Red Army in Romania - August 1944

[dragos]

QUOTE

It was not inevitable if the gradual and defensive retreat would have been executed under Antonescu's lead. The Soviets promised that \"the Romanian Army wouldn't be disarmed\" only to Antonescu's government. The coup d'état of 23 August rendered obsolete every Soviet promise, because USSR did not negotiate anything with King Michael or Moscony, but with Antonescu and his emissaries.

Well, in this case I'm sure the Soviets would have kept their promise. :?

[Geto-Dacul]

Victor wrote :

QUOTE

If that were true it would have come up in his written testimony from the evening of 23 August 1944. Instead he argues that he could have never accepted the Soviet demands.

At Antonescu's "trial" of 1946, Gheorghe Bratianu made a very interesting deposition :

"In the morning of 23 August 1944, I was send to Snagov by the chiefs of the opposition, who gave me the task to talk with Mr. Marshal[Antonescu] for the immediate conclusion of the armistice. This, after the events on the Moldavian front. I executed this task. I went to Snagov and I talked with Mr. Marshal and Mr. M. Antonescu. I add that before me was also for the same scope Mr. Ion Mihalache. They agreed to give the written assentiment, that was to be given during the day. ]"During our discussion, Mr. Mihai Antonescu and Mr. Marshal have had the initiative of an audience at the [Royal] Palace, and there was even a phone call, myself being there, in that scope. Mr. Marshal demanded me the written assentiment of the chiefs of the opposition to conclude the armistice in the known conditions and he said to me, I remember, that if he received that written aprobation, indifferently of the German's point of vue, he will conclude the armistice. He wanted that I brought the written answer before 15:00PM. I assured him that I'll be with it before 15:00PM. I got back to Bucharest. There was a certain delay before the chiefs of the three parties of the opposition could meet. I communicated to them Mr. Marshal's answer. But they authorized me to communicate to the Marshal before 15:00PM that he could use the assentiment at the meeting with the King, at 16:00PM, at the Palace. When I was at Snagov they informed me about the meeting with [German minister] Clodius, and I knew that Mr. Marshal was to sign the armistice."

[Victor]

Yes, interesting indeed, since during the Council of Ministers on 23 August the marshal communicated his intention of going on the front on 24 August and taking direct command of the troops, leaving Mihai Antonescu to take care of the government. Also, during the meeting at the Palace, before his arrest, he said that he said that he could not sign the armistice. In his so-called "testament", written during his hours of detention at the Palace, he motivated this decision.

QUOTE

according to Mircea Ioanitiu, in his personal \"Memoirs\", at page 24 : \"In the morning of 23 August I was awakened by Mihai Antonescu's phone, who asked an audience for him and the marshal to the king, that day

I found a somehow different version, taken also from the same source. Mihai Antonescu asked for the audience for him, but from the Palace it was requested that the marshal come also. The marshal then changed his mind and gen. Sanatescu managed eventually to convince him to come.

[inahurry]

Of course you have different views than I do. And those views of yours are neither "middle of the road" nor very subtle, they always lead to one conclusion even if you don't always express it explicitly and even if your style is evenly paced.

And the reality you paint is not grey it's bleak. Sure, if anyone, including myself, wants to paint it differently I suppose is free to do it, or am I wrong ? And part of my way to do it was to post that short comment reflecting what I think of your position about Antonescu.

I read most of your post and when it comes to Ion Antonescu it is always the same. It's your choice to select and arrange information the way it pleases you, you are biased nevertheless. Others may think otherwise, is their choice and I surely invite them to read your posts, I'm sure there are people more knowledgeable than myself, maybe historians too who may contribute with interesting views.

[Dénes]

inahurry wrote:

QUOTE

It's your choice to select and arrange information the way it pleases you, you are biased nevertheless.

I don't think Victor can be accused of bias. I also follow all his posts - not only on this forum - and, so far, there is no clear trace of a biased approach to any particular topic.
I think there are other visitor of this forum who would also agree with me.

Dénes

[Bernard Miclescu]

Indeed a very interesting "channel". Several ways to think and to juge the history. For my part, Mr Victor, Mr Dragos are seeing history from above. Like a historian should do. Mr geto-dacul and ... (forgot the name) are seeing history with passion (pasiune) because they have the same willings and thoughts of the xxth century balcan nationalists. Maybe i'm a little bit harsh. Please excuse me.

If Mr geto-dacul could read a great book that I finnished one week ago, maybe he will see one point of vue similar to Mr Victor: "Romania in al doilea razboi mondial" by Dinu C Giurescu. But please don't forget: we can not interpret History, we only can show History like it was.

