Talk:Ion Antonescu/Archive 3

Horthy
Sorry to bother you, I´m writing here in hope of finding neutral respondents. Is the section below (from Miklós Horthy) O.K. ?

"The mass deportations stopped on July 9, after 437,000 Jews had been sent to Auschwitz, most of them to their deaths.[5] Horthy was informed about the number of the deported Jews some days later: "approximately 400 000". [4]

HORTHY, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, DID A GREAT DEAL MORE FOR THE JEWS THAN THE NON-AXIS LEADERS, OR THE WESTERN MEDIA. He did voluntarily apply the anti-Jewish Nuremberg Laws in Hungary, and did ignore the Vrba-Wetzler report until there was international pressure put on him to stop the deportations. Still, the survival of 124,000 [7] Hungarian Jews in Budapest until the arrival of the Soviets could not have been possible without Horthy’s reluctant implementation of German orders. [8] After returning the trainload of Jews to Kistarcsa, [6] on July 15, 1944 the The New York Times had an article praising Hungary as the last refuge of Jews in Europe, and that “Hungarians tried to protect the Jews.” [9]"

And was Transylvania "regained" by Hungary in 1940 ? I´m not sure about the connotation of the term in English. --Venatoreng 00:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your discomfort about the word "regained": Transylvania had been a Hungarian province throughout history since the establishment of Hungary in the 10th century, until the Treaty of Trianon (June 21, 1920) following the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, when Hungary lost over 68% of her territory and over 58% of her population. Transylvania was absorbed into Romania at that time, while other areas were annexed to Austria and the newly-formed Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. In this sense, Hungary has indeed "regained" a small part of her lost territories when Admiral Horthy entered and occupied northern Transylvania in 1940.LászlóD (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

DOUBT AND UNDERLINING
DOUBT.

I would like to know on what sources was based the information that during the reprisals of the peasant’s revolt of 1907 in Romania, Antonescu’s nickname was “Red Dog”. The term is used mainly to deleteriously describe a person with communist convinctions. In 1907 was far too early for that.

UNDERLINE.

I think it was too little emphasized the fact that ANTONESCU BLUNTLY RFUSED TO APPROVE THE DEPORTATION OF THE JEWS from what it was left of the Romanian territory. Despite enormous pressure from Berlin. And this, in all objectivity should be added as a quality to the portrait of this controversial character. Because IT WAS THE ONLY CASE, IN ALL THE COUNTRIES ALLIED WITH AND CONTROLLED BY GERMANY !

I would also very much to see a photocopy of the order 302826, especially the part in which it was alledgedly asked specifically, by Antonescu’s hand, the execution of 200 jews for every officer and 100 for every soldier killed in the bomb attack. I would also like to see the autentification of the orriginal. Too many “proofs” are taking for granted nowadays, just because they come apparently from reliable sources. Because another sad truth, all over recorded history is that VICTOR’S PROPAGANDA BECOMES THE VANQUISHED’S HISTORY.

And the haste to brand as a war criminal and a blood-thirsty, coming from people who’s parents or grand parents may have suffered, but who didn’t suffer at all, themselves, from the Holocaust should be checked. I appeal to what is left of their sense of justice: since their Jewish communities were subjected to such monstrous treatment, they should be very careful NOT to promote injustice themselves. And in this light, I will adress directly to them and to the author or authors of the article of Ion Antonescu in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia:

Doesn’t strike you as odd such formidable discrepancies in someone’s character, all of them, mind you, appeared after the age of 55, when, any psychiatrist would confirm, major changes are impossible if the person is sane ? A nazi lover and sanguinary war criminal, anti-semite to the core, was married to a Jewish woman ? Mark this, quoted straight from the US Library of Congress: "Despite rampant anti-Semitism, most Romanian Jews survived the war. Germany planned mass deportations of Jews from Romania, but Antonescu balked. Jews acted as key managers in Romania's economy, and Antonescu feared that deporting them en masse would lead to chaos; in addition, the unceasing personal appeals of Wilhelm Filderman, a Jewish leader and former classmate of Antonescu, may have made a crucial difference".

And another thing: it’s TOTALLY FALSE that Antonescu had a change of heart in 1943 after it was clear that Germany will lose the war and it was only after that he stopped Jewish deportations. There was NO DEPORTATION during the entire period of Antonescu government. Nor as it was, before that.

So, Nazi lover by definition, anti-semite to the teeth and still, he refuses to ingratiate himself to Hitler by denying him deportations from Romania ? Why ? Wouldn’t be more realistic the profile of a soldier with the rigid soldier mentality but an indiscutable sense of honor, a soldier that, unprovoked, would not make war on civilians ?

How conveniently the Allies forgot how much their own people, officials, governments openly admired, even cherished Hitler ! Encouraging him therefore to gamble the provisions of the Pact of Versailles, breaking them one by one. And therefore, transforming him from a histerical megalomaniac into an overpowerfull dictator. Watch the history, dear author ! Troughout, Romania was allied with France and England, ostentiously so during the WW 1, when it had a german king. The alliance with Germany seemed to be the only way to preserve some territory and some independence, and a slight chance to get back part of what was lost.

