I will briefly present the “Victor Neumann case”: I will quote some informative notes documenting the historian’s cooperation with Security, make some observations about the actions of the CNSAS Board, and question the responsibility of the guards – already suggested by the title. .

Search for cooperation

In March 2021, Vasile Popovici, Radu Jura, Andrea and Adrian Filip Petku, Daniel Dayan and the Timișoara County Council sent requests to the CNSAS Board to investigate Viktor Andrej Marius Neumann’s connections with the Securitate. Almost simultaneously, more than 100 intellectuals sent an online petition to the chairman of the Timișoara County Council, asking him to clarify whether or not Viktor Neumann, then director of the National Art Museum in Timişoara, had signed the non-cooperation statement he was required to by law. In January 2020, Victor Neuman signed a statement of personal responsibility, in which he stated: “I was not an employee of the Security Service.” There was no reference to “cooperation with the SBU”.

Research of archival materials related to the “Viktor Neyman case” lasted several months. On July 8, 2021, the CNSAS panel completed the ascertainment action. It established that the historian “provided information about the exposure of activities against the communist totalitarian regime aimed at restricting the right to private life.” The relevant CNSAS division found documents related to Neumann in several archival files: only one was in the name of Victor Neumann, in the SIE file, others belonged to colleagues, and also thematic ones, such as Art-Culture and Neighboring Nations/Mosaic Cult. Since 1989, the historian was to take an active part in the foreign espionage department “Action Venus2”. Viktor Neumann signed a cooperation agreement in 1977 and sent information under five code names. Such facts in themselves are not proof of the collaborationism of the “political police”. The content of the notes written by the informant and the context in which they were given are important.

In November 2022, the Bucharest Court of Appeal ruled in favor of CNSAS College.

Examples of cooperation with the Security Service

I begin with some informative notes, the raw material for the “facts”.

Holographic note dated 03/22/1978, signed with the conspiratorial name “Khodosh”: “In the historical exhibition of the Banat Museum, the source noted the existence of a skeleton (tomb) of Sarmatians (settlers), the presence of which gives a distorted image, especially since there are no equivalent images of the autochthonous the population that lived in Banat. /…/ director of the Golesht Museum[i],VN/…/ asked the source to convey to the MF that the presence in the exposition of the Romanian museum of some isolated and insufficiently documented discoveries is unacceptable, especially when such discoveries for the Romanian population do not appear in the exposition.” The security service officer, who received the note, reported in the margins of the tab that this information had been forwarded to the CPR authorities and about the intention to document the position of the director of the Museum (F.M., former head of the history department).

A holographic note dated March 30, 1978, signed with the same conspiratorial title: “Visiting the historical exhibitions of the Banat Museum, we state that the conquest of Dacia by the Romans is presented in an unacceptably bad way. /…/ did not sufficiently integrate the issue of Daco-Romanian succession in the Banat into the same issue at the national level. /…/ it would be better to replace the old texts with new texts based on the latest party documents and the latest scientific research. Side notes: material “will be used after notification of PCR authorities”.

Holographic note dated 05/19/1978: “This work was performed by V.A., who works in the zone laboratory and is used as a tour guide. [ghidajele model de la Muzeul Banatului] with complete incompetence. In addition, this person cannot justify his museum activity. /…/ In the Database Manual, the issue of continuity was mentioned only once. In addition, it was found that he does not integrate the history and historiography of the Banat into the national one.” Remarks of the Chekist: “The note will be used by informing the bodies of the regional committee of culture and socialist education, Comrade President Preda for measures.”

Another quote, a note signed on 08/08/1980 (holography, code name “Hodoș”): “In the theme of the main exhibition of medieval history in the Banat Museum /…/, the introduction of a Hungarian grave in the sector was not foreseen, it was reserved for the first Romanian state entities. 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.” Marginal notes: “The note will form the basis of the information that will be provided to the PCR authorities.”

Another quote from a note dated 1/02/1978 (holography, code name “Hodoș”): “In a discussion held in the history department of the Banat Museum in Timisoara by museographer K. L., he tried to deny the nationalist role of the Hungarian revolutionary Kossuth. Laios in the revolution of 1948, trying to create the impression that the Romanian revolutionaries Nicolae Belcescu and Avram Jancu did not understand him.” The consequence announced on the side of the tab is “Actions to be taken with the officer concerned to verify KL.”

I stop here with examples. What I have quoted seems to me to be sufficient. The excerpts reproduced are the key to the “Victor Neumann case.” His notes were used by a repressive body against the researchers reported by Khodosh. Even if the marks with a repressive purpose did not appear on the edge of the tabs, their content was sufficient to qualify them as actions of the police.

