Revista ERASMUS, nr. 13/2002, Bucureşti, Editura Ars Docendi, 2002.
In the Summer of 1999, the “weekly transition-review” “Dilema” published a file entitled “They, the Germans”. If one word persisted in my mind after reading those few pages, that was certainly nostalgia: the Romanian intellectuals miss the Germans, who used to live together with the Romanians, giving them reasons for envy, but although the desire to imitate and succeed like them. Generally speaking, Germany and the Germans maintain their excellent public image in Romania, a kind of promise land and outstanding model at the same time.
One of the most debated issues of the end of the 20th century is that of minorities, not only in their traditional understanding – e.g. the ethnic groups, but also in new approaches, such as sexual or gender categories. The study of the German ethnic minority from Romania is not a hazardous choice. There is still to be observed an admiration towards nowadays Germany, as a model of development and life standards, and a certain nostalgia for this ethnic minority.
The paper aims to analyze the legal status of the German minority from Romania, from 1918 to 1950, according to the data provided by legal reglementations and international treaties.
When I have conceived this project, I thought to investigate the years 1940-1950. In 1940, the agreement between Germany and Romania meant the legal transformation of the minority into equal citizens with the majority. There is a clear gap with the period from 1918 onwards, since about 800,000 Germans began to live in the Kingdom of the Great Romania. It is also a reason for their cruel destiny after the Hitler’s defeat. Finally, I have chosen to investigate mainly the political, e.g. state, documents, as the decision to punish German minorities in Central-Eastern Europe for their collaboration with the third Reich was a political decision, more than an economically motivated one. Besides, the inquiry begins with the year 1918, due to the importance of the Resolution of Alba Iulia, as a theoretical text for the interwar evolution of Romania and continues with the laws concerning minorities during 1920-1930’s.
In the following paper, the term German minority is used according to its understanding given by the Romanian laws. It aims to describe the whole German population living within the Romanian borders, although there were important cultural, linguistic and political differences between different communities (e.g. between Saxons, Suabians, the population in Bucovina or in the Old Kingdom).
1. A Demographic Overview. The census of 1930, the most reliable source for the demographic evolution of interwar Romania, revealed, that 4,1 % of the entire Romanian population (18,582,896), e.g. 745,421 persons belonged to the ethnic German minority. In order to obtain an accurate structure of the population and to split it between the Romanian majority and the ethnic minorities, two subjective criteria were used: the kin (neamul) to which a person considered himself/herself as part of, through historical ties, feelings and expectations1 and the mother tongue, according to citizens’ declaration.2 . The results demonstrated the existence of some differences between those having German as mother tongue and those who ascribed themselves to the German ethnic minority, as it follows:
Taking a look at the map3 one may see, that the German minority is disposed mainly in Banat, with Timisoara and Arad as centers, and Transylvania, where they occupied especially the highlands near Sibiu, and the areas of the towns Bistrita, Brasov, Cluj. Small settlements might be found in Southern Bassarabia, Bucovina, Dobrogea, near Oradea, and in towns such as Bucharest, Ploiesti, Craiova, Petrosani.
2. A survey of the legislation concerning ethnic minorities (1923-1940). It should be pointed out a few laws or political programs, which influenced the life of the German minority in Romania during the two decades between the two world wars and in the events after the 23rd of August 1944.
The normal starting point is the Resolution made up in Alba Iulia, in December 1918, and its importance for the political programs of the German ethnic groups, which were forced not only to live in another state, but also to accept the status of minority, in contrast to their status before the war, e.g. members of a dominant nation4 . Of great importance are the constitutions of 1923 and 1938, the agreements between Romania and the third Reich and the decree concerning the minorities from February 1945, as well as the Agrarian Reform Law from March, the same year.