Antonescu was a soldier from head to toe, rigid as an iron bar, totally unfit for politics. He refused the leader’s position at least 3 times, accepting it in the end at the supplication of the major political party leaders, arguing that apart him, there was no one capable or willing to do the job. But he was no fool. He took his cues from the fate of Poland and Tchekoslovakia, both military allied with England and France, both sacrificed in cold blood without as much as a shot being fired for them in due time by their gallant allies. In WW 1, the political alliances costed Romania the loss of 75 % of its territory and a terrible loss of life. The germans were stopped at Marasti, but all the help Romania got from its allies was some machine guns and best wishes. Add to that the fact of the appaling Ribbentrop-Molotov pact to realize that not Antonescu, but any lifelong experienced politicians would have been out of options in his place. So, in conclusion, after reading hundreds of pages of history and biographies, my own modest research states that:

1. Antonescu was a soldier in a politician’s chair, and a patriot, trying to preserve decency and military honor within the territories still under his control.

2.	He tried to stop the loss of territory and independence in the only way he could imagine, by allying Romania to Germany in their common fight against USSR.

3.	Neutrality was not a viable option. He was a warrior, he knew that for the battle to be continued, the warriors in Hitler’s entourage would press him to invade Romania, neutral or not, its oil was too precious. In which case, all hope of ever re-taking Bukovina and Basarabia lost to the russians was lost.

4.	Antonescu was NOT a nazi, nor an extremist. He tried a political alliance with the Iron Guard (a legit political party at the time, which was leading the government), but when the Iron Guard pursued its policy of gaining influence trough murder, he made open war on them.

5.	The victims of pogroms alledgedly atributed to Antonescu’s orders in freshly conquered territories were mostly attributed to hearding the Jewish people in concentration camps in Transnistria. Those camps were under german administration. The direct and unprovoked participation of any units of the Romanian Army in deliberate killings along with the Einsatz SS detachments, is highly questionable. That was a war zone, prone to horrors and devoid of central authority and control, as all war zones. Given the crushing superiority in troops and armament, the control, much as it was in Basarabia – Odessa, was unquestionably german, not romanian

Thank you for your time                                              M Simu  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihai Simu (talk • contribs) 17:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but most of that has been proven false by most researchers, and the results of this research can be found in the Final Report, with adequate proof that the Romanian state carried out mass murders of Jewish and Romani civilians. I personally will not even consider debating on this issue. Dahn 18:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

M Simu: Thank you for your feed back, but...who are you ? Are you a historian ? Are you the main author of the Wikipedia article on Ion Antonescu ? Your signature says you are a user; if so, don't crush me with your contemptious superiority. This is a talk page, so let's talk.

I would be grateful for any data that would bringh light to the subject, believe me. "Let Justice be done should the Heaven fall ! ", remember ? So, please be specific: WHAT researchers prove false the fact that Antonescu first wife was Jewish ? Or that a leader of the Jewish community in Romania, like Filderman was his personal friend, and that Antonescu respected his vues to the point of letting them influence his decisions ? How exactly do those researchers and how do you, personally, Mr Dahn, explaint such acts, sympathies, friendships in the behavious of an antesemite ? Most of all, I'm exceedingly curious to hear (read) your explanation of Antonescu's opposition for deportation in Romania. And this, mark you, since the very beginning, since he was in a position of power, allied with Germany that was winning on all fronts, and BEFORE US was joining the Allies. Doesn't strike you as odd, inconsistent, therefore possibly not true ? How come that altjhough there were clear plans for a concentration camp in Romania, it was never built, for Antonescu never signed his approval ?

I said "possibly", please remember that. I think I'm not biased and I think I can preserve enough scientific objectivity. To make my position clear : I personally don't like the man much. For all I know he was the wrong man in the wrong position and his rigidity and political ineficiency cost Romania almost half a million lives. Sacrificed to what he considered to be an unbreakable code of honor. I do admire though his verticality and I think he was a man of principles, unyielding even when the pressure came from such high authority as Berlin. I do protest again what I consider to be an absurd ant totally injust state of affairs: normally I, and other Romanians, should have plenty of reasons to criticize him and his decisions and the Jewish community should admit that Antonescu tried and succeded to protect the Jews within the territory he had under control, and therefore show some restraint in its accusations, since it seems utterly incapable of gratefulness.

Mr Dahn, I am a Romanian (may I know your nationality and present country ?). I tried in my personal research to stay as objective as I could and therefore I based it on written text mostly. Still, recently I have discovered that written text is no absolute proof of objectivity and that Trevanian's axiom " The victor's propaganda becomes the vanquished's history " still stands. So, I extended my research to personal sources, the memories of my parents, grand parents and their friends, who, unlike me, lived trough those terrible times. And believe me, none of us is anti-semite, quite the contrary in fact. And there was a strange uniformity: nowhere in the Romanian territory (which excluded at the time northern Transylvania, Bucovina and initially Basarabia) did they hear, much less witnessed anything remotely resembling like govermental engendered persecution of the Jews. There were not gettos, no pogroms, no arrests and executions without trial and no obligation of wearing David's stars. Jewish businesses, big and small were not confiscated nor destroyed. As for what happened in Odessa, of course there's no excuse. But there is an explanation: the War Zone, Mr Dahn. As you are probably aware, the horrors of the Front are elligible to be stamped "war crimes", but not Holocaust. Holocaust involves by definition the monstruosity of cold deliberation, of planning and organizing ahead the killings and the total lack of acting under stress or lack of control from a superior authority.