In one of the interviews, Neumann claims that his notes expressed “scientific views in the field of history that were not aimed at restricting fundamental rights to private life.” His propaganda would be “aimed at history, not politics” (here).[ii] True, Viktor Neumann did not report on colleagues listening to “Free Europe”; or about the benches with Nicolae Ceausescu, which became the daily “revenge” of Romanians for what they experienced; nor about the plans of many to embark on the path of exile. But the themes of succession, the Daco-Roman presence in the Banat, the place of the Hungarians in Transylvania, etc. represented for the bodies of the national-communist regime, to the same extent, political subjects. They were as “untouchable” as the leading role of the CPSU or the primacy of communist ideology. Without political motivation, some historical details had no reason to interest Bezpeka. Without considering the role of security officers to control ideas, it did not make sense to convey the position of Kossuth Laios from a nationalist point of view. Viktor Neumann was aware of the harm caused to science and people by the Caussian scum he served. After the revolution, he pursued an academic career, promoting multiculturalism and criticizing Romanian National Communism.

Observations on affirmative action developed by CNSAS College

Victor Neumann appealed the decision of the CNSAS Panel, arguing that the summons request was submitted too late to the Bucharest Court of Appeal. He also disputed its content. The historian added a number of materials (“records”): a work book, lists of professional results, etc., to show the extent of the thankless conditions in which he signed the commitment to cooperate.

The response of the CNSAS panel, addressed to the Bucharest Court of Appeal, is long (22 pages), structured, arguing in detail three cumulative criteria for cooperation: “Provide information”; “Information provided to the Security Service must relate to activities or views against the communist totalitarian regime”; “This information should be aimed at restricting basic human rights and freedoms.” The council praised the “arguments presented by the defendant” that did not lead to a resolution of the proceedings.

I have given several examples of notes that were passed to the Security Service, endorsements and actions hostile to the official line. In 1989, the Securitate planned to use a historian abroad. Victor Neumann was picked up by Territorial Task Force 0544 to illegally remain outside for operational missions. Neumann’s trip to Israel and the Russian Federation of Germany shows that things in this direction were progressing smoothly. The revolution stopped everything. In 1990, Neumann was released because “after returning to the country, he systematically avoided contact with the liaison officer.”[iii]

In its submissions, the CNSAS panel did not refer to Neumann’s severance of ties to Security in the SIE version, nor to his claims that the recruitment was done under conditions of blackmail.[iv], not that much of his information was neutral and some positive. I understand that by following the Board’s finding requiring recognition of Neumann’s cooperation with Security, we are impoverishing the public debate about the situation; we hide the complexity of the condition of a researcher like him, fascinated by history, dreaming of a successful scientific career, forced to live in a system designed to clip his wings.

In view of the above, I add that the materials released by the CNSAS investigation department prove the police nature of Neumann’s activities. The Collegium’s conclusion corresponds to the facts: the historian “actively and directly supported the control exercised by the SBU over the intellectual and professional life of colleagues and specialists with whom he was in contact.” The information that Neumann taught had an effect on the persecuted people. The consequences were proven and predictable for the historian.

Responsibility of security guards

I mentioned that the network file opened by Directorate Ia was completely taken over by Territorial Task Force 0544 Timis in 1990. From this file we learn that officers from 0554 expected Viktor Neumann to continue dealing with them as if nothing had happened. have changed Chances are, other former employees have already done this. SIE continued with roughly the same people, on roughly the same platform.

We know, in principle, that after the revolution the former repressive structures were restored, the Security Service of the Municipality of Bucharest became UM 0215 in February 1990, and the Foreign Intelligence Center was transformed on January 18, 1990 into the SIE under the leadership of the Romanian spy Mihai Karaman, and the rest were poured in the Research Institute of the same year. But we relate to continuity from one historical epoch to another through knowledge, in the abstract. The other lives when you concretely see how much is left of what was. As if a symbol of continuity were needed, the receipt signed by Victor Neumann, confirming the $100 received from the liaison officer before leaving for Israel, contains a letterhead from the Romanian Intelligence Service! The Scientific Research Institute is a post-revolutionary institution established in March 1990. But the date is on the document: “6.VIII.`89”. I can find no explanation for this oddity.

Neumann is accused of transmitting to a repressive institution information related to activities or views directed against the totalitarian communist regime, aimed at restricting basic human rights and freedoms, and actively and directly supporting control over the intellectual life and professional activities of some colleagues. If these claims are true, they all the more characterize the work of security officers who sought information from Neumann and used it against whistleblowers. Through these officers, the intellectual and professional life of researchers was controlled. I looked at the CNSAS website under the heading “Decisions that are final and irrevocable”. The names of key officers in the dossier are Viktor Neuman, former Major Marin Andrey and former Lt. Col. Carstea Adrian Read the whole article and comment on it at Contributors.ro