Eugen Filotti
Eugen Filotti | |
---|---|
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Romania to Hungary. | |
In office 1940–1944 | |
Secretary General of the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs | |
In office 1944–1945 | |
Personal details | |
Born | Bucharest, Kingdom of Romania | July 28, 1896
Died | June 1, 1975 Bucharest, Socialist Republic of Romania | (aged 78)
Resting place | Bellu Cemetery, Bucharest, Romania |
Spouse | Elisabeta Tasca |
Relations | parents: Nicolae Filotti Aurelia Filotti (née Felix) |
Children | Andrei Filotti (b. 1930) Domnica Ghimuș (b. 1932) Ion Filotti (b. 1941) Alexandra Filotti (b. 1947) |
Alma mater | University of Bucharest |
Profession | Journalist, diplomat, writer |
Awards | Legion of Honour |
Eugen Filotti (July 28 (July 17 O.S.) 1896 – June 1, 1975) was a Romanian diplomat, journalist and writer. As a diplomat he worked at the
Youth
Eugen Filotti was born in Bucharest, Romania. His father, Nicolae Filotti was a military pharmacist, having the rank of lieutenant and his mother, Aurelia Filotti (née Felix) was the daughter of doctor Iacob Felix. He was the second child of the family, having a brother Mircea Filotti, his elder by four years. Nicolae Filotti died of tuberculosis when Eugen Filotti was only 2 years old and his mother had to struggle to raise her two sons with the small resources provided by her husband's pension.
In 1902–1906 Eugen Filotti attended the
In 1914 he started studying pharmacy at the Bucharest University of Medicine, attending courses for two years. When Romania entered World War I in 1916, he was forced to interrupt his studies, being conscripted as lieutenant and assigned as pharmacist to the army medical staff of the front line. After the retreat of the Romanian troops to Moldavia, he was transferred to the medical units of the Trotuș Valley front. After the war, he gave up his pharmacy studies and attended the Law School of the University of Bucharest, obtaining his degree in 1922. While in university, he continued his journalistic activities, writing articles for several newspapers and magazines.[3][4]
Activity as journalist
After graduating from Law School, Filotti joined the editorial staff of the
The magazine was a focal point of a group of young writers, journalists, artists and other intellectuals, who were carried away by the euphoria following World War I, and, after Romania had fulfilled its national aspirations, were attempting to define the ways of perfecting their new homeland. This group strongly opposed the leftist radicals, who were looking with interest at the soviet experiment, and was looking towards the west. However, they thought that new Romania, considered to be a big and strong country, had to play an important role a renewed Europe, which was also trying to find its own new stability. The link to Western Europe was conceived mainly as an integration of the Romanian cultural and artistic movements into the European ones.[6]
Such ideas were disseminated not only by Cuvântul Liber, but also by other magazines, such as Contimporanul, Punct, Mișcarea Literară and, later, by Unu. However, besides publishing their ideas, the group of young enthusiasts to which Filotti belonged, attempted to organize important cultural events which would help them promote their ideas. The most representative of these event, both due to its importance and to its international attendance was the "First exhibition of modern art" in Bucharest.
The exhibition was organized in the building of the "Romanian Fine Arts Union" on Strada Corabiei Nr. 6, from November 30 to December 30, 1924. The main Romanian artists participating were
The exhibition opened on a Sunday, at noon, in a pitch-dark room:
"There were just two candles burning on a table covered by a black canvas. Suddenly, Eugen Filotti made his appearance next to the table, relaxed and inspired, reciting a text presenting to the public both the new form of art and the exposed paintings"[7]
Tudor Vianu at that time a young professor of aesthetics, who also attended the opening, recalls in his memoirs:
"The dark room, swarming with visitors, where Eugen Filotti was finishing his introductory speech, suddenly vibrated at the loud roll of drums. The lights went on, focusing on a
jazz orchestralocated behind the speaker. The orchestra, which also included a black musician started playing, and the visitors started roaming around at the sound of string instruments, trombones and drums."