I do hope that my views do not offend you, also that you might reconsider your decision of not debating the matter. I hope I am speaking to an intellectual, capable of constructive debate, devoid of emotional content. I would be very grateful to you or anybody that reads these lines and knows more than I do, to share that knowledge, thank you. I am still waiting for clear answers to the discrepancies mentioned in the second paragraph of this present input, in the phrases that end with interogation marks, thank you. Don't forget Mr Dahn, psychology is the key, and its harmony. Inconsitencies and discrepancies are always the signature of the false track.

M Simu
 * To repeat: I do not consider Antonescu's murders up for debate. After the totality of reliable historians have evidenced them and the Romanian state has accepted the evidence, there is little anyone (historian or pleb) can speculate about. Sorry to say, but virtually all the supposed challenges you present to me are non sequiturs (the Jewish wife, the "opposition" to deportation, the "War Zone" theory) and the answer to your questions has for long been offered in literature that you probably did not include in your assessment. Good luck with your personal investigations, but I do very much believe that they are irrelevant to the article or to a professional treatment of the topic at hand. Dahn 11:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm, I don't know what you call "reliable historians", but from what I read, each historian has a different oppinion on the matter. Not something like black and white: Most of them accept some degree of responsibility from the Romanian part. But if you read the various oppinions published on the matter, you see that the Wiesel report (and assumed by Iliescu and so by the Romanian state) conveys the most extreme (as opposed to average) position on the matter. So:
 * On the matter "did mass murders occur", about everybody agrees.
 * On the fine print that must be presented here, there is no consensus, and the Wiesel report is a rather extreme presentation. Dpotop 12:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually intend to make the Wiesel Report one of the main sources for this article. Not the only one, but certainly one of the main. When it comes to scholarly consensus and expertise, there is little to reach the level of that report, and making this seem doubtful by adding references to one's own political views is beyond the purpose of any discussion I'm willing to have. Furthermore, I would be interested to know where in the report you found a notion to back up your "black and white" theory. Dahn 13:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

M Simu:

Excuse me Mr Dahn, but these are not answers, though my questions were rather clear. Please, consider me naive and share with me your personal opinion in these matters. I'm not selecting from the "good questions" category, meaning hard or impossible to answer. I'm genuinely interested in expert answers to these discrepancies. And please remember that these, Sir, are FACTS, trully un-debatable (see my quote from the Library of Congress). Again :

1. An anti-semite marries a Jewish lady

2. No deportation from Romania - Old Kingdom, BECAUSE ANTONESCU BALKED ("Germany planned mass deportations of Jews from Romania, but Antonescu balked", see above). 3. Personal and old friend of Wihelm Friedman (classmate)

4. No gettos within the Romanian - controlled territory (meaning devoid of German troops)

5. No Jewish businesses damaged, confiscated or closed after January 1941 by personal order of Antonescu nor any other members of his government(date of the suppression of the Iron Guard armed rebellion).

6. The military suppression of the Iron Guard rebellion (An organization much closer to the hysterical fanaticism, the equivalent of "national-socialist ardour", especially appreciated by Hitler; by comparison, mind you, Antonescu was a suspicious character who fought against Germany in WW 1, educated in France, with diplomatic activity in France and England before the war. It was a gamble, Antonescu calculated correctly that Hitler will prefer his military prestige, therefore insuring the adherence of Romanian troops to Horia Sima's murderous enthusiasm and trigger happy thugs)

7. The downright schizofrenic change of personal values and ethics at the age of 55-56, while still sane, therefore responsible.

From allies-philiac to allies-phobic practically over night. Wow ! Freud must do sommersaults in his grave...

Mr Dahn and esteemed contributors, I would very much appreciate if you would indicate which of the above statement you consider to be false and, if not, how do you explain them.

I have deliberately omitted the interogation marks, in order to stress the reality of these allegations.

EVERYBODY ! I AM very much interested on educated and documented explanations to the seven points I have raised above, anticipated thanks. Specific references would be much appreciated.

Mihai Simu 23:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

--//--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihai Simu (talk • contribs) 21:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

hey man, didn't you see cioroi's documentary?Anonimu 08:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry, I didn't. What was all about ? Did he offer answers to my above-questions ? Do you have some ? Mihai Simu 00:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

STRAIGHT FROM WIESEL COMMISSION REPORT

''Each paragraph written in straight Times New Roman letters represent a quotation, exactly reproduced by copy and paste from the Wiesel Commission Report. I left out brackets to avoid confusion, since some passages contain quotes of their own. Comments in italics.''

By early January 1941, Antonescu was convinced that the Legion’s actions no longer served the interests of Romanian nationalism and that the Legion had become an instrument of extortion for its own members.22 On January 14, 1941, Antonescu met Hitler in Obersalzberg and obtained agreement on his plan to do away with the Legion.23

The Conducator wrote back, asking Filderman (Dr Wilhelm Filderman, leader of the Jewish Community in Romania) “to show understanding and to make the members of the Jewish community from all over the country understand that General Antonescu cannot perform miracles in one week….I assure Mr. Filderman that if his colleagues do not undermine the regime directly or indirectly, the Jewish population will not suffer politically or economically. The word of General Antonescu is a pledge.”4 On September 19 1940, a new decision of the Ministry of National Education for Religions and Arts suspended the implementation of the September 9 resolution on places of worship (temples and synagogues) until there was a definitive regulation on the status of associations and religious communities in Romania.

