The right to reply to the article “The case of Victor Neumann”. Why do security forces who have become policemen always remain in the shadow of informantspublished by Gabriel Andreescu at www.contributors.ro on 03/11/2023:

“A few weeks ago I met Gabriel Andreescu on the recommendation of a guildmate, knowing about my process with CNSAS. I agreed to the interview given his experience in the CNSAS archive, especially because the allegations brought against me by CNSAS have no evidence to support the conclusion reached by that institution. His interest seemed to be in researching my file, and in learning more about my alleged collaboration with communist security, which gave me a glimmer of hope for justice in my case, since it was already well known how CNSAS was at odds with the times (see e.g. the Besescu case).

Therefore, on January 28, 2023, I met with Gabriel Andreescu, told him some fragments of my biography and, according to my understanding, expected that during the “research” he would show a minimum of interest in his personal life from that. period , work, daily life, housing, invitations from famous people and international academic institutions, etc., and to read my security file that I requested from CNSAS in the summer of 2021, to which I have not received any response. All this represents the fundamental elements of research.

I knew that Mr. Andreescu had experience working in Romanian human rights committees, which led me to believe that he would indeed do the research. On 27 February I requested a report of CNSAS’s findings (which included the allegations made by CNSAS against me). In addition, I had previously sent him a CV, employment record and resume, hoping that perhaps he, as a researcher, would also rely on them to see the correspondence with the documents mentioned by CNSAS in the discovery memo.

On February 28, he confirmed to me via email that he had been notified of his access to the reading room at CNSAS where the files are viewed. On Saturday, March 11, he published an article on “contributors.ro” without asking me for any clarification, information, consulting me or asking me any questions in advance, on the grounds that the security documents cited by CNSAS contradict the head. with reality This right of reply is intended to provide some clarification regarding the content of Mr. Andreescu’s article and the lack of evidence in the accusations made against me by Gabriel Andreescu.

The text published on “contributors.ro” is, to my surprise, a compilation of the accusations formulated by CNSAS based on the statement of findings I provided to Andreescu. Without unnecessary red tape, without analysis. Also, like CNSAS and the Court of Appeal, Gabriel Andreescu completely ignores the evidence I have presented to him. This is a speculative article, which is the result of a so-called study, which does not even include the enrichment of information with new documents. Thus, alongside the CNSAS conjectures, we now also have Gabriel Andreescu’s conjectures.

A day after the article was published, I wrote to him asking him to send me a list of the documents that CNSAS had seen and, if possible, the documents themselves. He did not answer me. In fact, he did not have the opportunity for 11 days (from 28.02.2023, the date of obtaining access to the premises at CNSAS and until 11.03.2023, the date of publication of the article) to search for documents, read them, study them. them, compare and publish the results and conclusions in a paper.

I will provide the following arguments to substantiate my statements:

• Andreescu writes (probably copying from the CNSAS conclusion) the following:

Another quote, the note was signed on August 8, 1980(holography, code name “Hodoș”): “The theme of the main exhibition of medieval history in the Banat Museum /…/ did not foresee the introduction of the Hungarian tomb in the sector reserved for the first Romanian state formations. At the disposal of FM, this grave was included in the exposition. /…/ according to the source, the materialization was not the best, as it did not evoke suggestions for visitors.” Side notes:: “The note will be the basis of the information that will be provided to the PCR authorities.”

I did not have the opportunity to provide activity reports or “notes” (and did not) about the main exhibition of medieval history in the Banat Museum on 08/08/1980 and about FM (Florin Medelec as director), because this year the director was Mihai Fetu, who planned my expulsion from the museum and who did not like my project to restore the exhibition of modern history, not medieval history, as written in the note quote! – with the help of which we supported the integration of cultural-community and religious diversity in Banat with many examples. That is why they expelled me from the museum, and not the former director of the institution F. M. (Florin Medelets), who was no longer the director until the note quoted and written by the security officer. Then from the quoted saying “…At the disposal of FM, this grave was included in the exposition. /// opinion of the source is that the materialization was not the best because it was not suggestive to the visitors” it is clear that the note was not written by a “source”, but by a security officer. Can Mr. Andreescu consider the documents compiled by the security service, the supreme manipulative body of the communist state, to be reliable? If he did not notice the carelessness of the data, he did not notice the nature of the expression (ie, it refers to the “source”, not the “source” reports). Furthermore, Mr. Andreescu does not investigate what effect this memo and others had on other people based on the “briefing to be given to the PCR authorities” (written by a security officer), but assumes (without evidence) and writes: His notes were used by a repressive body against the researchers reported by Khodosh. Even if the margins of the tabs were not marked with a repressive nature, their content was sufficient to qualify them as police action.. Claims without evidence. It is clear that Andreescu did not ask questions about the work regime in the production of communist security documents, he did not distinguish between the vocabulary of the institute of repression and the vocabulary of the museographer, and also did not distinguish who writes and in whose name it is written. Result? Acceptance of how the officer handled the information, justifying his activities and the ideology for which he was hired and paid.

• Another tendentious interpretation :In January 2020, Victor Neuman signed a written statement under oath, in which he stated: “I was not an employee of the security service.” There was no reference to “cooperation with the SBU”. Nothing was lost. Expression from the text of the order. Because it was a legal act, my expression was, in turn, legal. I gave a statement as soon as it was requested.
• Another assumption concerns the statement: The information that Neumann taught had an effect on the persecuted people. The consequences were proven and predictable for the historian. Gabriel Andreescu also does not say, since the CNSAS did not prove who were the persecuted and affected persons, how their freedom was limited, only in this way can there be cumulative conditions for the declaration of a security officer according to the current legislation. met The reference to FM (Florin Medelec) is also erroneous as his freedoms were not restricted. Enormity is repeated, the author states that FM would suffer from me. Proof that this is not the case is the fact that Florin Medelec remained employed at the Banat Museum, having retired from the same institution long before the 1990s. Why Andreescu does not remember, as CNSAS did not remember, that I was expelled by representatives of the totalitarian regime. And more than once. They only had my employment record as evidence (in this document you can read that the termination of the contract with the Banat Museum took place in 1980; that the termination of work as a substitute teacher with shortened rules in various schools in Timisoara took place in 1985 and that the exclusion from the library of Timișoara County took place in the fall of 1988) Read the entire article on Contributors.ro