O PAGINĂ DIN BIOGRAFIA LUI MAXIMILIAN HACMAN. INSTITUTUL ROMÂN DIN BERLIN (OCTOMBRIE 1940 – SEPTEMBRIE 1941)
A Page from the Biography of Maximilian Hacman. The Romanian Institute in Berlin (October 1940 – September 1941)

Summary/Abstract: Generally, the biography of Maximilian Hacman is known to specialists in the history of Bukovina. University professor, lawyer and specialist in commercial law, politician, newspaper man and cultural entertainer Maximilian Hacman (1877–1961) remained for most people known for his role in the union of Bukovina with Romania in 1918. But there is a certain episode of his life that remained unknown for years. Maximilian Hacman was the secretary of the Romanian Institute in Berlin from autumn 1940 until the following year, being a close collaborator of Sextil Puşcariu. Hacman's intellectual and ideological affinities recommended him in 1940 for the position of secretary of the newly established Romanian Institute in the capital of the Nazi Reich. The purpose of this settlement was two fold: that of promoting Romania`s cultural values and civilization being doubled by that of propaganda. The aim of the institute was to combat Hungarian propaganda, which had more influence in the German capital at that time. Historiography avoided this subject, the theme of German-Romanian cultural relations in the years of World War II being long considered a taboo subject. The precariousness of the sources added to the concealment of the theme for a long time, which cast a shadow over the Berlin chapter of Hacman's biography. The most important historical source is precisely the Journal that Maximilian Hacman kept in the period when he lived in the capital of the Reich. Some studies were devoted to the Institute and the personality of its leader – Sextil Puşcariu – but they either emphasized the role of promoting Romanian culture in the German space or that of excessive politicization of the Institute's activity. For Maximilian Hacman, the period was extremely difficult because he was in refuge after northern Bukovina had entered Soviet rule. From the analysis of these historical resources we can find out what were the motives that imposed Hacman on the staff of the Institute, what his role was and how heperformed his tasks. Especially from the intimate pages left we can find out what was Hacman's position towards the activities of the institute, what role heplayed in the relationship between the Institute and the Romanian Legation in Berlin, which were the personalities of German culture and science attracted by Romanian propaganda and what atmosphere was cultivated in the Romanian cultural settlement. From the comparative analysis of archive documents and his daily records, Hacman seems to be an active and extremely hard-working person in forming and maintaining links with the German University environment but also a critic of the various initiatives that the Institute members have had. Also, Maximilian Hacman kept in touch with the Romanian students studying in Germany at an extremely delicate political moment. He was forced to do a real “dance on the wire” between the needs of Romanian students and its political orientations. It must be considered that Germany was at war and that the routine life of the Bukovinian teacher was influenced by the politico-military developments. The way in which Hacman positioned himself against the conflict between Sextil Puşcariu and Nichifor Crainic and especially how he managed the eternal financial problem that the Institute faced may trigger the attention. Last but not least, we can see on which side the Bukovinian intellectual was positioned in the conflict between Ion Antonescu and the political grouping around Horia Sima, a conflict that also reverberated in the Institute and which also ground the Romanian emigration from Germany.

• Details
• Contents