English Translation by Lia L. Retianu

published in Institutul Național pentru Studierea Holocaustului din România “Elie Wiesel”,

“Holocaust. Studii și cercetări”

Vol. XVII, Nr. 1 (18) / 2025, p. 39-59.

Abstract: A young intellectual during the interwar times, Vintilă Horia, placed himself under the protection of an extremist writer, Nichifor Crainic, and had an ample activity of propaganda in the press. He used to praise in glowing terms Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, glorified the war criminal figure of Ion Antonescu, and justified the massacre of the Jews in the Holocaust. As a reward he was sent in diplomatic services to Rome and Vienna. After the war he took refuge to Argentina and later to Franco’s Spain. In 1960 he was on the verge to win the Goncourt prize in Paris, with his novel God was Born in Exile. His past was reveled and he was never handed the prize. 

Since then many Romanian intellectuals had argued in favor of Vintilă Horia, in an attempt to strategically regain a cultural agent that had affirmed overseas, by omitting, hiding or even contesting his ferocious extremist past. This scientific study reviews the most acute and tension filled moments of a debate to which many had contributed with cunning participation and in bad faith.

Keywords: propaganda, interwar press, Hitlerism, fascism, Vintilă Horia, intellectuals.

During the communism it was impossible to have a debate if any man of culture had the duty to stand for a certain ethical model in front of the many exposed to his works, or it is sufficient for him to perform as a tying belt between the political power and the society. The discussions had stumbled close to its spring, due to the questions if the artist has only the duty to entertain his audience or he had also the duty to somehow polish it. By the answers to these problems two different branches had sprouted: the art for the sake of art and the art with a trend. The ones favoring the first category were considering that the art has its own self-sufficient universe, with autonomous rules and impermeable ends, thus it would be a waste of time to prolong the meditation and it would to the audience loss. So, as long as the art-work has no social function, neither has its creator.  End of argument.

There are though those writers who are also professors in classrooms, maybe even teaching literature to some young impressionable minds. They could realize on a daily basis that are required to have the best, irreproachable, personal manners, otherwise they might lose their job. The text for students to reflect upon must be chosen so they don’t instigate to violence or discrimination or intolerance.  When in the instances these situations do arise in the workbooks, they have to be exploited as negative examples, in a constructive pedagogical way. If the professor, who appears in front of one hundred or two hundred students, has the obligation to reflect for all of them a constructive path, why shouldn’t the writer have a similar duty, since he might appear in front of thousands or more of readers, influencing their lives, the way of thinking and acting?

This problem is of a delicate nature in Romanian literature, where some great authors had made a habit, along the centuries, to climb up in visible spots, just to serve the powerful in charge. To justify such behavior some ideas were thrown into the public space as it would be that: “the talent is all that matters”, “we must discern between life and written texts”, “no one is innocent”, “some short biographical stages are irrelevant” a.s.o. There were real battles for some writers of great talent who, in the interwar period, had opted for the fascist propaganda: Nae Ionescu, Mircea Eliade, Emil Cioran, Constantin Noica a.s.o. The last name of this portraits gallery that had sprung in the light of debate is Vintilă Horia. At the time of his best known novel published in French, God was Born in Exile, he was awarded the Goncourt Prize, in 1960. However, it became the target of a ferocious press campaign of the communist regime in Romania, due to the fervent fascist and Hitlerite propaganda of the author in his youth. The prize was annulled in Paris, and the writer returned to Spain, where in 1992 he died. His figure seemed to ask for supplemental explanations. Many more persuasive voices started to be heard from overseas at the beginning of the new millennia. The journal for Canadian Romanians and not only, Tribuna noastră, (nr. 41/Oct.-Nov. 2003) was launching a pathetical appeal: Towards a Rehabilitation of Vintilă Horia. It was noted the image of the exiled longing to rediscover his homeland. It is possible in his youth to have had some sins, however insignificant, ephemeral, and quickly left behind.  As he is telling us that:

“As far an article that appeared in 1938, in which I was prasing Adolf Hitler, he was illustrating my attitude in that particular spring, when for the duration of three months, I did sympathized the national-socialism. Quickly I realized that I was wrong, I withdrew my admiration and I wrote from there on until the end of the war articles in which I was attacking the principles of a party and an ideology which no Christian could agree upon. In the same period I wrote articles against fascism, at a time when Mussolini was showing his admiration for Hungary…”(1)

Some other details about Vintilă Horia past are entering the public circuit at the same time with the extremely thorough work of Florin Manolescu, Enciclopedia exilului literar românesc // The Encyclopedia of the Romanian Literary Exile. Here are quoted again fragments of the novelist correspondence in which he insists, in one of the semi-clandestine Romanian publications from overseas:

“I also want to affirm – and I am not doing it because I must justify myself in any possible way, but it is because I have to answer loyally to the loyal articles published in BIRE – that: / I was never anti-Semite, / – nor a Nazi militant;/ – and that in those ten or twelve books I published between 1936-1960, novels, poems, or essays, no one could find anything else but the expressions of a soul loving peace and brotherhood-between-all-people.”(2)

A help to this propaganda is the writer’s meeting with the television journalist Marilena Rotaru. She was recovering the anticommunist exiled personalities (King Michael, Monica Lovinescu, Virgil Ierunca, Emil Cioran, Paul Goma, Sergiu Celibidache a.s.o.), and he had a few televised dialogues with her. The writer’s personality left a deep mark on the journalist, in which sense she wrote a book and made a film in 2002: Întoarcerea lui Vintilă Horia // The Comeback of Vintilă Horia (prize for the best documentary from the Association of Television Professionals of Romania). It is here where the runaway writer had the opportunity to praise with all his might the war criminal Ion Antonescu after decades:

“I was impressed by the strong patriotism and intelligence of the Marshal Antonescu. He was just impeccable, in a simple and elegant uniform, talking in absolutely perfect French and fighting for the rights of Romania over Transylvania. He was very stern and courageous facing Mussolini and the Italian Government. The same was later on, facing Hitler. He was a man that lived impeccably and died impeccably. He was a great national hero and maybe the greatest politician that Romania had in the twentieth century.”(3)

The novelist is remembered by his contemporan hagiographer in exalted terms, without any connection to the scientific discourse:

“In March of 1990 I met Vintilă Horia in Madrid. Since then my life is divided in two: before and after Vintilă Horia. I owe him the clarifying of the meaning of my existence, the deepening of my dialogue with God, my engagement and acceptance of sacrifice in the name of truth and the consolidation of the believe that the world could be change if we choose to change ourselves.”(4)

The position of this journalist is based on the strategic orientation of the coordinators of the Romanian cultural exile. Confronted by the communist regime from Bucharest with the discrediting of one of their main component, due to their youth participation to the Hitlerite propaganda, prestigious intellectuals had taken the opportunist option to deny the historical facts only to save their comrade.

