such as those discussed
by G. Popa-Lisseanu (see next section), formed the basis of educational policy in Greater Romania (see
Livezeanu 1995: 139–140).
27
See for example, Rosetti 1905 and Năstase 1936.
Page 8
R. C
HRIS
D
AVIS
102
forced to abandon the Hungarian language since it was not, ergo, their autentic tongue.
28
The report drew parallels to the linguistic assimilation of others regarded as lost ethnic-
Romanians, citing cases in Transylvania, Bessarabia, and the Timoc, where centuries of
foreign domination had led to the „denationalization” of native Romanians.
29
Another report commented on the attitude of the Csángó clergy, who were depicted
as having “absolute spiritual mastery” over the population, preventing their assimilation
into the local Romanian Orthodox population.
30
The report describes a form of “Catholic
nationalism” instilled into the community by the clergy, breeding hostility against the
local Orthodox population: “this is extremely dangerous and harmful to the interests of
the Romanian State because the Catholic clergy holds the population under their domi-
nation, as an isolated community that is quasi-belligerent towards the natives.”
31
A third
report depicted the Catholics in Moldavia as “a state within a state,” due to the clerical
hegemony enabled by the lack of local (state) administration.
32
Though the clergy had
worked, in part, to “de-Magyarize” the community, their overriding aim was to lock the
community within a “Catholic enclosure…controlling it fully, and keeping it within the
universal Catholic world.”
33
Whether the Csángós or their clergy posed a genuine threat is, in retrospect, irrel-
evant: some amongst the ethnic majority – evidently in significant enough numbers to
be referenced in these reports – perceived these Catholics as a threat to Romanian so-
ciety and the nation. The question for the ethnic majority and the state was, essentially,
whether the Moldavian Catholics could be Romanianized, regardless or in spite of their
“true” ethnic origin. To those who believed it possible to Romanianize the community,
the Csángós needed to be Romanianized as soon as possible in order “to remove once and
for all from the body of the nation this gangrene that is the Catholic population from
Moldova [emphasis added].”
34
Though some amongst the neighboring Orthodox popu-
lation maintained the Csángós could indeed be Romanianized whilst preserving their
Catholic religion, others believed the Csángós could never be Romanianized without first
converting to Romanian Orthodoxy.
35
28
ANPCM/SSI, ibid.: 12–20. Anonymous report entitled Dare de seamă asupra minorităţii etnice din
Moldova denumite Ciangăi dated 17 Nov. 1942.
29
Ibid. 13. It should be noted that most of these reports acknowledged the loyalty of the Csángó community
to the Romanian state (e.g. wartime military service over the previous century). This acknowledgement only
underscores the paradigmatic shift in conceptions of the Romanian nation by the ethnic majority, in that a
community that had long resided within the nation and demonstrated no hostility to it was now subject to
outright exclusion and even deportation.
30
Ibid. 22. Anon., Problema catolicilor din Moldova: Chestiunea originii etnice în preocuparea populaţiei
respective dated 17 Nov. 1942.
31
Ibid.
32
Ibid., Anon., 27. Page two of a three-page report entitled Propaganda iredentei ungare faţă de problema
“ceangăilor” din Moldova. 18 Nov. 1942.
33
Ibid. 25.
34
Ibid.
35
Ibid.
Page 9
T
HE
B
IOPOLITICS AND
E
THNOGENEALOGY OF
M
OLDAVIAN
C
ATHOLICS
...
103
Still others contended the ethnic origin of most Csángós was clearly Hungarian and that
any claim otherwise “could not erase this from their minds” – such claims of Romanian eth-
nic origin be regarded as “hypocrisy” and unfounded.
36
From this point of view, the Csángós
could never be Romanianized, nor should they: “On the contrary, they should be senten bloc
to Hungary. Only through this measure can the gangrene be removed from the body of the
nation.”
37
In this context, the situation of the Csángós neatly exemplifies what Marius Turda
describes as “the biologization of national belonging” (Turda 2007a: 427, 437–439). The na-
tionisportrayedasaliving,organicbodysusceptibletodiseaseandatrophy–withthenation’s
minorities its pathogens. In the same way, policy prescriptions for dealing with ethnic minori-
ties were likened to farmaceutic prescriptions and treatments, necessary to ensure the health and
survival of the nation. What is evident herein is that biopolitical discourse and the conceptu-
alization of the nation in biological terms permeated not just the writings of intellectual and
scientific elites, but also the intelligence reports and briefings by government operatives – and,
as we shall see below, the letters, pamphlets, and journals of Catholic clerics.
