Site description for Antonescu

Well, if you insist...
Allied is not the same with Russian/Soviet hands. Many people that fell in the Russian "custody" were never heard from again, whereas the Western Allies had a slightly different approach.
What's more, Horthy's regime was overtrown by Hitler, so in the last few months of the war, the Admiral could pretend he opposed Hitler. AFAIK, some Jewish (rich) friends of Horthy secured his Portuguese exile until his death...
I think I'll ask Denes for help in this matter, as he's more familiar with the character in debate (Miklos Horthy, that is). I also won't dismiss so easy the fact that he wasn't surrendered to the Red Army by his own countrymen like Antonescu.

When a few minutes earlier I've read the top of the previous page, I was telling to myself: let's see how many threads down the road will Horthy be dragged into this unrelated topic and somehow compared to Antonescu. It took earlier than expected (thanks, Imp.).

This denotes what I deducted quite a while ago: such forums don't really help changing someone's mindset if he/she firmly believes in something he/she was indoctrinated with throughout the years, no matter how many proofs and arguments are brought forward.
Old myths die hard. Such is human behaviour, it seems.

Gen. Dénes

P.S. For those who have been here for a short period only, if interested why Horthy wasn't a war criminal, please check the proper thread. In a nutshell, the Allies (Russians included) could not find any crimes to charge him with. Therefore, he was summoned to the Nuremberg Trials only as a witness, and after that let go.

This post has been edited by Dénes on September 28, 2010 07:41 pm

When a few minutes earlier I've read the top of the previous page, I was telling to myself: let's see how many threads down the road will Horthy be dragged into this unrelated topic and somehow compared to Antonescu. It took earlier than expected (thanks, Imp.).

This denotes what I deducted quite a while ago: such forums don't really help changing someone's mindset if he/she firmly believes in something he/she was indoctrinated with throughout the years, no matter how many proofs and arguments are brought forward.
Old myths die hard. Such is human behaviour, it seems.

Gen. Dénes

P.S. For those who have been here for a short period only, if interested why Horthy wasn't a war criminal, please check the proper thread. In a nutshell, the Allies (Russians included) could not find any crimes to charge him with. Therefore, he was summoned to the Nuremberg Trials only as a witness, and after that let go.

Horthy was an Axis head of state.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/hungarian-photos/

How could you stop something you are not in a position to control/decide?

It's obvious that Horthy could have been placed on the defendants' stand at Nuremberg had the Allies wanted to. The fact that he wasn't is proof that not all the leaders that lost that war became convicted war criminals. I think the Japanese Emperor is another example. In that case too it was the Americans' choice not to put him on trial although they could have.

That choice was also linked with the desire of NOT invading the mainland Japanese isles...
Indeed we're getting off-topic here, although it isn't entirely wrong to judge Antonescu alongside other Axis leaders...

RedBaron,it would be nice if you'll explain to the thousands of hostages shot in Odesa that they were victims of "cicumstacies".Same goes to those who died from huger in Vapniarka,etc.Yes I know they were sub humans ,and not worth taking into account.BTW,the same "circumstaces " did not work in Bulgaria and,until 44 in Hungary.
You cannot contradict the facts,you can know them or not. And
yes ,it was a kanguroo court,but any other court in the world whould have reached the same conclusions.

This post has been edited by guina on September 28, 2010 08:28 pm

First, we should avoid putting words in anyone's mouth.
I did not say anyone was subhuman... and dont imply I would have certain beliefs! That's far from keeping this discussion fair, to put it gently.

I did not say circumstances, I said context. Put the facts into the context. A thing that you avoided to do.
You reply to me and say "tell those poor guys that got shot at Odessa...", no my friend! You specify exactly about what event you are referring to, what year, all the details you know; in a word, you present me a concrete situation so I can then comment.
Many people and soldiers died of hunger all over Russia... again, you specify exactly, do not throw accusations in thin air! Because also Allied soldiers died of hunger or thirst due to various decisions... in Africa or in Europe... so throwing words around will not help any discussion on this matter.

I dont want to contradict facts. Please present them.

You say any other Court in the world would have given the same verdict... so why is that? Because you say so? Or why? Because of the facts?! Which facts convicted this person to numerous death penalties, life in prion, etc.
Then how come that was a mock up trial and court, if any other court would have given the same verdict? - as you say. Doesnt add up.