“TVR2 had re-run for three weeks the dialogues from March 1996, in the talkshow of Marilena Rotaru, Memoria exilului românesc // The Memory of Romanian Exile, with Monica Lovinescu and Virgil Ierunca. In the second episode from Sunday, 26 October 1997, from 13:30 hours, it was mentioned the scandal started in Paris years ago by the book of Vintilă Horia, God was Born in Exile. The two literary critics was very combative, they had underlined the dignity of the Romanian writer, invited, at the time the prize was announced, by the communist embassy to be photographed with their present officials, and the fact that he absolutely refused, thus starting a poisonous press campaign conducted from Bucharest, and meant to discredit the nominee as he was a notorious fascist. Virgil Ierunca had stated eloquently and indignantly: «it was all a nasty lie», Vintilă Horia was truely a sympathizer of the right-wing, but he was never a fascist. Monica Lovinescu had listed the technical details and explained how there were fabricated documents, that the Securitate secret service had taken some «innocent» and authentic passages from the articles of the journalist from the interwar period and changed them into texts that never belonged to him. The two guests took the story further, showing how the entire exile, regardless of the political coloration, from the social-democrats all the way to the legionaries, had turned into a coalition in the defense of Vintilă Horia, posting a picture of Mihai Ralea (the one who made-up the campaign against him), in a uniform of the National Front of King Carol, and that this particular uniform looked a lot like the one the SS, and the way the French press reported that Horia’s attacker was a notorious SS officer a.s.o.”(5)

That particular episode had also marked the break between Monica Lovinescu and Eugen Ionesco. The renowned Parisian playwright had never accepted to deny historic facts, only for the love of his friends or whatever current interests.

“As you well know, the Goncourt Prize issue had produced during the 60s a radical split for the Romanian anticommunist exile. On one side were those lead by Monica Lovinescu, who were denying the Hitlerism charges against Vintilă Horia, because those charges were coming from the communist state. The Securitate secret service had made up a nauseous campaign, thus, no matter what, any proof had to be denied. The main strategy – prolonged until today – was synthesized in the emphatic shout: «Vintilă Horia was never a legionary!»

On the other side were the ones who knew too well the fascist-Hitlerite propaganda of Vintilă Horia and did not want to accept the pious lie. Actually the novelist had situated himself into a political flank opposite to the Legionary, as a follower of A.C. Cuza, through Nichifor Crainic. Thus, it is true that V. H. was not a legionary, however, it is also true his propaganda for fascism and Hitlerism.

Eugen Ionesco had vigorously denounced the lie spread for many years by Monica Lovinescu. He had this memorable reply, when his exiled fellows asked for his signature in Vintilă Horia’s favor: «Had he been a legionary, maybe I would’ve intervene, but he was one of Cuza’s followers».

Monica Lovinescu, after almost 40 years, wrote: «Eugen also was upset that I fought for Vintilă Horia in that Goncourt Prize scandal. I hung up the phone and so it stayed»(see La apa Vavilonului // At the Waters of Vavilon, Humanitas, 1999).”(6)

The magazine of “politics and Christian culture” Rost // Senses took the subject and gave it a special setting (no. 16 / June 2004). Cristian Bădiliță laments on the lack of interest of the public on the novelist issue, and he puts it on “the environmental new-left current combined with a systematic contempt of the Romanian values”. He accuses not this intellectual’s past extremes, but the confusion of the fatherland’s public:

“It is worth a psycho-analysis this form of numbness of the Romanian people, who just came out from the cave of Stalinist-Ceausism, looking for a refuge, with a sort of frenetic desperation, in the brothel of left-wing consumerism.”(7)

Writer Theodor Cazaban reminisces his nostalgic decades of friendship with the winner of the Goncourt Prize and casting away the fascist partisanships of the later:

“Vintilă Horia took refuge in Spain that’s how dirty was the campaign against him, all because some newspaper articles of his youth, which, however, had nothing scandalous in content.”(8)

Marcel Petrișor, a writer accused by the communist authorities of taking part in the Legionary Movement and imprisoned because of it, expressed his indignation

“for the way in which the ideology tries and at times succeeds to dictate the scale of values in the world of art creators, where the real value should prevail, and not the political idea.”(9)

The absence of disaccording voices and the unilateral setting of the propaganda message leads the reader to understand that he faces a publication deeply political, the strength of the expression and the quality of partnerships it’s on the extreme right-wing of the public speech. The effort to rebuild in Romania the post-communist image of Vintilă Horia as innocent was in need of a new stronger impetus.

The year 2007 came to register one of the most thundering campaigns in the cultural press. Diverse publications of all kind of orientations, from the dailies (Ziua//The Day, 16 January, 2007), weeklies (Adevărul literar și artistic//The Literary and Artistic Truth of 17 January, 2007), or quarterlies (Jurnalul literar//The Literary Journal of October-November-December, 2006, with a later apparition) are all loudly supporting the Memoriu pentru Vintilă Horia //Memorandum in Favor of Vintilă Horia. The signatories are of the most diverse areas of intellectual life: writers at that time in the country, or overseas (Paul Goma, Alexandru Husar, Constantin Ciopraga, Monica Lovinescu, Octavian Paler, Dorin Tudoran, Dan Hăulică, Doina Jela, Gheorghe Carageani, Ana Blandiana, Romulus Rusan, Marina Constantinescu, Liviu Antonesei, Adrian Alui Gheorghe, Nicolae Florescu, Ileana Corbea, Sanda Golopenția, Constantin Eretescu, Nicolae Stroescu-Stînișoară, Răzvan Codrescu, Cristian Bădiliță, Adrian Papahagi a.s.o.), also well-known visual artists (Camilian Demetrescu), human rights militants (Doina Cornea, Sorin Ilieșiu, Dinu Zamfirescu, the president of the National Institute for the Romanian Exile Memory), historians (Matei Cazacu), translators (Mihai Cantuniari, Micaela Ghițescu, Andrei Ionescu), specialists of the Romanian Television (Marilena Rotaru, Vartan Arachelian), actors (Ion Caramitru), economists, engineers, professors with PhD, medical doctors, architects, priests, a formerly plagiarist (Mircea Stănescu), an ex-proto-chronist (Dan Zamfirescu, “writer and professor”) a.s.o.

The public appeal was aiming towards the supreme hierarchy of the state and its organs:

“We are addressing to The President of Romania, the Prime-Minister, the Minister of Culture, the President of the Writers Union, the President of the Romanian Academy, to the Commission of Research of the Communist Totalitarism, as well as to all publishing institutions with the appeal to join in efforts to determine the competent institutions of the state to adopt and apply the measure of reinstating in full rights, officially, Vintilă Horia.”(10)

It seems like the must-have respect for the national values were the engine propelling this whole army of signatories:

“No other Romanian writer (up to now) was awarded this prize (Goncourt) and no other with such a similar international literary importance”.

A moral repair should be definitely be made, considering that:

“The Securitate secret service and the whole communist propaganda apparatus had fabricated an extremely violent accusation, meant to compromise the writer, to have the award removed and to have him denigrated by the French press. They succeeded partly. The accusations of being legionary and fascist was at first taken over by the left-wing French papers and then by the right-wing. The evidence brought then, by Vintilă Horia and other Romanian intellectuals in exile was not taken in account”.

