Site description for Antonescu

Your example is good, but I find it inappropriate. I explain: Antonescu represented this country, either we like it or not, between 1940-1944. He was basically the Head of State. Now, if...say... a decision by a... factor... rules that in Romania there was a Holocaust because of his actions, then... not only you cast a certain guilt over that person, but also on all that nation. This is the huge difference.
A thief is a thief, while to convict a nation...

Some people said... what about those soldiers sent to the front without... yeah, what about Winston Churchill and his awesome failure (Gallipoli) in ww1 when he sent that task force to the Turkish shores... its exactly the same. The difference is that one is Romanian and lost the war, while the other is British and won it (or both ww1 and ww2).

Does it matter at all that all of Europe was in a frenzy to persecute Jews in the late 30s? From Spain to the Soviet Union? That there was this fascist movement all across Europe and it had representatives in RO also? Does this make Antonescu an anti-jewish person, the way he is described usually?
That in Romania, Antonescu directly approached and condemned acts of persecution against jews, peasants and any citizens for that matter? Are we forgetting the make-up of the Romanian Communist Party in the late 30s and their support towards USSR, being the only political voice to agree to the dissolution of RO? Are we forgetting the behavior of some citizens when Basarabia was ceased to the Soviets? Are we forgetting the Army HQ being blown up? Why cannot we defend any of the accusations, at least partially? Because we dont want to? Or maybe there are some interests... who knows...
Is Fidel Castro a War Criminal? or Che?

I know, I know... I am indoctrinated... no I aint. I would like us to think more openly and try to fit some things in the adequate context. To attack things that must be convicted its only normal, but also to have recognized merits or even simple facts... if we deserve to! We must have dignity... or try to regain it.
My subjective opinion.

This post has been edited by RedBaron on September 29, 2010 01:23 pm

RedBaron, "your opinion" was very clear from the very beginning.

Antonescu IS "very controversial" and this thread proves is amply. He was not universally loved nor was he universally hated. He stirs strong emotions, rows and agreement, love and hate. To call him "controversial" is actually to put it mildly.

Trust me, calling him a "hero" or a "criminal" usually leads to endless discussion, as proven in this thread. It invariably leads to interminable discussions about "what is a hero?" and "what is a criminal?". One man's hero is another man's villain. What is the middle ground? Yes, you are right boys and girls: call him "controlversial" and let the readers make up their own minds on which side they want to be.

This has nothing to do with Romanians as a nation or with biased courts. It is a fact. There will never be consensus about "Antonescu". Trust me, you will not succed in changing that.

As if it mattered, my vote is to call him "controversial". In my opinion, that is a compliment.

Radu

Still I would go with "disputed"... cant seem to get around this "controversial" term, though, I understand that the meaning isnt negative... it only has that connotation, be it even false.

This post has been edited by RedBaron on September 29, 2010 01:49 pm

Why does Antonescu need a negative Note/Description at the beginning of his Biography and others generals do NOT on the same website? Why don't his description simply starts with "date of birth..." ?, like wikipedia always do.

A short message about the "A" Bomb issue.
You see... this is war, keep in mind... the official explanation for the use of the "A" Bomb was that it cut the losses of American Military in a drastic way while forcing the Empire of Japan to surrender, as opposed to the classic "DDAY" invasion of Japan to achieve the surrender.
Lets not forget the resolve and fanatical ways of the Japanese, all the Kamikaze actions, more than that, they had even a plan to send a special Submarine to the US coast and from there some special conceived planes (called the Seiran) were to spread some toxic gas over american cities... yeah... war... brutal and without limits.

Returning, if such an atomic bomb would have been used by "X" country against "Y" country and "X" would have lost the war... guess whaaaaat?! Yep, war criminals.

Mostly the same for Antonescu, he lost the war, people died, war criminal. As easy as that to justify... everything else fades away.

This post has been edited by RedBaron on September 29, 2010 01:58 pm

Because thats the way it must be...

Read also the final of the article, where he and his followers refused to die, though shot many times, etc. I guess evil dies hard or such
It was like reading from an "old school" newspaper

Sorry, couldnt resist this "out of line" remark.

You actually find the word "disputed" milder than "controversial"?
Look, I am not trying to be pedantic, but... they mean the same thing.
http://dexonline.ro/definitie/disputat

Trust me, you are completely misunderstanding the word. "Very Controversial" is actually a good label in his case.

Radu

"Controversial" means "Controversat", an NOT "Disputat" as your search in DEX...and belive me that "very controversial" has a very negative conotation especially for a military carrer. When you write your CV for example...do you make a note saying "I have a very controversial experience" or "I have a brilliant background". I ask just NOT to judge Antonescu...because others already did this...let his biography as it is...from his birth to his death.