We do hear many times, that in 1918 a dream came true: the Great Romania was born as a consequence of the events at the end of the first World War. It is obvious, that the accomplishment of the ideal of a national Romanian state has brought also consistent problems, as for example, the question of the ethnic minorities. Almost 30 % of the citizens of the new state were of non-Romanian origins and a large part of these consisted of Hungarians and Germans, former dominant nations, and, at the same time, communities with a high political consciousness and important economic and cultural foundations. The Germans, as mentioned in the paragraph above, were divided on geographical and origin reasons, for instance Saxons and Suabians.
The Resolution adopted by the National Assembly in Alba Iulia (November, the 18th / December 1st1918) was viewed by the representatives of the Saxons and the Suabians from Transylvania and Banat as a certification of their future life as citizens of Romania. It was clear, that the delegates of the Romanians living in the former k.u.k. monarchy tended to avoid the problems generated by national matters of the former Austro-Hungarian state. The Saxons in Transylvania, at the 8th of January 1919, and the Suabians from Banat (10th of August, 1919) acknowledged in their declarations of recognition of the union between Transylvania, Banat and the Old Kingdom, that the resolution from Alba Iulia ensured their future life in the newly created Romanian state5 . Besides, the Saxons have required, that the entire German ethnic communities living in Romania to be recognized as one group.
The provisions from Alba Iulia included, under the title of fundamental principles of the new Romanian State, the freedom for the nations living on the territory of Romania, the right to use their language in the educational system, public administration and justice, through their own representatives. The minorities were granted the right to participate in all political matters, including Parliament and the Government, according to the principle of proportionality. The religion ought to be free and all confessions equal towards the state. The resolution established freedom of the press, the liberty to form associations and to express opinions.6
There was, nevertheless, a strong disappointment for the all the minorities, that neither of the two Romanian interwar Constitutions did not refer directly to the issues of the ethnic groups living together with the Romanian people. The Constitution of 1923 declared, that all citizens enjoy what could be called “the fundamental rights” and obligations (e.g. taxation and compulsory military service) – freedom of conscience, education, press, meetings and association, the secrecy of correspondence and the equality in front of the law, but refer to Romanians, without any difference of ethnic origins, language or religion7 . Besides it, the fundamental law sanctioned by King Carol II in February 1938 claimed, that all the Romanians, no matter their ethnic origin or religion had as an obligation to consider the Fatherland as a “raison d’être”.8
A strong critique of the legal situation of the ethnic minorities in Romania, came from Dr. Hans Otto Roth (1890-1953), a skilful lawyer and one of the leaders of the German parliamentary group. In May 1923, he wrote a study in a collective work, called The Doctrines of the Political Parties. In 1992, Iordan Chimet republished this text, a reliable source in order to understand the guiding lines of the political activity of the German representatives in the Parliament. Roth remained all his life a democratic politician and a defender of the ethnic minorities rights, in general, of course, but with a special interest in his own nation, of course.
Roth began his contribution with a declaration of fidelity to the country he lived in, also saying that irredentism would be a foolish thing, as long as the community living in Romania is torn apart from the mainland of the German nation. It was thus natural to be a good citizen, being also natural to run a defending policy for the rights Germans should be granted9 . According to the Saxon politician, the above mentioned Resolution presented in Alba Iulia ought to be a Magna Charta for the new born state, as it originated in the long time struggle of the national movement from Transylvania. The German autonomies were also affected by the Austro-Hungarian compromise of 186710 . Furthermore, Germans had their own political traditions, cultural life, and, important condition, the energy to fight for their rights.11
What Roth actually demanded was the cultural self-determination, which in fact meant the constitutional guarantee of the use of their own language in education and administration. This could be achieved through the recognition of the old rights to establish an own taxation system, headed by the Church, to gather the financial resources for schools. This must have been mentioned in the Constitution, giving the Germans a collective individuality, and not spliting the rights of the community into individual rights12 .
If those would have been accomplished, the tensions and problems of the dead and buried Austro-Hungary would have been avoided, and would constitute a pathfinder on the roads of tolerance and mutual understanding for the Romanian majority, rather then a danger13 .