It is clear that we were dealing with an atrocious propagandistic maneuver, a raw intoxication of the western public opinion by the late communist regime. The initiator of the common complaint, Marilena Rotaru, had studied already

“…the Securitate files on Vintilă Horia, and the ones from SIE. From them it appears that Vintilă Horia was not a legionary and the entire story was fabricated by the communist secret service from Bucharest”.

The Romanian state should have the conscious obligation to eliminate the blatant injustice.  There is the need to

“…an extremely needed moral, historical, and cultural restoration of those 58 years while Vintilă Horia had served our country exemplary, with whole being and creation”.

Some other voices of the cultural press had immediately commented in favor showing their support to that incendiary “Well-founded appeal”(11).  An institution rushed to welcome the requests:

“Within the limits of its competency, the Minister of Culture and Cults subscribes to the requests expressed by the complaint subscribers.”(12)

*

Taking in account the public magnitude this issue had got to, the significant names that contributed to its making, and the persuasive tones used, it is imperative to analyze very carefully the whole situation, in the limits of scientific correctness. What is the statement of this problem in actuality?  Who exactly was Vintilă Horia?

The researcher Z. Ornea had found his name in the extremist press of the 30s:

“In ecstasy towards the Italian fascism and its creator was Vintilă Horia those days. «It is impossible – he wrote in 1937 – in our days to separate art from fascism. The opera of Mussolini, no matter how abundant and unfairly criticized, it will stay over the centuries as the most perfect artistic achievement… The fascist order means before anything else a spiritual order. Let not forget that the one who is leading the destiny of Rome had been a philosopher, a novelist, a poet… Mussolini summarizes Italy with its present, past, and future… I was stating earlier that fascism is a form of art, a new Italian rebirth. And of course it is so, as long the creator of it is the genial artist, born from the azure forehead of the eternal Rome».”(13)

The payoff of those words came quickly. His protector, Nichifor Crainic (another fighter on the barricades of journalistic fascism), the minister of Information and Propaganda of those days, helped Vintilă Horia to become in June of 1940 the press attaché of the Romanian Legacy in Italy(14). It was a diplomatic privilege, obtained through excessive zeal in the extremist press, however it was for a short period. Called back by the new legionary regime, the writer resumes his journalist job, the occupation he knew best, the unleashed propaganda, without any form of reluctance or shame.  He is present at the editorial office of the journal Sfarmă-Piatră//Stone-Breaker, the representative paper of the extremism of that time. In the context of the military attacks towards East, the journalists are pressed to justify for the public the aggression, foreshadowing between the lines the antisemitic speech. Vintilă Horia is fulfilling his duty:

“I remember the last year’s horrified days when Asia was flooding the Nistru and when the Jewish sewage of the Bessarabia and Bucovina towns was slapping the young face of the Romanian soldier.”(15)

Three days later the voice of Vintilă Horia is heard glorifying the continent’s dictators:

“Mussolini’s doctrine had blown like a new wind over Europe […] battlegrounds, called fascist and representing the new defense line of the continent against the barbarian Asia that was into the well organized hands of the Jews. Hitler, Franco, Salazar and Ion Antonescu had destroyed one by one within their own country the communist hydra supported by the democrats, the Jews, and freemasons.”(16)

The Romanian army and also the unregulated troops and militia were busy on the front line, fighting the enemy, and also behind lines while exterminating the civilian Jewish community. The so called Antonescu Project of “cleansing” the territories from the “Jewish elements” had to be justified and approved. Thus, in the center of the front page of the fascist paper was printed the official governmental announcement: At Iasi were executed 500 Judeo-communists who were shooting at the German and Romanian soldiers. On the same first page, a little lower, but still in the center, Vintilă Horia was commenting the crime:

“The international revolution acclaimed so furiously by the communist speakers it’s nothing else but a supreme trampoline of a universal Jewish dictatorship. […] In a few weeks radio Moscow, on top of which another flag will wave, will spread into the air a new formula which will sound like this: Christians of the world, unite! So all the world will be free again, because Israel will cease to exist.”(17)

As a collective massacre would take place in the Holocaust of Romania, the journalist Vintilă Horia was present in the extremist press to justify it:

“Paradoxically after each pogrom Horia wrote something from which one could conclude that it was normal to kill Jews. Thus, after the uprise of the legionaries and their pogrom in Bucharest, without being explicit about the pogrom, after announcing the victim statistics of 254 wounded and 236 dead, he notes: «According to the funeral calculation, amongst the dead there are some Jews. Let us say that these ones were touched by some an implacable destiny. But the Romanians? What did they have to die for?».”(18)

The old flame for culture, through which the writer puts his lectures at the service of ignominy, it is well manifested in an ample article with a comparative exercise between Napoleon and Hitler. Ferocious enemy of democracy, V. Horia doesn’t forgive the French emperor for the mistake of leaving behind a horrible inheritance:

“What he left to his homeland was, after all, the democracy itself, the one that had mined for a century and a half the heart of France, taking it from decadence into decadence, until the summer of 1940.”

Due to this fundamental loss in the French history:

“Europe has nothing to owe to the memory of Napoleon. / Adolf Hitler? But the difference is so broad that the facts speak for themselves. The actual Fuhrer of Germany created himself a revolution [underlined V.H.] which he managed to make it triumphant within the borders of his country and in which name he wants to change everything left unhealthy and apparent from Napoleon Bonaparte. […] He doesn’t force anyone to accept his revolutionary ideas, but wants only to install a new order [underlined by V.H.] in the place of the old disorder that he is combating along with all conscientious nations of Europe. This is why Adolf Hitler and not Napoleon Bonaparte is the first political man of the modern era, who deserves the merit of a Great European.”(19)

His propaganda is meant not only to establish the cultural-theoretical perimeter of the situation, but also to urge a concrete participation to the battle. The praising of the Romanian aggressions beyond the borders, along of history, is such a typical theme for the extreme right-wing:

“During 1877 and also in 1913 we crossed the Danube, in 1919 the Tisa, now the Nistru, this political, but not national boundary.”(20)

The tip of his Hitlerite unfolding, while the cultural information is meant to legitimate the crime, is found in a very vocative article signed by Vintilă Horia. His rhetorical impact remains untouched over decades:

“Adolf Hitler’s Germany [has] a value, as force and spread, resembling the religion in the medieval times or of the art during Renaissance. This Homo Europaeus, the first of the greatest ones, the one who had the courage to destroy a prejudice and to prove, with outstanding arguments, the imperishable strength of Europe, is Adolf Hitler. His speech is the one of the centuries which are talking from the height of the towers of cathedrals and churches, from the depths of libraries and museums and from the highest peak of that humanity called Europeanism.”(21)

At that time the smoke was showing its shambled shape from the crematories of the extermination camps. However, this time too his zeal was rewarded. In the spring of 1942 Vintilă Horia was sent as a press attaché to the Romanian Consulate in Vienna(22).

