Talk:Ion Antonescu/Archive 1

Antonescu and the Holocaust
"Antonescu believed, just like Hitler, that the world was engaged in a dualistic struggle between the forces of Darkness (the Jews/Bolsheviks) and those of Light (the Christians, Aryans), and that it was up to the forces of Light to destroy the enemy."

A dictator who believed his own war propaganda? I thought that Antonescu, as a high ranking military man, was a more rational person. --Vasile 02:53, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * The article's original author seems to have had a strong anti-Antonescu bias. I re-wrote parts of it, but didn't have time to work out the Holocaust section. Nevertheless there is some truth there, e.g. the massacration of Bessarabian Jews, so please don't remove facts without argumentation.
 * p.s.: Vasile, I totally agree about that phrase.

--IulianU 08:49, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Not just Jews were massacrated, but a lot of Gipsies too. After Stalingrad defeat, Antonescu and his regime changed their view about "darkness" of the Jews. Antonescu wasn't an artist like Hitler, in 1940 he was a general, that implies a lot of responsability. That "Darkness/Light" war propaganda was meant to give a (metaphysical) sense of Romania's war alliance with Germany, Italy and Hungary, against its traditional allies. I disagree with that phrase. --Vasile 15:51, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

mircion I am the original author. I am a German historian specialised on the Holocaust and certainly have no 'bias' against Antonescu (or the eternal glory of Romania...). I am sorry, but I will not accept any editing of the Holocaust section that mitigates Antonescu's crimes. These things have been well researched by several historians (e.g. Radu Ioanid, Jean Ancel, Armin Heinen, Mariana Hausleitner etc.) and Wikipedia is not a place for Romanian revisionism, not even in the blurred form you intimate.

You need to prove that his statements about the Jews were mere 'war propaganda'. I don't think you have a precise definition of this term, but that is probably the reason for why you apply it: because it makes Antonescu's crimes look less intentional. However, there is a very simple reply to this kind of revisionist strategy: intentions are ascribed to human subjects by exactly two things: their ACTIONS and the STATEMENTS about their actions. In Antonescu's case we have clear evidence for his actions/crimes in Bessarabia, Bukovina and Transnistria. And we have evidence for what he said about the Jews. It fits all very well together. Many of his statements about the darkness of the Jews were uttered as direct orders in the closed context of meetings of his Joints Chiefs of Staff. What kind of propaganda would he need to make there? Yours is a silly argument.

It is not important whether you agree or disagree with Antonescu's phrase. What is important is that he uttered that (and other) phrase(s). And that he commited crimes that perfectly fitted his 'metaphysical' ideology about Good and Evil. At no point did Antonescu change his views about the alleged evil nature of the Jews. In 1942 he had developed joint plans with the Germans to deport the remaining Jews to Poland, but became wary once the Axis began losing the war.

Last but not least, to further strenghten the case against Antonescu, we have knowledge of links between his statements and his crimes: direct ORDERS given to his secret service, the army and the governor of Transnistria, Alexianu.

Instead of changing the Holocaust section (which I will report to Wikipedia), I suggest you update your knowledge, e.g. by reading Ioanid's book "Antonescu and the Jews". Truth in history is a very important matter and not to be left to half-baked opinions.


 * I'm afraid you're missing the point. Wikipedia is about knowledge, not truth. If some consider Antonescu a war criminal, and others see him as a hero instead, then _both_ these views must have a place in the article, and _both_ should be adequately supported and/or disproved. If you don't agree with one or more arguments in the article, please discuss them in a respectful manner, without resorting to threats like "I'll report you to wikipedia". Thanks. IulianU 09:00, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

mircion's answer: This is truly baffling... As if knowledge does not imply truth. As if knowledge means: mere opinion, conjecture, hypothesis, unwarranted belief, plain falsehood. I can't teach you philosophy here, but think for yourself: If it is true that you know that it is raining - is it raining or not? Of course it is raining! And if you know that my name is "mircion" - is my name "mircion" or not? Of course it is! Your mistake is to think that an encyclopedia is a place where every individual with some half-baked ideas and many gaps in his knowledge of a particular topic is entitled to express himself. But of course, in THAT case we should allow any Holocaust denier to contribute to the Wikipedia entry on the Holocaust. And any housewife ignorant of physics to state why she thinks that Einstein was wrong. And any conspiration theorist that J. F. Kennedy really was killed by the Mossad and that there was no moon landing. Etc. You confuse knowledge with opinion. It is well established and beyond any resoanable doubt that Antonescu WAS a war criminal. Please read Ioanid, Ancel, Heinen, Hausleitner and others before replying here again.


