Marshal Ion Antonescu

Dr. Arie Steinberg, from the Haifa University:

Theodore Fischer, former member of Romanian parliament:

Aren't we drifting off topic here?

Gen. Dénes

BTW, RIM is not the best source for the political history of Rumania.

Not necessary, because almost everywhere Antonescu's image is related to the Jewish issue in Romania.

This is true, RIM is just one source. But why, is it something that bothers you?

O.K., Dragos, let me step into the small trap.

Revista de Istorie Militara (RIM) is a rather nationalistic magazine. It has very good articles on military history, but when it comes to political history and Rumania's role in W. W. 2 and in general, it tends to be imbalanced and one sided, and often tries to spin the facts (see, for ex. Antonescu's Order regarding the Jews, from the previous posts).

The problem starts when historically minded people take RIM (and other similar sources) as granted and quote it without a healthy critical view, necessary for a historically as accurate as possible conclusion.

You probably won't agree with this, but this is my opinion based on the many issues I have in my collection.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on January 26, 2005 05:46 pm

General Antonescu's signature.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on January 26, 2005 05:46 pm

Attached Image

Period Postcard showing Antonescu & Hitler at a meeting.

Gen. Dénes

Attached Image

O.K., Dragos, let me step into the small trap.

Revista de Istorie Militara (RIM) is a rather nationalistic magazine. It has very good articles on military history, but when it comes to political history and Rumania's role in W. W. 2 and in general, it tends to be imbalanced and one sided, and often tries to spin the facts (see, for ex. Antonescu's Order regarding the Jews, from the previous posts).

The problem starts when historically minded people take RIM (and other similar sources) as granted and quote it without a healthy critical view, necessary for a historically as accurate as possible conclusion.

You probably won't agree with this, but this is my opinion based on the many issues I have in my collection.

Gen. Dénes

Denes, I quoted the excerpts so that anybody may take note of and comment or criticize them as he considers appropriate.

And I agree the RIM is (was) a rather nationalistic magazine.

I'm trying not to sound bias, but from what I read from EmilCernauti, he favours a government in Romania that favours the interests of the Jewish community and put's this above the interests of the Native Romanian Poppulation.

I cannot think of a date in history when the interests of Romanians have coincided with the interests of the jews, and if Antonescu is a ""criminal"" because he put the interests of Romanians first, then I wish to be such a ""criminal"" too.

[COLOR=green][B]

Der Maresal,Relu,Florin and others with the same point of view about the “interests of the Jews” listen to me a wile:
Watt you, and Antonescu, mean” to put the interests of Romanians first”, mean deportation, plundering, killing the entire Jewish population from Romania, AND ONLY the arrest of Antonescu on August 1944, give the possibility of the Romanian Army to fight against the true enemy, saved first of all the remaining of real Romanian interests. Watts true is that the heavy pressures exercised by Christian Church factors , political leaders and the Quinn, stopped the deportations, even against the Eichmann will.
But for all they already in Transnistria only the [COLOR=red]DEFEAT of Hitler and he’s allies brought the liberation.
Your statement to be a” criminal too”, must be investigate (I hope for you not to be so old!!), and makes me happy not to had meet you in the forties in Cernauti and Transnistria.

Emilcernauti

Dear Mr Emilcernauti,if Marshall Antonescu really want to kill the entire jews population from Romania,it will not be too hard.He was the head of stat,and queen,or political leaders,or even Ortodox curch(especially Mitropolitul<i dont know the equivalent word in english>Balan)cannot really stop to do it.About the true enemy,ofcourse,germans was the true,but russians too.It was hard to chose,and,in 1940-1941,in situation wich have our country in that time,if was really hard to fight against germans.Dont forget that russians take our teritories(Basarabia and north Bucovina,and a part of jews population was verry happy,even kill by the back our troops who retreated),and germans suport the hungarians and bulgarians to take other parts of our teritory.If,in that time,our country,not prepare for a war against many enemies(that was another bad point for us,and mabe will start another topic about this,because we was allways,in modern times,out dated with modern warfare things,i dont know exactly whay),and a fight in that time against Germany will means the total destruction of our country(like in Poland case,the USSR will atack us).That is the reason for Marshall Antonescu to enter in war against USSR,side by side to Germany,to re gain our lost teritories,and,in that way,he put the romanian interest first.If we not show the nazi`s we agree with their politics,even if was just on surface,not for real,we will be ocuppied,and our country disaper from Europe.In the way the Antonescu act,the Romania was saved from total destruction,and jews was saved from total destruction.Romania was the only Axis country(and the only european country who fight in WW 2)where jews population was not deported in nazi`s extermination camps,and jews survive quite well,and our country even suported jews,in time of Antonescu regim,to escape from nazi`s and go to Palestina.And about the "criminal"thing,i dont think to put the interest of your country first make you a criminal.I believe this make you a patriot.

Here is an excerpt from the interview taken by Manase Radnev to Alexandru Safran, the former chief rabbi of Romania during the WW2 era and published in the October 2004 issue of Magazin Istoric.

During the summer of 1942, the Foreign Ministry officials transmitted that the Romanian government agreed to treat the Jews of Romanian citizenship in the same way as those of German citizenship and deport them to Poland. Yet the idea was abandoned, even though the Germans had already made the plans, train schedules etc.

There were many interventions besides those mentioned by Alexandru Safran. Antonescu may have held almost all the strings of power, but he could be influenced.

I don't think that all of Antonescu's decisions were bad, just like I surely don't think all of them were right. Things aren't just black and white.

