Talk:Ion Antonescu/Archive 7

In pretty good shape
I've made my pass through. Other than one or two minor issues mentioned above that still need to be addressed, I think it is a very good article. Almost all of my changes have just been copyedits.

The article might be a bit overlong by Wikipedia standards, but it is hard to see anything that is really off-topic or redundant. I think it justifies its length. The degree of citation is impressive.

Question: do we have an article on cultural matters in Romania during the Antonescu period or during World War II or such? I can think of at least two things on topics I've researched that shed interesting light on the regime and which show why it might have been possible prior to the Wiesel Commission report for someone in good faith to imagine a very different picture. One is the revival of the Baraşeum (now State Jewish Theater) shortly after the fall of the Guardists; another is that, unlike the communists, Antonescu's regime generally tolerated the often politically sharp satire of Constantin Tănase. Similarly, it says something that Antonescu merely marginalized, for example, Iuliu Maniu, whereas the Communists threw him in prison to die. Not for a moment to minimize the murder of hundreds of thousands, but I'm still a bit bewildered as to how much margin was available in the Antonescu era for independent cultural activity and for dissent. My suspicion is that on the whole there was more latitude than at some times during the communist period in Romania and considerably more than in Nazi Germany. - Jmabel | Talk 01:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Allow me to say thank you, for both your excellent copyedits and your positive review. For the article you mention, I suppose we could expand (and eventually should expand) and fine-tune the Romania during World War II article, where such facts could be mentioned. About a special article on the cultural aspects - we could consider creating one, but maybe so in the future, at least when there's some significant overflow from other articles; I personally believe such articles unwittingly divert focus instead of providing it (this, for instance, should not have been an FA), and it may turn out that there's really not much to say. But I'm not married to that objection. On the Baraşeum and other detailed paradoxes, we could also consider my old suggestion of developing this redirect into an article - in any case, we really should at some point. Your other interesting comments above (on Tănase, Maniu etc.) deserve a longer reply, but I fear we'd be going off-topic; I hope to expand on them on your talk page when I have an opportunity to concentrate on this subject. Dahn (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Finished integrating your answers to the questions I asked above. Now it's someone else's turn. - Jmabel | Talk 03:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust in Romania article?
I found this article (in particular the "Antonescu and the Holocaust" section) to be the most detailed and best researched overview of Holocaust in Romania. The only quibble is that it doesn't cover the atrocities committed by Iron Guard before Antonescu took full powers. Perhaps a main and stand-alone Holocaust in Romania article could be based on it? Pcap ping  01:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It was and is what my own edits were meant to suggest - I too would see the "main and stand-alone" article as the place to discuss all of that and more (for "more": it would be the best place to discuss the matter globally, mentions of Northern Transylvania included). Till then (and even after) your solution to turn "main" into "see also" is only logical. A minor point would be that the Guard's activities are not technically (chronologically, at least) part of the Holocaust - but they should certainly be mentioned in detail in an overview article, perhaps as preliminaries or similar. Also: while details on those atrocities are not particularly relevant for this bio article, they are mentioned in two portions of the text, where historians stress either an indirect relevancy for Antonescu's actions (the pogrom of Bucharest) or strict continuity. But again, an overview article would do more justice to that approach - the only thing is that it's bound to be an enormous body of work.
 * And many thanks for the encouraging words. Dahn (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from the main article: "The Jewish population in the Old Kingdom, numbering between 300,000 and 400,000 people, survived the Holocaust almost intact. Reflecting on this fact, Lucian Boia noted that Antonescu could not "decently" be viewed as a rescuer of Jews". Then what can he be viewed as (in this context), indecent rescuer? What is the encyclopedic value of such a statement? Concidentally I stumbled upon this piece of news: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iAQInI74neW64tpG-Kf7GhiBddRQ. Shimon Peres doesn't explicitly name Antonescu the "saviour" (as far as the source says), but regardless, he's calling a spade a spade. You can't make Antonescu responsible for every crime perpetrated between Prut and Dniester, and at the same time declare the survival of 400,000 people "an act of God". Even Denis Deletant calls him "a providential antisemite" as far as the jews of Romania were concerned. 81.101.18.148 (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"raised his hat in salute once the order was given"
Not his hand? Rather odd, can someone check the source? Pcap ping  01:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree it's odd, but it's in the source. Deletant says: "Shortly after 6 pm, as the firing squad took aim, Ion Antonescu raised his trilby hat in salute and then fell, like his colleagues, under a volley of fire." Dahn (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to look that up. Pcap ping  16:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem at all. I sincerely welcome the troubleshooting, and I'm on my toes when it comes to double-checking facts I added. So please let me know about any other such potential problems. Dahn (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Look here for video odf the execution: http://www.kaotic.com/8788_The-Execution-Of-Marshal-Ion-Antonescu--Comrades.html