The end of the war catches up with Vintilă Horia in foreign countries, taking refuge in Italy and then in Argentina, like so many military leaders and ideologists of Hitlerism. He was lucky enough not to be crowded in front of the court, however, on 20 February 1946 when he was judged. The arguments of the public prosecutor, dr. Silviu Rapoțescu, spread onto points and sub-points, based on the numerous titles and scandalous quotes from the press, are impressive:

“The accused, Vintilă Horia Caftangioglu, journalist, is one of those who through his journalist activities had contributed to accomplishing the political gains of Hitlerism in Romania.

This propaganda was done by the accused through the following most revealing themes: 

A. Propaganda for fascism and Hitlerism for Romania to adhere to the politics of Axis. 

a) The relentless eulogy of fascism and Hitlerism and their representatives: «The apparition of Benito Mussolini is an epochal event» (Povestea ducelui // The Duke’s story – in Sfarmă-Piatră, 23 September 1937); «Adolf Hitler is a genial political mind» (Semnificația unei Revoluții // The Significance of a Revolution – in Sfarmă-Piatră, 2 February 1941); «Adolf Hitler and not Napoleon is the first political man of the modern era who deserves the merit of being qualified as the great European» (Marele European // The Great European – in Sfarmă-Piatră, 5 July 1941); «The National-Socialism, as force and spread, is similar to religion in the middle ages and art during Renaissance era» (Homo Europaeus – in Sfarmă-Piatră, 17 December 1941); «The Führer had set the German army and people in front of the heroical chapters of the modern world» (Elogiul curajului // Praise of Courage – in Sfarmă-Piatră, 27 February 1941).

b) Deformed informations on democracy and its representatives: «We are squirming in democracy as in a stake prepared by ourselves» (Cultura democrației noastre // Our Democracy’s Culture – in Sfarmă-Piatră, 4 February 1937); «We will not achieve the status of being Romanian but by breaking any ties with democracy» (Ibidem); «The country despises all the democracy’s representatives, no matter of their personal value» (Șeful Strul Kutem // Boss Strul Kutem – Mihail Sadoveanu – in Sfarmă-Piatră, 11 November 1937); «The democracy is worthless» (Pe rugul unei vieți // On the Pire of a Life – in Sfarmă-Piatră, 18 March 1937).

c) The dissemination of antisemitic themes, constitutive elements of Hitlerism, on the racial basis: «The Semite currents had thrown the West into decay» (Nordul in Mediterană // The North into Mediterranean – in Sfarmă-Piatră, 9 June 1941); «Israel wanted to make for itself a rich country in Romania» (De ce tineretul României a fost și este antisemit // Why the Romanian Youth Was and Is Antisemitic – in Sfarmă-Piatră, 16 April 1041).

d) Romania musts be inextricably tied to the Axis because: «Hitler is going to save the West» (Nordul în Mediteraneană // The North in Mediterranean – in Sfarmă-Piatră, 9 June 1941); «Behind Hitler is the entire world that wants to gain its freedom» (Elogiul Curajului // Praise to Courage – in Sfarmă-Piatră, 27 February 1941); «the alliance with the Axis would save the countries of all the horrors known by the Great Britain allies» (Valoarea morală a pactului tripartit // The Moral Value of the Tri-party Pact – in Sfarmă-Piatră, 4 March 1941); «Hitler creates a pacifist space» (Adevărata pace balcanică // The True Balkanic Peace – in Sfarmă-Piatră, 5 March 1941); «the new order is creating only benefits» (Führerul in Balcani // The Führer in the Balkans – in Sfarmă-Piatră, 24 April 1941); «Hitler will be a winner, he is representing the new idea that will overcome the old idea» (Valoarea morală a pactului tripartit // The Moral Value of the Tri-party Pact – in Sfarmă-Piatră, 4 March 1941).

B. The support of Antonescu’s dictatorship 

Vintilă Horia is not shy to state on all possible tones that the greatest merit of Antonescu is the one of dedicating Romania to Hitler: «General Antonescu had integrated Romania into the rhythm of the New Europe» (Funcția de azi a presei // Today’s job of the press – in Sfarmă-Piatră, 19 May 1941); «Romania had rediscovered its destiny by the doings of General Antonescu» (Cuvinte pentru strădaniile noastre // Words for Our Efforts – in Sfarmă-Piatră, 7 May 1941); «Through Antonescu Romania had received the trust of the Reich» (Ecouri despre plebicist // Echoes about the Plebiscite – in Sfarmă-Piatră, 13 March 1941; «Our salvation could only come from Antonescu» (Salvați sufletele noastre // Save Our Souls – in Sfarmă-Piatră, 13 March 1941); «The image should be placed as the icon of our souls» (in Sfarmă-Piatră, 28 January 1941).

Considering the complexity of all of the above, the outcome is clear that the above named, through his direct actions – his press articles – had contributed with criminal intentions to the political achievement of Hitlerism in Romania: the adherence of Romania to the Axis and maintaining the dictatorship of Antonescu, by using for these all his ability in his activity and thus placing himself to the service of Hitlerism.

Thus we consider that this activity of the above named is in fact a crime to the country disaster, by committing a war crime as per article 2, letter o punishable as per article 3, paragraph 1 of the law nr. 312/1945.”

The sentence was easy to see after such a thorough analysis. The Court:  

“sentences the accused, Vintilă Horia Caftangiouglu, Romanian, major, journalist, former director of the Sfarmă-Piatră, with his last residence in Bucharest, today unknown, for the crime to the country disaster, by committing war crimes to the service of Hitlerism and fascism, and contributing through his own actions to the achievement of the political goals, act known in article 2 letter o and punishable as per article 3 of the law nr. 312/945, to suffer imprisonment for the rest of his life, and civilian degradation for the next ten years, as per article 25 of the Penal Code.”(23)

It would be interesting to know how many of the ones signing that Memorandum in Favor of Vintilă Horia, repeatedly published in the Romanian democratic press of 2007, had really read his articles of pure worshiping towards Benito Mussolini in 1937 (and for which he got appointed to Rome), or the adoration articles to Adolf Hitler in 1941 (and for which he got appointed to Vienna).

*

As a reply to the persistent campaign of rehabilitation of Vintilă Horia, the author of these lines had written a protest, based on the extensive quotes of the journalist’s fascist articles, and had sent it through the electronic mail to a series of specialists from Romania, USA, Israel, Germany and France. The answers were of support and sympathy. Then Laszlo Alexandru had sent his polemic essay O minciună scandaloasă // A Scandalous Lie, through the electronic mail, to the Romanian President and the Romanian Government, to the Romanian Minister of Culture and Cults, to a variety of famous publications in the country and overseas (România literară // The Literary Romania, 22, Observator cultural // Cultural Observer, Minimum of Tel Aviv, Israel a.s.o.). It was published in the Tribuna // The Tribune, of Cluj(24) and in the electronic publication E-Leonardo, no. 11 of April 2007; the article was included in the author’s volume Muzeul figurilor de ceară // The Museum of Wax Figures(25). No reasoned dissociations have been registered for this intervention.