In the end, Hans Otto Roth has launched a proposal for a German parliamentary party. The goals of such an organization, its main thesis, in author’s view, were mainly the commitment to the Romanian state, the total involvement in its parliamentary political life, contributing to the post-war re-contruction and future development and, last, but not least, the implement of the own program of the party14 .
3. Political organizations: in and out the Parliament Houses: democrats vs. extremists. If willing to understand the dramatically change in the situation of the German minority in Romania at the beginning of the communist period, one must carefully observe the political tendencies developed inside this ethnic community during the thirties. The rise of the third Reich was of crucial importance for their fate, a consequence of the outburst of the extreme right-wing movements after the so called Great War and, particularly, the circumstances in defeated Germany.
Romania was not an exception, the unforeseen evolution towards extremism can be considered normal, on a European-wide scale. Of course, historians were more interested by the Romanian movements, more or less neglecting the evolutions inside the ethnic minorities. Nevertheless, the total change of the foreign alliances at the beginning of the fourties may find in the German minority an excellent indicator. As already pointed, the option of the German politicians in Romania was that of the total respect to for the state they lived in, as their ties with Germany were weak. Even when national-socialist streams appeared, it took a long time and it was of short term to develop theories of autonomy, in the spirit of independence from Romania and obedience towards Hitler’s Reich.
Romanian historiography usually speaks of the German Party, but this was only the parliamentary group formed by the German originated senators and deputies. The only community, which lived on Romanian territory and had a strong political tradition were the Saxons. I have described above the opinions of one of their prominent politicians, Hans Otto Roth. It was thus normal for them to claim and actually assume the lead of the German minority. Still, the process of building a coherent parliamentary representation for this particular minority, and for all the ethnic groups in general, was a delicate one.
On September 18, 1921, in Cernăuţi, an Association of the Germans in Romania was formed. It aimed to coordinate all the political and cultural efforts, but it was a weak organization. It turned in 1935 into th People’s Community of the Germans in Romania, by now controlled all the regional organizations and leaders. As presidents of the mentioned corporate body, there acted Rudolf Brandsch (1921-1931), Dr. Kaspar Muth, the president of the Autonomy Party, created in Banat, (1931-1935), Hans Otto Roth, in 1935 and, from June same year Fritz Fabritius15 .
In the following lines I do not aim to discuss all the German political organizations, but to point on their contribution in the parliamentary issues and the occurrence of the extremist elements. My option is motivated more by effects of the actions and existence of these groups after the war, then their importance in their moments of apogee.
There were, until 1938, always between 4 to 10 German representatives in the Romanian Parliament. As head of the “party” we find again Dr. Roth, from 1922 onwards. Like all other members of the Houses, who represented ethnic minorities, they were either elected on the lists of Romanian major parties, either through alliances with these. Beginning with 1927, some attempts to present common electoral lists16 appeared, but without any concrete results. The important doctoral thesis written by Hans-Christian Maner on the Romanian Parlamentarismus during the reign of Carol II, revealed not only excessive points of view, such for instance Pamfil Şeicaru’s, who believed, that the representation of ethnic minorities in the legislative body was a danger for the dominant nation, but also the main preoccupation of the German and Hungarian “parties”. For both “parties”, the legislature between 1934-1938 meant a failure, as they could not impose the voting of a charter concerning minorities’ issues, which would have marked the turn of the principles of the Alba Iulia document from theory to practice. Instead of this charta, it was the same parliament, which decided, in 1935-1936 the implementation of economical, language and educational-cultural measures, which implied in fact a regression of the position of the minorities17 . In February 1938, the Government led by Octavian Goga acknowledged the People’s Community of the Germans in Romania as the sole representative of the German community; later, they were awarded 12 seats in the National Representation, the Carlist Parliament18 , a kind of predecessor of the Grand National Assembly.