On December 9, 1940, after receiving one of the memoranda, the Conducator wrote the following resolution: “The Ministry of Internal Affairs together with a Legionnaire from the Legionary forum designed by Mr. Sima will urgently investigate all of these cases [in the memorandum]. The findings will be written in a report and presented to me as soon as possible. If I find that the claims are accurate, I will take measures. I pledge that I will respect the promises made to the citizens of this country, and I think that the partnership with the Legionnaires is real, not just words.”5 During December 1940, some dozens of memoranda were sent.

In his explanations, Filderman did not accuse Ion Antonescu, but he did accuse the Iron Guard. He stressed the difference between Ion Antonescu’s approach and the Legion’s as well as the fact that the Legionnaires revolted against the Conducator’s policy by trying to solve the Jewish problem on their own.

On September 8, Filderman obtained an audience with Marshal Antonescu and came accompanied by the Jewish architect H. Clejan. The main purpose of the meeting was to discuss the yellow star. “After a short conversation, the Marshal said to Mihai Antonescu: ‘All right, issue an order to forbid the wearing of the sign throughout the country.’”12 During a session of the Council of Ministers, the Marshal explained that the measure had “great consequences for the public order and from other points of view. The representatives of Jewish community came to me, and I promised them to strike down this measure.” Considering the results of this “battle,” Israeli historian Theodor Lavy observed, “it was a battle in which the victims were victorious.”13

On February 24, 1942, General Vasiliu summoned Streitman and Gingold to the Ministry of Interior and promised them he would refrain from adopting any severe measure against Jews. He also asked that the Jewish population be made to understand that it had been under constant suspicion after the attitude it displayed during the 1940 withdrawal from Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, so the government was obliged to take safeguard measures. General Vasiliu also ordered the dismantling of hostage camps, though that did not mean that all hostages were set free.

'''In the summer of 1942, the Antonescu regime agreed in writing to deport the Jews of the Regat and southern Transylvania to the Nazi death camp in Belzec, Poland, and was planning new deportations to Transnistria. Yet only months later, the same Romanian officials reversed course and resisted German pressure to deport their country’s Jews to death camps in Poland. Initially, Romania had also approved the German deportation of Romanian Jews from Germany and German-occupied territories, which resulted in the death of about 5,000 Romanian citizens. But when the shifting tides of war changed minds in Bucharest, thousands of Romanian Jews living abroad were able to survive thanks to renewed Romanian diplomatic protection. And while Romanian Jews may have been deported en masse to Transnistria, thousands were subsequently (if selectively) repatriated. Ironically, as the vast German camp system realized its greatest potential for killing, the number of murders committed by the Romanians decreased, as did the determination with which they enforced their country’s antisemitic laws. Such contradictions go a long way toward explaining the survival of a large portion Romania’s Jews under Romanian authority.'''

Documents do record some instances of Romanians—both civilian and military—rescuing Jews, and many of these have been recognized by Yad Vashem as “Righteous Among the Nations.” But these initiatives were isolated cases in the final analysis—exceptions to the general rule, which was terror, forced labor, plunder, rape, deportation, and murder, with the participation or at least the acquiescence of a significant proportion of the population.

Within the framework of the negotiations with Radu Lecca at the end of 1942, the Jewish Agency proposed to transfer the Jews who had survived in Transnistria first to Romania and then to enable them to leave. The ransom plan was viewed as a possibility to make the Romanian government change its policy or at least to win time. And, indeed, various liberal, or simply decent, Romanian politicians and public figures occasionally intervened on behalf of the Jews or Roma.

It must be remembered, however, that voices of moderation were not the only ones clamoring for Ion Antonescu’s attention. He also received numerous pleas to proceed still more vigorously against Romanian Jewry. In an October 1943 memorandum, the so-called 1922 Generation (former Legionnaires and Cuzists) demanded that “all the assets” of the Jews be “transferred to the state” in order that they might “be placed in the hands of pure-blooded Romanians.” (Although by that date the assets of the Jews, with few exceptions, had already been transferred to the state.) These diehards continued to demand “the mandatory wearing of a distinctive insignia by all Jews” and the prohibition of Jews from numerous professions. “The radical and final solution of the Jewish question,” they wrote as if the recent course of the war had been completely lost on them, “must be carried out in conjunction with [the plan for] the future Europe.”

Romania under Antonescu was a dictatorial regime, and Antonescu’s orders could condemn to death the Jews of Bessarabia and Bukovina, just as they might allow for the survival of most the Jews of Moldavia and Walachia

'''When the Antonescu government decided to stop the extermination of the Jews, the extermination did stop. The change in policy toward the Jews began in October 1942, before the Axis defeat at Stalingrad, and deportations were definitively terminated in March-April 1943. Discussions regarding the repatriation of deported Jews followed. The result of this change in policy was that at least 290,000 Romanian Jews survived.'''

Care to comment ? Mihai Simu 21:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * One sentence: "When the Antonescu government decided to stop the extermination of the Jews, the extermination did stop". If you read the rest of the report, you'll find out what this is in reference to. Dahn 12:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes Mr Dahn, I did read the rest of the Report, come on sir, I was hoping to have a fair debate and to find out new things if possible. This is after all a talk page and I never claimed to be infaillible. To accuse me from the start of superficiality it's cheap, I could do the same thing, since apparently you refuse to answer my questions and decided to examine events unilaterally and to count only when it suits you. Don’t worry, I won’t.

