“In every dead myth there lies a wound.” (Romulus Vulpescu)
Dorin Suciu, journalist, former press correspondent in Budapest, former executive director of the National Press Agency AGERPRES
At the end of December 1996, when my mission as press correspondent in Hungary ended, I handed over the “movable property” of the Budapest Press Office to the Romanian Embassy.
In the warehouse in its basement, on the shelf where I was instructed to store the video camera, tape recorder and fax machine, in the immediate vicinity, I found a file on the cover of which it read: A. P. Ardelean, “Hungarian Neorevisionism”. The file contained an indigo copy of a typed manuscript. I browsed it and found that it was extremely exciting, perfectly focused on the sensitive subject stated in the title and, especially, very well documented. It was clear to me from the beginning that the author was not only a professional writer, with an impeccable style, but also a fine connoisseur of Hungarian politics. By content, the kind of information processing and style, it seemed to have been written by a diplomat or something close, anyway a worthy intellectual… I was struck that the names of historical, cultural or political figures, those of institutions, organizations, titles of books, authors, publications, etc. were written in Hungarian diacritics without the slightest mistake, which denoted an unusual accuracy. Later, I realized that the author was a connoisseur of the Hungarian language in terms of subtleties, doubled by a fine political analyst. (…)
In the years that followed, I tried, in every way and in every medium, diplomatically, scientifically and not only, to find out who the author of the manuscript was, but unsuccessfully. Just as I was preparing to publish the manuscript on my own money, with a preface explaining how I came into its possession, checking the Internet, I found a book with an identical title, for sale at an antique shop. It’s just that the author was not E. P. Ardelean, but a certain Emilian P. Brașoveanu. I bought it and I was surprised to find a “samizdat” – the book did not have an ISBN (?!) -, printed at the Tulcea Printing Company in 1991 and which contained, with very small modifications, the full text of the manuscript found in Budapest!
In addition to the manuscript, the book had a “Foreword” in which the author emphasized the idea that not the Hungarian people as a whole could be blamed for irredentist and revisionist sins, but that political and intellectual minority who made a profession of such incitation and which “propagated ideas with undisguised intentions to fish in troubled waters.”
Seen from the perspective of the specialist in political science, history, diplomacy and international relations, the in-depth analysis of this book covers, in many respects, the interpretation, both political and legal, of the sensitive file of so-called Hungarian neo-revisionism, the successor of the revisionism led by the Hungary ruled by the regent Miklós Horthy.
After a perfectly documented exposition of the international context of the conclusion of the Treaty of Trianon and then, in another stage, of the Peace of Paris, the book uses an objective retrospective of what has been so suggestively called “Trianon Syndrome”, i.e. the systematic action of breaking the crust on a symbolic wound and its repeated reinfection. Only then, the author begins his deeply original approach, whose sap comes from the bloody history of mostly Romanian Transylvania, over which the present composes a multidimensional and contradictory geometry of visible forces, but especially of the occult ones that the author analyzes in their essential lines under the name of neorevisionism.
The occult institutional mechanisms through which this struggle against historical common sense is conducted are presented in the book until the end of 1990 together with the ideological motivations of Hungarian neo-revisionism and the “pan-Hungarian” doctrine that forms the false basis of the theories that govern them.
Another question remains unclear: who was Emilian P. Brașoveanu in reality and if not this name is the pseudonym of a historian whose style represents his profession of faith, that of understanding before judging, avoiding the pressure of the event in favor of a long lasting investigation.
And yet… On June 16, 1989, the most virulent anti-Romanian political action before 1989 took place in Budapest: the instrumentation of the so-called Budapest Declaration. On the occasion of the reburial, on June 16, 1989, of Imre Nagy and other victims of the Hungarian revolution of 1956, a group of Romanians living in exile in Paris signed an international appeal regarding Transylvania, the so-called Budapest Declaration, formulated by politicians of the Magyar Demokrata Forum party. The document stated that: “Transylvania was and is a space of complementarity and must become a model of cultural and religious pluralism. (…) The right to an autonomous political representation and to cultural autonomy of each nation (sic!) must be guaranteed. (…) “.
Then, less than two weeks later, on June 27, with the consent of the Hungarian party and state leadership, a large anti-Romanian demonstration was organized in Budapest. 200,000 Hungarian citizens were mobilized in Hösöktere – Heroes’ Square, in the immediate vicinity of the Romanian embassy. Beyond the reactions to the Ceausescu regime, they demonstrated for the independence of Transylvania, resorting to all revisionist propaganda props. In this sense, the action “Villages roumains” – “Save the Romanian villages” – promoted by the groups in Paris and Brussels of the Romanian emigration – was used against the initiative of systematization of the villages envisaged by Nicolae Ceaușescu, claiming that it would have as a hidden goal the destruction of the identity of national minorities, especially the Hungarian one! The action ended with the siege of the Romanian embassy by about 1000 demonstrators, which was a great shock for Romanian diplomats in Budapest.
The fact that the author of the Hungarian neo-revisionism manuscript does not mention any of these two flagrant neo-revisionist actions, conceived in the spirit of the Pan-Hungarian doctrine, leads to the assumption that he, whatever he was called in reality, could not fail to mention if he had been a diplomat in the capital of Hungary.
On the other hand, Col. Gheorghe Rațiu, former head of the 1st Directorate of DSS, shows in the book Calvary. Romanian Transylvania and Hungarian nationalist extremism, Paco Publishing House, Bucharest 2012, pp. 256 – 276, that the Security was aware of the subversion actions against Romania set up between 1980-1989 by what he calls the “laboratory of the Szécsényi Library” in Budapest: from the falsification of the number of Hungarians living in Romania to the creation of the “Hungarian chain” of Romanians who took refuge in the West, In terms of international politics, the establishment of the training camp for urban guerrilla formations in the town of Bicske, as well as the action codified as the “Network of Ten” aimed at obtaining the status of autonomy for Transylvania.
All these facts relevant for neo-revisionist initiatives are not mentioned in Emilian P. Brașoveanu’s book, which leads to the assumption that he did not participate in any way in their detection/ documentation.
It is also worth mentioning that in his monumental book “With Friends Like These… The Soviet Bloc’s Clandestine War Against Romania” published in 2011 by RAO Publishing House, the American historian Larry L. Watts confirms the role of the center (or “laboratory”) of the Szécsényi Library in coordinating subversive actions. against Romania, starting with the misinformation regarding the number of ethnic Hungarians in Romania, a topic widely addressed not only by the Hungarian media, but also by the Western press, peddling in unison the Hungarian point of view.