Before the presentation of the extremist movements, it should be mentioned, that, for a short period of time, beginning with the tenure of the Prime Minister-ship by Nicolae Iorga (April 1931-July 1932), generally known for his friendly feelings towards the Germans in Romania, an office of Undersecretary of State for the problems of the minorities was created. It had more a consultative mission, but it is of great importance for the relation State-Minority, that Rudolf Brandsch was the choice made for this function19 .
The extremist groups occurred at the beginning of the thirties. A gap between politicians elected in the Parliament and leaders like the former officer Fritz Fabritius, the founder, already in the early twenties, of Selbsthilfe – Self Help, an organization aiming the economical cooperation and self-support among the Saxons in Transylvania, which turned into a political movement. It was first a classical conservative party, but at the beginning of the thirties it transformed into a national-socialist organization20 . The parliamentary representatives were criticized because of their collaboration with the dominant nation parties, but that was just the new rule of the game. Loosing privileges, and, after the great economical crisis obliged to support own schools and Church due to the lack of money of the Romanian government, many of the Saxons felt betrayed. The inflict of a supplementary tax, in order to support these vital institutions for the maintenance of the identity of the German group in Romania, simply offered an excellent motive for a protest movement, which built up on the basis of Fabritius’ organization. The Movement for Renewal (Erneureungsbewegung) stated, that the Germans should find a way inside their own community21 . That did not imply, by no means, the autonomy or independence from Romania: even when extreme-right movements claimed the organization of the ethnic minority on national-socialist basis, they still remain loyal to Romania, described as the homeland22 . Later, the party led by Fabritius changed its name into National Socialist Revival Movement of the Germans in Romania-NEDR (1934), and already in 1933 won the leadership of the Transylvanian Saxon Diet, in Sibiu23 .
Similar to what could be called “the group of democratic politicians”, the extreme right wing was not united from the beginning. Disidences and separate groups were formed, among them the Party of the German People (Deutsche Volkspartei), run by Waldemar Gustav Bonfert, whom had strong connections with the NSDAP. The union of these two movements took place in 1938, at a suggestion came from Berlin24 .
A few words ought to be said about the doctrines of the Germans in Romania national-socialists: they used to speak about the health of the race, about Volk/people and to isolate themselves on the political stage, use a rhetoric of violence, but less real violence; the religion was in a way prohibited, but the Church (Lutheran and Catholic), although lead by bishops, whom had favorable views towards these elements continued to be stronger25 .
4. The establishment of the German Ethnic Group in Romania and its consequences after the war. Germany’s foreign policy after Hitler’s ascend to power in 1933 was definitely o typical great power policy. The first step in the preparations for the war was to secure allies and supplies. In South-Eastern Europe, Germany was interested in having peace, or at least to turn the former enemies to her camp. As for Romania, the economical relations were a primary stage to the political ones. Doubled by the NSDAP, the German state began to infiltrate in the Romanian political life, supporting doctrinary alike parties, e.g. the Iron Guard or the group ran by Octavian Goga. The involvment of VOMI, Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle – Ethnic German Coordination Office took at the sudden appearance of Andreas Schmidt, simply appointed from Berlin as head of the German organization in Romania. He was a young man from Transylvania, studying in Berlin, and frequented national-socialist and SS circles, but, first of all, he had the enormous quality of being the son in law of an important SS official. The headquarters of the NEDR were transferred from Sibiu to Braşov, under the surveillance of the German consulate26 .