In his memoirs,
In his own articles on the exhibition, Eugen Filotti presented the event in a positive light, and highlighted the value of the work exposed by Romanian artists, stressing that they were in no way inferior to the foreign participants. He noted "Constructivism dominates on each wall al the exhibition hall, however without completely obliterating expressionist visions, cubist decomposures or coloristic experiments."[9][10]
The exhibition also turned into a clash between "modernists" and "traditionalists". The group who had organized the exhibition, including Eugen Filotti supported a modernist, rationalist, democratic trend and wanted to promote a spiritual interaction with the rest of the world. On the opposite side, the adherents of different traditionalist movements, which had also emerged after World War I, did not refrain to exacerbate nationalistic and mystical expressions in art and culture. While the nationalistic movements had not evolved into the extremism of the 1930s, and the antagonism was still kept at an intellectual level, modernists perceived them already as a potential danger. The issue was not to oppose the presence of religion in culture, but to fight against the attempts of transforming it into an instrument of nationalism and antidemocracy. While antisemitism was not yet an issue, as many of the artists and writers supporting the modernist trends were Jewish, this could have contributed to the opposition of the traditionalists. These attitudes outlined the future movements in Romanian politics and culture, and the modernists were already laying the basis of their resistance against totalitarianism, regardless whether it came from the political right or left.[11]
Tudor Vianu expressed the view that "if the program of ethnic culturalism was adopted, Romanian culture would regress to an undignified provincial level".[12] Expanding the same idea, Eugen Filotti wrote: "traditionalism means nothing else than the megalomania of distress"[13] A short time later, he continued in the same vein:
Under the banner of
byzantine-muscovite forms of a primitive culture, having no evolution whatsoever and nu future. Our ideal is a dynamic culture, having the desire of growth, renewal and fecundity. The scope of our generation's endeavours should not be clinging to a sterile and, in some respects, imaginary tradition, nor cultivating exclusively the autochthonous character... The type of culture we want to promote is European. Our light comes from the West.The salvation lies in the
europeanismşi "romanianism". We have only the sacrilegious wish to harmonise romanianism with the heartbeat of contemporary life... We want this life to be liberated from balcanism, from asiatism, from archaism and from the rustic simplicity which limits existence to the path from the village church to the village tavern...We have a better opinion about our own people than all the traditionalists and that is why want Romania to start making its entrance into Europe. Many nations, located between the Atlantic and our borders, have succeeded in being European without losing the specificity of their ethnic spirit. Why would we be the only ones who need a senseless and useless isolation?[14]
Eugen Filotti continued his journalistic activity until 1927. However, as time went by, he became increasingly disillusioned by the cultural life in Romania. The integration of Romanian culture into a more comprehensive European culture, which many of the young intellectuals of his generation had been attempting to promote, did not occur. Instead, currents of various nationalistic tendencies had proliferated and were increasingly active in opposing European integration. Some writers and artist had left for various western countries and many more were seriously considering this alternative. Gradually detaching himself from the Romanian internal cultural life, Eugen Filotti increasingly oriented his journalistic activity towards foreign policy, which had been his main concern in the early years of his career. At the Adevărul newspaper, he was given the responsibility of writing the editorials on foreign affairs and of coordinating the related activities.
Diplomatic activity
Press attaché
In 1927, Eugen Filotti decided to give up journalism and to pursue a diplomatic career. After being appointed press attaché in Prague where he worked for over a year, in 1928 Eugen Filotti was transferred to the Romanian Mission to the League of Nations in Geneva. From 1928 to 1930 he works, next to other diplomats, among which Savel Rădulescu, as aid to Nicolae Titulescu, permanent representative of Romania to the League of Nations.
In 1929 Eugen Filotti married Elisabeta Taşcă, daughter of professor
Director of the Press
In 1930, Eugen Filotti is promoted Director of the Press and of Information in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In the early 1930s
În his capacity of director of the press, Eugen Filotti had the responsibility of verifying the activity of foreign press
Apart from his activities in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, after returning from his missions in
In the following year, there were other conflicts which surfaced in the Romanian PEN, reflecting the political turmoil in Romania. On February 11, 1934, at the Extraordinary General Assembly of the Romanian PEN,
Minister plenipotentiary to Turkey
În 1935 Eugen Filotti was appointed plenipotentiary minister to Ankara. The position was important for the Nicolae Titulescu's foreign policy. The Balkan Pact had been signed just a year before and Titulescu was aware that the framework was still frail and that further steps were necessary in order to consolidate the alliance so that it could efficiently react in case of an attack on one of its members. Therefore, he tried to appoint diplomats who shared his views as ministers plenipotentiary in the signatory countries.