Re-constructing a National–Historical Narrative
Several Catholic journals in Moldavia advanced the thesis that Roman Catholics in
the region were explicitly Romanian Catholics. The most important of these journals
were Almanahul Revistei Viaţa, Almanahul Revistei Populare Catolice and Lumina
Creştinului. The priests-cum-historians Ioan Mărtinaş and Iosif Petru Pal used these fora
to promote their alternative historical narrative – which presupposed a Romanian ethno-
genealogy in lieu of a Hungarian one – and to establish a timely body of historiography
to complement their respective monographs. Amongst the first articles to appear was
Pal’s Catolicii din Moldova sunt români neaoşi [Catholics from Moldova are authen-
tic Romanians] in 1941, which enumerated evidence in consideration of the Moldavian
Catholics as “authentic” Romanians. He detailed a range sources dating from the founda-
tion of the Catholic Episcopate of Milcov in thirteenth-century Moldavia – referencing
papal bulls, census data, Propaganda Fide, missionary reports and codices – to contem-
poraneous works such as G. Popa-Lisseanu’s on the denationalization or Szeklerization
of Transylvanian Romanians. Popa-Lisseanu theorized that the Szeklers were actually
Romanians who had been Hungarianized over the centuries. Pal noted an anomaly in
Popa-Lisseanu’s statistics concerning some Romanian villages in the Szeklerland (east-
ern Transylvania) in the mid-eighteenth-century, indicating that a large number of
these villages had “disappeared.” Pal then linked the disappearance of these Romanian
Transylvanians with a concomitant influx of Romanian Catholics into Moldavia – based
on his reading of Church and other historical records – which bolstered the existing
36
Ibid. The report was referring specifically to Iosif Petru Pal’s Origina catolicilor din Moldova, a work that
attempted to demonstrate a purely Romanian ethnogenealogy (see following sections).
37
Ibid.
Page 10
R. C
HRIS
D
AVIS
104
Catholic settlements there. Pal concluded that these immigrants were the Romanian
Greek Catholics with “pure” Romanian names and Szeklerized/Catholicized Romanians
from Transylvania, some of whose names and mother tongue appeared to be Hungarian.
It was these Szeklerized Romanian Catholics who introduced a dialect of the Hungarian
language and the Hungarian ethnonyms into the otherwise “authentic” Romanian com-
munity; the Moldavians referred to these Catholic newcomers as Hungarian only because
they had been long dominated by the Szeklers. For Pal, the Hungarian elements amongst
the Moldavian Catholics were superficial and inauthentic: rather, “the ethnology, eth-
nography and ethnicity of this population is authentic Romanian,” and therefore “all
[Catholics] in Moldova are only Romanian Catholics” (Pal 1941: 60).
Between 1942 and 1943, the priest and historian Ioan Mărtinaş (see above) published
a series of articles inLumina Creştinului, under the rubric Din istoria Bisericii catolice în
Moldova [From the History of the Catholic Church in Moldova]. These articles chronicled
the establishment of Roman Catholicism in Moldavia and posited continuity between the
autochthonous Romanized Getae, Dacian, and Tracian settlements and the Christianized
Goths.
38
Mărtinaş believed that these were the pre-modern ancestors of the Moldavian
Catholics. Bolstering this claim was a university professor in Bucharest, M. Gârniţeanu,
who likewise took an interest in the ethnic origins of the Csángós and connected them to
the Dacians. Gârniţeanu originally published his article, Catolicii Ciangăi din Moldova
sunt Daci [Csángó Catholics from Moldova are Dacian], in a secular periodical,Moldova.
Gârniţeanu traced the etymology of the Csángó ethnonym to the name of a Dacian tribe
Kaukoensi, named after the type of earthen vase used to move water from local wells, a
vase they were known to produce. The original Dacian word for this vase,kaukos, through
Romanian became cenac, and this in turn became the ethnonym Kenagaci or Cenagăi.
