American Renaissance
Previous Story       Next Story       View Comments       Send This Page       Date Archives       Category Archives

The Forgotten Saxon World That Is Part of Europe’s Modern Heritage

More news stories on Europe

Simon Jenkins, Guardian (Manchester), October 1, 2009

Between the collapse of the Ceausescu regime in December 1989 and the spring of 1990, half a million indigenous so-called “Saxons” fled Romania for West Germany. It was the most astonishing, and little reported, ethnic migration in modern Europe. In the seven towns and 250 villages of Saxon Land in southern Transylvania, no less than 90% of the German-speaking population packed its bags and committed eight centuries of history to memory. They drove west to a country few of them knew, enticed by the notorious “return to the fatherland” speech of the German politician, Hans-Dietrich Genscher.

The exodus left behind a deserted landscape the size of Wales, hundreds of square miles of rolling beech woods, bears, lush pastures and wild flowers, once home to the Dracula legend. Across it are dotted medieval grid-planned villages, with Lutheran churches, schools, dignified houses, barns and small holdings, their customs and exclusivity reminiscent of the Pennsylvania Dutch. For 800 years since being invited by the Magyar kings to form a bulwark against the infidel, the Transylvania Saxons guarded their Germanic tradition. They spoke a High German said to be similar to ancient Luxembourgish. They embraced the Reformation and resisted Ceausescu’s concrete communism. All this ended abruptly in 1990.

While the people have almost all gone, the villages remain, colonised mostly by Romania’s booming Gypsies. It is estimated that as many as a million may now occupy this part of Transylvania, possibly rendering it one day the only majority-Gypsy province. The result is the most exciting and daunting cultural challenge in Europe.

The village of Archita is lost in a Carpathian valley near the 17th-century town of Sighisoara, whose medieval walls and nine towers lie at the heart of Dracula country. The village’s fortified church stands like a castle in its midst, encircled by not one but two high walls, with musket holes and archers’ galleries intact. It was built to protect the citizens against Tartar raids and still has its ham loft with hooks numbered for each house, an insurance against sudden siege. The interior displays its galleries, Protestant pulpit and baroque canopy. The churchyard is overgrown with unpicked plum and apple trees. From the rickety church tower the geometrical village plan reaches out into the surrounding woods. Wide streets and lime-washed, two-storeyed houses reflect the equal plots allotted to each Saxon family in the middle ages. Records show continuous family tenure from the 13th century to 1990. Just three Saxons remain.

The 18th-century town hall and school of Archita have fallen into dereliction. Since the families employed few servants there are no poor houses or suburbs. There is no water or sewerage and no tarmac roads. The village well and a few desultory horses and carts are attended by attractive Gypsy youths.

To the new inhabitants of these villages, the vanished Saxons represent an alien culture. But their ghosts flit round buildings that in most cases are unaltered since being converted from wood to stone in the 17th century. They are like the hill-station residences of British India, holding its genius loci in absentia. Ghosts linger too in the countryside round about, ironically preserved by Ceausescu’s order forbidding development beyond the confines of existing settlement. This yielded one of the most effective green policies in Europe, protecting miles of meadow and forest, now vulnerable to exploitation. The roads are already littered with loggers carting away loads of walnut, beech and oak.

Unesco has designated some of the Saxon churches as world heritage sites, as has the Romanian government, but not the villages. With no money for repairs and no enforcement, such designation carries little weight. There is thus a race to save the most endangered pre-industrial landscape in Europe from poverty-stricken newcomers understandably eager for modernity. One day these villages will be as treasured as those of the Cotswolds, Provence or Umbria, but until then they must pass through the valley of the shadow of possible death.

The response of the outside world to Saxon Land’s plight is uncertain. Money is seeping back. Some departed families have returned, some unhappy in exile, some as so-called “summer Saxons”, holidaying in their former homeland and hoping to capitalise on rising property prices.

I encountered one dedicated young German, Sebastian Bethge, in the dramatic hill village of Apold, labouring alone to restore the church interior with money raised in Berlin and elsewhere. A visiting pastor had just held a Lutheran service for a congregation of nine—four Romanians, three Hungarians and two Germans.