Titulescu's dismissal coincided with the departure of two key personalities from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs:
On August 28, 1936, King
Many Romanian diplomats indicated their
Despite denials, the new foreign minister,
Minister plenipotentiary to Greece
In the fall of 1936 Eugen Filotti was appointed minister plenipotenţiary to Athens. Although Greece was a signatory of the Balkan Pact, the now position was in not linked to the strengthening of the alliance, which Eugen Filotti had pursued before. After Titulescu's departure, the Romanian government was less interested in this alliance, whose role was seen just as a pact of friendship between the four signatories, without implying any consequent measures.[19]
Romania had other problems in Greece related to the Aromanian minority (called Vlachs by the Greek). The Aromanians, which the government of Bucharest considered to be a Romanian population, were considered second class citizens in Greece and denied the right of having an education in their native language. However, taking into account the rapprochement policies of the two countries, the Greek government accepted the establishment of schools in which the education was to be in Romanian, on condition that such schools be financed by the Romanian government. The implementation of the agreement was not without difficulties.
Eugen Filotti made important efforts to strengthen the Romanian High School in
Minister plenipotentiary to Bulgaria
In the fall of 1938, Eugen Filotti was transferred from
The problems of minorities were an important to the bilateral Romano-Bulgarian diplomatic relations and it was inevitable that, in his new position, Eugen Filotti would be confronted with issues related the rights of the Romanian minority in Bulgaria. As he had done in Athens, Eugen Filotti concentrated his efforts on strengthening the Romanian education network in Bulgaria, which included primary schools in the villages with Romanian population along the Danube as well as a Romanian high school in
However, towards the end of 1939, the government in Sofia raised territorial claims and demanded that negotiations with Romania be started. The problem of Southern Dobruja differed from the one of other provinces which Romania had gained after World War II as it had not been decided in the Peace Treaties of Trianon, Saint-Germain-en- Laye sau Neuilly-sur-Seine. Therefore, such negotiations were not viewed as a revisionism of the peace treaties of 1919. Even in Romania, the issue of Southern Dobruja had been controversial. In 1913, King Carol I and many other politicians had disagreed with the territorial extension requested by Titu Maiorescu on a territory which did not have a Romanian population, arguing that this extension was contrary to the aspirations of creating a Romanian national state.
Unlike other situations regarding border disputes, for the Cadrilater problem no international conference was organized. It was mainly negotiated by a succession of diplomatic notes and discussions, in which a compromise acceptable to both parts was reached. As Romanian minister plenipotentiary to Sofia, Eugen Filotti was directly involved in these negotiations.
At the beginning, the positions of the two countries were totally contradictory. Romania wanted to change the ethnic status quo in the region and to preserve the territorial status-quo, while Bulgaria was aiming to achieve exactly the opposite.
The objectives of the negotiations was not only related to the transfer of
At the beginning of the negotiations, the Romanian diplomats insisted on the mandatory emigration of all Bulgarians residing in Northern Dobruja (the counties of Constanța and Tulcea) while the Romanians of Southern Dobruja would have the freedom of choosing to emigrate to Romania or to stay. As this was rejected by Bulgaria, later in the negotiations the Romanians suggested that all Bulgarians residing in Romania be obliged to emigrate and a similar emigration would be mandatory for the Romanians of Southern Dobruja, but not for those residing in other parts of Bulgaria. Partially in order not to derail the negotiations and partially giving in to Germany's pressures, Bulgaria agreed to negotiate an exchange of population. The Bulgarians first suggested that emigration should not be a mandatory requirement. When the Romanians insisted on this issue, the Bulgarians rejected the proposal of the emigration of all Bulgarians residing in Romania versus the emigration of all Romanians residing in Southern Dobruja as not being equivalent. Therefore, the Bulgarians suggested a combination of mandatory and voluntary emigration. The final agreement, reached by the Treaty of Craiova stipulated:
- a mandatory population exchange between Bulgaria and Romania for the Bulgarian population of Northern Dobruja (counties of Constanța and Tulcea) and the Romanian population of Southern Dobruja (the counties of Durostor and Caliacra); this phase was to be completed within three months after the exchange of the ratification documents;
- an optional emigration of ethnic Bulgarians residing in other parts of Romania and of ethnic Romanians residing in other parts of Bulgaria, to be completed within one year after the exchange of the ratification documents;
- the right of each government to decree the mandatory emigration of the Romanian or Bulgarian nationals if the number of persons having opted for voluntary emigration was not equivalent.