The Szeklers had it coming, too. Their ethnonym stemmed from the Latinsitula, the term
for a well bucket, which was transformed into Romanianciutură and later corrupted into
sicula, and still later into the attributed ethnonymSăcui. Essentially, Gârniţeanu conflated
the history and ethnogenealogy of the Szeklers and Csángós, who were presumed to be the
descendents of a particular tribe of redheaded Dacians described by ancient authors.
Several such articles that endorsed the Romanian ethnogenesis thesis of the Moldavian
Catholics were reprinted in the Catholic journals during the war.
39
What is remarkable
during the first half of the 1940s is this crossover of the sacred and profane: prominent
secular journals and intelligentsia in both academia and government took up the cause of
this obscure religious minority along the eastern slopes of the Carpathians; meanwhile,
38
See under this rubric the articles entitled, Întăia sămânţă evangelică March 1942: 42–45; Sub stăpânirea
romană Apr. 1942: 65–67; Năvălirea Goţilor şi creştinarea lor June 1942: 126–130; Erezii şi prigoane în
Biserica Goţilor July–Aug. 1942: 163–167; Biserica Goţilor în raport cu Românii Nov.–Dec. 1942: 280–283;
Creştinarea Daciei Traiane Feb. 1943: 48–55; and Sfântul Niceta din Remesiana Apr. 1943: 108–110.
39
See for example Mareş 1943. Reprinted within an article under the same title by Ioan Mărtinaş, with his
own commentary and analysis, in Lumina Creştinului. (1944) January. 26–29. See also book review by Z.
S., “Die Abstammung Der Tschangos, sau Originea Ciangăilor; de Petru Râmneanţu,” in Universal, 11 Feb.
1944. Reprinted in Lumina Creştinului (1944): 74–75.
Page 11
T
HE
B
IOPOLITICS AND
E
THNOGENEALOGY OF
M
OLDAVIAN
C
ATHOLICS
...
105
local, otherwise obscure Catholic journals reprinted, advertised, and cited the scientific
work of a leading Romanian racial anthropologist and eugenicist (see below).
A Dialectic of the Sacred and Profane
While Mărtinaş was engaged primarily with a general historiographical reconstruction —
the piecing together of historical texts supporting claims that the Csángós belonged to the
ethnic Romanian nation — Pal embarked on a markedly different approach, one based less
on chronological-historical accounting and more on scientific methods. In doing so, Pal em-
ployed the work of Romanian biologist and eugenicist, Petru Râmneanţu. Râmneanţu had
sought to establish a definitive Romanian racial identity of the Csángós based on blood type.
Through serological work and the indexing of blood groups, Râmneanţu believed he could
solve a number of historical dillemas regarding the multi-ethnic composition of large parts
of Romania (especially Transylvania) (Turda 2007a: 435). In 1943, Râmneanţu published
an article entitled Grupele de Sânge la Ciangăii din Moldova [Blood Groups of the Csángós
from Moldova], and in 1944 a monograph, Die Abstammung der Tschangos. In these two
works – the only such works on the Csángós – Râmneanţu transferred the highly specialist
and authoritative language of the burgeoning new sciences of eugenics and racial anthropol-
ogy into the Csángó narrative. He claimed that, considering the history of the Csángós and
the recent demographic evolution reflected in the census of 1941 – asserting the vast majority
of Csángós chose “Romanian“ as their ethnicity – the tendency of their ethnic consciousness
was to declare themselves Romanian rather than Hungarian. The ethnic consciousness of the
Csángós was, therefore, a natural consequence and manifestation of their biological reality.
It is evident that Pal and Râmneanţu had some level of contact. In a letter sent by
Râmneanţu from the Institute of Hygiene and Public Health in Sibiu to Pal at his resi-
dence in Luizi-Călugăra–Bacău, Râmneanţu assured the priest that the results of the
serological work on the Csángós (demonstrating their Romanian-ness) would soon be
published, and that the problem of the Romanian Csángós would remain a subject of
continual preoccupation at the institute.
40
With scientific confirmation of his thesis, Pal
used the evidence established in Râmneanţu’s work in order to bolster and advance the
cause of Romanian Roman-Catholics – specifically, that they rightfully belonged in the
Romanian nation (however conceived) and to their Moldavian homeland. In any case, the
conceptual frameworks and ultimate conclusions of the priest and eugenicist are contem-
poraneous, and it is clear that the work of each informed the other.