The EU is bringing infrastructure to some villages, even as it devastates their markets for milk and hops. Unesco has its designations. The Transylvania Trust has restored the castle home of the novelist, Miklos Banffy, whose Transylvanian Trilogy is so evocative of this region’s other, Hungarian, past. Britain’s Prince of Wales has bought and restored two Saxon village houses. But most international effort goes on hands-clean “awareness-raising”, on drawing up lists, holding conferences and restoring an occasional showcase palace. The most impressive venture is the London-based Mihai Eminescu Trust (Met), chiefly supported by the American Packard foundation. Its “whole village” concept is tailored to Saxon Land, yielding more than 600 projects in the past decade. A leading citizen is engaged in each village to glean what locals—now mostly Romanians and Gypsies—would like restored if money and expertise were available.

This is exemplary conservation practice. Work is carried out by local contractors, with some 130 craftsmen trained to restore Lutheran and Orthodox churches, schools, houses and barns. Nothing is too small, from patched barn roofs and re-plastered street facades to empty properties converted to guesthouses. Plastic bus shelters and concrete bridges have been replaced in wood.

A truly minimalist venture had a Gypsy in the village of Floresti asking for, and getting, a tiled roof over an appalling hovel shared with his wife, two horses and a mountain of manure. Virtually next door is a restored Evangelical church, its sun-bathed interior one of the most serene of any church I know.

In the 13th-century village of Viscri, the Met has undertaken 160 restorations led by its local leader, Caroline Fernolend, winning it the EU’s premier conservation award. Sewers were installed and a new kiln built to supply handmade tiles, operated by a local craftsman. The trust is even reinstating apple orchards and relaying a local narrow-gauge railway.

No such conservation can work against the grain of local consent or in the absence of local skills. Imported from outside, it will stir resentment and obstruction. The root cause of the Saxons’ exodus was starvation of the modern benefits of civilisation. These cannot be denied their successors.

Yet the conservation of town and village cultures across the sweep of Europe proves that ancient and modern can co-exist to the advantage of both. Such is the disregard of the past by other world continents that these survivors will one day be respected, valued and celebrated.

The Transylvanian Saxons ranked with the Mennonite Amish, the Patagonia Welsh and the Volga Germans among the dislocated tribes of Europe. They lasted a phenomenal eight centuries, leaving intact monuments of a culture distinct and yet integral to European history. If modern European union cannot guard such relics of its diversity it is not worth the name.

Original article

(Posted on October 2, 2009)

     Previous story       Next Story       Post a Comment     Send This Page      Search

Comments

1 — Question Diversity wrote at 6:06 PM on October 2:

After the end of the USSR, many Germans who were trapped there after pre-communist Russia had invited them there to farm the land returned to Germany. The Russians are trying to get them to come back.

While we’re on the subject of the Deutsch, here’s a question for you historians out there: The only parts of Europe to embrace the Protestant Reformation for its own sake were the northern parts of the collection of German city-states and what is now known as Sweden and Norway. The Southern Germanies stayed Catholic, and most of Europe also. England really didn’t flip over on its own; it was all the result of Henry VIII’s whim because he wanted a divorce that the Mother Church did not give him.

So the question is: What was it about the northern Germanies and Scandinavia that led to the instant break from The Church? Was it sociological, economic, or what? I doubt it had anything to do with ethnicity, because southern Germany didn’t flip.

2 — Obscuratus wrote at 6:41 PM on October 2:

If modern European union cannot guard such relics of its diversity it is not worth the name.

Here’s a better question: Why would it want to?

Why would a race-denying bureaucracy of unelected commissioners who believe that the term “European” should only denote anyone who lives in Europe want the indigenous whites they loathe to even consider that there was a time when ethnicity = culture = nation, or loyalty to one’s ethnicity trumped loyalty to the artifical state that controlled the lands of said ethnicity?

3 — Anonymous wrote at 9:09 PM on October 2:

“To the new inhabitants of these villages, the vanished Saxons represent an alien culture.”

An alien culture of hard work, honesty and civilization-building. The gypsies can’t comprehend this as they would rather loaf, pick pockets and live on the dole.

4 — hcl wrote at 9:26 PM on October 2:

I bet the true motive was to shrink the territory settled by ethnic Germans even further, the speech by this “German” chancellor - puppets all.

5 — Uniculturalist wrote at 9:56 PM on October 2:

Truly one of the saddest episodes in history is the utter destruction of European civilization that has occurred over the last hundred years. I have visited Transylvania more than once and have been mesmerized by a beauty that even communism could not destroy. My first evening in Transylvania was on board a train heading into the Saxon capital of Kronstadt, known as Brasov to the Romanians and Brasso to the Hungarians. Seeing the bright orange full moon of winter rise into the indigo sky against the black of the Carpathians was a sight I shall never forget - something straight out of Tolkien’s works. The snow-clad Carpathians - gorgeous pine woods interspersed with picturesque villages out of a time long past - transported me out of my own element and into another realm.