Re: recent edits
Gentlemen, let me squeeze in a few comments. For starters, while I am touched by the quick response my expansion had in the way of striking it GA-wise, I want to suggest a bit more caution in editing. I don't disapprove of rephrasing in various places to avoid repetition (even though I tend to prefer this kind of repetition to the "he was... he did... he was..." alternative), but most of the rephrasing were in fact ungrammatical - something I attribute to haste.

Moving on to the other edits. First of all, gentlemen, the digits as rendered in English use the dot wherever Romanians use the comma and vice versa. Please understand this if you have not already: it's a basic rule, and we could avoid a lot of confusion here and elsewhere by simply observing this basic rule, not to mention that we would all be saving a lot of wasted time. In plain terms, the killing of "15.000 people" means, in English, the killing of fifteen people. Consider that this text has been reviewed by at least two highly competent English speakers, both of whom I've personally asked to read and correct my text; what is the likelihood that they would have missed this? (Incidentally, that does not mean that this article is not open to further reviews, just that they should by now focus on style, not on grammar.)

Other issues. The rumor about Antonescu having had a Jewish wife may have some popularity, but it's simply not verified by decent literature. When I first followed up on it, all I could determine was that it was probably started by the Iron Guard as a means to discredit their political enemy (not that he was any better when it came to this level of debating). It rings to the sagged old tune: Antonescu would have been discredited not for killing hundreds of thousands of Jews, but for marrying one - not just sophistry, but poisonous sophistry if one really thinks about it. What's more, even the existence of the rumor can't be, as far as I can discern, discussed in the article, since no decent historian so far seems to have ever commented on it one way or another.

Concerning Antonescu's political affiliation within the Iron Guard: that's another can of worms. For one, the Iron Guard simply never had a formal system of affiliation in place (something I've discussed elsewhere before). It is indeed true that he "donned the green shirt" on one occasion at least (as I believe the article itself mentions), but that was mainly perceived as significant by a section of the Guard. His relationship with the Guard was indeed far more personal than he would later admit, but: a) his office as Conducător did not hinge on it (in fact, it implied theoretical independence); b) the quasi-totality of historians I've read on this subject treat Antonescu as an outsider in relation to the Guard, and mention his partnership rather than identification with the Guard. I don't want to imply that he was somehow "better" than the Guard - and I do realize that some of his partisans will use this distinction in terminology to insinuate just that -, I'm just trying to point out that two wrongs don't make a right, particularly when based on original research such as "I saw this image on youtube...". The current infobox designation is just fine.

About Antonescu's missions being in Paris and London: I may be picky, but I for one think this is pretty burdensome on a justifiably lengthy lead; it is also "classic" as a form of expression, but annoyingly imprecise (someone may be said to reside in Parisian consular office, but Paris is not really the object of that person's mission). The text itself clarifies all details one expects to find on that, I do believe. [Incidentally: Antonescu was only an envoy toLondon because he was the envoy to Paris - it was just one and the same diplomatic post, and who knows if he was ever in England. Saying "in London and Paris" is therefore inaccurate: he was in France, and through this oversaw diplomatic activity in three capitals - Paris, London and Brussels. Sourced in the text.]