40
Arhiva Consiliului Naţional pentru Studierea Arhivelor Securităţii (ACNSAS)/Ministerul Afacerilor
Interne, DGP, Dosar relativ la Ceangăii. The letter is dated 3 Nov. 1942, and reads in its entirety: „Prea
Sfinţite – Am primit scrisoarea Sfinţiei Voastre. Desigur că problema Ciangăilor-Români de acum cândva va
fi şi pentru noi un subiect de continua preocupare. De aceea va rugăm extraordinar de mult să mai aveţi răbdare până
ce va apare şi broşura noastră, care nu va întârzia mai mult decât 3–5 săptămâni. Structura serobiologică
a Romanilor-Ciangăi confirma cele susţinute de Sfinţia Voastră. Al Prea Sfinţiei voastre – Dr. Petru
Râmneanţu.”
Page 12
R. C
HRIS
D
AVIS
106
Pal’s Coups de Grâce
By March 1945 the Red Army had occupied Romania and established a Soviet Supreme
Command in Bucharest. As if the Csángó community had not been pressured from the
west over the last four years, they now faced deportation to the Soviet Union
41
in the east
under the pretenses that 1) they were Hungarian and 2) they had given quarter to German
soldiers stuck behind enemy lines.
42
Yet again, Pal had to convince another political au-
thority that the Csángós were ethnic Romanians who belonged in Moldavia.
In desperation, Pal wrote to Andrea Cassulo, the Apostolic Nuncio in Bucharest,
asking him to appeal to both the Romanian government and the Vatican to intervene
on behalf of the Moldavian Catholics: “Your Excellency, we try not only our romantic
arguments with cold arguments, but with the warm blood, sacrificed from our Moldavian
Catholic ancestors over seven centuries, as today from our soldiers, siblings of blood and
arms with Orthodox Rumanians, and scattered for the freedom and progress of our be-
loved Rumanian Native land.”
43
Again, Pal is committed to representing the Moldavian
Catholics as Romanian – Romanians by blood, nationality, and conviction who are
distinguished only by their Roman Catholic (now Romanian Catholic) confession. In
his appeal to Cassulo, Pal relays news from Soviet-occupied Moldavia of the Soviets’
intention to “deport to Russia our Catholic population under the pretense that they are
Hungarian–Magyar.”
44
Pal further notes the help given by the Romanian authorities
in Bacău and by various Romanian intellectuals, “who defended our Romanian origin
and citizenship, which is in no way Magyar.” However, this support had not satisfied the
Soviets in Bacău, and so the case was to be sent Bucharest for adjudication by the Soviet
Supreme Command. Pal’s letter is significant, and so it is worth quoting at length: “We
are of Rumanian origin. This truth has been denied by the Hungarian writers and some
Rumanian writers…without solid arguments. But in recent years, thanks to findings of
the Rumanian Advanced School of Rome, which has published four thick volumes with
41
Evidence that the Csángós faced deportation to the Soviet Union in 1945 is taken directly from Pal’s
letters to Andrea Cassulo, the Apostolic Nuncio in Bucharest, and to the Romanian Minister of Interior in
Bucharest. While this needs to be corroborated by additional documentary sources, it is nevertheless the
case that Pal and others believed this threat was both genuine and imminent (see below).
42
Arhivele Naţionale ale României, Direcţia Judeţeană Bacău, Fond Parohiei Romano–Catolice, Luizi-
Călugăra 1/1940: 72–74. The letter to Cassulo is in Italian and dated 18 Jan. 1945. “Ma se i russi al egassero
altre pretenzioni contro i nostri cattolici, come quella di aver prestato ospitalita a qualche soldato tedeschi
ramingo dietro la sconfitta subita dai tedeschi in Moldavia, la raggoine sana esige che fosse punita solo la
persona rispettiva, che avesse commesso un simile fatto, ma non tutta la nostra popolazione cattolica con
transportazioni in massa nelle regioni orientali della Russia. Questa sa rebbe una delle acusazioni principali
che essi mettono a carico dei nostri cattolici, benche io neppure un solo caso conosco di certo.” A version in
Romanian of this letter was addressed and sent to the Romanian Minister of Interior two days later, ibid. 76;
another letter expressing continued concern about deportation to Russia was sent by Pal to Cassulo on 10
Apr. 1945, ibid. 79.