The writer Richard Wagner, originally of Romania, had intervened in the discussion about Vintilă Horia, and published a detailed commentary in the Neue Zurcher Zeitung(26). He proves to be a knowledgeable person in most of the Romanian sensible realities, as well as the extremist past of the top intellectuals(27). However, R. Wagner downplays the justification of the postwar trials, which had confirmed in Court the collaborationism(28).  He does not observe that the fascist intellectuals have been condemned after the Second World War in France as well as in Romania. It should be inacceptable that the same type of behavior to be punished in the democratic West, but not in the Stalinist East also. His meditations in regard to rediscovering the esthetic pleasures, even beyond any ethical obstacles of Vintilă Horia, it is not shared by other literary critics, and is not in the objectives of our study(29).

As an extension of R. Wagner opinions, another solution was made by Carmen Mușat, in regard with the isolation of the literary work from the biography. As if these would not complement each other, and had no way of mutual influence, the leader of the magazine Observator cultural // Cultural Observer tells us to separate them and regard them indulgently:

“The authors are people too and at any time could make mistakes in their daily life. If those mistakes are mirrored in their work, disfiguring it, it is normal that the judgment of the valor on it to be a negative one. To extend that ethical intransigency in the sphere of their biography it seems to me just as dangerous as using systematically concealing biographical slip-ups.”(30)

During the international conference De la antisemitism la Holocaust în Romania // From antisemitism to Holocaust in Romania, organized by the National Institute for the Study of the Holocaust in Romania “Elie Wiesel” (Bucharest, 9-10 October 2007), Laszlo Alexandru had sustained in Panel III the communication Vintilă Horia – ce-a fost și ce se zice azi // Vintilă Horia – what he was and what is said today, included in the volume with the contributions to the scientific manifestation(31). The facts presented, by using the many quotations of Vintilă Horia extensive extremist public activities, as well as the speaker’s own analysis, had not been counterattacked by the specialists, nor during the presentation, nor in later interventions.

An important voice who advocated for the recovery of Vintilă Horia was the one of the academician Eugen Simion. His standing was included in two successive episodes of the newspaper Ziua // The Day of Bucharest(32), under the leadership of controversial journalist and politician Sorin Roșca Stănescu (ex-informer of the communist Securitate, later sentenced to prison for business crimes). The academician Eugen Simion admires the zealous activity of Marilena Rotaru for the recovery of the fascist writer, whose destiny is presented exaggerately (Vintilă Horia was not “sentenced to death in the first years after the war”). The commentator offers mitigating circumstances to the writer who had built himself a career in diplomacy by glorifying in the press the two dictators, Mussolini and Hitler:

“he was not a war criminal, but a young intellectual who, like so many of his generation, didn’t always knew to avoid the traps, the complication of history”.

At his birth centenary, by Decree no. 60/27 November 2015 of the Local Council of Segarcea, to Vintilă Horia was granted the title of Honorary Citizen. This decision contravenes the legislation that forbids the public promotion of the war criminals (however it doesn’t limit the printing and scientific studies of their works). The request from the National Institute for the Study of the Holocaust in Romania “Elie Wiesel” in Bucharest, to eliminate the public glorification of a war criminal, had been met with protests by some well known Romanian intellectuals of our time: acad. Eugen Simion, acad. Basarab Nicolescu, Andrei Pleșu, the journalist Cristina Hermeziu, the TV producer Marilena Rotaru(33).  However the honorific distinction has been removed through a later decision of the Local Council of Segarcea, realizing that in 1946 Vintilă Horia had been convicted to “life imprisonment” and was declared war criminal. His daughter, Cristina Horia, had challenged in court this later decision, and in December 2024 the Court of Dolj had reviewed and established the annulment of this distinction withdrawal by taking into account some details of the post-war sentence.

The Institute of Investigation of the Communist Crimes and the Memory of Romanian Exile, a governmental structure established in 2005 and put under the direct supervision of the Prime Minister, had publicly announced through a poster on its site the celebration of Vintilă Horia, on Wednesday, 30 March 2016, at 17:00 hours, at Jockey Club in Bucharest. On 28 March 2016, the writer Laszlo Alexandru sent an open letter to the Prime-Minister Dacian Cioloș, in an e-mail also posted on his personal blog on the internet. After summing up the ample activity of propaganda by Vintilă Horia serving the fascism and Hitlerism, the author had found that we are facing a situation in which two governmental departments – one that studies the fascism crimes and the other that studies the communism crimes – are in direct conflict, due to the fact that one steps onto the other’s domain of activity. But:

“the fight against communism does not prevail, can not prevail, by aggressing the memory of the Holocaust. Each horror had its own methods, ends, and its own perpetrators. The intersection of the two plans to exonerate some or the others, uncovers a lamentable way of thinking. I am sure, mister Prime-Minister, that to my opinions related to the public ethics, you will add also your evaluations of political nature: could be the Govern an accomplice, in 2016, to eulogize a Hitlerite? After all, the Jockey Club clients are free to ride, nostalgically, the dead horse of the Hitlerism. But the Romanian Government has a responsibility towards the memory of all the victims of the genocide and the pogroms of the recent past.”(34)

There was no direct reply to this message from the recipient. The festivity in Bucharest had been postponed for a week and was reduced to a much modest one.

During 27-28 May 2016 Prof. Laszlo Alexandru PhD. had participated to the International Conference Mental Geographies: Times and Spaces of the European Memory, organized at Chișinău by the State University of Moldova, presenting his work How to transform a Hitlerite into a Honorary Citizen? The Case of Vintilă Horia. After it was confirmed the theme and it was published the program of the conference, some interventions from official circles in Bucharest were made to the organizers, to eliminate the specialist and his scientific communication from the program, or at least to interrupt him during his speech. Without success. In his lecture, after quoting some eloquent extremist passages from the inter-war press, the author had asked himself:

“what reasons could exist for some intellectuals in good professional condition and public reputation to show solidarity today with Vintilă Horia? Overlooking the fact that probably some of them have no idea who the discussion is about and have no clear information, based on quotes. Or is it possible that some of them don’t believe these quotes, even while reading them? We take the hypothesis that we have to deal with informed people. I retained quickly some possible motives of adherence to the cause of a Hitlerite. / Some, probably, perceive in the wrong way the facts and the culpability. The Justice seems an aggression. Vintilă Horia seems to be attacked and denigrated – when in fact we are observing a chronological order of the things. He was the first one who through his activity had support and contributed to an aggressive state politics that brought the death of some hundreds of thousands of people, only in Romania. While, internationally, when we think of the Holocaust, we are thinking of millions of people. Thus, no, Vintilă Horia is not a victim, let that be clear! […] / Another reason could be the existence of a lack of empathy towards the victims of the Holocaust. I also considered that possibility. Probably some think that it happened long ago, it was a misfortune happening to a different ethnicity. Or, who knows, maybe some of my own ethnics had participated to the execution of such monstrosity. Then, of course, I don’t like to recognize it. Romanians had their contribution implementing the Holocaust. That’s already a publicly known fact, recognized officially by the state and by two of the presidents of Romania. To avoid any ambiguity, I am stating clearly that Hungary had also a decisive role exterminating the Jews in Cluj, the city in which I reside. Those Jews were transported to Auschwitz and about 90 per cent of them had died in the Holocaust. An absolutely terrible thing! Both, Romania and Hungary, and some other European states had their indisputable contribution. That’s why the solidarity with the own ethnicity could be an obstacle in admitting the historic fact. / Another motivation could be the ideological thinking. The right-wing is condemning the left-wing and vice versa. Being an intellectual of the left-wing, I feel embarrassed by the fascists and legionaries. Being a writer of the right-wing, I feel embarrassed only by those who spread the communism. I do believe, however, that the intellectual judgment must at first evolve on some public ethical parameters and only afterwards on ideological basis. Let’s use the ideology only for political goals, not to impose the historic truth. […] / I am closing by quickly stringing some strategies through the Vintilă Horia supporters had understood to come to his rescue. Some had underlined that he was anticommunist and that is why they praise him. But only being anticommunist is not enough to make him innocent and decent. Hitler was a super anticommunist. Though no one will build him a statue for it in Germany and would not call him honorary citizen in any German town. Just being anticommunist is not enough to make one honorable or to be honored. / Some – like Monica Lovinescu, for example, an intellectual with excellent public consistency –, as of 1960, had jumped high to scream that Vintilă Horia was not a legionary. They are saying that those criticizing his extremism are guilty of injustice. We are talking here about the well known propaganda strategy of the “fight with the shadow”. Some people are inventing a theme and starting a vigorous combat against something inexistent. Yes, it’s true! Vintilă Horia was not a legionary! Whoever is reproaching him being a legionary is wrong. He has not been a legionary. He was a fascist and a Hitlerite and was a political rival of the legionaries of the moment. / Another reason for Vintilă Horia rehabilitation was the fact that he was the aim of Securitate, the political police of the communism. The observation is, in its details, correct. However, that does not make worthy of rehabilitation the former Nazi propagandist. The Securitate attacks were based mostly on the real texts, which I had seen with my own eyes at the library. / Others are starting to appreciate the sentence that convicted him, saying that was incorrect. These ones do not look at the accused, but they look to the Judge. They are judging the Court. The antifascist Courts did exist in the West, and also in the Eastern Europe. Maybe they were not always impeccable, and maybe they were not always irreproachable. However, the intention of punishing the Hitlerism was the same in both halves of Europe. / There are also those who knowingly are exaggerating, only to arouse the public’s pity. They pity Vintilă Horia because he was sentenced to death. No, he was not sentenced to death! He lived well, thank you in the West. He enjoyed honors over there and he doesn’t need to be pitied in such exaggerated way here. / And not lastly, there is that sophism of literary value, globally extended. Vintilă Horia was a great writer, side by side with so many other right-wing extremists. If we attack him, what about Mircea Eliade? What about Cioran? What about Țuțea, or Noica? Are we going to annihilate the entire Romanian culture? Here is the strategy of the snow ball. It is better not to squirm into the past, because it will cause an avalanche. We are witnessing a cunning maneuver. The named intellectuals – or others like them – could be read, commented, their art could be examined. Some of them, however, if they were sentenced by courts, cannot be praised in public. I do repeat that the law no. 217/2015 does not permit to build statues, to give honorary titles, or to name streets to such criminals, nor to their accomplices…”(35)

The topic about the interwar author was reopened by Alice Popescu, lecturer at the Titu Maiorescu University, in Bucharest, who published her extended study on a French cultural site(36). For this new-comer the whole issue Vintilă Horia starts at the moment when the Goncourt Prize was revoked, in 1960, a situation deeply sorrowful and attributed to the Securitate conspiracies. To document her arguments, A. Popescu dives into the CNSAS archive, in the exalted writings of Marilena Rotaru, in the literary-strategic writings of Stelian Tănase or Ion Simuț. When to tell the reader the reason of that revocation of the prestigious prize, the commentator makes the whole thing as being the outcome of some discrepant opinions:

“Comme la plupart des intellectuels roumains de droite, Horia avait été dans sa jeunesse un adepte du nationalisme. Il avait d’ailleurs écrit des articles qui exprimaient ses opinions dans deux revues connues pour leur affiliation à ce courant politique: Sfarmă-Piatră et Porunca Vremii.”

The relativization strategies are noteworthy: Vintilă Horia had not written those propaganda texts to make his career, but behaved as most of the right-wing Romanian intellectuals. He was not preoccupied to glorify Hitler and Mussolini, but was and adept of nationalism. Sfarmă-Piatră and Porunca Vremii were not wildly extremist and some obnoxious anti-Semitism papers, but were affiliated to a political current of the times. It’s a shame she did not support her affirmations with quotes, in order to make explicit to those interested what exactly had Horia wrote during the 30s and 40s. This way the readers are to believe her summary of the story. From these synthesis that partialize through misinterpretation, through half information, through dilution of reality, by hiding the protagonist in a far away context, grows a reality totally different from the conclusions to which Alexandru Florian arrives after researching the same historical facts:

“I insisted on these articles to demonstrate that the pro-fascist orientation of Vintilă Horia was not a simple slip-off, but it was expressed in diverse publication and every time he felt the need to affirm it. Also, he was very close to his mentor [Nichifor Crainic] and made a team with the publications this one had coordinated.”(37)

Alexandru Florian provides even a quantifiable panorama of the phenomena:

“Vintilă Horia had written to the weekly Sfarmă-Piatră during December 1935-1940, at least one article in every second issue. The years with more printed articles were 1936 and 1940, with 41, respectively 38 articles. In 1941 the magazine becomes a daily, and V. Horia would gather over 65 signatures. If we were to sum up also the tens of article written in Porunca Vremii, 1938 was the most prolific year.”(38)

In regard to Alice Popescu, whose misinterpret strategies of reality are becoming more and more flagrant already, when she arrives to the extremist publications that embraced Vintilă Horia, she assures the readers who had not scrolled through those times press:

“C’est, d’ailleurs, l’esprit de Gândirea qui est partagé par tout le groupe. Mais il est important de préciser que ni Gândirea, ni Porunca Vremii ou Sfarmă-Piatră n’étaient des journaux légionnaires, comme les accusateurs d’Horia ont essayé de le faire croire.”(39)

We find the same cunning propaganda of the “fight with the shadow”, illustrated 50 years earlier by the Parisian group surrounding Monica Lovinescu, to repeat insistently that Vintilă Horia has not been legionary – and to softly sweep under the rug the fact that Vintilă Horia was fascist and Hitlerite.  The researcher extends the summaries strategy “as from a high up plane” and avoids the direct quotes.  Instead of bringing on the page edifying passages from the past (“Adolf Hitler, and not Napoleon Bonaparte, is the first political man of the modern era, worthy of the title of Great European”), she tells us:

“Les articles de Horia ont un air juvénile et audacieux, ils évoquent une personnalité en formation”.(40)

This lady-propagandist from Bucharest mentions at times even my existence, but without detailing my arguments (“un des opposants les plus déterminés”). Then she attributes untrue opinions to me (I had never stated that V. Horia had adhere to the Iron Guard). My study A Scandalous Lie, at which she refers as proof, it is indicate at a nonfunctional account on the internet.