Did I miss anything? Dahn (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah yes: concerning his portrait, i.e. the picture I reverted. The image on commons should simply not be there: the license is mistaken or misleading. To begin with, the book it was fished out of is quite simply a neonazi salute to Antonescu, and the author GFDLed the content precisely so that he would increase its exposure (a common but sickening tactic for such tripe). The uploader is excused for not noticing that, but he added another mistake in not noticing that the author of the book cannot possibly claim copyright ownership on (and, as such, PD release of) the illustrations. That official portrait of Antonescu may in theory be PD, but that is simply not verifiable based on the info provided.
 * I for one am getting desperately tired of pictures with faulty rationales that get uploaded over and over again and erased over and over again: instead of using them in good faith, we could save ourselves some trouble by exercising some critical sense and only resorting to images that we know came from an open source. This, and this only, is why I opened the article with the Ribentropp image: it is not likely to get deleted. Remember: this has happened before in this very article, and I seem to be the only one to have cared enough to stabilize the situation at the time. Let's all leave a clean workbench, as they used to say in our motherland's many factories :). Dahn (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent addition
I have reverted the recent addition to the lead. First of all, if it adds anything to the article, it does not belong there: the lead is a paragraph for summarizing info that can be found below in the article, and it has to have a certain, manageable length. Second of all, it adds superfluous detail about issues that are already addressed in some (though, for understandable reasons, not as much) detail: Antonescu's various references to "cleansing" Romania, and his personal participation in ordering massacres, are rendered explicitly from quoted sources. Among these sources is another one by Jean Ancel, where he presents these facts in a more summarizing style (and, mutatis mutandis, that summarizing style is what is called here). We get nowhere by moving secondary facts we find relevant from the main text to the lead, and we lose coherence and narrative flow in the process. Thirdly, the addition was in poor English, did not follow the format of other references (or even seem to have acknowledged that such exists), and made a statement that contradicted all other sources, and was probably not found in the source itself (but deduced from it). All other sources generally state (as quoted in the text), that Antonescu did have (and unfortunately carried out) designs for exterminating much of the Jewish population in Bessarabia and Bukovina, but this does not a "Final Solution" make, not in terms of universal terminology. The sources are exhaustively clear that Antonescu did contemplate the extermination of Jews from all over Romania with Nazi assistance, but ultimately changed his mind (or his officials did). This is what the lead discusses, and this is plenty sourced in the text. Please see as relevant wikipedia content guidelines and policies: WP:LEAD, WP:UNDUE. Dahn (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I must again insist: the term Final Solution has a very strict meaning (rendered explicit in this very article by the use of "as applied in Nazi-occupied Europe", right after that segment). That meaning refers to the deportation of Jews in extermination camps, and generally so to those supervised by the SS or other German authorities, and most often to the criminal cycle of exhaustion-famine-gas chambers. This is not the system applied in Antonescu's Romania, where: a. such a deportation was planned, but not carried out; b. certainly not for charitable reasons, the mass of the Jewish population survived. To say or imply otherwise is an exceptional claim (and requires exceptional sourcing), particularly since the verdict of mainstream historians is found almost verbatim in two entire subsections of this article: "3. 4. Overall death toll and particularities" and "3. 5. Antonescu and the Final Solution projects". Please read them. You will perhaps note statements such as that of Weinberg: "the government of Marshal Ion Antonescu preferred to rob and persecute Jews [from Romania]; the government would not turn them over to the Germans for killing." The issue of Antonescu's opportunistic attitude on the deportation to Poland, and the various details surrounding it, as well as the circumstances in which the situation changed, are explained in much detail. Please be reasonable. Dahn (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Date of birth: which calendar?
This is a highly detailed and well-sourced article, so it surprises me greatly that the following question never seems to have been raised. The date of his birth, "15 June 1882" - is this in the then-prevailing Julian calendar (the Gregorian equivalent of which would be 27 June 1882), or has it already been converted to Gregorian (from the Julian 3 June 1882)? Romania did not convert to the the Gregorian calendar until 1919, so some light needs to be shed on this. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   23:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Huge wall of text