43
Ibid.
44
Ibid. According to Pal, the Soviet Command in Bacău had communicated this news to the Romanian
authorities in Bacău and Roman, who in turn informed Pal.
Page 13
T
HE
B
IOPOLITICS AND
E
THNOGENEALOGY OF
M
OLDAVIAN
C
ATHOLICS
...
107
historical documents – Diplomatarium Italicum – and also my personal research in the
Vatican archives, many documents have been found which prove our Rumanian origin.
Based on these new historical documents, I have shed light in my book entitled Originea
Catolicilor din Moldova şi Franciscanii păstorii lor de veacuri. In this book I have proved
our Rumanian origin clearly. […] This book of mine has been elevated to the level of
historical debate in the University of Iaşi…and the conclusion was that my thesis has been
accepted with unanimity; the same conclusion was reached at the University of Bucharest
and published in the historical journal, Preocupări universitare in 1943. The University
of Cluj–Sibiu, through the Comisiunea Istorică pentru Transilvania, under the guidance
of university professor Iuliu Moldovan, has confirmed the same truth, approving of the
racial results of Prof. Dr. P. Râmneanţu, who was sent from the Cabinet of the Antonescu
Government to the Catholic villages of Moldavia in order to assess my thesis.”
This sheds some light on a number of questions, namely why the Csángó villages
were included in Râmneanţu’s serological and anthropological research in Moldavia.
According to Pal’s account, Râmneanţu was commissioned by Antonescu himself in order
to validate Pal’s claims about the ethnic origins of the Csángós. Of course, Râmneanţu’s
mission was part of a broader agenda and system of research teams throughout Romania,
coordinated by Iuliu Moldovan and the Institute of Hygiene and Public Health in Sibiu.
45
Pal is perhaps interpreting things to serve his argument. Nevertheless, it would be a mis-
take, I contend, to underestimate the significance of Pal or to dismiss him as a mere tool
in the service of a broader Roman-Catholic or Romanian-nationalist agenda. Pal’s letters
and his publications illustrate the penetration, absorption, and utilization of biopolitical
discourse in the Catholic region of Moldavia. This was a discourse which emerged innocu-
ously enough in the fields of social hygiene and demography but found its way into the
lexicon of nationalist ideologies; it was later instrumentalized to articulate the goals of
ethnic homogenization and to legitimize exclusion of those minority populations consid-
ered dysgenic to the nation. It should be noted, however, that though some of these ideas
and discourses were indeed radical, even for the time, they were nevertheless a facet of
the prevailing nationalist culture in wartime Romania (Turda 2007a: 436). Remarkably,
Pal recognized and understood the implications of this discourse, assimilated to his own
narrative of the Csángós, and exploited it to justify the community’s inclusion into the
Romanian nation – thereby forestalling attempts to expatriate the community from
Moldavia. In retrospect, he can rightly be viewed as the most consequential figure within
this milieu.
46
45
Arhivele Naţionale ale României, Direcţia Judeţeană Cluj, Fond Institutul de Igienă şi Sănătate Publica
Cluj Cluj 1920–1966, 1069/710, dosar 98: 274, 291, 403. Beginning in September 1942, Râmneanţu
traveled through Tecuci, Bacău, and Neamţ counties to conduct serological and anthropological research
on the populations there, particularly on school children and young men in Romania’s military preparatory
organization, the Premilitărie. For a broader discussion of this agenda, see Turda 2007b: 370–373.
46
In Romanian archival material on the Csángós during this period, the name Iosif Petru Pal is ubiquitous.
His letters, published works, and his agenda and theses are discussed in nearly every major report or dossier
on the Csángós compiled by the state, from the Antonescu cabinet to the Foreign and Partea interioară Ministries.
Page 14
R. C
HRIS
D
AVIS
108
Conclusion
I have suggested elsewhere that, in the early 1940s, the motive and urgency for advancing
the thesis of ethnic Romanian origins by the likes of Iosif Petru Pal and Ioan Mărtinaş
was to resist attempts to expatriate the community from its homeland, first to Hungary
and later to the Soviet Union. Again, we should look at the context not only of interwar
and wartime Romania and the pressures of Carol II’s and then Antonescu’s regime on
minority communities such as the Csángós; but also the incursions of the Hungarian
government and its agents in the pursuit of its own resettlement schemes, in the attempt
to encourage Hungarian-speaking Csángós to abandon their Moldavian homeland in
order to colonize the Bácska and Baranya (territory that was, in any case, ceded back to
Yugoslavia in 1944 following the war).
