How effective was Antonescu?, Was he really "conducator"?

Dragos said it!
http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?sh...=60&#entry71816
The idea behind the question is: how much did Antonescu's decisions had an impact over the adinistration and Army? Did they really listened to him?

Your question contains the answer.
As Dragos said, those problems were societal rather than military, they were deeply entrenched and no head of the army, no matter whom, could fix them. The army had (and when I served in the army, it still did) a self-regulating "class" system and all along this hyerarchical system, the "lower" ranks were systematically treated badly by their "superiors". This could not possibly be good for the morale or cohesion of the army as a whole.

As a matter of fact, the best way to deal with that "system" was to go along with it, make the best of it and hope for the best outcome in the same way that a man with a rheumatic leg can still walk, not in the best way, but walk nevertheless. Cutting off the rheumatic leg would not improve the "walk". To use another analogy, changing the "system" while at war would have been akin to changing a wheel of a car while driving.

Furthermore, the only way to "fix" those issues would have been by "purging" the army like Stalin did.

Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on May 20, 2009 09:21 am

I strongly disagree! Given time (which he had not) and the adequate means (which, as "conducător", he did have), one could have managed to change the system without having to shoot as many as Stalin did. Look at Gheorghiu-Dej
The trouble is (IMO) he was used to the "military way": I gave an order, it will be respected or else!
How much was he appreciated could be seen from the easiness (I have no other word for it) with which he was "put away" at 23.08.1944!

All of that (Dej, execution, etc) took place with the backing of Soviet Russia that were in control.

In actual fact, the "cleansing" of the army (and almost all of the society) at the time of Dej was very similar to Stalin's purges - conform or be eliminated. Antonescu was not in a position to do any of that.

A leader does not have to be "loved" to be effective. As a matter of fact, many leaders became "loved" only after they were victorious.

Antonescu was not the man who gave every single order - that would be impossible. Every leader has to delegate and he had a staff of subalterns that looked after the "details". These had their own subalterns who had their own subalterns and so so on. Each of these levels of hierarchy were allowed to issue their own orders in keeping with the "big picture". He only looked after the "big picture". If an order that trickled down the hierarchical chains of command failed or went astray, that is hardly his fault.

Radu

Dont mix Stalin in this,his 37-38 his purges were purely politico-paranoid and had nothing to do with a desire to improve the performance RKKA.

Ok, maybe I did not phrase it well enough. Please read what I wrote in the context. In order to "fix" the "problem with the army" as pointed out by Dragos, the scale of that task would require a large effort similar to the Stalin's purges. In other words, I was referring to the size of the effort required not the purpose.
Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on May 20, 2009 03:07 pm

You right,althogh I dont think the romanian society would permit the killing and /or imprisonment of all generals and 90 % of colonels.

This is getting off-topic/off-line! I never implied Antonescushould have executed his opponents in Stalin's way; btw, he could have been backed up by Hitler's troops - only he was too much of a patriot for that to happen. Regarding Stalin's purges, there is also a new view, of Suvorov's. He wrote a "book" called exactly like that, "Epurarea"; I found it (pdf) on the Net.
I just wanted to point out that Antonescu gave some orders which were finally either disrespected or misinterpreted. He was an army-man and not a politician, at least not by Romanian standards...

Nobody said anything like that.

All I said was that the task was immense. IF [BTW, "if" is a conditional clause] Antonescu had tried to "cleanse" the army, it WOULD HAVE BEEN akin to Stalin's purges.

I repeat, the "Stalin" stuff was a comparative analogy to explain the size of the task, NOT the purpose of such task.

I already explained it to Guina, but you obviously did not pay attention.

Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on May 20, 2009 08:21 pm

Radub, obviously, you make this again a dispute between me and you when it isn't. My observation was general, as neither me, nor anybody else with a sound knowledge of the period would NOT compare Antonescu with Dej, nor with Stalin. Purges, however, were made by Antonescu, but "soft" ones. Check out how many generals and superior officers were "removed from command" after september 1940 or after january 1941!
My idea was that he simply wasn't really listened; as a political leader, at least. As a military commander, he also had some "problems". Among these, I found documents which "question" some of his orders, asking him to delay or not to apply them. In what other dictatorial regime would this happen? I mean, without beheading the "naughty" ones - or shooting them, like it happened on june 1-st, 1946...

MMM,
The only one who makes a point of creating some kind of tension between us is you. I cannot post a single bit of text without some kind of "sniping" from you. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Or are we supposed to applaud every time you write something?
Please play the ball and not the player.

I repeat, I was saying that the task of "fixing" the problems within the army was immense because the problems were deeply entrenched at every single level. IF* he tried to "clean" the army of all "bad apples", he would have to resort to such drastic measures that it would be comparable to... (insert here whatever far-reaching/dramatic event you are comfortable with). This actually never took place.

Radu

That is all.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*"IF" = daca, si, se, wenn, als, εάν, 만약에, если, 如果, meaning a possibility, an eventuality, a hypothetical scenario, not something that actually took place.

This post has been edited by Radub on May 21, 2009 10:43 am

1. I shouldn't dignify an answer, but look more on the forum: it seems that you have some "snipping" to do at my posts, not me at yours
2.

We all know it didn't take place as dramatic as you put it. But there were purges, on a small scale (both in absolute numbers and in percents, compared with Dej/Hitler/Stalin's periods! The question is "WHY"? Why didn't Antonescu bother to assure he was actually obeyed, not just heard? If you can, answer to the question, not to MMM! Thanx!

I strongly disagree.
As for your question, it looks like you do not need my (or anyone else's) opinion.
Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on May 21, 2009 11:41 am

Still...
Does the document above seem to any of you worthy of a military dictator?