But to be sure, for me the Report is no Gospel. To begin with I fail to see how it can considered objective a Commission lead by a victim of the concentration camps. What I could not gather from the Report was the composition of the Commission, who exactly were the members. Perhaps you can help me in this respect, by indicating a source of information ? thank you. When examining the veracity of a statement one must consider the source, a basic legal principle isn’t it ?

Anyway, any psychologist will tell you that it takes an exceptional spirit to be able of objectivity after one had much to suffer. The victim is by definition biased and exceptions are by definition rare, if you’ll excuse the apparent platitude.

I do state that the nomination of Dr Wiesel as head of the Commission doesn’t make sense not even from the direct expertise point of vue. Dr Wiesel, by his own admission was held in a ghetto in Sighet, northern Transylvania, lost territory by Ribbentrop-Molotov treaty, then under Hungarian administration. The ghetto period lasted from 1940 to 1944, when he was deported at Auschwitz. I am sympathetic to his ordeal and I won’t claim that I know what he’d been through. But this confinement erases any possibility of first hand experience or information from the territories still under Romanian administration.

An objective Commission would have encompassed in my opition as few Romanians as possible (but nevertheless present), as few Jewish as possible (but nevertheless present) and as many as possible third parties experts, not even marginally involved in the events of the WW 2 Romania. And the Jewish and the Romanian experts should have been chosen, if possible from people with direct knowledge of the events of the time, or, if that was not possible, from people with access to direct witnesses of such knowledge. Was this the case ? Was this the Commission composition ? Mihai Simu 15:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a paragraph that i like: "efforts to rehabilitate the perpetrators of these crimes are particularly abhorrent and worrisome. Nowhere else in Europe has a mass murderer like Ion Antonescu, Hitler’s faithful ally until the very end, been publicly honored as a national hero."Anonimu 16:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes Mr Anonimu, even this paragraph you chose should cast a shadow on objectivity, since it's patent nonsense to call "Hitler'f faithful ally until the very end" someone who, was trying to reach a separate peace treaty with the Allies since 1943. It's in the article.

And I might say that to ignore deliberate efforts in sparing hundreds of thousands of lives is even more abhorrent and more worrisome, don't you see ? The victims of the dead camps and the war crimes have whole Comissions to vindicate their rights,sometimes uselesly, since no one sane could deny their suffering.

On the other hand, people who got caught in impossible situations by events over they had little or no control, and even from those impossible positions and at a great personal risk tried and sometimes succeded to do the right thing, have no one. To speak for them. Please remember that the recommendation of the modern Justice, throughout the world is: better absolve a culprit than to accuse an inocent. (Inocent of premeditation, that is. Inocent of the accusation of deliberately singularize the Jewish as targets of his blood lust. One million Russians and Romanians and Tartars and God knows what other ethnic-nationals died in the first three months of the Barbarossa. NOT inocent of war crimes, unfortunately for him...at a time when crime was the only way to make a war, anywhere)

Are you religious, sir ? Do you know that by Divine and human laws, both, there is not a graver sin than to brand in unfair fasion, or to deliberately ignore a good deed ? To paint the white in black ? Especially when speaking of someone who's dead and cannot defend himself... And devoid of any scientific objectivity, of the spirit of "Audiatur et altera pars", listen to the other side too, as the Romans were saying.

And, to paraphrase, I might add that nowhere else in the world, much less in Europe, is someone responsible for saving 300 000 lives called a mass murderer, so the dagger of the accusation can point both ways.

I absolutely agree with you though on the injustice of calling Antonescu a national hero. Frankly, personally I never heard the term applied to him. Someone who engaged Romania in a conflict that cost the nation half a million lives, can never be a hero. But then, can you point at many heros on the losing side, throughout history and especially in 20-th century ?

Point is, sir, as Einstein is known to have been said: "If your theory checks all the angles, explains all the facts, eliminates all the contradictions, then your theory is the truth".

I do have a such a model that explains the crimes and the saving of lives, should you be interested, I could outline it for you.

I don't delude myself though. You are too eager of aligning to the consensus of the time, of marching to the official beat, since is the easier thing in the world. As it is to ignore the discrepancies and the contradictions, instead of finding explanations for them. Well, sir, at least MY opinions are my own, after considerable personal research, and believe you me I did "audiatur et altera pars", in fact much more than the pro-Antonescu theories. Mihai Simu 15:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Ah, but gentlemen, this (your comments) is like stating that the elephant is a snake, after touching his trunk, blindfolded. You are obstinately cringing to the crime aspect (which I do not contest, let us be clear on this point. I do contest the context, though; some of the labels are wrong in my opinion). Please explain the mercy aspect. Much as it seems to irritate you, the deliberate sparing of almost 300 000 people cannot be ignored, especially in those circumstances.

So, indulge me please, and share your opinion. I mean completely. I gather that the base of it consists of denying any positive intentions from Anonescu’s part, correct ? OK, let’s try to take them out of the equation and see what’s left. If there was not humanitarianism at all, then, logically there are just two possibilities. One (nr 2) was mentioned in the Wikipedia article; strangely, the Wiesel Report was more restraint on such an interpretation.

The two points I alluded were : 1. The homicidal maniac thesis. I think we can leave that aside, at least in that I hope to have your consent; such a thesis would automatically declare Antonescu irresponsible, therefore not fit to be judged, a patient not a criminal.