One of the qualities that in my opinion has made Transylvania so special is its ability to provide a home for several different cultures that for the most part respected each other and kept a respectful distance from one another. Romanians, Germans, Hungarians, Jews, gypsies and a handful of others (even a few Czechs) all managed to exist side by side without any great degree of intermingling, sometimes within the same village or hamlet. Thus the beauty of each culture - its language, literature, history, religion and whatever else made it unique - was allowed to flourish and blossom to at least a fair degree.

The world wars changed all that. Beginning in 1918, Hungarians began to leave Transylvania, willingly or unwillingly. So, I imagine, did a number of Germans, The newfound nationalism so championed by Woodrow Wilson and his idealistic colleagues proved to be the beginning of the end for the centuries-old patchwork of peoples there as well as in other parts of central and eastern Europe. Versailles led to the rise of irredentism, one of the leading causes of the Second World War and the justification for the pervasive ethnic cleansing that ensued.

Following the war, communism with its internationalism replaced the nationalistic policies of the former regimes, at least officially, but the ethnic minorities in Transylvania began to suffer a great deal of oppression, causing even more to flee when they could. Ceausescu was at one time actually ransoming German nationals. His fall led to many more violent nationalistic clashes, such as in Tirgu Mures (Marosvasarhely) in 1990. It is not surprising that so many have left for greener pastures, real or imagined. I understand that there are now no more than about 200,000 Germans in all of Romania today, out of a population of some 24 million.

What is happening to the villages of the Transylvanian Saxons is a microcosm of European civilization the world over. The most advanced civilization in the history of the planet is crumbling to dust before our very eyes - and how few even seem interested in trying to reverse it.

6 — Joe wrote at 10:32 PM on October 2:

Remember this when you read statistics about the number of “immigrants in Germany.” Most of them are ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe.

7 — Schoolteacher wrote at 2:11 AM on October 3:

1 Question Diversity: Are southern Germans really the same ethnicity as northern Germans? In my 1964 World Book encyclopedia, a distinction is made between Nordics and Alpines. Does modern DNA research find the same differences? I don’t know. But if there is, there might be a cultural split between the north and south that is not obvious to non-Germans.

8 — Harvey wrote at 3:32 AM on October 3:

#1 The break was not instant, it was long in coming.

The cause was religious belief. The excesses of the Catholic Church were duly noted and opposed. You get in here the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre and the Peace of Augsburg (Treaty) and the Thirty Years War. That is a very short reason of the break in Northern Germany. Why Sweden? (Norway was part of Sweden until 1907; Finland used to be a Swedish Province, etc.) I can’t answer that.

Why Southern Germany stayed Catholic I can’t answer.

You pose an excellent question, though. Good for you.

I am sure Thomas Fleming of the Rockford Institute in Rockford, Illinois could answer your question. You can write him and ask. He may answer you.

9 — Anonymous wrote at 3:58 AM on October 3:

Actually ‘Question Diversity’ the majority population of England had been Protestant since John Wycliffe and were known as Lollards. Henry VIII legitamised a process he losty control of. Puritanism had more to do with Wycliffe than Luther.
It also didn’t take the Knox much to convince the lowland Scots.
All the core Germanic-Nordic areas went Protestant so it is probably ethnicity, South Germany not really included. More Alpine in my opinion and not much in common with the lowland Scots, Norwegians or Flemish.

10 — Kenelm Digby wrote at 4:05 AM on October 3:

It has been estimated that Romania has 2 million Gypsies, amounting to roughly 10% of its population.
Of course, Romania is now an EU member state, and in the near future will be granted all the full ‘rights and privileges’ of EU membership.This includes amongst others, the ‘right’ of all of Romania’s Gypsies to move wholesale into Britain or any other high income EU state with a generous welfare state and immediately start to ‘demand’ massive government support.
This is utter madness - any sovereign state worthy of the name would now take serious action to prevent this evil.That no British poltician is even considering this speaks volumes about the quality of modern political leadership.