 * It's nice to hear the original author of this article, even I was not able to read your original version. My intervention in this discussion was about the phrase "Antonescu believed, just like Hitler, that the world was engaged in a dualistic struggle between the forces of Darkness (the Jews/Bolsheviks) and those of Light (the Christians, Aryans), and that it was up to the forces of Light to destroy the enemy." I disagree with the word "believed". I think that this "struggle between forces of Darkness and those of Light" was meant to be war propaganda, Antonescu's "explanations" of his dictatorial policy (regarding the war, Jews and Gipsies, and internally, against democracy) and he rationally used the same propaganda his German allies created.


 * I refuse to discuss about your allegations and presumptions about my person or my intentions. Anyway, you think that you have the right to be hotly sarcastic speaking about Romania, contrasting with your historian, presumed cold objectivity. If you are not able to refrain your sarcasm about Romanians, after doing that once again, please report yourself to wikipedia. Anyway, I hope you enjoy and understand the books written by Radu Ioanid.--Vasile 17:16, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * DEAR MIRCION (i don't know if you are still reading this page but you should to, since you are the original author). The truth is that many people in Romania, including part of the cultural-political "elites", do believe that Antonescu was a hero. (Arguments: he fought to recapture Bessarabia and Bukovina, which were historical Romanian regions and he was against Bolshevism). I can post links to semi-official Romanian educational sites where Antonescu is depicted as a hero. The truth is also that for the last years Romanians have started to dismantle Antonescu's statues (built immediately after 1989) and rename streets calles "Ion antonescu". But this is, methinks, not due to a real understanding of the fact that A. was a war-criminal or that Romania had a responsability for the Holocaust, but to foreign pressures. Most Romanians are unwilling to admit this (part of an explanation is that Communist Romania made the anti-Jewish Holocaust a taboo, claiming that the Communists were the main victims of the Nazis). That is, even if Romanians are at this moment (2005) ready to admit Romania's involvemenet in the Holocaust - at least officially- they do not and cannot sincerely believe and understand this.

If it is really an established fact that A. was a war criminal, then i suggest someone should put _online_ the indisputable evidence that you claim exists. (orders written by his hand that Jews of Odessa and Transnistria should be massacrated etc). Otherwise, the result will be that romanians will admit about Antonescu and the holocaust everything they are required to admit (by foreign pressures, be they the EU or the Yad Vashem), but will do so without really understanding the issue. (You seem to have philosophical inclinations: if i do assent to a sentence, like a parrot, without understanding it, do i really believe it? I think not).

MIRCION's reply to the last point: "someone should put _online_ the indisputable evidence ..." Nothing easier than that: Romania's government under Iliescu established an expert commission which eventually published a report about Romania's implication in the Holocaust. President Iliescu not only accepted the findings of that report, but unambiguously acknowledged and assumed Romania's guilt of ethnically cleansing Jews and Gypsies, and even established a National Holocaust Remembrance Day, as we have this in Germany, the UK, US and many other civilised countries.

The report has been published in both Romanian and English. Here is a copy (online, hence your request is fully met), including Iliescu's speech: http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/presentations/index.php?content=programs/presentations/2005-03-10/ Here are the main findings of this official report, as accepted by Romania's president:

• The Holocaust in Romania had deep Romanian roots in a century-long history of widespread anti-Semitism in the country’s political and cultural elites.

• Directives to degrade and destroy Jews and Jewish institutions came from the highest authorities in Bucharest.

• Between 280,000 and 380,000 Romanian and Ukrainian Jews were murdered or died at the hand of Romanian civilian and military authorities and in territories under their control.

• Approximately 340,000 Romanian Jews survived because the government terminated deportations in 1943, 16 months before Romania ended its alliance with Nazi Germany and entered the war against the Axis.

• Over 25,000 Romanian Roma were also deported during the Holocaust, and over 11,000 perished, resulting in the disappearance of some centuries-old Roma communities.

• Irrefutable and abundant documentary evidence shows Ion Antonescu’s personal responsibility for the deportation and the physical destruction of the Jews and Roma under Romanian jurisdiction.

• Approximately 135,000 Romanian Jews living in Hungary-controlled Transylvania and 5,000 Romanian Jews living outside Romania also perished in the Holocaust.

After a shameful period of denial and ambiguity, the debate over Romania's guilt is finally over. No nationalist denier will have an easy task from now on.