“Certains considèrent que l’adhésion d’Horia à la Garde de Fer est un fait bien établi (tel Laszlo Alexandru ou Mihai Pelin)”.(41)

If she had been paying attention to André Wurmser, who had clearly stated since 1960, Alice Popescu could understand that she wasted precious time trying to rewrite history.

“L’écrivain qui mit sa plume au service de l’hitlérisme, des pourvoyeurs de fours crématoires, est un criminel de guerre, ou la responsabilité de l’écrivain est une expression dénuée de sens.”(42)

The efforts of beautify a propagandist of Hitler and Mussolini, after few decades from the historical facts, by re-writing the reality, redistributing the accents through relativization and misinterpretation of facts other researches had provided, are discrediting Alice Popescu, from the “Titu Maiorescu” University of Bucharest.

Should we examine the evolution of Vintilă Horia case over the decades, we could observe, with displeasure, that a significant number of Romanian intellectuals had tried to exonerate a ferocious propagandist of the Holocaust. It is sad to realize that enlightened minds of a European culture are trying so hard not to identify as many ways to place in the service of the society, by analysis and finding solutions for a higher awareness of history and civilization, but they team-up to misinterpret clear situations of acute slip-ups of the past, by protecting extremist betrayals that had raised agents of the dictatorships which had left so many dead bodies behind them.

Notes

1. “Spre o reabilitare a lui Vintilă Horia”, Tribuna noastră, no. 41 (October-November 2003), accessed August 8, 2025, http://www.tribunanoastra.freeservers.com/tn_arhiva/no41/paskievici41.htm.
2. Manolescu, Enciclopedia exilului literar românesc 1945-1989, p. 380. The letter is from January 1961.
3. Rotaru, Întoarcerea lui Vintilă Horia, 40.
4. Rotaru, “Înainte şi după Vintilă Horia”, 18, accessed August 8, 2025, https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9bsBnQ0oeu8Zk5wcW0xZ0FJd1E/view?resourcekey=0-NRnrOdn0D1vrcX-kIotK4A
5. Laszlo, Orient Expres, 186-187.
6. Laszlo, Stări de spirit, 309-310.
7. Bădiliţă, “Exilul fără sfîrşit”, Rost 16 (June 2004): p. 4, accessed August 8, 2025, https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9bsBnQ0oeu8Zk5wcW0xZ0FJd1E/view?resourcekey=0-NRnrOdn0D1vrcX-kIotK4A .
8. “Theodor Cazaban despre Vintilă Horia”, dialogue with Cristian Bădiliţă, Rost 16 (June 2004): 11, accessed August 8, 2025, https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9bsBnQ0oeu8Zk5wcW0xZ0FJd1E/view?resourcekey=0-NRnrOdn0D1vrcX-kIotK4A.
9. Petrişor, “Întoarcerea lui Vintilă Horia nu a mai avut loc”, Rost 16 (June 2004): 18, accessed August 8, 2025, https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9bsBnQ0oeu8Zk5wcW0xZ0FJd1E/view?resourcekey=0-NRnrOdn0D1vrcX-kIotK4A.
10. Adevărul literar şi artistic, Wednesday, January 17, 2007, 6.
11. România literară, 4, January 31, 2007, 32.
12. See Comunicatul Biroului de presă al Ministerului Culturii şi Cultelor, Adevărul literar şi artistic, Wednesday, January 24, 2007, 12.
13. Ornea, Anii treizeci. Extrema dreaptă românească, 433; the quote from Vintilă Horia is in “Miracolul fascist”, Gândirea, 8 (XVI, 1937): 404, 409.
14. Manolescu, op. cit., 377.
15. Horia, “Mărturia unui tînăr”, Sfarmă-Piatră, 198, Wednesday, June, 25, 1941, 1.
16. Horia, “Prezenţa Italiei între cruciaţi”, Sfarmă-Piatră, 201, Saturday, June, 28, 1941, 1.
17. Horia, “Declinul iudaismului”, Sfarmă-Piatră, 205, Wednesday, July, 2 1941, 1.
18. Florian, “Vintilă Horia între fascism și o posteritate cosmetizată”, 192; the quote from Vintilă Horia is in “Un bilanț tragic”, Sfarmă-Piatră, 68, February 7, 1941, 1.
19. Horia, “Marele European”, Sfarmă-Piatră, 208, Saturday, July, 5, 1941, 1. 
20. Horia, “Simbolul Basarabiei”, Sfarmă-Piatră, 217, Monday, July, 14, 1941, 4.
21. Horia, “Homo europaeus”, Sfarmă-Piatră, 304, Wednesday, December, 17, 1941, 1.
22. Manolescu, op. cit., 377.
23. The papers regarding the trial and court conviction of Vintilă Horia (in AMI, Penal fond, file 24.541, vol. 8, p. 136-138 and 146) have been obtained through Adrian Nicolae Petcu, Vintilă Horia – a conviction of the people’s justice, Rost, no. 16 (June 2004): 14-17, accessed August 8, 2025, http://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9bsBnQ0oeu8Zk5wcW0xZ0FJd1E/view?resourcekey=0-NRnrOdn0D1vrcX-kIotK4A. The author, A.N. Petcu, senior advisor at CNSAS Research Services, makes available to the public data from archives. It is regrettable that, though the many real proofs about the fascist activity of Vintilă Horia, which the author himself mentions, he tries to relativize the validity of the conviction in court. Using only specious arguments – regarding the unhappy historical conjunction or the small details – are diminishing, surprisingly, the weight of his-own investigation in the archive.
24. Laszlo, “O minciună scandaloasă”, Tribuna, 107, 16-28 February 2007, 9-10. The study also published in Minimum, Tel Aviv, Israel, 240, March, 2007, 8-11, with the title Cazul Vintilă Horia. Translated in German by William Totok, Augenfällig. Eine skandalose Lügengeschichte and published in Halbjahresschrift für südosteuropäische Geschichte, Literatur und Politik – 19 (2007), 2, p. 128-131.
25. Laszlo, “O minciună scandaloasă”, Muzeul figurilor de ceară, 2009, 56-61.
26. Richard Wagner, Ein Schriftsteller im Kalten Krieg, N.Z.Z., April 2, 2007. In English: A writer in the Cold War, accessed August 8, 2025, http://www.signandsight.com/features/1318.html.
27. “Horia was born in 1915. In his youth during the 1930s he published articles in periodicals of Romania’s extreme right wing. He was one of the spokesmen for the generation whose feverish existentialism extolled the political madness of the period. Subsequent discussion both within and outside of Romania has shown how a dark mixture of death cult, Orthodox Christianity and ethnocracy gripped an entire generation. Segments of that discussion have been the biographies of E.M. Cioran, Mircea Eliade, and Constantin Noica, Romanian authors who later either came to international prominence or attained guru status in their own country.”
28. “As early as 1946, show-trials were held which followed the Stalinist pattern of torture and farce. In one such trial, Vintila Horia was sentenced in absentia to life in prison. The justification for the sentence was that he had facilitated the penetration of fascist ideas into Romania and had made the case for those ideas to be realized under the leadership of the German embassy in Bucharest. For Stalinists, of course, everything was espionage and denunciation. The sentence against Horia has not been rescinded to this day.”
29. “Without ignoring his involvement in totalitarianism, Vintila Horia as novelist is worth rediscovering. This will not be a simple task, since it demands a feeling for the obsessions of literature and for the dialectic of intellectual engagement in the 20th century, particularly under Cold War conditions. Finally, the case of Horia is an illuminating example of the difficulties in establishing a new literary canon following the end of totalitarianism in Eastern Europe.”
30. Muşat, “Biografie şi/sau literatură – două ipostaze ale eticului”, 2007, accessed August 8, 2025, https://www.observatorcultural.ro/articol/biografie-sisau-literatura-doua-ipostaze-ale-eticului-2/.
31. Laszlo, “Vintilă Horia – ce-a fost și ce se zice azi”, Holocaust. Studii şi cercetări, vol. 1, no. 1 (2009): 91-100. Also in Laszlo, Muzeul figurilor de ceară (2009): 93-105.
32. Simion, “Vintilă Horia”, Ziua, Saturday, April, 28 (2007), and “Vintilă Horia II”,  Ziua, Saturday, May, 5 (2007).
33. Florian, op. cit., 182.
34. Laszlo, “Scrisoare deschisă”, Stări de spirit (2018): 316-322, accessed August 8, 2025, https://laszloal.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/scrisoare-deschisa-2/.
35. Laszlo, Cum să faci dintr-un hitlerist cetățean de onoare? Cazul Vintilă Horia, 2016, accessed August 8, 2025, https://laszloal.wordpress.com/2016/12/02/cum-sa-faci-dintr-un-hitlerist-cetatean-de-onoare-cazul-vintila-horia/.
36. Alice Popescu, Les archives de la répression ou la répression en utilisant les archives. Le «dossier» Vintilă Horia aujourd’hui, 2016, accessed August 8, 2025, https://publications-prairial.fr/larhra/index.php?id=122.
37. Florian, op. cit., 189.
38. Florian, op.cit., 191, footnote 30.
39. Popescu, art. cit.
40. Idem, ibidem.
41. Idem, ibidem.
42. Manolescu, op. cit., 380.