Besides, various technical problems related to the population transfer had to be settled. After lengthy discussions the two parties involved agreed that the ownership of buildings located in rural areas which belonged to emigrants would be taken over by the state from which they emigrated. While an agreement on the mandatory emigration could be reached, a contradiction between the interest of the two parties prevented a consensus on the optional emigration. The Bulgarian government wanted to encourage all Bulgarians living in other parts of Romania, outside of Dobrogea, to be resettled in Bulgaria. The Romanian government preferred not to dismantle the compact
The Romanian part also unsuccessfully attempted to maintain control over the
Contrary to the assessment of some Bulgarian historians[20] the Romanian position was not weakened by Germany but rather by the Soviet Union. After having occupied Bessarabia in June 1940, the USSR considered Bulgaria a more friendly country than Romania and considered that it would be in its interest to have a common border with Bulgaria. Therefore, the soviet diplomacy was encouraging the Bulgarians not to be satisfied with the Cadrilater, but to demand the transfer of its sovereignty over the entire Dobruja. Besides creating a common border between the Soviet Union and Bulgaria, this also presented the potential advantage for the Soviet Union of gaining control over the Danube Delta. As the Delta was not part of the Dobruja, it would not have been occupied by Bulgaria, but the possibility of Romania maintaining sovereignty over a territory to which it could have access only through a reach of the Danube bordered by unfriendly nations, was doubtful. During an audience, king Boris III of Bulgaria informed Eugen Filotti about the soviet intentions. This induced the Romanians to accelerate the negotiations and to reach an agreement before the Soviet Union would intervene in a more aggressive way.
On September 4, 1940, the Treaty of Craiova, finalizing over a year long negotiations.[clarification needed] In accordance with the provisions of the treaty, the mandatory population exchange was completed in two phases. The main exchange took place in November–December 1940; during this phase 61,500 Bulgarians from Northern Dobruja and 83,928 Romanians from the Cadrilater moved. The second phase, which was implemented in accordance with an additional agreement, necessitated the move of another 3,600 Bulgarians and 4,700 Romanians from other parts of the two countries, outside the Dobruja. Thus, the total number of emigrants was of about 65,000 Bulgarians, who resettled in mostly in the Cadrilater and of about 88,000 Romanians who resettled in Northern Dobruja. However, Eugen Filotti was not concerned any more with these aftermaths of the Treaty of Craiova. After having concluded his lead role in the negotiations with Bulgaria, Eugen Filotti was recalled to Bucharest. He was assigned a new mission which was to be even more challenging.[21][22][23][24][25]
Minister plenipotentiary to Hungary
On August 30, 1940, a week before the signature of the Treaty of Craiova, Romania had been obliged by the Second Vienna Award to cede Northern Transylvania to Hungary. Following diplomatic rules, after such important changes, diplomatic envoys in the two countries were usually replaced. Eugen Filotti was appointed the new Romanian minister plenipotentiary to Budapest.
The problems of the Romanian population on the territory of
An important task of the Romanian legation in Budapest, as well as of the subordinated consulates in
Inevitably, the Hungarian authorities became aware of these activities. If they helped provide information to the Romanians, they also induced repressive actions against the Romanian clergy.
Except being subjected to repressive actions in their villages, there were frequent cases in which Romanians from Northern Transylvania were displaced for forced labour to Hungary, mostly for the maintenance of roads. They were however allowed to write letters to their relatives at home, informing them about where they were working. These informations were relayed to the Romanian legation in Budapest, and, in his capacity of plenipotentiary minister, Eugen Filotti visited these places to gain first hand information on how the Romanians were treated. There were several cases when the Hungarian guards treated Eugen Filotti offensively, disregarding his diplomatic status. Abuses committed on the territory of Hungary were beyond the authority of the Roggeri-Altenburg Commission. Therefore, on these matters Eugen Filotti forwarded protest notes directly to the Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Budapest.[27]
The Romanian educational system had been completely dismantled by the Hungarian authorities in Northern Transylvania. The entire Romanian population was compelled to complete the curriculum in Hungarian language. Romanian school books could neither be printed in Northern Transylvania nor be imported from Romania. Again, the Romanian church was the only organization which, through the clergy, could provide education in Romanian during Sunday religious courses. The Greek-Catholic diocese had its own printing presses in Oradea and could therefore edit a significant number of books in Romanian, covering various religious subjects. Eugen Filotti had frequent contacts with the church authorities in order to assess the needs as well as the ways of supporting these activities from Romania.
Starting 1943, the persecution of Jews in Hungary became harsher and after March 19, 1944, when the German army occupied Hungary and general
In July 1944, Eugen Filotti came to Bucharest, in order to present to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs information regarding Northern Transylvania, necessary to prepare the Romanian claims at a future peace conference. At the same time, Eugen Filotti got actively involved with the diplomats who were preparing the coup which would take Romania out of the alliance with Germany, and make the country switch sides to join the Allies.
Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Immediately after
His first efforts in his new position was to inform all Romanian diplomatic missions abroad about the changes following
Finally, according to prevailing diplomatic conventions, an exchange of diplomats which were posted at the diplomatic missions in Berlin, Budapest and Bratislava, capitals of countries still under German control, had to be organized. The negotiations were carried out with the help of the diplomatic missions of neutral countries: Switzerland and Sweden. Though an agreement of the involved governments was reached, the exchange of diplomats did not take place, because the Hungarian and Slovak diplomats in Bucharest, refused to return to their countries. As a result, the Romanian diplomats were kept in captivity in Germany until the end of the war.
References
- ^ Solidarity and Rescue[permanent dead link]
- ^ Monografia Liceului Gheorghe Lazăr – București, 1941
- ^ Mihai Sorin Rădulescu – Genealogia românească. Istoric şi bibliografie – Editura Istros, Brăila 2000
- ^ a b Alexandru Gabriel Filotti – Frontierele românilor – Editura Istros, Brăila 2007
- ^ Cuvîntul liber (1919–1936) – Manuscriptum, 1971, Nr.3
- ^ Ovidiu Caraiani – National identity and political legitimacy in modern Romania "Chapter Vi". Archived from the original on September 7, 2008. Retrieved September 23, 2008.
- ^ a b Mariana Vida, Gheorghe Vida – Mattis Teutsch and the Romanian Avant-garde [1]
- ^ Saşa Pană – Născut în 02 – Editura Minerva, București, 1973
- ^ Eugen Filotti – Expoziţia Contimporanului – Cuvântul Liber, 13 Decembrie 1924 Nr. 47 p.20
- ^ Scarlat Callimachi -Expozitia "Contimporanului" (insemnări) – Punct, 1924, dec. 6
- ^ Camil Mureşan – Laicism şi religiozitate în cultura română interbelică – [2]
- ^ Tudor Vianu – Prima expozitie internationala Contimporanul – Miscarea literară, 1924 No. 4.
- ^ Eugen Filotti – Gândul nostru – Cuvântul liber, seria a II-a, nr. 1, p. 2-4
- ^ Eugen Filotti – Europeism sau românism – Cuvântul liber, seria a II-a, nr. 1, p. 2-4 şi nr. 2, p. 18-19.
- ^ Oana Panait – Carol al II-lea, presa si propaganda – Historia, Nr. 65, 2007
- ^ Iancu Moţu – Demnitate ardeleana si tradare dîmboviteana – Foaia transilvană, April 12, 2007
- ^ Nicolae Săcăliş – Dalles: destin şi istorie (II) – Tricolorul, 2008, 15 mai
- ^ Potra, George G. – Reacţii necunoscute la demiterea lui Titulescu August 29, 1936: O "mazilire perfidă" – Magazin Istoric, 1998, Nr. 6
- ^ Andrei Alexandru Căpuşan – Diplomaţi români de elită Vol. II – Ed. Ars Docendi, București 2009, pp.155–161
- ^ Dr. Blagovest Niagulov (Sofia) – Frontiera – un zid sau un pod – Magazin Istoric – 2000, Nr. 1
- ^ Doru Ungureanu, Nicolae Dumitrache – 1940. Cedarea Cadrilaterului, un moment dramatic al istoriei românilor. – În: România în ecuația păcii și dictatului. Pitești, București, Brașov, Cluj-Napoca, 2001
- ^ Mihai Lupu – Dobrogea. Repere istorice – Constanța, Europolis, 2000
- ^ Ion Giurcă – Tratativele de la Craiova. Evacuarea Cadrilaterului în anul 1940 – În: România în ecuaţia păcii și dictatului. Pitești, București, Brașov, Cluj-Napoca, 2001
- ^ Constantin Tudor – Tratatul de la Craiova și cedarea Cadrilaterului – Tomis, Nr.2, 2002
- ^ Gheorghe Zbuchea – Cadrilater 1940 -. SAI, 2000
- ^ Petre Out – Comisia Roggeri-Altenburg – Magazin Istoric – 2001, Nr. 8
- ^ "Raoul Şorban – O misiune diplomatică secretă". Archived from the original on September 7, 2008. Retrieved May 14, 2010.
- ^ Raoul Şorban – Despre o actiune de salvare a evreilor din "Transilvania de Nord" in timpul Holocaustului – [3]
- ^ Radu Ioanid – Evreii sub regimul Antonescu
- ^ Yad Vashem – The Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority
- ^ Final Report of the International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania, Bucarest, 2004
- ^ Raoul Şorban – Invazie de stafii – Ora adevărului
- ^ Final Report of the International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania