Marshal Ion Antonescu

[Florin]

Hi,

In a closed topic, started by a forum member who died in combat (the Forum army, like any real army, may take casualties...), there was the following:

QUOTE

Or compare the number of Horthy or Szálasi statues or streets (ZERO) with the number of Antonescu's in Romania...

As we have "The thread of stupid questions", my question is:

What is wrong in having the statue of Antonescu exposed in the Romanian streets?
By the way... I am serious.

And 2nd question: It is true that at least in the past (the 50's...the 70's), there was a statue of Antonescu erected in Tel Aviv, Israel, to commemorate the fact his regime was not so harsh with the Romanian Jews?

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

What is wrong in having the statue of Antonescu exposed in the Romanian streets?

He was ultimately a dictator acting in support of the fascists regimes of Europe ?

On the oher hand what were his great achievements which would warrant a statue in the first place ? :question:

[Florin]

QUOTE

..... On the oher hand what were his great achievements which would warrant a statue in the first place ?  :question:

The big achievement was to manage the survival of Romania as a state with official institutions, including an operational army. Most European countries simply ceased to exist as states in those troubled years.
So the common Romanian living the daily life in 1940...1944 had some rights as citizen of a functional real state, rights which would not exist if that area would be a "no mans land" occupied by Germany, or later by Russia.

About the statues... I am afraid we returned with the mentality to the times of the Inquizition and of the Spanish conquistadors, who destroyed any work of art not good from their point of view. This contemporary pressure of some certain groups and organizations to order to the rest of the world what is good and what is wrong will not lead to something good, believe me.
My question started from my quote from Najroda... Because of that, I may say: Do the Hungarians want to install statues of Horthy and Sallasi inside their borders? This is not my problem. The fact that actually there are no statues of them, as Najroda said, is not my problem, either. If there would be some statues, this also is not my problem, since Hungary is an independent country.
A statue is a piece of bronze or stone. It doesn't move, it doesn't bite, and it is built on the expense of the locals, not on the expense of a foreign country.

[dragos]

[quote]He was ultimately a dictator acting in support of the fascists regimes of Europe ?[/quote]

He was a dictator acting in the interest of Romania.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

QUOTE He was ultimately a dictator acting in support of the fascists regimes of Europe ? He was a dictator acting in the interest of Romania.

I thought they all pretend to be acting in the interest of their country. But then why do they need dictatorship for such a noble, popular goal ?

[Florin]

QUOTE

QUOTE QUOTE He was ultimately a dictator acting in support of the fascists regimes of Europe ? He was a dictator acting in the interest of Romania. I thought they all pretend to be acting in the interest of their country. But then why do they need dictatorship for such a noble, popular goal ?

Chandernagore...

We are considering September 1940, as it was for Europe, and as it was for Romania. Romania was in one of the most difficult situations in Europe, if you do not consider the countries already invaded and ceasing to exist.
Romania had democratic elections continuously, from 1864 to 1938. The elected governments acted with various efficiency, over the years. Romania was on the verge of collapse at the beginning of September 1940. Antonescu is not responsible for the situation of Romania as of September 6th, 1940, when he took the political power from King Carol the 2nd. Until that day he was in arrest at his home, because he disagreed politically with the king. The king was a dictator since 1938, because the king dissolved the democratic institutions of Romania in 1938. Antonescu acted for the best interest of Romania, at least in the delicate period of September 1940 - June 1941. If your answer will be a kind of "blah-blah", I'll simply ignore it... and that's it.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

We are considering September 1940, as it was for Europe, and as it was for Romania. Romania was in one of the most difficult situations in Europe, if you do not consider the countries already invaded and ceasing to exist.

Of all the invaded countries, I know only one which cease to exist : Poland. (and then only on German & Russian maps). All the others were only occupied. Perhaps you mean that they temporarily lost their independance.

QUOTE

Antonescu acted for the best interest of Romania, at least in the delicate period of September 1940 - June 1941. If your answer will be a kind of \"blah-blah\", I'll simply ignore it... and that's it.

If you say so...thats' it.

[Alexandru H.]