Before 1933, Germany already gave important sums of money for the Churches and schools in Romania. This was possible through the different non-political organizations, as Romania was not willing to accept the involvement of the Reich. The open implication of both the NSDAP and the state offices in Romania’s internal became stronger after her changes in the foreign policy and traditional alliances. In matters concerning the German minority, of real importance are the dates of August 30 and November 20 1940. At the first mentioned, an Ethnic Group Agreement was signed in Vienna by the two foreign affairs ministers. It appealed to the spirit of the Resolution from Alba Iulia and to the good relations between the two countries, and stated that the Germans living in Romania had the same rights as their fellow ethnic Romanian citizens.27
In November, a decree issued by General Ion Antonescu, in his quality of leader of the National Legionary State, declared the German ethnic group as Romanian body corporate in law. It bear the name of German Ethnic Group in Romania, and the local variant of the NSDAP was considered spokesman and allowed to issue provisions for the maintenance and consolidation of its national life.28 In the same day, Andreas Schmidt spoke of the G.E.G.R. in terms of department of the Reich leadership…within the sphere of the Reich.29 The last document of this period, which I consider important for the post war situation is the SS Agreement, by which Germans from Romania were allowed to volunteer in the Waffen-SS (May 1943)30 .
5. 1945. The Armistice Agreement from September 12, 1944, opened the way for revenge. The Romanian government acknowledged the defeat in the war against the United Nations. By the 2nd paragraph it was written that German and Hungarian armed forces and citizens are to be disarmed and imprisoned, obviously including those Germans from Romania fighting within SS-divisions. The 15th paragraph proved to be actually a trap for the German minority in particular, as it stated the engagement of the Romanian government to dissolve all fascist-like organizations, let them be political or military. 31
It was a legal basis for the turn of the German minority, after the 23rd of August 1944, in a scapegoat. Hans Otto Roth used to say, that practically an entire people was stigmatized by the few adepts of Adolf Hitler32 . The spring of 1945 brought new legal regulations, some of them openly incriminating the German minority. I present the decree concerning the ethnic minorities, the agrarian reform law, as well as different decrees, which may have implied the Germans.
In January 1945, decrees for the punishment of those guilty of the disaster of the country were published. They did not make direct references to the German minority, but to people, whom militated for the alliance with the Reich. Same month, the program of the communist lead National Democratic Front asserted, that a democratic policy targeting brotherhood between all the nationalities living in Romania shall be promoted. It impeached the fascist and chauvinistic elements to be in power after August 1944, as responsible for the loss of Northern Transylvania33 . More or less, this was the true goal of the left wing political forces, as it was obvious, that the Germans were culpable due to ethnic reasons.
The political organizations of the Germans were now weak and compromised, unlike the Hungarian or the Jewish communities: the endeavors of Hans Otto Roth or social democrat politicians failed34 .
In February 1945, a law of the ethnic minorities was issued; it was a real democratic and advanced, at least for the Romanian case, including the grant of the use of the national language in schools and administration. It was also forbidden to act against any person of ethnic reasons, meaning, that ethnic origin was not a condition for accusations motivated by one’s political affiliation35 . All these reglementations remained was just on paper, as Germans were already deported in the Soviet Union, and in March the law for the agrarian reform simply destroyed the economical basis of the German people and constituted a clear act of discrimination, motivated both by political and ethnical reasons, because of the direct nomination of the properties belonging to German minoritarians36 .
The European wide migration of the German ethnics already began in 1939, with the exchanges of populations between Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet union. It was a dramatic process all along the war37 , but it got new faces with the period of the deportations and expulsions. On the 16th of December 1944, the Soviet State Comitee for Defence issued, under the signature of Stalin, an order which for a short time only a few Soviet leading men knew: it was the beginning of the deportations in the Soviet Union, on purpose to work for the war effort. The decision provided, that state departments in the areas occupied by the red army must help the soviet officials to in this problem38 .
The conditions for women and men were all equal: same work, often in snow, same food, same humiliations. Besides, pregnant women were occasionally deported, or there are cases of children born in captivity, consequences of relations with Russian civilians or soldiers, due to hunger39 .
They were the Enemy, even though never took part in the military operations.
6. A general conclusion. The defeat of the Axe’s coalition forces in Stalingrad marked, besides the decisive turn of the war, a real gap in conceptions and believes. For the Germans from Romania, the partnership with the Reich could be described as a mistake, but a fatal one. They became enemies due to their origin, although their ties with Germany were rather symbolic and determined by their general situation and traditions in Romania, a country which they saw as fatherland, as long they were born here.
