Talk:Ion Antonescu/Archive 2

Top 10 "Greatest Romanians" ?!

From a Romanian newspaper published in Montreal (Pagini Romanesti), I read that, along with Constantin Brancusi, Mircea Eliade, Mihai Eminescu, Carol I, Mihai Viteazul, Nadia Comaneci, Stefan cel Mare, Alexandru Ioan Cuza and Richard Wurmbrand...Antonescu made the Top 10 of a televised contest dedicated to "The Greatest Romanian". To the people responsible for allowing Antonescu to be on the list, I ask...what they have been smoking, as it's obviously something illegal. What has Antonescu actually DONE to deserve this "great honour" ? What worthwhile contribution has he made to Romania or the Romanian people ? Besides allying himself with Nazi Germany ? Catering to extremist orgainizations like the Iron Guard ? Collaborating with Hitler to organize the Holocast in Romania ? And, perhaps the most disastrous moment in the history of Romania, losing Bessarabia and Bucovina to the Soviets, no thanks to his bonehead alliance with the Third Reich ? Seriously, what exactly has Antonescu done that is or was beneficial to the Romanian nation ? Having direct responsibility for the collapse of everything that was accomplished after World War I, leaving Romania at the hands of the communists, thus condemning it to decades of misery and isolation ? To think that he is on the same list as geniuses like Eminescu and Brancusi, as great warriors and defenders of the country like Stefan, Mihai and Cuza, that just breaks my balls. The only explanation I have is that the all the fascists had nothing better to do (business as usual) and phoned in their vote. Not to say that this isn't little more than a mediatic roadbump, but it just lost even more merit. Congratulations to Antonescu, for making the Top 10 on merit of being an incompetent leader, and a spineless fool who reduced Romania to a state from which it will take centuries to recover all the territories that were lost thanks to him. --Voievod 00:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree, Voievod! --mircion 17:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Further proof that the so-called contest ain't worth shit...Here's some runners-up to the prestigious title of "Greatest Romanian":

• 71: Ion Iliescu
• 12: GIGI BECALI
• 10: NICOLAE CEAUSESCU

I rest my case, I have nothing else to say. --Voievod 00:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps some clarification is needed as to why (some) Romanians still foster such feelings. Years ago I had the privilege to meet several WWII veterans (and even a WWI veteran) who held Antonescu in a great esteem, and more so wished Hitler had won the war. Most people would be disturbed and disgusted by such views (as I was) . It was only later I understood their point of view, though I can't condone any form or racism or discrimination. To them – a generation now mostly lost to the ravages of time – Antonescu was the man who stood against everything that Soviet Union meant. They had no vision of a Romania under the third reich (had Hitler won the war) or perhaps they never cared to ponder. But sure as hell they experienced the other version of the story only too utterly. Siding with Germany was as far as they were concerned was the lesser of two evils. In the years following WWII, many of them saw their properties and lifelong earning confiscated, their liberties restricted, while being harassed, beaten, imprisoned and killed simply because they were members of the wrong political party, they had too much money, they didn't bow to the Soviet might, they had relatives/friends members of the priesthood, or simply because of invented guilts. What's more, Romania was condemned to a 45 years long communist rule, the effects of which are felt by many even today. It's no great surprise that their thoughts were echoed by the Romanian populace and media at the time. In the words of a well known stand up comedian of the day: “Rau era cu der, die, das / Da-i mai rau cu davai ceas” (It was bad with “der, die, das” / But it's worse with “davai ceas”). Shall we – in the name of political correctness – also declare Constantin Tanase a nazi collaborator? As a side note, simply making Antonescu responsible for communist rule in Romania is silly. What happened to Poland? 81.101.19.90 (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Execution of Antonescu

The official report stated that Ion Antonescu asked to be executed by the army, not by prison guards, but he was refused, to which he replied: "Scumbags, scumbags!".

"Then the command for the execution was given. The weapons were loaded and when they were fired the Marshal saluted by raising his hat with the right hand, after which they all fell down. The Marshal immediately rose up, leaning on his elbow and said: You didn't shoot me gentlemen, fire!, after which the chief guard went with his pistol to Antonescu and shot him in the head. The doctor consulted them and came to the conclusion that the Marshal and Vasiliu were still alive. The chief guard fired another shot in the chest of Antonescu and then of Vasiliu and the doctor examined them and said they still weren't dead. The chief guard went again to Vasiliu, but his pistol jammed when he tried to fire it. He took a rifle from one of the guards and fired one shot in Vasiliu's head, but then it also jammed."

"He changed it with another one and fired another three shots in different parts of Vasiliu's body and then went to the Marshal and fired 3 shots in his chest. The doctor examined them and said that Antonescu was dead, but Vasiliu was still alive. Again the guard fired a shot in Vasiliu's head. The result: Vasiliu's brains were coming out of his head, but he was still moving and saying something we couldn't understand. The guard went again to him and fired two shots in the head and after this the doctor said that Vasiliu too was dead." .

Transnistria

Even after the recapturing of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, Antonescu took the Romanian army deeper into Soviet territory, trying to create a "Great Romania" at expense of Soviet territory which did not have Romanian population.