Bibliography

Books

1. Manolescu, Florin, Enciclopedia exilului literar românesc 1945-1989. Scriitori, reviste, instituţii, organizaţii (Bucureşti: Compania, 2003).

2. Ornea, Z., Anii treizeci. Extrema dreaptă românească (București: E.F.C.R., 1995).

3. Rotaru, Marilena, Întoarcerea lui Vintilă Horia (București: Ideea, 2002).

Chapters in Books

1. Florian, Alexandru, “Vintilă Horia între fascism și o posteritate cosmetizată”, in Alexandru Florian, Ana Bărbulescu, Elita culturală și discursul antisemit interbelic (Iași: Polirom, 2022): 181-220.

2. Laszlo Alexandru, “Gîndirea captivă”, in Orient Expres (Cluj: Dacia, 1999): 185-189.

3. Laszlo Alexandru, “O minciună scandaloasă”, in Muzeul figurilor de ceară (Pitești: Paralela 45, 2009): 56-61.

4. Laszlo Alexandru, “Vintilă Horia – Ce-a fost și ce se zice azi”, in Muzeul figurilor de ceară (Pitești: Paralela 45, 2009): 93-105.

5. Laszlo Alexandru, “Scrisoare deschisă”, in Stări de spirit (Cluj: Ecou Transilvan, 2018): 316-322.

Articles in Journals

1. “Apel întemeiat”, in România literară, no. 4 (31 January 2007): 32.

2. Articol nesemnat, “Spre o reabilitare a lui Vintilă Horia”, in Tribuna noastră, Magazin pentru românii canadieni şi nu numai, publicat sub egida “Fundaţia română din Montreal”, no. 41 (October-November 2003)

3. Bădiliţă, Cristian, “Exilul fără sfîrşit”, in Rost, Revistă de politică şi cultură creştină, no. 16 (June 2004): 4.

4. “Theodor Cazaban despre Vintilă Horia”, dialog cu Cristian Bădiliţă, in Rost, Revistă de politică şi cultură creştină, no. 16 (June 2004): 11.

5. “Comunicatul Biroului de presă al Ministerului Culturii şi Cultelor”, in Adevărul literar şi artistic (Wednesday, 24 January 2007): 12. 

6. Laszlo, Alexandru, “O minciună scandaloasă”, in Tribuna, no. 107 (16-28 February 2007): 9-10.

7. Laszlo, Alexandru, “Cazul Vintilă Horia”, in Minimum, Tel Aviv, Israel, no. 240 (March 2007): 8-11.

8. Laszlo, Alexandru, “Augenfällig. Eine skandalose Lügengeschichte”, translation William Totok, in Halbjahresschrift für südosteuropäische Geschichte, Literatur und Politik – 19 (2007), 2, 128-131.

9. Laszlo, Alexandru, “Vintilă Horia – ce-a fost și ce se zice azi”, in Holocaust. Studii şi cercetări, sub egida Institutului Naţional pentru Studierea Holocaustului din România “Elie Wiesel”, Bucureşti, vol. 1, no. 1 (2009): 91-100.

10. “Memoriu pentru Vintilă Horia”, in Adevărul literar şi artistic (Wednesday, 17 January 2007): 6

11. Muşat, Carmen, “Biografie şi/sau literatură – două ipostaze ale eticului”, in Observator cultural, no. 113 (370) (3-9 May 2007).

12. Petcu, Adrian Nicolae, “Vintilă Horia – un condamnat al «justiţiei populare»”, in Rost, Revistă de politică şi cultură creştină no. 16 (June 2004): 14-17.

13. Petrişor, Marcel, “Întoarcerea lui Vintilă Horia nu a mai avut loc”, in Rost, Revistă de politică şi cultură creştină, no. 16 (June 2004): 18.

14. Popescu, Alice, “Les archives de la répression ou la répression en utilisant les archives. Le «dossier» Vintilă Horia aujourd’hui”, in Les Carnets du LARHRA [En ligne], 1 | 2016, mis en ligne le 22 septembre 2018.

15. Rotaru, Marilena, “Înainte şi după Vintilă Horia”, in Rost, Revistă de politică şi cultură creştină, no. 16 (June 2004): 18.

16. Wagner, Richard, “Ein Schriftsteller im Kalten Krieg”, in Neue Zürcher Zeitung (2 April 2007).