11 — Jesse wrote at 9:59 AM on October 3:

So the question is: What was it about the northern Germanies and Scandinavia that led to the instant break from The Church? Was it sociological, economic, or what? I doubt it had anything to do with ethnicity, because southern Germany didn’t flip.
—————
Northern german have more ethnical similarities to scandinavians than to southern germans.

Also, you have to remember that in the middle ages (and earlier) water connected people, rather than separated them.
It was far faster to go by ship from the northern german cities to Stockholm och Copenhagen, than it was to go to southern Germany via the overland route.

The baltic Sea, and the surrounding states: Sweden-Finland (one nation back then), Denmark-Norway (in union), the relatively independant north-german city-states and the baltic states (controlled variously by the ones above and sometimes russians) all had a lot of communications with each other, trading and so on and so forth.
The north-german city-states were relatively independant of the german emperor, and it was here that Luther and his ideas, and others like him, got protection from local german lords.

The north germans simply had more in common with the scandinavians than the south germans, all except the language (and back then, german, and possibly french, was the universal language for scandinavians, instead of todays english, that only changed after WWII) and nationalism wasn’t something that really came up until the advent of the national states, which came far later (and possibly as a result of protestantism, since the protestant states were the first to go from feudal states to modern states).

12 — Jesse wrote at 10:00 AM on October 3:

Addition, that should be EARLY-modern states.

13 — Deniz wrote at 10:48 AM on October 3:

@Question Diversity:

Most of the Germanics weren’t voluntarily christianized.

The reason why Scandinavia and North/Central Germany quickly flipped may lie in the sub-racial mental characteristics (according to Prof. H. Günther). Nordics tend to be Protestants wherever they live (most of the French Huguenots were of Germanic descent, some Northern Italians, even Magyars, etc..)

On the other side, Bavarians who possess a strong non-Nordic population (mostly pre-Germanic bell beaker people, Roman remnants, Celts, etc..) and strong ties to Italy remained Catholic.

But you see the difference in Bavaria, Franconians who don’t consider themselves as Bavarians have a Protestant minority.

The other German state Baden Württemberg is 50-50%, Millions of Protestants were slaughtered during the 30 years war which led to an increase of Catholics.

14 — Deniz wrote at 5:34 PM on October 3:

All the core Germanic-Nordic areas went Protestant so it is probably ethnicity, South Germany not really included. More Alpine in my opinion and not much in common with the lowland Scots, Norwegians or Flemish.

___

The Flemish are predominantly Catholic where the Dutch are more protestant.

CORRECTION to my previous post:

Actually, there are no great gen. differences between North and South Germans. Here is the proof:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17003564

So the answer must be searched elsewhere..

15 — Jeddermann wrote at 10:48 PM on October 3:

This article was a real revelation. I had previously read and was awarer of the mass migration, forced, of ethnic Germans from all over eastern Europe back to the German homeland in the aftermath of WW2. About 14 million to 15 million ethnic Germans were put on box cars and told to go home, all this taking several months only. About 2 million folks died in the process. So that any ethnic Germans still survived in Romania until 1990 comes as a surprise.

Those parts of eastern Europe that had large populations of ethnic Germans were noted for being the most prosperous, the most developed, richest, and industrious within any given realm. Where ever the Germans went they not only did well, they made the surrounding peoples [non-German] do well too. Clean, orderly, hard work! Arbeiters [workers]!

16 — ghw wrote at 6:19 AM on October 4:

“Why Southern Germany stayed Catholic I can’t answer.”

1. It’s closer to the influence Italy (i.e. the Vatican).

2. The Hapsburgs. They were intermarried with Italian nobility and they imposed the Counter-Reformation to restore Southern Germany and Central Europe to Catholicism. In fact, before the Counter-Reformation, much of central and southern Europe had gone Protestant. The Hapsburgs returned it to Catholicism, by force where necessary.

3. The Inquisition and the Jesuits (soldiers of Christ) were very effective in suppressing any hint of dissent in Southern Europe. There were feeble Protestant stirrings in places like Italy, but they got nowhere because of the harsh suppression and the firm control of the Vatican. And France and Hungary had large Protestant populations at one time, before repression and persecution. The French Huguenots are today scattered all over Europe, and America too. The Moravians (and others) from Austria/Bohemia fled to America.

“The Flemish are predominantly Catholic whereas the Dutch are more protestant.”

