Site description for Antonescu

I was quite surprised to read what this site has as "description" for Marshal Antonescu.

The note states "This article is centered mainly on the military career of the very controversial personality of marshal Antonescu."
Now from the start, the reader is obviously influenced by the words "very controversial"...
The text continues like this "its purpose isn't to clear him of war crimes or to go into much details about them", hence it is an accepted fact that Marshal Antonescu is a war criminal. Either that or whoever wrote the text has no property for words. If he is a war criminal, then the site should state that directly. If he isnt or this fact is not important, then... rephrase the sentence.

I wont continue further, there are several problems with the text, I have only highlighted the first two in the first phrases. I would only like to say that foreign people read the text and if we as Romanians are forever (it seems) slaves of a certain mentality, then we deserve our present status in Europe.

The point is not to glorify or demonize this person with this topic. But I was truly shocked to see some sentences in there, on a site that in theory should be of high relevance for many visitors.

As some of the comments written by visitors, I tend to agree that we, as a nation, are not capable of having own opinions and we must reproduce in carbon copy what other determine to be the truth! Shame!

I am curios if this will get deleted or censored...

Sending soldiers to face the soviets ,in a war without a cause,poorly armed,without proper weapons and with a very precare suply line not to mention the climate conditions surely makes him a "controversial fellow.
Isn't it?

We could start a debate about what you are implying... that is not the point, yet.

The biggest error most of the people are making, imo, is taking events out of context. Saying something like "sending soldiers to face the soviets ,in a war without a cause" is not accurate.
One either presents only the military achievements of Antonescu, either presents the full context of his political and military decisions. You cannot take things out of context and make them suit an idea.

Yes, Antonescu is a disputed historical figure, RO historians are split opinions about some of his doings. Of course, allow me to disregard some subjective opinions of outsiders that state "the truth" because... you know, they can dictate it due to circumstances.
But when one makes a note on a site and says something like - we do not discuss his politics, only military decisions - and starts with the words "very controversial"... excuse me...

Again, not to be misunderstood, I am not defending Antonescu in this case, neither do I want him demonized. I am just saying that maybe if the site want to avoid the "controversy" about this historical figure, they should at least rephrase the text and not start with "very controversial" - it has a negative connotation from the start and forms an opinion to the reader... then the text states "war crimes" and ... its clear "win - to be the hero, lose and be the war criminal".

This post has been edited by RedBaron on September 27, 2010 08:44 pm

I think this is an issue to do with semantics. When something is "controversial" it only refers to the fact that there is a "controverse" involved. The word "controverse" comes from Latin and means a "contradictory discussion". In other words, a "controverse" involves both a "pro" and and a "contra" side without giving precedence to either, so it does not automatically have a negative connotation (nor a positive one). It simply means that is it a subject of discussion between two parties that do not agree.
Antonescu is such a subject: there are some who adore him and there are some who abhore him. That makes him "controversial".
HTH
Radu

I am the author of the text, as it is clearly mentioned on the respective page. Antonescu is a war criminal, not because he lost the war, but because of the decisions he took. These are established historical facts. There are already several topics on this issue of war crimes. You don't seem to agree with that, but that has little to do with the supposed lack of logic of the note. To me it makes perfect sense:

- Antonescu is a very controversial historical figure, something which Radu already explained
- the purpose of the article is not to treat in detail the war crimes, but attempt to present the biography of Antonescu, without the usual passion displayed by both "sides", something which obviously will include the mention of war crimes.

The fact that some people have Antonescu's picture on a wall is their own problem and I will not shy away from stating the historical truth, simply because this is the right thing to do. Furthermore, denying the obvious truth only leads to exaggerations from the opposite direction.

Ok this changes the "background" of the note.
Antonescu is a war criminal because of the decisions he took, you say.
If this is stated clearly, then I can understand the note and some of my assumptions are now irrelevant.
Its not needed for me to reply to "radub" in this new circumstance.

But, could I ask, in your opinion, which are the decisions that make Antonescu a war criminal, which is the historical truth you are referring to ? - to avoid further speculation.

I dont think people deny the "obvious truth" or not all of them anyway. But which is this "obvious truth" and who states it? If it is "obvious", then its easy for most to agree upon it.
I would like to better understand this "Antonescu" issue and the arguments for both "sides" or in this case, the "war criminal" sort of... side.

A war criminal is someone who comits war crimes.

According to Gary D. Solish in The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War, Cambridge University Press (2010), "war crimes" are "violations of the laws or customs of war"; including "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of hostages, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity".

Take your pick.

Antonescu was found guilty of such war crimes in a court of law. Legally, he was declared a "war criminal". Until that court decision is overturned or quashed, it stands.

Radu

A war criminal is someone who comits war crimes.

According to Gary D. Solish in The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War, Cambridge University Press (2010), "war crimes" are "violations of the laws or customs of war"; including "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of hostages, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity".

Take your pick.

Antonescu was found guilty of such war crimes in a court of law. Legally, he was declared a "war criminal". Until that court decision is overturned or quashed, it stands.

Radu

Do not take this as an offense, it is not directed towards you, but... here we are in 2010 (almost 2011) and we are deep with our heads in the sand, without having any consideration to reality. There is a huge difference between reality and the definitions we find in books.