With respect,
Bernard Miclescu

[Geto-Dacul]

Bernard Miclescu wrote :

QUOTE

Mr geto-dacul and ... (forgot the name) are seeing history with passion (pasiune) because they have the same willings and thoughts of the xxth century balcan nationalists. Maybe i'm a little bit harsh. Please excuse me.

And nationalists are inevitably bad people, if I can read between the lines? So this kind of people (of the "past 20th Century") cannot and should not exist today too? Passion is a pure HUMAN feeling, that cannot be minimized, even in history books. Passion is a vital and natural thing in life, and everyone does what he likes more with passion... Or Mr.Giurescu writes books like an automat for money?

QUOTE

But please don't forget: we can not interpret History, we only can show History like it was.

I did not invent any of my citations, which are original... If you do not like them, you could sure come with something better, from your recently finished book of Giurescu, for example... :wink:

Regards,

G-D

"Les passions abaissent, la passion élève."

-Mihai Eminescu

[Victor]

QUOTE

If Mr geto-dacul could read a great book that I finnished one week ago, maybe he will see one point of vue similar to Mr Victor: \"Romania in al doilea razboi mondial\" by Dinu C Giurescu.

Actually most of the information I used on this thread was taken from that book, which IMO is one of the best yet (excepting the military actions where it contains some mistakes and is too "thin"). I also used Romania in al doilea razboi mondial (1941-45) by Mihnea Romalo, but which is a little biased towards marshal Antonescu.

QUOTE

And the reality you paint is not grey it's bleak. Sure, if anyone, including myself, wants to paint it differently I suppose is free to do it, or am I wrong ? And part of my way to do it was to post that short comment reflecting what I think of your position about Antonescu I read most of your post and when it comes to Ion Antonescu it is always the same. It's your choice to select and arrange information the way it pleases you, you are biased nevertheless.

Examples would be more convincing.

[Bernard Miclescu]

geto-dacul wrote:
And nationalists are inevitably bad people, if I can read between the lines? So this kind of people (of the "past 20th Century") cannot and should not exist today too? Passion is a pure HUMAN feeling, that cannot be minimized, even in history books. Passion is a vital and natural thing in life, and everyone does what he likes more with passion... Or Mr.Giurescu writes books like an automat for money?

Sir, please read again my message. I didn't tell anything rong about the the XXth century balkan nationalists. For me it's only an archaic way to present History. The passion is natural, of course, but even with this we can not change History. That's why I am trying to see History like it was.

geto-dacul wrote:
"Les passions abaissent, la passion élève."

Eminescu was a romantic nationalist, like Iorga. Today things are changing. We can't live in two separated worlds (past and present)
But this is only my point of vue.

For more explanaitions please read the first chapter of the book "N Iorga - o biografie" written by Nicholas Nagy-Talavera.

Trully yours,
Bernard

[Geto-Dacul]

Bernard Miclescu wrote :

QUOTE

I didn't tell anything rong about the the XXth century balkan nationalists.

From your point of vue, of course that what you did tell about Balkan nationalists is not wrong... What is wrong is that you contradicted your own "scientific and objective" point of vue by judging subjectively the Balkan nationalists, but under the same paravan of "modern objectivity"... E la mintea cocosului...

QUOTE

For me it's only an archaic way to present History.

Archaic or not archaic, history repeats herself, like it or not. What is past, is still valuable for the future.

QUOTE

The passion is natural, of course, but even with this we can not change History.

The idea here is not to change history, but to present it from multiple angles... Read my other statements and quotations.

QUOTE

That's why I am trying to see History like it was.

Giurescu is far from being the only Romanian source of history.

QUOTE

Eminescu was a romantic nationalist, like Iorga.

Eminescu's opera is not only poems... See his political side too.

QUOTE

Today things are changing.

Things ARE NOT necessarily changing in good, just because we are in the 21st Century (which is an international convention)...

QUOTE

We can't live in two separated worlds (past and present)

Present without past cannot exist, as an old man (cannot exist) without having been young.

QUOTE

For more explanaitions please read the first chapter of the book \"N Iorga - o biografie\" written by Nicholas Nagy-Talavera.

No need of more explanations; I already read that book, very interesting and understanding for a book wrote by a Hungarian Jew!

Best regards,

G-D

[Victor]

Please get back on topic.

[Geto-Dacul]

Victor wrote :

QUOTE

Yes, interesting indeed, since during the Council of Ministers on 23 August the marshal communicated his intention of going on the front on 24 August and taking direct command of the troops, leaving Mihai Antonescu to take care of the government. Also, during the meeting at the Palace, before his arrest, he said that he could not sign the armistice. In his so-called \"testament\", written during his hours of detention at the Palace, he motivated this decision.