2. The ulterior motives. Two were quoted a) The Jews within old Romanian borders were spared because their removal would have brought havoc in an economy and commerce already strained by war to the breaking point. And b) Political prudence, fear of reckoning, of being judged for war crimes. Let’s examine them :

a)	Ilogic, given previous statements, the “rampant antisemitism” the “romanization” at all cost. The German model offered no such subtleties; besides, apparently the German economy prospered even after ousting Jewish people from all official positions, and the loot was impressive ! Confiscation brought the Reich millions. Since Antonescu was accused of being even more aggressive in his antisemitism than Hitler, these should have been his reasons too, don’t you think ? Rather than complaining the loss of obviously gifted commercants and economists, he should have enjoyed the multiple positions left open to be filled with co-nationals. Why admitting openly that Jewish people had ireplaceable qualities ?

b)	Even more ilogic, downright absurd. The pressure from Berlin, regarding the deportation to Germany’s and Poland death camps of Romanian Jews increased and culminated in the summer of 1942. A full 7 months BEFORE the Stalingrad disaster; nobody on either side wouldn’t have dared to bet on a soon-to-be defeat of Nazi Germany.

The only setback at the time was the failure to conquer Moskau the previous winter, but Hitler and his staff liked to believe it was due rather to his decision of re-directing the offensive southward, towards the oil of the Caucasus. Even so, in the spring, a russian offensive was crushed, with a staggering 750000 casualties. Most of the productive Soviet Union was under German ocupation, well to the Moskau meridian; in Ukraine, Himmler was already implementing the first phase of his intended SS state in the East, with Hitler’s blessing. At that time, these were dangerous people to cross and the moment couldn’t have been worse.

Yet, Antonescu did it. Why ? Please explain. The step from ally to enemy was so dangerously little it required literal political rope-walking; the Yougoslav’s example was fresh from April 41, when the coup in which a pro-nazi government was replaced, was followed by operation "Retribution": the invasion in 10 days, that left half a million dead. In August 42 the Dieppe disaster was another example of german efficiency in dealing with bungled offensives and even after Stalingrad, rapid victory was nowhere on sight. What fear of retaliation could have prevailed ?

If you have other valid theories, or data, able to explain these points, I’d be happy to see them. Mihai Simu 09:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Mihai Simu, I'm not interested in speculative history and psychological arguments, as fond as you may be of them. A document you have allowed yourself to cite inncompletely fully references Antonescu's war crimes, his antisemitism, and the measure of responsibility he had in the killing of European Jews. That would, in itself, make this persistent posting of yours fruitless and irrelevant. In addition, as I have stressed above, your messages are riddled with fallacies, inconsequential details and off-topic assumptions.
 * I will stress again: this project works on the basis of reliable proof, not of speculation and things that could be said. The evidence is overwhelming and universally accepted, and you requesting other editors to contest your theories (with their own!) is a non sequitur. Dahn 15:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with User Dahn. The official report should indeed be taken as the basis of the article. Mr Simu, your apologetical ruminations (disguised as an "honest" quest for truth) about undeniable crimes committed by Antonescu are shameful. Instead of wasting everybody's time here, have the decency and read some of the literature you generously reject, be it only Jean Ancel's or Radu Ioanid's books. Or at least Saul Friedlaender's recent book The Years of Destruction, which puts Antonescu's crimes in the murderous historical context in which they belong.


 * Before your hero, Antonescu, came to halt the deportations, he and his underlings in the Romanian government made sure that over 200.000 Jews were killed. To claim, as you do, that halting the deportations deserves credit is nonsense. In general, we do not give credit to a murderer who kills, let's say, only 10 people, just because he COULD have killed 20 or 30. Instead, what we do is trial the murderer for the crimes he HAS committed. How much more is this true of the killer of some 200.000 people. Your sophism will not go through.

--mircion 01:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Link FA
Please add the {Link fa} template on the article for the Hebrew language (he). Thanks. Morshem 03:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr Dahn, I would be only too happy to deal only with facts. -	Saving 300 000 lives against the odds, the pressure and the sheer logic, if one is criminally antisemitic through and through, is a fact sir. -	Dismantling the Iron Guard, a declared antisemitic and pro-german organization, is another paradox -	Marying a Jewish lady as an antisemit, doesn’t make sense -	Allowing the Jewish community to have official representatives, to befriend at least one of them, the lider of that community and to lend him an attentive ear and to let him convince you to change some of the previously issued orders and laws, does not, again, fit into an antisemitic profile. -	Allowing some of the deported Jews in Transnistria to be repatriated, is not, again, an act of an atisemite. (It is another unprecedented act; can you quote one single similar occurrence in an Europe under the german boot?)

Please explain this. My request is NOT rethorical. I do agree on your superior erudition in the matter, for all I know, you might be a historian, whereas I am just interested in history. And PLEASE don’t refer me to other books, reports, authors. Just give me your own opinion on the points above. Not your opinion that they do not matter, but how do you explain them? I accept your patronizing unpleasant as it may be, if you’ll just explain.