I am working on a "rise of anti-semtism in Romnania" paper for one of my university classes. For the class I read the ICHR report William Brustein's book found here: http://www.amazon.com/Roots-Hate-Anti-Semitism-Europe-Holocaust/dp/0521774780/ref=sr_1_5/105-8595615-2438825?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190385972&sr=1-5 Deletante's book which can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Forgotten-Ally-Antonescu-Romania/dp/1403993416/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-8595615-2438825?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190386019&sr=1-1 and Larry Watts' which can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/Romanian-Cassandra-Larry-L-Watts/dp/0880332557/ref=sr_1_1/105-8595615-2438825?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190386094&sr=8-1

I am not a professional historian and my interest was merely to acquire some knowledge that was denied me by the previous Romanian government and get a good grade in the class. Nonetheless, I have taken a further interest in Ion Antonescu and historiography in particular to Ion Antonescu.

I think that it’s safe to say that politics as they are will continue to play a factor in how Antonescu will be remembered. Certainly a great deal of Jews have a stake in the question as a great number of them died. But I would also argue that a everyone has a right to more than the mere assignation of Antonescu as merely an “anti-semite” and “basically a fascist”. No fully formed human being is merely an “anti-semite” and “a fascist”.

For the sake of truth we have got to come to some understanding about the man and that will not be possible without taking an honest look and with an open mind. Some of what we are bound to find will be displeasing to everyone involved as we are dealing with an unsavory matter, but a large generation of Romanians, myself included, were denied to even know the man’s name, much less any of his accomplishments and failures.

Much history about Antonescu was falsified by the communist regime (if any of you are old enough to have gone to school in Romania in the 70’s and 80’s, I am sure you can attest to this approach).

A great deal of foreign material still survives, much of it in Germany, England and the U.S. Some of Antonescu’s letters survive. Some of Madarescu and Prezan’s documents survive. It is possible to arrive to some understanding of Antonescu, but it is not possible if discourse cannot happen and if we let the ugly hands of politics get in the way.

Brustein’s book takes a systematic approach to breaking down anti-semitism in different countries and as to what is actually understood by anti-semitism. It is invaluable in this respect. Deletant’s book is the devil’s advocate to Watts’. I strongly recommend that they be added to the wikipedia project, which sadly is locked because of the infernal squabbling.

Furthermore, I suggest that we try to set up an independent wiki commission, so that we can study Antonescu further and perhaps emerge out of this wiki deadlock with a better understanding, one that can hopefully advance the stalemate.

---CROMVLVS

Wow, this entire discussion is ludicrous. Some people see Hitler as a hero. Some see Mussolini and Bin Ladin as heroes. What about people who believe sex with children is a beautiful thing?! Are those opinions valid? No. Should those "sides" of the issues be displayed in contrast to the widely accepted "versions" of history? No. Truth is Fact is Truth. 72.83.105.162 (talk) 05:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Factual Problems
was the main architect of Romania's successful defense against the 1917 German invasion headed by Field Marshal Mackensen.

I've done some work on Mackensen and the First World War (note the username), and, well, Mackensen and Falkenhayn's invasion was wholly successful and the Germans entered Bucharest at the end of 1916. I've also had difficulty establishing Antonescu's role, if any, during the campaign. Mackensen 19:42, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I detailed that paragraph a little, please check if it's OK with you. Mackensen's campaign was not _wholly_ successful, since they attempted to take Moldavia (the north-eastern part of Romania, still free from German occupation) in July-August 1917, and failed to do so; pls refer to the third battle of Oituz (ended 10 August) and the battle of Marasesti (ended 21 August). IulianU 14:45, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me, I'm going to read up on the campaign to refresh my memory, but I like the changes. Mackensen 15:36, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For Antonescu's role look to Larry Watts' book "Romanian Cassandra". Watts contends that the war against Mackensen was going particularly well until the Romanian front against the Bulgarians collapsed. The main architects of the front against Mackensen were Prezan and Antonescu. According to Watts, Antonescu after becoming Chief of Operations, as a major no less, was the chief architect behind the successful operations at Marasesti, Oituz and Marasti. Averescu was the Romanian operating on the Bulgarian front. Berthelot was the French advisor to Prezan. Antonescu's office was the only one that operated without a French attache and Antonescu could not suffer the ignominy of such a presence.