The political representation of the German minority aimed to defend their culture and long-established way of life in the framework of the new Romanian state. Extremist visions proved to be unnatural and short-termed, but with cruel consequences. The end of the war did not bring the necessary peace to re-build and heal, but new deeper wounds, even more difficult to cure.
A logical conclusion, if one would take into account the behavior of the communist party and state, imposes itself: a duality of discourse and actions, as, of course, all the other minorities did not suffer due to the same causes as the Germans. As I have already point out before, the Germans were victimized due to their option to follow the road took by their native country.
I would say, that the Germans, whom used to live in Romania, turned from a minority with an excellent, though sometimes tensioned relation with the State, into a minority hunted by the latter.
The equality with the Romanians, invented in the agreement from Vienna, in August 1940, was, of course, a step ahead in the status of a minority, still a hybrid. The transformation to an enemy at the beginning of the communist regime in Romania stays under the sign of un-sincerity and revenge: along with political opponents, ethnic German, be they former soldiers or women, were forced to leave their homes to participate in the war effort or simply to share their part of guilt of being born in the side of the losers.
* A version of this paper, entitled Minoritarians, Equals, Guilty. A Survey Concerning the Status of the German Minority in Romania (1918-1950), coordinated by prep. drd. Silvana Rachieru, was presented and granted a prize at the IIIrd Civic Education Project Conference Legacies and Challenges in Europe, Bucharest, March 9-11, 2001. I would also like to acknowledge the help of Hanelore Baier.
1 Sabin Manuilă, Mitu Georgescu, “Populaţia României”, in Enciclopedia României, Bucureşti, 1938, p. 147.
2 Ibidem, p. 151.
3 Academia Romana, Institutul de Geografie – Romania. Atlas istorico-geografic, Bucuresti: Editura Academiei Romane, 1996, Map 27 (based also on the 1930 census).
4 The observation belongs to Elemer Illyes, Nationale Minderheiten in Rumänien: Siebenbürgen im Wandel, Vienna: Wilhelm Braumüller, 1981, p. 79.
5 See the two texts in Ioan Lupaş, Lecturi din izvoarele istoriei românilor, Cluj: Cartea Românească, 1928., Documents nos. 108 (Saxons) and 109 (Suabians).
6 Ioan Lupaş, op.cit., Document no. 107. (The Resolution adopted in Alba Iulia)
7 Constituţia din 29 martie 1923, in Homer Radu, Petru-Ioan Orha, Documente din istoria românilor. Pentru uz didactic, Bucureşti, 1996, p. 430-438. See especially articles 5, 7, 8, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 119.
8 Constituţiunea României, article 1, in Enciclopedia României, Bucureşti, 1938.
9 Hans Otto Roth, “Ideologia şi tendinţele politice ale minorităţii germane”, in Iordan Chimet, Dreptul la memorie. II: Intrarea în lumea modernă, Cluj: Editura Dacia, 1992, p. 371.
10 Ibidem,p.372, 375, 378.
11 Ibidem, p. 376.
12 Ibidem, p. 376 sqr.
13 Ibidem, p. 382.
14 Ibidem, p. 383 sqr.
15 See Theodor Schieder (editor), The Fate of the Germans in Romania. A Selection and Translation from “Dokumentation der Vertreibung der Deutschen aus Ost-Mitteleuropa”, Volume III, Bonn: The Federal Ministry for Expellees, Refugees and War Victims, 1961, p. 31. For Fritz Fabritius and his activity, see below-.
16 Elemer Illyes, op. cit., p. 81.
17 Hans-Christian Maner, Parlamentarismus in Rumänien (1930-1940): Demokratie im autoritären Umfeld, München: Oldenbourg, 1997, pp. 394 sqr., 405. The same goal of the minorities’ parties was considered in the Introduction of the above-cited work edited by the West German Federal Ministry for Expellees, Refugees and War Victims, 1961, p. 32.