Until now nobody came forward to present a few facts. No passion involved, just facts... only general accusations. As I said, I want to know the truth, the obvious truth, to know at least some facts so I can decide for myself about this historical figure that some have a lot of consideration for, others on the contrary.

Yeah, Horthy... I didnt bring him up, but some parallels do exist. As for Marshal Petain How many parallels do we have between Petain and Antonescu?! Many!

This post has been edited by RedBaron on September 28, 2010 11:09 pm

RedBaron, some war crimes were already discussed and I doubt some of the old members have the time and willingness to start this discussion over and over again. You will find a number of topics regarding war crimes, with dates and places, in the "Romanian Army at War" section of the forum.

In as far as I can understand, the origin of this whole thread was that RedBaron had a problem with the use of the words "very controversial" to describe Marshall Antonescu.

As this thread proves very clearly, HE IS controversial. Good one, Sherlock!

Radu

"History is written by the victors" and is obvious that they decide who is war criminal and who is NOT. Then...Why Roosevelt is not a war criminal as his army launched 2 atomic bombs when the war was almost ended (or even Einstein as his contribution to the design of the atomic bomb was decisive?).
So, as "war criminal" is a relative sentence (because someone commiting war crimes is an war criminal and otherone commiting more/big war crimes is NOT), I agree with RedBaron when saying that the words about the Antonescu are too heavy. If you say something like "some of his decisions was very controversional (like killing civilians in Odessa, etc.)" is better that to say "Antonescu is very controversional" in general.
Thanks!!

The main war crimes that I could trace to Antonescu's orders from the bibliography at my disposal are listed in the article:
- deportation of Bessarabian and Bukovinian Jews, of which about a half survived
- deportation of Gypsies, of which about a half survived
- the second wave of reprisals at Odessa

Like Dragos already mentioned there are older threads about these subjects, like for example: http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=118&st=0.

The war crimes committed by others, which aren't now labeled as war criminals because they won the war, are besides the point weather Antonescu was one as well or not and they are also offtopic.

Your observation is noted, but the text remains as it is. Antonescu was a war criminal, not because the kangaroo court that convicted him said so, but because he is responsible for war crimes.

For those who bring in discussion the fact that other more or less controversial personalities were responsible for war crimes but were not found guilty as so, you can look at it from this perspective: in present legal and judiciary system, there are some thieves or felons that get caught and get behind bars, while others get away with it, because of one reason or another. If there are thieves that get away, for equity should we absolve of guilt the ones who get caught?

So it means that this site only note the sentence in force of Antonescu as "very contoversional" war criminal...if it will be a process that will change his sentence then his description as a "very controversional" probably will be changed accordingly on the site.
As a very courageous commander of Romania in a complicated period when nobody assumed responsibility...is not faire (even true) to name Antonescu "very controversial". Thanks!

That is not a problem, if someone wants to put in a message ok, if not, its ok again.

Such a topic is normal to appear once in a while, because of its subject.

In as far as I can understand, the origin of this whole thread was that RedBaron had a problem with the use of the words "very controversial" to describe Marshall Antonescu.

As this thread proves very clearly, HE IS controversial. Good one, Sherlock!

Radu

Well, you did not comprehend fully... Spock!

The origin of the topic started from RedBaron's issue with the initial phrases of the Introductory Note in which Antonescu is referred to as "Very Controversial" and I explained why in my opinion that had a negative connotation and "War Criminal" while stating that Military decisions are the main focus of that particular article.
More than that War Criminal charges were issued by a Soviet biased Court of law and... we know what that means! Soviets should be the last on this earth to convict people for "war crimes"...

As I said initially, I feel we, as in Nation, shouldnt be always on our knees and accept everything we are thrown at... We "eat" and/or downgrade our historical figures out of interests, usually foreign. We are accepting any kind of imposed argument or text book definitions to demonize people that might not have been the demons they need to represent.

What I am trying to say is that we accept all the blame unconditionally... we always do that as country. This is the mentality... here. I did not see same things for the Finns or Hungarians for that matter. Those are proud people, they wont bend easily like we do. No, we accept anything. Thats a shame...

For those that will understand this message as a pro-Antonescu and as acceptance for whatever persecutions there were... you can stop that thinking. I am not defending him, its just that its hard to accept Soviet rulings over people... any people, more as we talk about Antonescu.

This post has been edited by RedBaron on September 29, 2010 12:53 pm