I don't understand how deporting over 110,000 innocent people to Trans-Dnestra and the subsequent death of half of them was in Romanian interest.

Hello everybody!

I'll try to get back to the post that started this whole discussion. "Is it OK to have Antonescu' bust on a street in Bucharest?"

If I am not mistaken, the bust in question has been erected in the courtyard of a church that Antonescu helped build. It is therefore consistent with the centuries old tradition of immortalizing the founder of a religious establishment (church or monastery). The Ministry of Culture has also concluded that it is on private property, thus, outside the jurisdiction of the law.

Was Antonescu good or evil? He was neither. He was a real character with exceptional qualities and regretable flaws. History is not a black and white picture. It just happens that many Romanians, including myself, think that his services to the country outweigh his mistakes. That is debatable.

What is non-debatable, however, is the freedom of a community to choose symbols, erect monuments and judge history freely from its point of view. No outside entity has the right to question or interfere in that process. Otherwise we'd be ammending and contesting each other's symbols, identity and actions from London to St.Petersburg.

I also consider the persecution of Jews as a serious and even worse, a dishonorable mistake. But Romania had a legitimate quarel with the Soviet Union, and going aginst Germany or staying out of the war would have been a crime against the Romanian people. It would have also been suicidal. France and the U.K. had already broken many promisses in 1940 and I don't think that anybody owed them anything any longer under the circumstances.

Moreover, we connot judge the marshall's actions in 1940-'41 relying on our hindsight from 2005. As for his stubborness in not switching sides, I will never hold a man's loyalty against him. Anyway, I don't think that Romania ever had a chance of actually leaving the Axis before 1944. Had Germany not been completely exhausted, she would have overrun us just like it did Italy or Hungary. Any hasty defection could have meant the end of Romania.

Anyway, using my personal hindsight (the aftermath of 50 years of communism) the problem had been correctly identified in 1940. It was Soviet Russia. Unfortunately they won. Otherwise, Germany would have found itself terribly overstretched trying to keep the Russians under occupation (we've yet to discover a nation that could do that and survive). And maybe sooner rather than later, all of us would have enjoyed picking on the carcass of both Germany and Russia. Try that for a "What if?"!

EmilCernauti wrote to Der Maresal:

Are you threatening him with an "investigation"?

Der Maresal,Relu,Florin and others with the same point of view about the “interests of the Jews” listen to me a wile:
Watt you, and Antonescu, mean” to put the interests of Romanians first”, mean deportation, plundering, killing the entire Jewish population from Romania, AND ONLY the arrest of Antonescu on August 1944, give the possibility of the Romanian Army to fight against the true enemy, saved first of all the remaining of real Romanian interests. Watts true is that the heavy pressures exercised by Christian Church factors , political leaders and the Quinn, stopped the deportations, even against the Eichmann will.
But for all they already in Transnistria only the [COLOR=red]DEFEAT of Hitler and he’s allies brought the liberation.
Your statement to be a” criminal too”, must be investigate (I hope for you not to be so old!!), and makes me happy not to had meet you in the forties in Cernauti and Transnistria.

Emilcernauti

What matters most is to be fair here.
I think some Jews these days have a mass paranoia that everybody wants to kill them. That is not always the case.

What would I had done in 1940? I would have what every fair Romanian ruler has done, spared the innocent, punished the guilty.
Certainly the way the jewish population treated the Romanian Army in Bassarabia in 1940 during the retreat gives good motive for deportation.
Romanian soldiers spitted upon, Red flag put on top of a Church, priests killed,
Soldier's killed, assisting of the enemy Soviet Troops.. and so many other things..
The pro-Communist support back then was a threat to Romanian statehood.

How can a State exist within a state? We have the same problem today in Palestine.

During the trial of Antonescu, he was accused of crimes against jewish civillians at Odessa. His answer was that "Part of the crimes brought against him did not actually took place, while those that actually happened, they are regrettable, and they happen in all times in history because a leader cannot always be in the same place all the time to prevent them."

There are other deportations that happened, notably under the Soviet system and so many others in history, but biggest one of all - and in ww2 - was when the whole of Prussia was cleansed by the Russians and Poles in 1945. 13 Million peoples were deported, 3 Million died on the way or where killed.
It's was biggest mass deportation in history that almost nobody talks about today. (And the frightening truth is that they were at home, and that was their native soil and had always been) - the same cannot be said of the jews in Romania.

I know that this sounds unfair to you, sir, but our two peoples (and faiths) have different oppinions on fairness. You might find it unjust that I compare the jewish deportation to other peoples who were deported or who were punished for what they were (more then for what they did). So, you might say.. a jewish victim cannot be compared to a non-jewish victim, they are not the same. (these days we learn that all peoples are "Equal") - but you know as well as I do, how untrue that is.

The jewish law and religion states that a Gentile (a christian, a non-jew,) cannot and must not be compared to a Jewish man. If a jewish man steals from a Gentile he must not give it back, or "a [heathen] Christian has no right to judge a Jew, (non jew). This is not antisemitism but simply the truth.
Why these double standards I ask..?

Collective punishment is wrong I admitt that, it's also wrong to let your anger and fury loose on innocents.
But under the circumstances of 1940-1941 was deportation not the best solutution for the sake of both Romanians and Jews?

Leaving aside what was right and what was wrong, what crimes truly happend and those that did not, and who is guilty for what, and who must pay...I put it as follows: we as Christians are tought to forgive...while others I see.. are more like eye for an eye.


This post has been edited by Der Maresal on February 01, 2005 04:02 am