Off topic: A veteran who was in the firing platoon said me that the soldiers did not open fire at the first command. Ask them if Antonescu was controversial!
Thansk,
Dan.

RedBar... oops sorry, dan-531983...read for yourself:
http://dexonline.ro/definitie/Controversat
http://dexonline.ro/definitie/Disputat

How many angels can dance on a pin head?
Is 14 the most a hair can be split into?

To quote Shakespeare, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" You can call him whatever you want, labels work only on superficial fools who care only about the headline and do not read the article. You can call him Grofaz but a very quick read of his "achievements" will prove that he is... controversial. Trust me, "controversial" is "good" in Antonescu's case.

Radu

I'm not agree with that...from what you said I understood someone who read carefully the whole article again and again must not pay attention to that Label/Note about Antonescu. Then why is this Note there?
Anyhow this Note do not change anything for someone knowing Antonescu's history in detail...but for new readers any introductory negative note counts...and for a serious website is a shame to have any extra / additional and gratuitously information.
The last sentence is just a personal opinion.

You know there is an Edit button, so... the irony was noted.

We are not dancing around dead horses here, as I said in my first message, this site and associated forum are the main resources for foreign people. One of the reasons why everything is in English.

You know very well that such terms as used in the Note bring a negative connotation, there is no use in getting stuck yet again in a text book definition, that I can always attack. User "dan" did portrait it better... you first read the note, you are transmitted the needed message, then you read the rest.
How is it when I present to you a person and I say "I present you the achievements of this person in this meeting, not his controversial life style, drug abuse allegations and related issues". How does that sound?

You say "controversial" is "good in the case of Antonescu"... thats your opinion and doesnt make it viable to all of us. For foreign persons that want to get a short BIO of Antonescu, from sentence one, his figure is already identified as "war criminal", though thats not the point of the article, as it is claimed. Period. Of course, I got the idea that all Courts of law in the world would have found him in that way... yada yada , only that he was judged by a Soviet one... that alone would have made me more careful when creating such Notes, unless... unless Period.

Now, I wanted to get this under debate, hence opened this topic. See also the comments under the text on the site, clearly I am not the only one who feels the site is being... more Catholic than the Pope is.

But hey, as I said, we are used to bend our will easily, so why not... if we can discredit ourselves as a Nation, without too much interference, why not do it? It will help RO be further described as a Holocaust country in WW2, war crimes, deportation... all of that. The American does not care that RO had this goal and it acted in a certain way..., no, you have the dictator Antonescu, friend with Hitler, Holocaust, deportation, massacre. Period. Lets continue transmitting such things... lets be ashamed also for things we did not commit. I am sure all people will dig up a tone of info, books and related searches to read through the "labels". For sure they will do that.

I conclude: rephrase that Note or maybe move it to the end of the Article, at least that. That is if one wishes to do that... if not... then... well, we expressed that wish anyway.

This post has been edited by RedBaron on September 29, 2010 05:33 pm

Horthy wasn't "found not guilty" because that implies actually being a defendant and having your actions scrutinized by a court and found clear of any wrong doing. That wasn't the case. The Allies decided by their own power and for obscure reasons not to put him on the stand as a defendant at all.

The fact that he got scotch free doesn't mean Antonescu should be absolved. But it means we shouldn't be holier than the Pope when it comes to the way we see or treat our past leaders. I don't think Antonescu was not guilty, but I find it disgusting that he doesn't even have a Christian burial site. Compare that to Horthy.

Antonescu was clearly an anti-jewish person. No doubt about it.

RedBaron you asked me which facts make Antonescu a war criminal. I answered. You ignored it and repeatedly put forward your own convictions, which I am certain nothing can alter.

Regarding the "discrediting of the nation", it is ironical that you do not realize that you are the one actually contributing to it. Until we all learn to accept our past with the good and the bad in it, we are already discredited in the eyes of others. You can try to hide the garbage under the mat, but it will still be there. Furthermore, others will make it appear bigger than it really is.

Now, unless you have some new ideas to add, the discussion is over for me.

I am not trying to make anything "viable" for the multitude that you claim to represent. Believe me, I am fully aware that your opinion about Antonescu is too entrenched and one-sided for me to change. Everyine can see that.

I repeat, in my opinion, "controversial" is too mild a way to put it (and you demonstrated very amply that you do not understand the meaning). It is a neutral description for a person that could qualify for all kinds of much stronger and emotive labels.

Like so many others, I am out of this "discussion" too. The horse is long dead, no point in flogging it.

Radu