Biopolitical discourse and scientific language in the early 1940s Romania were in-
strumental in reconstructing the historical narrative of the Csángós. The science of racial
biology, anthropology, and serology – as well as linguistics and philology – was employed
in the pursuit of a unified theory of Csángó-Romanian ethnogenealogy. It informed the
policy of the Antonescu regime vis-à-vis the Csángós, and was generative of future dis-
course that resurfaced during the period of national communism.
47
The use of scientific
methods and discourse furthermore lent veracity to the claims on ethnic origins. This
recovery of Romanian ethnic origins of the Csángós by scientific means (serology and
racial biology) led one commentator in 1943 to assume the following: “Even if sometimes
the data presented by the historians can be annulled by the serologists (especially when
history is not impartial), the results of serology can never be refuted by historical argu-
ment – because serology researches the ever-present reality of a character that neither
time nor facts nor anything can transform” (Mareş 1943: 104).
Again, all of this took place in the context of enormous pressure on minority communi-
ties, not only from within Romania but also from Hungary, which was engaged in its own
struggle to achieve a homogenous, unitary state for ethnic Hungarians. Re-examining the
plight of the Csángós in these contexts offers us a better understanding of why some com-
munities were more willing to negotiate their collective identities and historical narra-
tives. For many, this was an existential choice between, on the one hand, ethno-national
and historiographic relocation within the national canons; and on the other, physical
dislocation from their homeland and dismemberment from the national body.
47
See Dumitru Mărtinaş, Originea ceangăilor din Moldova (Bucureşti, 1985) reprinted in English, The
Origins of the Csángós from Moldova (Iaşi, 1999).
Page 15
T
HE
B
IOPOLITICS AND
E
THNOGENEALOGY OF
M
OLDAVIAN
C
ATHOLICS
...
109
Bibliography
ACHIM, Viorel
2001 The Romanian Population Exchange Project Elaborated by Sabin Manuilă in
October 1941 Annali/Jahrbuch 27. 593–617.
2005 Romanian–German Collaboration in Ethnopolitics: The Case of Sabin Manuilă.
In: HAAR, Ingo – FAHLBUSCH, Michael (eds.): German Scholars and Ethnic
Cleansing 1919–1945. Berghahn Books, New York, 139–154.
BAKER, Robin
1996 Magyars, Mongols, Romanians and Saxons. Balkan Studies 37. (1) 63–76.
BAUMGARTNER Alexander [BESENYŐ Sándor]
1940 Moldva, a magyarság nagy temetője. Budapest
BOLOVAN, Sorina – BOLOVAN, Ioan
2000 Iniţiative româneşti privind problema schimbului de populaţie în primii ani ai celui
de al doilea război internațional (1931–1941). In: România şi relaţiile internaţionale in
secolul XX. Editura Clusium, Cluj, 90–116.
BROWN, Kate
2004 A Biography of No Place. Harvard
BUCUR, Maria
2002 Eugenics and Modernization in Interwar Romania. University of Pittsburgh Press,
Pittsburgh
CODREANU, Corneliu Zelea
1981 Circulari şi manifeste 1927–1938. Colecţia Europa, München
COŞA, Anton
2001 Cleja. Monografie etnografică. Editura SemnE, Bucureşti
2004 Problema originii catolicilor din Moldova In: Catolicii din Moldova în izvoarele
Sfântului Scaun (secolele XVII–XVIII). Teză de Doctorat. Academia Română,
Institutul de Istorie Nicolae Iorga, Bucureşti, 14–64.
DAVIS, Chris R.
2007 Restocking the Ethnic Homeland: Ideological and Strategic Motives behind Hungary’s
‘Hazatelepítés’ Schemes during WWII (and the Unintended Consequences). Regio.
(10) 155–174.
DIACONESCU, Marius
2005 A moldvai katolikusok identitáskrízise a politika és a historiográfiai mítoszok
között. In: KINDA István – POZSONY Ferenc (szerk.): Adaptáció és modernizáció
a moldvai csángó falvakban. Kriza János Néprajzi Társaság, Kolozsvár, 9–20.