21 September, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cromulus (talk • contribs) 15:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Mircion, you are trully bias against Antonescu. The numbers shown here are trully ourageos and blown out of proportion. Did you take into consideration the fact that the leader of the Romanian Jews TESTIFIED in ANTONESCU'S FAVOUR at his trial? Do you know that George Alexianu, also convicted, was decorated by the Pope? For what, crimes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oanamatteo (talk • contribs) 18:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

why dictator? it's outrageous !
As long as Hitler and Stalin are not named dictators or murderers in Wikipedia it is outrageous that Ion Antonescu is considered dictator. Maybe it's exaggerate to call him a patriot in a equidistant encyclopedia, even if I consider him like that. To keep the impartiality of Wikipedia I demand to remove the quality of "dictator" from the presentation of Ion Antonescu and let just the one of prime minister! Please be resonable, you the original author of this article ! (anonymous)


 * I put his official title of "conduc&#259;tor" (the equivalent of German "Fuerher"), for the sake of conformity with the Adolf Hitler article. bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 12:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

mircion's reply: This is a very silly view. Of course Antonescu was a dictator. If he was not, what was he? A democrat?? The leader of a democratic country?? The FUEHRER of a democratic country?? Is this how we call the leaders of democratic countries? Or shall we call him a 'patriotic politician'? Is THIS the most neutral term?? Has he not killed hundreds of thousands of Jews and led millions of Romanian soldiers into the certain death by following Hitler into a desastrous, ill-fated and idiotic war?

Antonescu has been described as a dictator by most historians and standard encyclopedias, e.g. the authoritative Encyclopedia Britannica (check it out online: www.britannica.com), because he fits the usual definition of the term. There is no place for historical revisionism in an encyclopedia.

If the articles on Stalin and Hitler do not describe them as dictators, then this is a problem of THOSE articles, not of THIS one. You don't correct a mistake by commiting another one...

Besides, Hitler IS actually described as a dictator on Wikipedia. And so is Mussolini.


 * Of course he was a dictator, but this discussion is about the lead section, where we should put the official title, which was not "dictator". bogdan | Talk 09:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Gruesome
The execution part is a little bit too gruesome. I propose either to remove it or reduce the detail. User:Dinu

King Mihai or Michael?
I'm not sure what the relevant standard would be, but I for one found the use of the two versions with no explanation briefly and unnecessarily confusing. Would it be possible to either only use one version, or to explicitly relate the two? Blurble 15:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * King Mihai as he was Romanian. The name Michael is the English version, but names are usually not translated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.44.242.231 (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Jewish connections
This paragraph was deleted from the article in 2004 by an anonymous user without any comment. If this is true, then we should put it back in the article. bogdan | Talk 20:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Although his step-mother was a Jewish woman called Frida Cuperman, and, as a military attaché in London in the 1930s, Antonescu married a French-Jewish woman named Rasela Mendel, Antonescu was attracted to anti-Semitism early.

Current Revision
Can someone do something about the latest revision? I'm not versed enough on the subject to contest it, but as a casual observer it appears to have been seriously de-NPOVed re: Holocaust. Geoff NoNick 18:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I made the edits. The material is all from the comprehensive report accepted by the Romanian president, and I would suggest that any interested editor read it first (The section on Antonescu is here).  The previous version was highly POV, and did not match what historians, and even the Romanian government, say about Antonescu's involvement.  Whatever his merits as a national hero, there is no doubt that Antonescu was directly responsible for much of the portion of the Holocaust carried out by Romania, and there is substantial documentation of this. The material quoted is from the official report on the subject,  I would be happy to discuss any factual objections, of course.  --Goodoldpolonius2 18:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've read the report. My concern is that the whole of the section should not be based on one source alone - it shouldn't surprise anyone that Romania would be eager to distance itself from the Holocaust by blaming its leader solely, as the commission ultimately found.  And a section that begins "Antonescu's role in the Holocaust is a very controversial subject" can hardly be considered "highly POV".  I'd just like someone who is versed in Romanian WWII history to review the edits, since they seem to completely rewrite what was there before.  Is that alright? Geoff NoNick 20:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Nobody will answer to this kind of doubts (why only one source) as this source was written by "historians" Jews(my statement sounds very antisemitic - but check their names!). There is a huge archive in Romanian army possession witch is not used as reference by historians(why???) witch could clarify some of the events. There are some Romanian sources(like Paul Goma []) ignored because it doesn't show the same "truth". The role of the Jews elite during those events, is largely minimized. It's ignored the fact that the Jew "elite" from Basarabia and Bucovina was "pro communists"(check the names on first communist government after the war - and we had to live 40 years of communism!!!). It's ignored the fact that in 1946/1947 census in Romania were living around 1 mil Jews - most of them have to say thanks to Antonescu(this is ignored and minimized also!).  The sad thing is that those "sources" were used to fill all wikipedia subjects on this issues. In the light of the truth most probably this comment will e deleted very soon(because I'm not respecting the "truth" of course) - regards 194.113.59.80 (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Anon Imus