I never liked WW2 Antonescu. I tend to be biased for Moldavians, but in this case I always make an exception.

I agree, there are dictators and dictators. Some, like Franco, managed to have a beneficial role in WW2. Some were plain stupid and useless. And there is Antonescu, who is neither stupid, nor useless, but unfortunately for us, not even beneficial.

A great man, but a poor diplomat; a patriot, yet a political blindman; opposing Carol II, he managed to humiliate Michael in the same way as his father did; his famous quote "in the battle between germans and russians, I support the germans; in the battle between germans and the allies, I am neutral; in the battle between the japanese and USA, I support USA" (forgive the fact that I don't know it by heart), is symptomatic for the fact that he was not your average fascist puppet, but, in spite of this unique situation, he kept defending the german effort in Russia, sent his troops to Odessa or Stalingrad (military disasters in my opinion for our army) and refused to find solutions after the germans had began to lose the war...

[Florin]

QUOTE

... Of all the invaded countries, I know only one which cease to exist : Poland. (and then only on German & Russian maps).  All the others were only occupied. Perhaps you mean that they temporarily lost their independance.

I had in my hands a Romanian geography teaching book, to be used by the 1944 series of children. It is interesting that all the countries were presented as nothing happened in the previous years of war! (Some borders movements, i.e. territorial changes, were shown, however.)
But in that geography teaching book you could still learn about France, Poland etc. as separate entities.

Also I had in my hand a very good and interesting Romanian almanac for children (first few grades). It was printed in 1940, titled "Children Almanac 1941", and spared the little kids from the cruelty of politics. However, on just one page there was like an update of Europe and the "...painful and sad changes which occurred... Poland, a state with more than 35 million people, ceased to exist..."
I do not remember clearly, but logically the territorial losses of Romania should be mentioned. However, I think they were not explicit. They mentioned something about the terrible things incurred to Romania ("our country" in text), but with no details.

[Dénes]

Was in those textbooks anything mentioned about wartime Bessarabia, more precisely the "reunification of Bessarabia to Rumania", or similar? How about the so-called Cadrilater?

I remember in my school history textbook of the '70s (called back then "Manual for History of Rumania") the Transylvanian border between Rumania and Hungary, in effect between 1940 and 1944, was constantly referred to as the "Rumanian-Hungarian demarcation line" and was always marked on maps only with small dots, unlike Rumania's other wartime boundaries.

[Florin]

Denes,

The more I think, the more I remember that the borders in that geography teaching book for the 1944 series of children had shown the borders as they were in 1938! Czechoslovakia was shown as before Munchen, Poland was shown as before 1939, and so on. The book was definitely for the series of children of 1944.

Maybe because it was a geography book, no reference to history was made. But as in any geography book, they discussed economics, shown photos - mostly from capitals, mentioned the colonial empire of the country, in any etc.

You mentioned in your post your history school book. I did not have the chance to see a history manual for the 1944 series.
When I posted about these old books, I thought it is time to pay again a visit to my grandparents house - now not inhabited. This time to take all the old prints from there, before rats, insects, microscopic mushrooms and humidity will destroy everything.

[Florin]

QUOTE

I never liked WW2 Antonescu........and refused to find solutions after the germans had began to lose the war...

Alexandru,

I forgot when you joined the forum, but sometimes in September or October 2003 there were long posts and few topics about the politics of Romania in 1944.

Antonescu was in negotiations with Stalin, and the reason of the stalemate of discussions was that Antonescu did not want to give Bessarabia to Soviet Union. He did not want to give away a half of Moldavia.
Your dear Moldavia, which you love so much.

[Alexandru H.]

Bessarabia is not pure Moldavian land....even now, it can be part of the Moldavian Empire just as a colony (at first, I agree, because after 20-30 years, it could be ready to assume full rights in the confederation).

[Victor]

QUOTE

Bessarabia is not pure Moldavian land....even now, it can be part of the Moldavian Empire just as a colony (at first, I agree, because after 20-30 years, it could be ready to assume full rights in the confederation).

:shock: What?

[Alexandru H.]

Uhhhh...nothing. Wrong forum....