Actually, the occupied territory beyond the Nistru (named "Transnistria") had and still has some Romanian population, albeit the majority was Ukrainian, so the claim in the article is not quite correct. bogdan 11:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

who weren't Romanian citizens or who were considered "Communist agents"

"In 1941, following the advancing Romanian Army and the attacks by Jewish "Resistance groups" (jews had also sympatized with the the occuping Soviet Army in 1940, shoothing and sometimes killing retreating Romanian soldiers in Bassarabian towns with a large jewish population like Edinet or Ismail) Antonescu ordered the deportation to Transnistria, of all Jews of Bessarabia and Bukovina (between 80,000 and 150,000) who weren't Romanian citizens or who were considered "Communist agents" by the Romanian adminstration. Few managed to survive trains and the concentration (labor) camps set up in Transnistria."

On January 21st, 1938 the royal decree no. 169 signed by Carol II and Octavian Goga, President of the Counsel of Ministers, did set up the "revision" of the Romanian citizenship of jewish people in Romania. In an interview given in January 1938 to A.L.Easterman, correspondent of the "Daily Harald", king Carol II and Octavian Goga were talking about 250.000 and respectively 500.000 jews considered "illegal". According to the royal decree jewish people had to go in front of the court and prove that they did fulfill certain conditions in order to be able to keep their Romanian citizanship. Some of them managed to do it. They were also deported.

Bukovina is divided into northern and southern Bukovina. If northern Bukovina was part of Romania just in some historical periods, southern Bukovina was always part of Romania. Jewish people from cities like Suceava, Dorohoi, Radauti, Campulung Moldovenesc were also deported and these cities were always part of Romania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.196.244.127 (talk • contribs)

File:Rom1878-1913.png

Actually, Southern Bukovina was not "always" part of Romania before WWI: see the map. bogdan 10:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Re-write/tidy-up

I've been right through the article for a major copy-edit and tidy up. I suspect many of the previous contributors were not native English speakers and the writing seemed a little awkward in places (still infinitely better than anything I could hope to write in Romanian). I don't think I've changed the sense of the article in anyway. I've also added some additional wikilinks when the context wasn't as clear to an uninformed reader (i.e. me), without much grasp of Romanian history. As ever, I won't be offended if you think I've made a complete mess of the article and re-write it again. David Underdown 10:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You can always count on Romania

"Of course I will be there from the start. When it is a question of actions against Slav, you can always count on Romania," he replied.

This sounds rather unlikely, has no source and has been like this for a few months. bogdan 21:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

User reverts

To avoid further WP:EW, could 194.117.231.39 (talk · contribs) explain why the following comments are (repeatedly since [1]) added to the text concerning Ion Antonescu. The article should have WP:NPOV whereas these comment seems to be from work of apologist Iosif Constantin Dragan in 1993 article.

"in 1918 Romania had to make peace with Germany and her allies. At the same time, Antonescu sent two divisions into Bassarabia to restore order to a region brought into chaos by the disorderly Russian retreat."

"With France's defeat and Great Britain's isolation, Antonescu had no other choice than an alliance with Nazi Germany"

"because Antonescu knew that the war against the Soviests would lead to Romania's regaining of Bessarabia and northern Bukovina, territories lost to the Soviet Union in June 1940. Also, by participating in the war on the Eastern front, beyond the historical borders of Romania, Antonescu hoped to persuade Hitler to give back the northern half of Transylvania"

"He couldn't do in one year what the political class had ignored in 20 (in the interbelic period, Romania had the smallest % army budget in Europe)."

"A few days later, the Soviets occupied (the term "liberated" was used by that time's propaganda) Bucharest."

"The only things he wasn't found guilty of were claiming a fortune of his years of government and of Romania's war against the Soviet Union. Like all trials having taken place durring the Communist Regime, the "Trial of Great National Treason" - as it was called by the time's media - has many questionable aspects. Ion Antonescu was sentenced to death six times and executed "

"In 1941, following the advancing Romanian Army and the attacks by Jewish "Resistance groups" (jews had also sympatized with the the occuping Soviet Army in 1940, shoothing and sometimes killing retreating Romanian soldiers in Bassarabian towns with a large jewish population like Edinet or Ismail)"

"However Antonescu, did not apply the "final solution" on Romanian territory, like other German-alllied states did, nor did he send Romanian jews to German extermination camps. Romania even sheltered jews from other countries, like Poland and Czechoslovakia, refusing to turn them over to the Germans."

Perhaps you could express your views more clearly on this talk page. friedfish 16:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm repeatedly adding them because you continualy deleate them. i don't think citing JC Dragan is illeagal on this site. However all the words are mine, based on various sources (the last 3). I'll answer to you questions, in hope you won't delete these lines any longer.

1 is a fact. the Russians were leaving the front and plundering Chisinau, when the National Council asked Romania for help. It was Antonescu, from his position in the army, that sent troops into Bassarabia to disarm the Russians and restore order.

2 GB and France were traditional allies of Romania. However, in 1940 Romania could expect no aid from these countries, given the situation in the West. Germany was the only state able to guarantee the frail borders of Romania, and also the only one that could help Romania regain the lost territories to the Soviet Union.

3 This was not only the will of Antonescu, but of the entire Romanian people, who wished to redeem themselves for giving up Bassarabia and norther Bukovina without a fight one year before.

4 Another fact. Antonescu tried to reform the army in the 30s while he had important functions like Chief of Army Staff, but faced with the lack of funds, he quit, motivating that he wouldn't want to be responsable for the collapse of Romania's borders.

5 Yes, the Russians actually occupied Romania, and stayed for 13 years. Yet Romania continued to celebrate her "liberation" by her big brother from the East for 45 years.