 * Actually, some argue that if it wasn't Antonescu, the Germans would have sent every Romanian/Ukrainian Jew to extermination camps, anyway and all 300,000 Jews that survived in Romania would have been killed.
 * But Geoff is right, it appears that the Romanian government decided to blame it all on Antonescu. There was even a law passed that says that it is illegal to try to put Ion Antonescu in a more favorable light... bogdan | Talk 20:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Geoff, sure, other people should look at the material, but I do want to make a couple of points. First, the report was not written by the Romanian government, it was an outside panel of experts.  Second, the report is not the only source blaming Antonescu, and Antonescu obviously does not solely have blame -- he didn't personally call for each execution order, etc.  However, this is an article about him, and he certainly was responsible or fully aware of  many massacres and slaughters of the Jews; as far as I know everything here is factual.  If you want to bring in other sources that blame others as well, feel free to do so, but to call his role "controversal" would seem to imply that there was somehow controversy over whether he bore responsibility for much of the Holocaust carried out by Romania, it is, in fact a very POV statement (like "Eichmann's role in the Holocaust is a very controversal subject" as the starting sentence of a similar section).  Who says it is controversal?  And in what way?  In any case, the article discusses his halt to the killings as well, but to say that he saved the Jews by not killing all of them is highly dubious, especially as there is no evidence that this was done out of any sense of goodwill.  Again, I do welcome outside input, but it would be very helpful to cite sources, rather than make assumptions.  That will make the discussion easier. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I am myself specialized on Romania and WW2, and I must say that the new version is much better. Goodoldpolonius2 has done a good job. He is entirely right about the Romanian government's report. This report was only *commissioned* by the government, and compiled by some of the best experts in the field. Trying to relativize it without having read it, speaking of "external pressures" and using other relativizing terms (why don't you then apply the same kind of argument to Hitler too??), as some users do here, is futile. Antonescu's guilt is not "controversial" in any way, and that first sentence should be removed. I will, when time allows it, update the literature list, which is much too short at the moment --mircion 13 November 2005


 * And to say that he killed Jews by not saving them is equally dubious. If I understand the counter-argument, the claim is that his antipathy towards Jews caused him to play a largely passive role in permitting the pogroms to occur up to a certain point before putting an end to the exportations.  As a leader, he certainly has to shoulder his share of the blame and he did provide direct approval of some atrocities, but the point is that he was probably not the causal force either for the killing or the saving: in both cases he seems to have been responding to internal and external pressure.  He's certainly "responsible", but there are other forces at work that deserve to be pointed out.  But I agree we need more than word-of-mouth to substantiate that argument. I'll see what sources I can find to back it up, if any. Geoff NoNick 12:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I see why we are having a misunderstanding. If you read the report, he was not passive at all. He personally ordered the massacre of Jews in Odessa, many deportations, etc. A few things from the report, by why of example:
 * "Ion Antonescu was directly involved in his regime’s major repressive acts against the Jews. Unlike in Hitler’s case, there is a wealth of documentary evidence proving this direct involvement. In early October 1941, for example, Col. Gheorghe Petrescu of the Supreme General Staff and gendarmerie General Topor initiated the deportation of the Jews from Bukovina on Antonescu’s personal order. Petrescu declared in 1945 that they had received their orders from Radu Dinulescu of Section Two (Sectia II) of the Supreme General Staff; this order—no. 6651 of October 4, 1941—also cited Marshal Antonescu’s decision to deport all Jews in Bukovina to Transnistria within ten days.12 The governor of Bukovina, General Calotescu, also confirmed that Petrescu and Topor had only been fulfilling Antonescu’s instructions"
 * From the November 13, 1941 minutes of the Council of Ministers:
 * Antonescu: Has the repression been sufficiently severe?
 * Alexianu: It has been, Marshal.
 * Antonescu: What do you mean by “sufficiently severe”?…
 * Alexianu: It was very severe, Marshal.
 * Antonescu: I said that for every dead Romanian, 200 Jews [should die] and that for every Romanian wounded 100 Jews [should die]. Did you [see to] that?
 * Alexianu: The Jews of Odessa were executed and hung in the streets….
 * Antonescu: Do it, because I am the one who answers for the country and to history. [If the Jews of America don’t like this] let them come and settle the score with me.