The only ones who knew the story about interview at the palace were the Marshal and Mihai Antonescu, Michael, Sanatescu, Mocsony and Aldea (the last two were behind a door)... So versions can be different, taking in account that interests were different. Actually, we have see generally only the king's version.

Let's see what is general's Aurel Aldea point of vue, when he was Minister of the Interior :
"The day of 23 August, a day of salvation for the country, found us un-prepared technically. The coup d'état was planified for the day of 26 August, but, in the morning of 23 August, I was informed by the king that in the after-noon of that day, he will accept an audience to Marshal Antonescu and Mihai Antonescu. In the morning of 23 August was held a counsil of ministers, and the decisions of it were unknown for me.After the breakfast at the Palace, were general Sanatescu, Niculescu-Buzesti and Mocsonyi-Styrcea participated, a conference was organized with all of us, on the theme of what could have determined Marshal Antonescu to demand an audience to the king. Marshal Antonescu communicated during the audience, his decision of making the armistice, adding that he talked with the [German] minister Clodius on the subject. This could have made the Germans occupy the entire country, and maybe even the arrest and deportation of the king and of those of were collaborating with him. At the audience, were general Sanatescu was also participating, was brusquely interrupted by the king, who, for a few minutes, comed to communicate, to us who were still in an adjacent room, the Marshal's decision of making the armistice. After we advised ourselves a little bit, we comed to the conclusion that, without wayting anymore the day of 26 August, and with risking our lifes, we must arrest immediately the Marshal and Mihai Antonescu.(!!!)"

ALDEA, Aurel : article published in Curierul of 13 October 1944.

[Victor]

QUOTE

The only ones who knew the story about interview at the palace were the Marshal and Mihai Antonescu, Michael, Sanatescu, Mocsony and Aldea (the last two were behind a door)

I was referring to the Council of Ministers that took place early on 23 August. This had nothing to do with what happened at the Palace. The written summary still exists and apparently supports the version that the marshal said he was going on the front the next day to take effective control of the army and leaving Mihai Antonescu in charge of the government.

During his detention at the palace the marshal wrote a memoir through which he motivated his attitude:
For about two years now, Mihai Antonescu tried to obtain from the Anglo-Americans guarantees for the future of the country. If he would have found any, I would have signed the armistice even when Germany was strong.
I requested from Berlin the permission to negotiate an armistice
The acceptance of the Soviet conditions from April would have meant:
to allow the Soviets to move around Romania where they wanted to, that is to allow them to occupy the territory, with all the consequences
to put the country in a perpetual state of slavery, because the sums for reparations were not mentioned
to practically renounce at Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina

He concluded that:
The fact that we are its neighbors, its attitude towards Finland, the Baltic countries and Poland, the tragic experiences of the others, which were subjugated by Russia after believing its promises, save me from insisting.

From this document the only thing that results is that he wanted to negotiate the armistice. Not sign it.

[Geto-Dacul]

Victor wrote :

QUOTE

From this document the only thing that results is that he wanted to negotiate the armistice. Not sign it.

YES. Antonescu was wayting for a "clearer" response from the Soviet part. I actually see as naive the attitude of both Antonescu & opposition, to hope obtaining Anglo-American "gurantees", when it was obvious that the Soviets had the initiative.

QUOTE

He concluded that:   The fact that we are its neighbors, its attitude towards Finland, the Baltic countries and Poland, the tragic experiences of the others, which were subjugated by Russia after believing its promises, save me from insisting.

His conclusion was sincere, correct and realistic...

[inahurry]

A bit late, better late than never, with a comment.

Nationalists are the bad guys, nothing new about that. Neither new but at least more interesting the assertion the nationalists can't look "from above" (like a Condor maybe?) and that they are inevitably biased because they are emotional and (the Balkan reference) outdated. The truth is simpler, there are people who see the present days interests in occulting certain historical interpretations. The conformists see or even promote those interests but never admit it. Outdated, outdated but even if they use the word 'patriotism' instead it strikes me Americans are outdated too, iraqis, muslims (though prone to be internationalists) as they may be are a little displeased with the American patriotism and use their own to counter it, Israelis are a bit biased toward their country too, frankly I don't know of any nation who isn't resorting to the 'outdated' nationalism when the need arises.

Ideological imperialisms have proven to be far more devastating than national imperialisms and yet the internationalist god is not satisfied with the sacrifices he demanded until now. I don't advocate any kind of imperialism, mind you.

The above comment doesn't refer to the administrators of this site, especially one of them whose posts I followed more thoroughly, I think he genuinely is convinced of his interpretation based on his analysis and what I consider bias comes thus from his confidence he is right. I openly challenged that as he challenges some of my assertions. I doubt he likes to be categorized by a third party. I know I wouldn't like it.