6 another fact: from all charges, those were the only ones he was not found guilty of. As for the second part, I don't know where to start really. I think it's enough to say that the whole institution of the People's Tribunal was ilegal, as a tool of the Government, because it conflicts with the constitutional priciple of Separation of powers, or that the sentences conflicted with the principle of Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali, again from the Constitution.

7 This is from a testimony of G. Magherescu, who participated as a soldier to the Romanian withdraw form Bassarabia in 1940. You can find it the book "Antonescu" by your beloved JC Dragan.

8 All facts: no extermination camps on Romanian territory, Romanian jews sent to German extermination camps were from Hungarian occupied Transylvania. No jews were sent from Romania to German extermination camps, thus including the refugees form neighbouring countries. If we have a section about the Holocaust under Antonescu, then let's say the good things too, not only the bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.117.231.39 (talk • contribs)

• Thank you for expressing your views. Are you aware of the International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania. Presumably, for example, the events at Iaşi and Odessa were "preventive" measures.

I won't comment on other points, but I don't understand why the essence of point (2) is so disputed. Dahn, I think the anonymous user is essentially correct about that specific item. Why do you dispute it? --Gutza ^{T T+} 20:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't necessarily dispute, although I tend to view it as superfluous to this article and many others, and a bit single-sided, unless reformulated to "the new government though that such was the case". Let us not forget that the Iron Guard defended the alliance to Germany as an ideological tenet, not as the weakest of two evils ("in ziua urmatoare, vom orienta tara spre Berlin si Roma"), that the fall of British guarantees was not as obvious for, notoriusly, the peoples of Yugoslavia and Greece, and that several in Romania rejected Antonescu's solution from the very start (Maniu, Bratianu). In itself, the sentence would be coaching the reader into assuming that a more complex situation was simple and direct. However, you may introduce in the text something ammounting to that meaning (it was mpost of the rest of the points, their formulation, and their source which deserved a stiff revert). Dahn 08:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Please note that I explicitly said that the essence of point (2) seems ok to me, not the way it's currently formulated. Regarding the historical facts, I'm not disputing the Iron Guard's ideology--of course they were pro-German. But can you really talk about British guarantees when the Russians, Britain's allies, were chipping away at your territory? Hardly. The ironic thing is that Romania didn't want to fight against UK or USA, it only genuinely wanted to fight against USSR. Which subsequently ended up in a cold war with UK and USA. (Remember that by August 23rd 1944, Romania didn't fight on the Western Front.)

My opinion is that Romania was not pro-German as much as it was anti-USSR. Which all of Western Europe ended up being when it became convenient. I agree every country does what it suits them best (USSR helps spark a war between Western European countries, only to join it against the country it helped build the military capacity; the Allies use USSR which they despised to get rid of Nazis, and then start the cold war when things calm down, and so on.) But if we agree everything's hypocrisy and self-interest, why blame ourselves for doing what everybody else was doing at the time? A world war where every soldier is either coward or villain except all soldiers of two nations sounds very dubious to me.

First of all, allow me to apologize for spliting your posts into two: it makes it easier for me to reply. I had understood that your reply was aimed at the essence of the point (and I apologize as well if I had been vague in my awknowledgement of this). Moving on, some things need to be detailed. For one, the USSR and the UK were not allies, and maintained only the least cordial relation after the German-Soviet Pact had been signed. Romania's alliance to the UK had been compromised by the rapprochment between Carol and Hitler, with Romania accepting (from a Brit perspective) mediation on the Vienna Award/Diktat and some other crazy stuff. What Romania expected (IMO, absurdly so) was that the UK guarantee its borders while the UK was trying hard to break up the German-Soviet love affair (a lot of stupidity on all sides, given that the UK had rejected Stalin's offer to resist Germany as early as the Munich Agreement/Diktat - while we may well wonder if Stalin was serious about this, we could also evidence the fact that his main priority in the 1930s had been building a Popular Front against Hitler, everywhere but, for very intersting reasons, in Romania).

You are indeed very right about all the other points as applied to 1940, but not earlier and certainly not later in the war. For one, the choice to resist Germany (a state which was, as I have said, apparently in love with Russia at the time) would have been idiotic, as the Czechs had understood by then. However, this is not to say that Britain would not have supported such a move, as they did in Yugoslavia (who, as Romania, was by then a member of the Axis). Yugoslavia, I figure, was not as much wrong in making that choice, as the chance of winning seemed evident to them (and was more evident than to Romanians). I cannot ask that Romania had resisted: I can, however, point out that Romania chose between combativeness (which would have led to British support) and virtual neutrality (as, at that point, Germany needed Romania to be small and pacified). There are, however, other issues to address in the subsequent period, which make the point as formulated a bit harder to support: for one, Romania itself chose a little bit more than neutrality with a bowed head. It gave itself an Iron Guard government with Antonescu in there, knowing full well that a more balanced position was doomed (of course, the German preferences had a say in that, but it is hard to establish to what measure - indeed, the Nazis despised Carol, but they probablly could have done with a Bulgarian-like "Zveno"-type solution from the very start). On a side note, this indicates the very first reason why Antonescu cannot be the Mannerheim dreamed of by revisionists - he was playing with the big boys instead of offering a transitional solution.

On another level, much of my original answer was not about the chance of Romania in a probable anti-German resistance, but about what Romanians at the time knew and could argue. For example, I believe that the critique I have read in a left-wing magazine of the 1930s (Viata Romaneasca) about the failure of Romania to open some doors to the Soviets, while probably absurd in its assumption that the Soviets would have reciprocated, came back to haunt some of the public in 1940. This and other alternatives, if perhaps unworkable each and every one, would have still been present in the minds of Romanians, contradicting the solidity of the point about lack of guarantees, which may be obvious in hindsight (but the government at the times was not travelling in thne future). I admit that this is a hard point to support, given that public opinion stepped out of one dictatorship to jump into another. It is, however, very certainn that, after Vienna, most Romanian politicians were probably either too demoralized or to booed to even consider anything other than a fetal position while the Legionaires were rocking their cradle. Dahn 20:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

But I digress. Let's assume Romania had started the war on the side of the Allies, because it believed, like the Yugoslavs and the Greeks, in the British guarantees. On one hand, we have the comfort of hindsight now, which wasn't available at the time. But even so, what do you think would've changed? Do you think we would've had Bessarabia now? Or do you think we wouldn't have been Communists? I find both claims hard to believe. Of course, we would've received some monetary compensations at the end of the war, and maybe the communism would've been slightly more relaxed. But with Ceauşescu as president, I doubt we could've had a radically better situation than what we experienced.

The only real victims in the local Romanian hypocrisy and self-interest game were the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, etc detained, deported or murdered by Antonescu's regime. That is something I find tragic, and I would want that to have been different. But apart from that, which, again, is truly regrettable and probably could've been avoided in a great measure, I think it's hypocritical to keep blaming Romania very hard for making the other decisions it made, under the circumstances. --Gutza ^{T T+} 14:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As I have answered above, I think that Romania could not have been (and should not have been) an Ally in 1940. In hindsight, this would not even have been neccessary, as both Finland (the lucky one) and Poland (the unlucky one) have shown. In fact, the choice was less manicheistic at the time (let us note that Poland was one of Czechoslovakia's aggressors at Munich). There is, nonetheless, a world to cover between Romania and, say Bulgaria, and this is what adds to the point raised, although it may seem an answer to post-1940 realities: aside from the fact that the Iron Guard had been placed in power (compromising all future rapprochement with the UK), I cannot possibly understand the argument raised by those who claim Antonescu would have "turned us Ally" on his own in 1944, or even, given the chance and the momentum, at any other time in the war. When you kill hundreds of thousands of Jews, when you whipe out all the Roma pop. in Bucharest on the basis of a Vlad the Impaler-like take on moral justice, and when you go and make yourself an empire in Ukraine, you kinda lose that cherised Mannerheim position. This is not to say, of course, that you would not agree to this point (as you indicated you do), but it does bear a consequence on 1940: it is to say that Antonescu saw 1940 as a chance, as an excuse, as a means, and not just as a tragedy (as most Romanians arguably did). From my perspective, point 2 should at least allude to the differences between choices facing Romania (while pointing out what Romania had done to get there - and there is much to be said on Ro-Soviet relations in the 1930s) and choices facing Antonescu: otherwise, we risk turning it into an unvolontary excuse for Antonescu's own policies.

You raise an interesting point, which is a bit beyond the point of this discussion, but allows me to clarify my position on one matter. I cannot under any circumstance pretend that Bessarabia could have been returned to Romania, and I cannot vouch for us avoiding communism (although a scenario where Romania wouldn't have danced with the wolves could have, in pure theory, changed the situation for the entire Eastern Europe in various ways - from a Cold War turning Warm to the eventuality of less daring demands from the Soviets). However, I believe, and this is speculation given the presumption (but not speculation given the chances), that a Romania not having danced with the wolves would have given us an Eastern and Central European type of communism, not the original and bankrupt form we gave ourselves to save face from some utter chimeras (no need for a national communism, but rather a bureaucracy concerned enough to give the Comecom what is the Comecom's; no need for Ceausescu, but rather a Kadar, or at least a Gheorghe Apostol; no need for Patriotic Guards, but rather a Solidarnosc or Berlin-like riots to shame the communists for having lost not just the support of the intellectuals, but that of proletarians as well). Let us not forget that Romania had only become socially comparable to Czechia or Poland in 1944, and that the recouperation of a die-hard nationalism which came to pass into political discourse (of the communists! by the 1950!) removed all chance of any reasonable and productive way out. In my view, Antonescu is responsible for most of that. Dahn 20:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Before I start, I want both of us to take a moment and realize that, by the looks of it, we're probably going to fill the equivalent of several pages of print just to discuss one phrase. I don't find that ridiculous, just amusing. Ok, now on to the reply.

So, we agree on how regrettable the losses of lives were among the Jews, Roma and other minorities--it's bad that it happened, and it's good that we agree. Let's let that rest then--I don't intend to minimalize the issue, but we'd only go on patting each other's backs.

Regarding your assertion that Antonescu wouldn't have turned against the Germans on his own accord, I agree 100% with both the statement and the implied ideological reasons. Regarding Antonescu's willingness to murder "undesired" minorities, I can't say much. I've heard opinions going both ways ("he had to be convinced to slow down the killings/deportations", but also "he needed to play Hitler's way"). I'm not sure he would've initiated the violence against Jews/etc, but I really was unable to form an opinion on whether he did it because of German pressure or because he had the opportunity. At any rate, this is unconsequential--the important thing is that in this case nobody can use the ridiculous Ceauşestian "he didn't know about it" excuse: we know he not only knew, but ordered and probably indirectly supervised most of the atrocities.

I think, however, that it is very clear Antonescu was a violent anti-semite from back in the day (before the actual war), and I think we can agree that Romania's Holocaust was generally independent from both German overseeing and German control. It stuck with me that Eichmann once expressed his disgust for the uncivilised (read: chaotic, crude) way in which Jews and others were killed in Romania by Romanian authorities, and begged his superiors to allow German authorities to do it "the proper way". Dahn 22:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I was unable to form an educated opinion about this, so I'll refrain from commenting. I'm not disagreeing with you, but I haven't got enough reliable data to agree either. --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

However, this entire thing seems inconsequential when you really try to re-live 1940: Romania basically didn't have any viable choice except join whoever was fighting USSR at the time. Nobody knew what was about to start happening, and almost everybody wanted to fight back against the Soviets. That's what the phrase we're discussing is all about: options available at that time. I don't think it's fair to look forward in history and find reasons why that proved not to be a good idea after all--the reader can draw his own conclusions. --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In 1940, the Germans were not fighting the USSR, nor did they show that they were ever going to. In fact, the most vocal opponents of the Soviets were the Brits. Moreover, if you want to split hairs, Romania's borders were the way they were because of German policies, including those in Bessarabia. Dahn 22:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're obviously right on the first part, I got carried away. But of course there was the oil thing which persuaded the Germans to offer some territorial guarantees which nobody else seemed to be able to hold. However, I'm curious about the second part of your argument (the Bessarabia situation being caused by the Germans) which I'm curious about--what do you mean? --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The territorial guarantees offered by the German were to a Romania without N.Transylvania and Bessarabia-Bukovina-Hertza (not to mention the Cadrilater). The Germans had guaranteed Russian demands in Bessarabia etc. through the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact; at the time of the establishment of the National Legionary State, Germany and the USSR had been giving each other sizable presents in Poland. Germany had backed both Hungary and Bulgaria.

In 1940, Romania was already engaged in joining the Axis, and the Allies had, of course, lost too much to anger the Soviets by vouching for Romania - in any case, the former half of this sentence should kinda overweight the latter. In retrospect, Romania and Yugoslavia had already refused to guarantee Czechoslovakia's borders (which they were bound to do by forming the Little Entente), Romania had maintained extremely poor contacs with the Soviets and had refused Stalin's obscure (and probably insincere) offer for an anti-German block made before 1939 (the Pact with Germany was, indeed, his very last resort after knocking on all doors), and was simply hoping that the Germans would not hit too hard when they were to. Dahn 23:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't slog through reading all of the long section here, but I believe I got the gist; my apologies if the two things I'm about to say are redundant to things already said.

1) Romania had been slowly tilting away from the western Allies, toward Germany, over the last few years of Carol's reign. As I understand it, Carol certainly preferred the Western alliance, but it had become obvious even before the invasion of Poland that France and the UK would/could do nothing for him. The first moves toward Germany were economic, then, increasingly, political. Hitler resented that Carol had held out so long, so he screwed him totally at the Second Vienna Arbitration, but Carol's very agreement to submit to the arbitration indicates how far his government had already moved into Germany's orbit. Anotonescu's overt alliance with Germany was just a continuation of a trend; the Iron Guard, of course, unquestionably favored alliance with Germany for reasons of ideology, not mere expedience.

2) On the matter of the Holocaust, Iliescu's official acceptance of the Wiesel Commission report should settle the matter: Antonescu's government and Romania's forces, even post-Iron Guard, actively—in some cases even enthusiasticaly—participated in the Holocaust. The fact that the Jews of Wallachia were never liquidated is a good thing, but only a small credit against the policy of a genocidal regime. One does not praise or exonerate someone merely for stopping short of fully exterminating an ethnic minority. - Jmabel | Talk 23:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent reverts

I don't understand why 194.117.231.39 (talk · contribs)'s edits are labeled vandalism, since obviously they don't fit the definition. At most they are not WP:NPOV, and that should be dealt with on the talk page, not by reverting. As for the I.C. Dragan "argument", why is that grounds for reversal?! As far as WP policies go I.C. Dragan is as good a source as any other since it's verifiable. Dmaftei 22:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - looking back over the 4½ years of this article there have been so many reverts, opinions, apologies, etc., that it's difficult to sieve out the history of the man. 194.117.231.39 (talk · contribs)'s edits have been reverted, removed or whatever since June by many different users, that it's good that 194.117.231.39 (talk · contribs) is finally using this TALK page. Tell us more about I.C.Dragan. friedfish 00:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I was pointing out that you've been reverting edits that you considered vandalism while by WP policies those edits don't qualify as vandalism; please address the issue if you're interested in solving it. I'm not sure what to make of your "tell us more about I.C.Dragan" comment... If you really want to learn more about the individual I'm sure you'll find plenty of info at the library and around the Web. Dmaftei 01:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - comments by 194.117.231.39 (talk · contribs) only add POV arguments to the article and compromises the "slowly emerging" neutrality of the article, hence why these are consistently removed/edited by myself and others. friedfish 09:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you review the WP policies regarding NPOV disputes. Constantly reverting edits that seem to you POV is not among the recommendations; if anything, that make you look like vandalizing. Dmaftei 12:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - you speak from considerable NPOV dispute experience! friedfish 13:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not you want to listen to an honest observation is up to you... As regards your attempts at irony I find them both inappropriate and counterproductive, so I'm going to stop here. Dmaftei 17:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Dragan is a minority POV, a Ceausescu enthusiast, an amateur historian, and a widely discredeted source throughout the world, and, given his far right past, a biased source. He himself does not seem to be able to quote any source, and the result is an essay at best: containing his views on the matter, and not facts rubbing on facts. As none of the recent edits is confirmed by any other source, it is time to simply revert this bullshit. Dahn 23:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Which part of the above argument did you fail to comprehend, anonymous IP? As for your "point" about "testimony" (which, "of course", should indicate that Dragan "is right" about "resistance groups", the trial and some other things he fantasizes about), I suggest you do a little reading in the article for Sophistry. And, hell, why have you not been banned yet?! Dahn 07:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because I'm right, you're vandalizing this article, not me. THat book wans't the only place I read/heard about the retreat of 1940 and the behavior of the jews. The sixth book in the references is another example, as well as a TV show on Bassarabia. So yes, in this case, Dragan was right. And again, as long as using Dragan as reference isn't prohibited on this site, I'm going to continue using him as source.

There are clear policies against using unprofessional references which do not back up their claims with anything but hearsay. It is also utterly bewildering that someone would indicate that Dragan was an eyewitness to all that crap you and him slid about the trial et al. This is answer to your "not prohibeted" point.

As to the behaviour "of Jews", let me indicate to people reading this the very obvious collective responsability which both the IP and Antonescu (and Dragan) endorse is, in itself, a moot point from a moral and rational perspective. This counts as apologism, and all "proof" that asserts such things in this manner, all claims that allow for Jews to be separated from the bulk of those pro-Soviet Soviet citizens (without at the very least pointing out that Romania was by then an officially anti-semitic state allied to the mother of all anti-semites), all of them, if referenced at all, should be referenced in a section dedicated to Antonescu and Holocaust revisionism. Dahn 08:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the book before making any more comments. Then you'd see that it's structured as an interview given by G. Magherescu to JC Dragan. So Dragan wasn't the witness himself to these events. Secondly, if you read more carefully that paranthesis, you would have seen that it started with "these jews" thus reffering to those hostile to the Romanian administration. There sure were exceptions, although if you read G. Magherescu's words you will se that the entire jewish population of Iedinet was waiting eargerly for the "liberation" of the Soviet Army. I hope you understood now, if not, I can do no more for you.

Antonescu and the Holocaust (again)

21. I have not checked this entry in a while and it's sad to see that revisionists were allowed to edit my initial contribution as they pleased. I changed the text again, but it's far from perfect, as it needs more information and references.

- The fact that Antonescu had personal relations to Jews is entirely irrelevant with respect to his crimes. At best, it makes them even more unacceptable. I placed his personal information therefore at the end of the section.

- The article should make absolutely clear that Antonescu was an anti-Semite. As one user puts it: "380,000 dead sounds like anti-semitism to me". No user should be allowed to cast doubt on the fact that a man who is directly responsible for unspeakable atrocities against such a number of Jewish civilians should not be considered an anti-Semite. Should Antonescu not be considered an anti-Semite, I request that in his Wikipedia entry Hitler should not be considered one either. And then nobody should.

- The reports about "Jewish resistance" groups have no evidential basis and nobody has ever managed to produce any proofs. In future, we should speak here only of "alleged 'Jewish resistance' " groups.

- We should add some quotes about the Jews by Antonescu which show beyond doubt that his genocidal policy was intentional and based on ideological grounds.

- Somebody should update the literature list. It's almost non-existing and names like Dragan's are laughable.

--mircion 18:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Mircion here (and I will note that not just the death toll, but also several statements made by Antonescu showed that he was an anti-Semite). This article needs a lot of work, and we should get around to actually producing interlinked and systematic articles on the Holocaust in Romania (we still don't...). The only reason why this article is patchy (and possibly wrong at times - I don't even have the patience to look through it) is because the task at hand is immense. Well, at least we are not overtly celebrating and kissing his feet like they do on Romanian wiki. Dahn 18:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

- one question. what is the nationality of mircion?

A telling ad hominem question. I could be Romanian. In which case I would be a traitor, I assume, or bought by the Jews (a Judeo-Communist, maybe?). Or I could be Jewish, which would not need any further comment. Or I could be German, in which case I should stick to the crimes of Germany, and anyway, as a foreigner I would not be qualified to discuss or judge Romanian history. In fact, only non-Jewish Romanians not bought by the Jews, i.e. righteous Romanians with a fear of God, love for the Holy Motherland and an acute sense for its poisonous internal and external enemies are qualified to discuss Romanian history. In other words: all those who do not share my view. A rather convincing argument. --mircion 17:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Partial rehabilitation?