 * Actually, the Romanian Army received a unexpectedly powerful resistance from the Jews of Ukraine as the army was always under attack from behind the front. Even in Bukowina there were some organized militias that began sabotaging the Army installations. Antonescu was naive to think that a "severe repression" would stop this, but he was wrong: the Jews knew that in the eventuality of an Axis win, they'd all be exterminated. NPOW 14:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The Odessa massacres started in response to a bombing that later turned out to be conducted by the NKVD. The response, under Antonescu's direct orders, was not mere repression, but the slaughter of up to a hundred thousand Jewish men, women and children, none of whom had anything to do with the bombing: "On the evening of October 22, the center and right wings of the Romanian military general headquarters exploded, killing sixteen Romanian officers (including the city’s military commander, General Ion Glogojanu), four German naval officers, forty-six other members of the Romanian military, and several civilians. Following Antonescu’s order, which demanded “immediate retaliatory action, including the liquidation of 18,000 Jews in the ghettos and the hanging in the town squares of at least 100 Jews for every regimental sector,” the Jews were rounded up and brought to the execution sites by the Romanian army, gendarmerie, and police. Some 22,000 Jews of all ages were packed into nine warehouses in Dalnic, a suburb of Odessa, an operation that continued past nightfall on October 23. The Jews were machine gunned, burned alive, or blown up. Almost all of the survivors were deported. Huge columns of Jewish deportees were sent on foot toward Berezovka and Bogdanovka." --Goodoldpolonius2 15:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

You mention the pressures he was under, but these don't seem like passive acts in the face of pressure, they seem very deliberate. Let me know if you have sources to the contrary.. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "Observing at the December 16, 1941, Council of Ministers’ meeting that even Nazi Germany was slow to act, Antonescu urged his lieutenants to hasten Romania’s solution to its “Jewish question”: “Put them in the catacombs, put them in the Black Sea. I don’t want to hear anything. It does not matter if 100 or 1,000 die, [for all I care] they can all die.” This order resulted in the deportation of the surviving Jews of Odessa to Berezovka and Golta."

the article
This article is a very bad joke!!! Antonescu was up set with jews because his wife, a jewish woman, did not make him good meals.--Dacodava

Fascist or not
While the Iron Guard is widely described as fascist, fitting very well the ideology of a fascist movement, it seems that for Antonescu there's not a consensus. For example, here's what Keith Hitchins says:


 * The regime which Antonescu instituted on 27 January 1941 cannot be classified as fascist. A more apt description would be military dictatorship. Unlike Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy, it lacked an ideology and was not supported by a mass political party. Instead of a philosophical justification for its existence, Antonescu made order and security, which he deemed indispensable for the progress of every society, the reason for being of his regime.
 * Hitchins, Keith (1994) Rumania : 1866-1947 (Oxford History of Modern Europe). Clarendon/Oxford University Press

bogdan 12:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Joining the Allies
In 1943, Antonescu tried to join the Allies, but they refused, at the request of the Soviets. If anyone has some data or references... :-) bogdan 12:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Revising the Revisionists
Honestly, what an entertaining mess this article is, edited and revised by a serious minded historians on one hand and deluded Romanian nationalists and Fascist apologists on the other. I couldn't help but make two deletions to the Political Power section. Hitler's attack on the USSR was not "preventive". That's a somewhat subjective opinion, hardly good history. And the work of an editor with Nazi sympathies, I suspect.

And given that the section dealing with Antonescu's role in the holocaust ascribes him direct responsibility for up to 380,000 Jewish deaths it's a little ridiculous to have the statement "Antonescu was no anti-semite" in section above it. 380,000 dead sounds like anti-semitism to me.

This is the first time I've edited Wikipedia. This is a great project but it'll need defending from deluded extremists with their own agenda to push. —This unsigned comment was added by Caliban303 (talk • contribs).

the links don't work! --83.60.192.231 11:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What "deluded Romanian nationalists", brah ? As an unwavering Romanian nationalist, I can honestly say that no true "nationalist" in his right mind would rank Antonescu higher than feces, as he is the cretin responsible for losing Bessarabia and Bucovina to the Soviets, thanks to his brainless alliance with Nazi Germany. As far as I'm concerned, the only people who could glorify Antonescu are fascist nostalgists. Don't you go placing nationalists in the same boat with fascists, holmes. --Voievod 00:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)