And try to see my point: I DO accept the possibility of being wrong. I try to stay as objective as I can, but till now, I heard rather unilateral accusations, rather than specific proofs and facts. That’s the diference between us, when confronted with discrepancies, you sir seem to deliberately ignore them, because the authors you read do so; me, I start my own research. I have spoken personally to at least 50 people, who lived through those terrible times, not Jewish, unfortunately, but certainly not antisemitic. (It’s not much, but at least I did it; what’s YOUR personal research ?) They are spread over all major Romanian regions, my witnesses, covering many different trades. Not one, mind you, ever heard, much less witnessed, any antisemitic violence ORDERED BY ANTONESCU or his government on Romania – old territory. Please quote contrary evidence, first hand if possible. I confess, I couldn’t find Jewish witnesses, all my Jewish friends and aquaintances are too young for that, but I’m still looking.

And excuse me, the accusation of “incomplete quoting” the Wiesel repport is ludicrous. Would you want me to quote the full text ? My point was that even in a report that I consider unilateral and biased (like a trial with prosecutors only and without defenders), important facts like apparently inexplicable acts of mercy and a definite orriginal Jewish policy, totally opposed to that of Germany, at a time when Germany was still all powerfull, could not be remained unnoticed. The Wiesel Commission itself, sir, could not ignore those facts; how can you ?

The Wiesel Report allowed such colossal mistakes as blaming a whole state, a whole nation, I remember of having read the phrase “the crimes committed by Antonescu and the Romanian nation against Jews”. You never blame a whole nation, a whole population.

The blame sir, is INDIVIDUAL, as Frederic Forsythe says. And so is the salvation.

An intelligent man knows that when you deal with great numbers, you have to apply statistics, over-generalization is one of the most unforgivable acts. And such a phrase lies in the same report in which there are mentioned pro-Jewish acts, both from government level and from individuals, only to underline that they don’t count. And you want me to take such a report as gospel truth, a model of impartiality and justice ?

MR MIRCION, kindly, get a grip on yourself. To state that Antonescu is “my hero” proves you didn’t even tried to read what I wrote; if so, how and what are you criticizing ?

I repeat, to be sure Antonescu was involved in war crimes. Commited in war zones. He was not involved in crimes against humanity, in cold-blood premeditated murder, based on an ethnic cleansing policy, on the contrary, he tried, and partially succeeded to stop it, against considerable political pressure and certainly against the major antisemitic trend in a Germany dominated Europe. He is to be condemned, of course, but NOT for the wrong reasons. At the time of the reckoning, both good and bad deeds should be put in the balance. Romanians, sir, have the right to criticize, accuse, and condemn Antonescu. Not the Jewish people from Romania-old kingdom, since Antonescu saved 300 000 of them while sending almost half a million of his own people to their death.

To be sure, this is just my opinion, but it’s based on facts.

If you have explanations for the points lined up in the answer above to Mr Dahn’s reply, based on facts, not on second-hand accusations and on arguments that other people are writing so, I’d be interested in them.

And no, sir, to express an opinion is not shameful; shameful is to try to suppress it. To insult someone and to call his reasonings “ruminations” just because you disagree, falls under the heading cultural nazi-ism, sir of the same kind as the one practiced by the Nazi themselves sixty five years ago and the communist dictators afterwards.

I’ll try to find the books you mentioned sir; I can only hope that you are able to realize that limiting yourself to this, means to borrow other people’s opinions. Ever tried to find out for yourself ?

And for both of you, Mr Dahn, Mr Mircion, I politely ask for YOUR OWN explanation to those incongruities listed higher up FOR THE FIFTH TIME at least. Could you just once answer them, othewise than sneering at me ? You should appreciate that I didn’t try to change one comma in the article, although theoretically I should have the same right as you. But I agree, I don’t know enough yet. I’m still gathering facts. And I do NOT chose to ignore those I do not like.

Mihai Simu 23:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr Simu: You have not understood my argument about the cessation of the deportations of the Jews, otherwise you would not continue to claim that we have to take into account both Antonescu's bad and "good" deeds before judging him. I hope that with time, more careful, less self-righteous reflection and by studying the literature, you will understand it. Antonescu never gave up the plan of ethnically cleansing the Jews in Romania (making Romania "judenrein"). The Jews in the old Regate were supposed to meet a fate similar to those in the North East, by deporting them to the deathcamps in Poland. There is no doubt about this, since Antonescu's commissioner in Jews matters, Radu Lecca was already working on such plans with the Germans (Gustav Richter in particular, the RSHA representative of Eichmann in Bucharest). These plans were dropped once Antonescu realised the defeat of the Axis in the East. He now simply changed the method of his ethnic cleansing. Instead of killing the Jews, he offered their emigration in exchange for foreign currency to the Allies. He did not do this "against all odds", as you claim, since the Romanian oil and military assistance against the SU provided him with a strong leverage in his negotiations with the Germans, but out of rabid nationalism and racism, which informed his entire Jewish policy. Even in 1944 he wrote in a letter (to Herman Clejan) that he regretted that not all Jews from Bukovina had been deported. (Deportation of an ethnic group constitutes genocide under the UN Human Rights Charta, as you know). All this is well documented, Mr Simu, and there is no point in repeating the facts here in extenso. Please read chap. 8 of Ioanid's The Holocaust in Romania. Alternatively, you can read the shorter, but sharper analysis by Armin Heinen in his article "Ethnische Saeuberung. Rumaenien, der Holocaust und die Regierung Antonescu" (in: Krista Zach (ed.), Rumaenien im Brennpunkt, Muenchen 1998). (FYI: Heinen is the leading historian of Romanian fascism.) I understand that this is a painful topic for you, since you are a patriot, but really there are no incongruencies whatsoever. The history of the destruction of the Romanian and Transnistrian Jews is as logical and consistent as anything can be in a Balkan country. --mircion 16:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