That doesn't seem to be an unreasonable section header to me, it appears that some of the convictions have been over-turned (cites for this would be good however), so he is in some sense "not as guilty" as he was held to be previously. I've no connection with Romania, so I've no axe to grind either way, so I think this qualifies as a third opinion. David Underdown 12:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The term is used in: "Moldova critică reabilitarea parţială a lui Antonescu", BBC News, February 23, 2007. Turgidson 12:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ya, but in this sourse it is used exactly to express a POV there. Look, if someone kills a man and steals 3 bikes, and is convicted, and later another court determines that one of the bikes was his, does it mean "partial rehabilitation"? The man is still guilty for the murder! the bikes are details. BTW, putting "has stollen his own bike" on the same verdict as "has killed X" discredits the latter. It is a shame it stayed on for so many years. :Dc76 13:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Arguing by analogy is always difficult. In your example the man is still both a thief and a murderer, so I'd agree whether or not it's 2 or 3 bikes is irrelevant. Conviction (and then quashing of that conviction) of what amounts to a war crime is on a slightly different level. I think it's unlikely that the BBC should have a bias in favour of Antonescu (although since I can't read Romanian I can't tell in exactly what sense it's being used). Would it be a reasonable translation of the headline to render it as, "Moldova criticises the partial rehabilitation of antonescu"? In which case a critic of that partial rehabilitation is accepting (under protest) that such rehabilitation has occurred. David Underdown 13:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not commenting on the term per se, just answering David Underdown's question -- yes, the term has been used (for better or for worse). Another example appears here (at gov.ro), on p.56, under the headline "Federaţia Comunităţilor Evreieşti din România, nedumerită de reabilitarea parţială a lui Antonescu". Note that all these refs are in Romanian; the only English ref I could find was in Communist tracts, such as this one, and this one. I am not sure how this should be dealt with in this article, but at the very least, I think it's worth mentioning that the decision by the Bucharest Court of Appeals has been viewed by some (e.g., the Government of the Republic of Moldova, and the Federation of Jewish Communities from Romania) as a partial rehabilitation. Other interpretations of the decision can be given, too, with proper sourcing. Once this is dealt with, the proper sub-heading (or no sub-heading) should become more obvious. Turgidson 13:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I wasn't asking for cites of the specific term, just that the quashing of the conviction(s) had definitively happened (it's not the sort of thing that really makes the news in the UK). With that confirmed, "partial rehabilitation" seems a perfectly reasonable use of language to describe events. The fact that even opponents of the quashing of the conviction have used the phrase seems to strengthen the case for using it as a sub-header here. There is enough information in the article for the reader to decide for themself the extent of that rehabilitation (which isn't that extensive in my view). David Underdown 13:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, you are right about difficulty with analogy. BBC is not expressing any oppinion there, Moldova's foreign ministry is, and BBC is reporting very porfessionally. The context is obviously that of a half-year long accusations between the current government of Moldova and Romania, which started with Romania's entry into EU. Here is what BBC writes:

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti a revizuit decizia justiţiei din 1946 prin care Ion Antonescu şi alţi co-inculpaţi erau găsiţi vinovaţi de delictul de "crime împotriva păcii", ca urmare a admiterii pe teritoriul României a trupelor germane, care aveau să lanseze în iunie 1941 atacul împotriva URSS.

Instanţa nu a revizuit însă capul de acuzare "crime împotriva umanităţii", de care a fost găsit vinovat Ion Antonescu în 1946.

Translation:

Bucharest Court of Apeal has revised the decision of the justice system in 1946 by which Ion Antonescu and other idightied people were found guilty of the delict "crimes against peace", as a result of letting German troups to station on the territory of Romania, which were involved in launching the attack against USSR.

The court has not however revised the acusation item "crimes against humanity", of which Ion Antonescu was found guilty in 1946.

The rest are the position of the governing Communist Party of Moldova, which BBC faithfully cities and correctly attributes.

I think this speaks better than any comparison. Yet, to add more salt :-) let me just make one more comparision: Did Kuwait had legal right to allow USA and other conutries to invade Iraq in 2003? Now think that the invasion from Kuwait is only 10% of the total invasion, and that first stage of it is to recover some Kuwaiti territory. Was the decision of Kuwait then to go to war in 1991 legal? Was the decision of Saudi Arabia to allow the war to start from its territory in 1991 legal? If afterwards they commit crimes inside Iraq, that is a different question, imho. of course, the analogy...:Dc76 13:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This analogy does not work as Romania had peace treaty with the USSR.--Dojarca 13:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite, in 91 there is not much major doubt about the situation, Iraq had invaded Kuwait first and there were specific UN resolutions allowing operations to restore Kuwaiti sovereignty. The 2003 situation is much more legally tricky, and who knows, maybe Blair and/or Bush will one day have to face charges on that. Whatever, the current appeal court has decided that those convictions against Antonescu should not stand (and maybe, as in the Nuremberg Trials) there was an element of "victor's justice" in the original charges. The fact remains that he no longer stand convicted of these charges, and even critics (such as Moldova) have seen this as an attempt to rehabilitate his reputation to some degree, and reporte as such by a neutral source. They are hardly minor charges - I suspect that a death sentence would still have followed even under just those convictions, leaving aside the holocaust aspects for now. Your argument does not convince me still. David Underdown 13:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, David, all I want is to kindly ask you to read the decision of the court before editting. If after that you change, i obviously won;t oppose that. Jewish community did not respond as a single voice. On the contrary, some reacted when they heard the name Antonescu without reading. Others read and were quite satisfied when they saw how blatantly the court refused the request to review "crimes against humanity" and also upheld that part the war after 1940 borders was a war of conquest. Hitler and Antonescu wanted to portray it as an anti-communist war, but that only was handy to them. the court upheld, just as Neremberg and others that the war past 1940 borders was a war of conquest.

I do not know how much weight "crimes against peace" had in determining the punishment. If Antonescu only did what he has been now aquitted for, he would have most probably had the fate of Manerheim from Finland.