Not really. Not now. In 1830, when they separated, that was so.
Today, there are more Catholics in Holland than Protestants, due to a higher birth rate. It’s a good lesson for the Dutch of what will be the case in another century with the Moslems …. if only the Dutch would learn something from their own history!

17 — Petrarch wrote at 11:16 AM on October 4:

Concerning the debate of the predilection toward Protestantism or Catholicism…. I think in general weather sculpts perception and thus interpretation. Take for instance alchohol.. in China or Europe the more north/cold you go.. the more common is stronger alchohol content as well the more austere or reserved the nature of the people. Warm weather invites a more emotional/female based attitude, cold weather a more masculine/intellectual attitude. The more masculine or cerebral perception sculpted by cooler climates interprets Christianity in a more intellectual way than warmer climate people that live more through their emotions respectively. Catholicism is more iconic than Protestantism, in turn the Greek Orthodox is more iconic than Catholic. I think its an interplay of weather and genetics varying perception as well as distance from the Vatican… As genetics may drift further the further they are found from the starting point of a people so religious interpretation might mutate from a more faith/emotionally based perception to a more logical/cerebral one.. Just some postulates..

18 — Anonymous wrote at 11:57 AM on October 4:

ghw “Today, there are more Catholics in Holland than Protestants, due to a higher birth rate. It’s a good lesson for the Dutch of what will be the case in another century with the Moslems …. if only the Dutch would learn something from their own history!”

Not sure about the catholics but the muslims will be a majority in 10 years or so at the rate of current exodus of native dutch fleeing high taxes and violence.

19 — Anonymous wrote at 9:53 PM on October 4:

“The French Huguenots are today scattered all over Europe, and America too.”

And South Africa, becoming part of the Afrikaners.

20 — ghw wrote at 12:48 AM on October 5:

I should add also:
#4. the Baltic areas and Scandinavia were Christianized much later than Southern Europe or the British Isles, relatively recently in fact, and there had been a lot of resistance to it, so perhaps the Vatican’s hold on those areas hadn’t “taken” so firmly yet. Probably there was still vestigial pagan resistance. Southern Europe (and the British Isles: Ireland, England, Wales,and Scotland) had already been Christian for a thousand years before the Reformation.

21 — Whiteplight wrote at 4:48 PM on October 5:

1 — Question Diversity wrote at 6:06 PM on October 2:

“So the question is: What was it about the northern Germanies and Scandinavia that led to the instant break from The Church? Was it sociological, economic, or what? I doubt it had anything to do with ethnicity, because southern Germany didn’t flip.”

There are some fairly good answers provided here already. One item of huge importance that is being left out is the event of the Holy Roman Empire, which began in the 9th century and lasted until 1806 as a Frankish/Catholic Empire by Charlemagne via his political union with The Church. Centered in Vienna and the Vatican, it was mostly ruled by the Habsburg dynasty which lasted until 1918. So it is pretty much a geographical factor. The southern German states had more business and shared things like family ties with Catholic Austria. It is useful to remember that the Habsburgs were the most married into dynasty of all Europe and every royal house had some family ties to it. This was supposed to be able to avoid a thing like total war in Europe, but it didn’t.

22 — Anonymous wrote at 9:17 AM on October 7:

“Southern Europe (and the British Isles) had already been Christian for a thousand years before the Reformation.”

In Scandinavia and the Baltic, it was just a century or two. In some regions, probably not even at all, except as a nominal veneer. It has been imposed militarily, by the Teutonic Knights and the various monarchies (who found it useful as a tool of control), but the folk customs were probably still largely pagan.

23 — Anonymous wrote at 9:36 AM on October 7:

“Actually ‘Question Diversity’ the majority population of England had been Protestant since John Wycliffe and were known as Lollards. Henry VIII legitamised a process he lost control of. Puritanism had more to do with Wycliffe than Luther.”


I agree that the whole thing got away from Henry. He didn’t intend it o go so far. He was not that fond of Protestants and even persecuted some.

In fact, Henry had originally been trained for a career in the Church (not expecting to inherit the throne) and was very well educated in religious matters. He only wanted to take control of the English church away from the Pope and have that authority for himself. I have read that to the end of his life he always considered himself a Catholic — but just not subject to the authority of Rome. Originally, Anglicans considered themselves English Catholics rather than Roman Catholics. Even today, there is very little difference between the Anglican church and its rites, and the Church of Rome. The Anglicans are probably the least “Protestant” of Protestants.


Home      Top      Previous story       Next Story      Send This Page      Search