1) "customs of war" - what? customs of war? does war have rules? I doubt it; this is a pretty general term that can be used easily to put some weight on accusations. One loses the war, one is a war criminal - he didnt respect the customs of war... I does not matter that we are talking about a War, it does not matter that the Army had in general a decent behavior towards the civilians, always we will find isolated cases which, of course, add weight to the charges.
I am sure the Americans did proceed having in mind the "human rights" during ww2 )

2) "ill treatment / deportation of civilians" are you referring to the US citizens that were japanese ethnics, encamped in the US? Because that could be considered a war crime. Or maybe... attacking Iraq nowadays, just because? Is that a war crime?

There is a huge difference between reality and the definitions we find in books. I would really like to have all these ideas put into a context... you know... into the proper context.
Its easy to say... "during this regime, there were accomplished X number of things"... bad/good things.

3) "any devastation not justified by military necessity". Yeah, a nice definition.

As to the trial, are we referring to the mock up trial by the communists? Allow me to speculate, say if the Parliament passes a law, using fraud, do we accept that law as a society? Is that correct?

So, to conclude, is Antonescu a war criminal? I am not here to confirm or dispute that, maybe he is. But, proper facts presented into the real context could clarify it. Hence, if we have this "obvious truth", then... please present it. I want to understand.

regards

Well, you disagreed when he was called a "war criminal" The truth of the matter is that a court of law established legally found him guilty of war crimes. Until that verdict is overturned or quashed (including by demonstarating that the court was biased or manipulated), the verdict still stands. Such is the law. If anyone wants to change a court ruling, the only way to do it is by going through the proper judicial review procedure. Please note that this is just a statement of fact, not an opinion. Everyone can issue opinions. Only courts can issue binding rulings.

It does not matter what others did. This discussion is about Antonescu.

Radu

Well, that cannot be disputed if we look at it in the rigid legal way. That is the verdict and still stands today. Period. Until further appeal, that is the fact. From this point of view I cannot say... more. Its all clear.

But, still, ok! in a biased subjective way, lets put it like that, I would need more to this war criminal act, than... that mock up trial. Its easy to contest that... many do.

Again, not always, reality and... rulings, definitions and so forth are in a complete connection. There is an artificial way of playing with words and notions, and when that method is used... well truth is distorted. Usually such a method is used when in complete power.
Its all about the "others also". One cannot label a person "war criminal" for some defined actions, while the others... those are worthy citizens. No no no! Its all about the context in which one is labeled in some specific way...

I ask again if the Allied actions in ww2, some specific actions they did, similar if not identical to our own, were War Crimes or not? Is Rommel a war criminal? What about the Soviet Generals? We could go on and on... What about Henry Ford? And no, I am not pushing the envelope with this example. How about the "negro" (excuse the word, but its for context purpose) issue in the US Army, basically a discrimination during and after ww2. Lose the war, be the war criminal...

What are customs of war, does the A Bomb fit in there? We could go on and on.

So, this message, I would again conclude it in the same way, asking for that "obvious truth". That trial is not holding to nowadays reality and rulings. Was Antonescu a war criminal... possibly yes, possibly not... I want to know.

This post has been edited by RedBaron on September 28, 2010 02:25 pm

Well, that IS the custom...
As for a permanent, definitive decision regarding Antonescu as a war criminal, it depends very much who (and when) is judging.
Strictly speaking, under his "regime", there were attrocities directed against the Jews; I have to be more exact: attrocities ordered and wilfully done by Romanian soldiers and officers. So, for that, he may be considered a war criminal. But did he save tens (maye hundreds) of thousands of Jews from the "Final Solution"? Yes, he did!
There are way more things to be said for each side, of course!
But, in the end, he was one of the rulers of Romania in bad times, so he's got to stay next to other historical figures, be they good or evil...
Cheers,
Mihai

Under his regime happened many things... of course. But... what is the context? That is precisely the point, because to accuse and charge a person directly for "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity" one needs to present proof of intention and action.
Same goes for the "saving" part.

Antonescu received... let me quote from the site "In May 1946 they returned to Romania to be put on trial by the so-called People's Court. Following a mock trial, on 17 May 1946, he was convicted to six death penalties, two life in prison sentences, 80 years in jail and 140 years of civic degradation."

So he received 6 death penalties??? Plus a whole bunch of other things. Now, I think there should be some pretty solid evidence and "obvious truths" to convict a man in that manner.

Hence... its difficult for me to accept such a ruling based on...? What... Soviet ruling? Current interests?
So, I conclude, I would rephrase the Note on the site... things can be said in another more decent manner than: "Its purpose isn't to clear him of war crimes or to go into much details about them". If one would state: [the purpose of the Bio is to present the military career and not to discuss the political implications] would leave more room for history to decide rather than... us giving support to mock up trials.
And about the "very controversial", the notion as it was explained is correct. Still, it has attached to it a negative connotation and the word "very" adds weight. If one would have used the word "disputed", now that seems to me more neutral. Maybe I am subjective.

regards

Well, that IS the custom...

It depends. Antonescu was executed and his burial site is still unknown. Horthy lived peacefully after the war and wrote his memoirs in Portugal. He was also given a nice burial in which state officials publicly called him a "national hero":

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/05/world/re...-s-hungary.html

So where's the justice?

In Portugal? Horthy had the common sense NOT to be betrayed by his own and sent to Lubyanka!

In Portugal? Horthy had the common sense NOT to be betrayed by his own and sent to Lubyanka!

Does it matter who betrayed him or not? He was in Allied hands but he got scotch free.