GÂRNIŢEANU, M.
1944 Catolicii Ciangăi din Moldova sunt Daci. Moldova. január 26. [Újraközölve: Lumina
Creştinului XXX. (2) 49–50.]
GYÖRFFY István
1942 A moldvai csángók. In: Magyar nép, magyar föld. Budapest, 441–472.
Page 16
R. C
HRIS
D
AVIS
110
KING, Jeremy
2002 Budweisers into Czechs and Germans: A Local History of Bohemian Politics,
1848–1948. Princeton University Press, Princeton
LIVEZEANU, Irina
1995 Cultural Politics in Greater Romania: Regionalism, Nation Building, and Ethnic
Struggle, 1918–1930. Cornell University Press, London
MAREŞ, Crista
1943 Sunt Ciangăii români? Preocupări Universitare. (1) 104.
MIKECS László
1941 Csángók. Bolyai Akadémia, Budapest
1943 A Kárpátokon túli magyarság. In: Magyarok és románok. Budapest, 441–449.
NĂSTASE, Gh. I.
1936 Ungurii din Moldova la 1646 mai târziu Codex Bandinus. Bucureşti
PAL, Iosif Petru
1941 Catolicii din Moldova sunt români neaoşi. Almanahul Revistei Populare Catolice.
56–60.
POPA-LISSEANU, Gheorghe
1941 Secuii şi secuizarea românilor. Bucureşti
POZSONY Ferenc
2006 The Hungarian Csángó of Moldova. Corvinus Publishing, Buffalo–Toronto
RÂMNEANŢU, Petru
1943 Grupele de sânge la ceangăii din Moldova. Buletin Eugenic şi Biopolitic. XIV. (1–2)
51–65.
1944 Die Abstammung der Tschangos. (Bibliotheca Rerum Transsilvaniae, II.) Centrul
de Studii şi Cercetări Privitoare la Transilvania, Sibiu
ROSETTI, Radu
1905 Despre unguri şi episcopiile catolice din Moldova. Analele Academi Române.
Memoriile Secţiunii Istorice. Seria II. Tom. XXVII. 247–322.
SAJTI Enikő
2003 Hungarians in the Voivodina 1918–1948. New York, 250–297.
SICULUS (BESENYŐ Sándor)
1942 A moldvai magyarok őstelepülése története és mai helyzete.(A pécsi m. kir. Erzsébet-
Tudományegyetem Kisebbségi Intézetének kiadványai, XIV.) Pécs–Budapest
SOLONARI, Vladimir
2007 An Important New Document on the Romanian Policy of Ethnic Cleansing during
World War II. Holocaust and Genocide Studies 21. (2) 268–297.
SNYDER, Timothy
2003 The Reconstruction of Nations. Yale
SPINEI, Victor
1986 Moldavia in the 11th–14th Centuries. Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste
România, Bucureşti
Page 17
T
HE
B
IOPOLITICS AND
E
THNOGENEALOGY OF
M
OLDAVIAN
C
ATHOLICS
...
111
TURDA, Marius
2007a The Nation as Object: Race, Blood, and Biopolitics in Interwar Romania. Slavic
Review 66. (3) 413–441.
2007b From Craniology to Serology: Racial Anthropology in Interwar Hungary and
Romania. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 43. (4) 361–377.
VINCZE Gábor
2001 A bukovinai székelyek és kisebb moldvai Csángó-magyar csoportok áttelepedése
Magyarországra (1940–1944). Pro Minoritate. (3) 141–187.
2002 An Overview of the Modern History of the Moldavian Csángó-Hungarians. In:
DIÓSZEGI László (ed.): Hungarian Csángós in Moldavia. Essays on the Past and
Present of the Hungarian Csángós in Moldavia. Teleki László Foundation–Pro
Minoritate Foundation, Budapest, 51–82.
WINGFIELD, Nancy
2006 Introduction. In: WINGFIELD, Nancy (ed.): Creating the Other: Ethnic Conflict in
Nationalism in Habsburg Central Europe. New York–Oxford
faculty.nhmccd.edu/robertdavis1/ChrisDavis_Csango.pdf?authorid=dc3a3776-bf89-42d3-800b-aa686915416a |
|