18 Theodor Schieder (editor), op. cit., p. 35.
19 Details by Karl Kessler, Rudolf Brandsch: Ein südostdeutscherVolksmann. Ein Beitrag zur neueren Geschichte des Südostdeutschtums, München: Verlag des Südostdeutschen Kulturwerks, 1969, p. 72 sqr.
20 Elemer Illyes, op. cit., p. 85; Cornelius R. Zach, “Miscari totalitare la romani si la germanii din Romania in perioada interbelica”, in Krista Zach (ed.), Romania in obiectiv. Limba si politica. Identitate si ideologie in transformare München: Südostdeutscheskuturwerk, 1998, p. 150.
21 Cornelius R. Zach, “Die Siebenbürger Sachsen zwischen Tradition und neuen politischen Optionen 1930-1940”, in Harald Roth (editor), Minderheit und Nationalstaat: Siebenbürgen seit dem ersten Weltkrieg, Köln &alii: Böhlau, 1995, p. 117 sqr.
22 Theodor Schieder (editor), op. cit., p. 35.
23 Ibidem, p. 34.
24Dumitru Şandru, “Autonomia Transilvaniei în propaganda germanilor din România”, in Xenopoliana. Buletinul Fundaţiei Academice “A.D. Xenopol” din Iaşi, V, 1-4, 1997, p. 210; Theodor Schieder (editor), op. cit., p. 35.
25 Cornelius R. Zach, “ Miscari totalitare la romani si la germanii din Romania in perioada interbelica”, in Krista Zach (ed.), Romania in obiectiv. Limba si politica. Identitate si ideologie in transformare München: Südostdeutscheskuturwerk, 1998, passim.
26 An excellent draw of the German-Romania relations by Andreas Hillgruber, Hitler, Regele Carol si Maresalul Antonescu. Relatiile germano-romane (1938-1944), Bucuresti: Humanitas, 1994, p. 43, 45-46. For Andreas Schmidt, see Ibidem, p. 147.
27 The text is available in Theodor Schieder (editor), op. cit., Annex 3, p. 129.
28 Ibidem, Annex 4, p. 130 sqr.
29 Ibidem, p. 40.
30 Ibidem, Annex 8, p. 148 sqr.
31 Marin Radu Mocanu (coordonator), România – marele sacrificat al celui de al doilea război mondial. Documente, volumul I, Bucureşti: Arhivele Statului din România, 1994, 182.
32 Hanelore Baier, “Arestarea politicianului sas Hans Otto Roth in 1952”, in Anuarul Institutului de cercetari Socio-Umane Sibiu, III, 1996, p. 98.
33 Ioan Scurtu (coordonator), Romania – viata politica in documente: 1945, Bucuresti, Arhivele Statului, 1994, Docs: 4 and 7.
34 Hanelore Baier, “Politische Initiativen und Organisationen der siebenbürger sachsen in der Zeitspanne 23. August 1944 –Februar 1949”, in Forschungen zur Volks- und Landeskunde, Band 39, No. 1-2, 1996, p. 56.
35 Ion Scurtu, (ed), op. cit., Document 12.
36 Ibidem, Document 50.
37 Hans-Werner Rautenberg, “Ursachen und Hintergrunde der Vertreibung Deutsches”,in Marion Frantzioch,Odo Ratza, Guenter Reichert (eds.), 40 Jahre Arebeit fuer Deutschland – die Vertriebenen und Fluechtlinge. Ausstellungskatalog, Frankfurt am Main, Berlin: Ullstein, 1989, p. 20 sqr.
38 Hanelore Baier (ed.), Tief in Russland bei Stalino. Errineungen und Dokumente zur Deportation in die Sowjetunion 1945, Bukarest: ADZ Verlag, 2000, p. 25-26.
39 Ibidem, p. 119-125.