Look, if you want to add a sentence along these lines: "The first reaction of some (better who exactly) to the news of the trial was to call it a rehabilitation of Antonescu." If you want that - absolutely, I don't mind at all. Originally i let this without specific title exactly b/c i did not want to suggest to the reader one POV or another. The text is sufficiently informative, the titles... Well, by now I guess you have read everything. So, please do what changes you find now necessary. I trust your judgement as an individual, I just want it to be an informed one, not a sentimental one.:Dc76 14:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Dojarca, there was no peace treaty between Romania and Soviet Union in 1940 or 1941! On the contrary, despite the international obligations that USSR undertook, it has pacted with the Nazi Germany, and it has occupied Romanian territories in 1940. In the first month of war, Romania in 1941, Romania recovred these territories. After that, Romanian army has stopped, and German army advanced from much-much norther. After one more month, Hitler has convinced Antonescu to send expeditionary troups inside USSR territory, and even to occupy a small portion of it. The Court has upheld that this second part (August 1941-on) was a war of counquest, and only said that June-July 1941 was not illegal because it was to recover own territory. Also, it said, to station troop of another country is the sovereign right of a country, no matter how amoral is that. The court refused even to consider the request to revise even some details of "crimes against humnity" (holocaust).:Dc76 14:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it still seems to me that calling it a partial rehabilitation is accurate. The charges are not minor (it seems to me) look at Crimes against peace and War of aggression, the comaprison with Finland is interesting, but Finland probably benefitted from the beginning of the Cold War which made the Western Allies wary of the USSR, had Romania ended up in the Western sphere of influence the chargs against Antonescu would have been differetn one suspects. Of course the mater fo the Holocaust is still a very major one, and this is clear enough in the article, even with the wording of partial rehabilitation.

I've restored that wording, but also shifted the sections around, so it comes after the decsription of Antonescu and the Holocaust, so that the reader has read that before coming on the partial rehabilitation. I've done a few minor bits of copy-editing too. David Underdown 15:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I did two small edits. If you know of a reason why the second one would not be good, I have no problem to restore. About the first one, I see no problem to use the words "partial rehabilitation" as long as it is clear that they refer to "crimes against peace" not to overall. You see, in worder to be even partally rehabilitated one first has to be found not guilty or no longer guilty, which is not the case here. IMHO, the court stript out "victor's" and uphold "justice". :Dc76 16:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If you still disagree with my last edits, feel free to revert. I am not interested in forcing blocking anyone for 3RR. I want to work with the person if he/she is constructive and receptable. Don't worry about 3RR with me - I will never hold you accountable for that. :Dc76 19:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who introduced the term, and I actually didn't look to see if it was in use (although I note it is). I had done this as a provisional change (I stated my goal to contribute much to the article itself in the future, and provide all details I can find about his responsibility in the murder of civilians, his racism etc from reliable sources - simply put, this article should be subject to a thorough and unapologetic rewrite). My rationale for the change in question was simple: you will note that, before being titled "Partial rehabilitation", the section was named "Rehabilitation", which is both misleading and in contradiction with the text of that very section. Dahn 20:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now I am in the mood that a good argumented porposal from someone here can make me accept the POV that "rehabilitated" is a word that can be used (with proper adjectives). Don't rush. When you have time - edit. I have already accepted it in my mind half way.

I don't think I will have soon time to edit a whole article on WP. In the case of Antonescu's process, I was currious, and once spent almost the whole day researching about it. To edit the whole article - I don't have so much energy and time. And in fact, personally I know about Ion Antonescu much less than I should. I'd need to do much-much more reading first. I'd be happy to help on a secondary or tertiary role (re-reading edits, wikifying, etc) :Dc76 21:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, look: for all I care, the title may be removed or rephrased completely. My priority was indicating that Antonescu was not "rehabilitated", as the previous title claimed. Glancing through the discussion above, I would suggest "2007 Court decision" as a working title (I rather dislike the immense title that we have now), and let the reader decide what it was. I would also suggest adding a paragraph about the Jewish Community response to this, and their view that it amounts to a rehabilitation - with mention of their dissatisfaction. What I want to do for this article refers to many other issues (for one, this article cites almost no sources, and there are plenty of reliable ones out there). But that, as I have said, is an immense task to undertake. I would also like to stress again my satisfaction that contributors are apparently making sure that this page is not taken over by negationism and neo-fascism (in contrast to a variant of this page on ro wiki). At least that's a start. Dahn 22:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I agree with everything you said. It remains... :-) to do it. As for negationism or neo-fascism, I believe few are individuals that when shown murder would try to negate it. Political opinion is political opinion, murder of civilians is murder of civilians. The only killing that a normal person can "condone" is solder to solder on the battlefield. :Dc76 22:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And with one slice Dahn chops through the Gordian Knot - that was just too obvious. David Underdown 08:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, when a justice decision is partly overturned, then it's a "partial rehabilitation". So, technically, the previous title was OK, too. However, given the current political correctness rules I guess the current title is OK, too (it's just less precise, one could assume there's no change). Dpotop 09:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

How political correctness is connected with this article? Naming the section otherwise would be only fogging truth.--Dojarca 23:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What "truth" are you talking about? You mean, the partial overturn of a stalinist court decision? Or the fact that a Romanian court finally decided that Romania attacking the Soviet Union was actually OK for the (sole) purpose of re-taking Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina? Everybody seems to have said at some point that the Moltov-Ribbentrop pact was illegal, but this is one of the sole places where the illegality of M-R actually changed something. Dpotop 06:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a treaty between Romania and the USSR, which was broken by Antonescu. Anyway the truth is that Antonascu was (partially) rehabilitated. Probably Hitler also could be rehabilitated on these grounds as he argued invasion in the USSR was necessary to protect Romania.--Dojarca 21:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)