HMycroft 18:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Thank you Mr Mircion for mentioning finally some precise sources and for apparently giving me the benefit of your doubt, regarding my bona fide. I disagree with you however regarding the timing and therefore the motivation of Antonescu's actions. I will re-post a few excerpts from Wiesel Report, please note the dates:

"The Conducator wrote back, asking Filderman (Dr Wilhelm Filderman, leader of the Jewish Community in Romania) “to show understanding and to make the members of the Jewish community from all over the country understand that General Antonescu cannot perform miracles in one week….I assure Mr. Filderman that if his colleagues do not undermine the regime directly or indirectly, the Jewish population will not suffer politically or economically. The word of General Antonescu is a pledge.”4 On September 19 1940, a new decision of the Ministry of National Education for Religions and Arts suspended the implementation of the September 9 resolution on places of worship (temples and synagogues) until there was a definitive regulation on the status of associations and religious communities in Romania."

"On September 8, 1941 Filderman obtained an audience with Marshal Antonescu and came accompanied by the Jewish architect H. Clejan. The main purpose of the meeting was to discuss the yellow star. “After a short conversation, the Marshal said to Mihai Antonescu: ‘All right, issue an order to forbid the wearing of the sign throughout the country.’”12 During a session of the Council of Ministers, the Marshal explained that the measure had “great consequences for the public order and from other points of view. The representatives of Jewish community came to me, and I promised them to strike down this measure.” Considering the results of this “battle,” Israeli historian Theodor Lavy observed, “it was a battle in which the victims were victorious.”13"

"On February 24, 1942, General Vasiliu summoned Streitman and Gingold to the Ministry of Interior and promised them he would refrain from adopting any severe measure against Jews. He also asked that the Jewish population be made to understand that it had been under constant suspicion after the attitude it displayed during the 1940 withdrawal from Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, so the government was obliged to take safeguard measures. General Vasiliu also ordered the dismantling of hostage camps, though that did not mean that all hostages were set free."

"In the summer of 1942, the Antonescu regime agreed in writing to deport the Jews of the Regat and southern Transylvania to the Nazi death camp in Belzec, Poland, and was planning new deportations to Transnistria. Yet only months later, the same Romanian officials reversed course and resisted German pressure to deport their country’s Jews to death camps in Poland. Initially, Romania had also approved the German deportation of Romanian Jews from Germany and German-occupied territories, which resulted in the death of about 5,000 Romanian citizens. But when the shifting tides of war changed minds in Bucharest, thousands of Romanian Jews living abroad were able to survive thanks to renewed Romanian diplomatic protection. And while Romanian Jews may have been deported en masse to Transnistria, thousands were subsequently (if selectively) repatriated. Ironically, as the vast German camp system realized its greatest potential for killing, the number of murders committed by the Romanians decreased, as did the determination with which they enforced their country’s antisemitic laws. Such contradictions go a long way toward explaining the survival of a large portion Romania’s Jews under Romanian authority."

"Within the framework of the negotiations with Radu Lecca at the end of 1942, the Jewish Agency proposed to transfer the Jews who had survived in Transnistria first to Romania and then to enable them to leave. The ransom plan was viewed as a possibility to make the Romanian government change its policy or at least to win time. And, indeed, various liberal, or simply decent, Romanian politicians and public figures occasionally intervened on behalf of the Jews or Roma."

I pray you to remember that the outcome, at Stalingrad became obvious only in January 1943. Von Paulus surrendered in February. You realize that the latest date in the quotes is "end of 1942"; that's still too early for anyone savvy to talk about certain german defeat. So no, "the shifting tides of the war" is not the explanation, since the tides didn't shift yet, at that time. HMycroft 18:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As for deportation being unlawful under any laws, UN Magna Carta included, (I don't know abou being equal to genocide, semantically genocide should involve deportation plus sistematic murder); still, singularizing Antonescu, taking him out of the historical context is tantamount of quoting the same Magna Carta, in a slightly corrected way, stating that all people HAVE to be happy, instead of having the right to try. Deportations? Nazis themselves are not the champions,russians are, if Soljenitsin is accurate, more than 30 million people were deported just during the interbelic period. By the end of the 20-th century, the number must have exceeded 50 million.

On the same note, I never heard of Americans being accused of genocide or even just deportation, in spite of the 100 000 Japanese deported during the war, nor acknowledging the obviously very embarassing discrimination, since they were unable to do the same to the german-americans and italian-americans, they were just too many.

Nor have I heard about the English being accused of deporting their citizen of german orrigin in the Isle of Man. I'll grant you though that the treatment of the American Japanese and of the English-Germans was infinitely better than the one inflicted in the concentration camps.

The invention of the concentration camps goes to the Brits, as you are probably aware, the first ones being built during the Boer's War. So Hitler and Himmler had plenty of material for inspiration, compared to them and the russians, Antonescu was downright shy. And, an important point from where I sit, the camps were in Transnistria not in Romania (the Tirgu Jiu camp was a joke compared to Maidanek or Sobibor) and they were NOT extermination camps. Brutal treatment led to many condemnable deaths, but they were never equipped nor functioned with the monstruous efficiency of Auschwitz. HMycroft 19:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)