Important article that shows trere were not romanian holocaust. Bad translation fron romanian, but original article trere after. A RETURN NEED OR NOT think there was a Holocaust ROMANIAN Published by Ion Coja in Holocaust, Texts other on 09/26/2010 | 3 comments Gica Manole* NOCan not exist in historical fact or event that can not be explained : there can be no events without cause, of any kind should be. important remains an fact: that / those who analyze, evaluate , judge a historical phenomenon , taking into account the entire set of factors causal that led one event or another to occur. The trial historic should be mandatory, as an axiom, advice historian the Roman Cornelius Tacitus of Annals , " sine ira et studio ( without hatred and bias ) . But when court the events historical is profoundly marked by , distorted by the interests that have nothing to do with historical truth , the words of the great historical novel is broken , brutally , standing and the interests of talking to supersede historical truth . For several years now to write more , especially by historians foreign , the existence of a Holocaust Romanian during the Second World War. Romanian historians , with very few exceptions , have a side pale , feel timid , almost afraid to address this issue. Other historians , went without hesitation and deliberation , the the to those who us placed stigma of Holocaust on the forehead . I understand that no matter how it was, we must be united , and responsible , to / from our past. We, and not foreigners, we must be interested in the highest degree , what happened to our people in the recent past. For, in the case which they wish to express my opinions, not only is the truth or reconciliation with the past , but the culpability of the Romanian state , the Romanian people, and if guilty that we are required to diligently , we it will take , the consequences will be dramatic. I am sure that the Romanians have the power to understand that each time, including, or especially, ours must be united with the past , again, the Romanians must be aware that our age is caught in a web of causes and effects that leaves even little room chance, but solidarity we were talking about , we undertake, we discourage from a subjective judgments on people our past. We can not, should not we allow others to us impose on their views , so- called their truths about us and our recent history. Historians now are forced to emerge from silence, to bend organized, persistent, on these serious allegations that are made to the State and the Romanian people , are forced to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of Romanian victims of war and genocide Bolshevik , not silent or either indifferent. I leaned over, still in his teens, the specifics occupation of my , the the awful tragedy Hebrew people of the Nazi Holocaust. I was, and still are, deeply impressed by the suffering immense endured by people Jew in -occupied Europe Nazi. I agree with the great English historian AJ Toynbee, that even after several thousand years of penance , the German people only with difficulty could be forgiven for the crime committed. For the great crime done by Nazi Germany against the Jews ( and not only against them), not been in an accident , but was the expression of a strategy state , based on discrimination racial , the result of theories racial that anti-Semitism the most virulent became state policy. The consequences of this policy are known : million Hebrew will be exterminated, and Germany was covered with shame, a crime unparalleled in history. In connection with this problem, I am asking a natural question , knowing that I Antonescu was ally (not satellite) of Nazi Germany : What was the role that is the place Romania where the tragedy I speak of ? He practiced 's Romania Antonescu a policy of based on a strategy racist ? are Romanians partakers of the " final solution " envisaged by Hitler and his gang ? A sent Antonescu Hebrew Romanian to camps German extermination ? There were camps the extermination in Romania of the Second World War? Here are key questions that need to give answers only in relation to the historical fact of those years. I said that there can be no events historical that can not be explained. As and drama part of the the Jews of Romania 's Antonescu explained the causes of this tragedy can be identified without fail, guilty being , in a first stage, a party of Jews from Bessarabia. It is known national unitary state Romanian falls in the summer of 1940, following the agreement between Hitler and Stalin , and aggression that were derived from here. In late June 1940, when Romania is threatened with war by the Soviet Union, King Charles II decides to abandon without a fight , the Romanian territory over the Prut. When the Romanian army and some civilians ( including Jews rich) withdraw from the invaders Bolshevik, Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina , part of the people Hebrew out there , take an attitude anti-Romanian of a violence rare and unexplained. in this direction are evidence Documentary numerous and clear, both Romanian and foreign. Nobody could explain the hatred atrocious manifested by the Jews in the territories ceded to the crimes committed against the Romanians who lived a real national catastrophe. Because of aggressive behavior / barbarian of some Hebrew against the Romanian Army (not only ) on days ending in June of 1940, and the persecution carried , all of them, against the Romanians in the first year of Soviet occupation ( 1940 to 1941 ) in Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina , descendants direct retaliation military Romanian of the later and deportation to Transnistria. I will provide some testimony, extremely eloquent , of all these. Thus, when the Soviets arrived on June 28 , 1940 in Chisinau , the assault air , immediately the Jews hoisted flags red were crossed the streets and have off access to the station , not allowed to leave those who wanted to flee the way Soviet. Some Hebrew slogans like " Down with the Romanian Army, "" Long live Stalin " police commissioners Pascu Nicolae , Mateescu Severin and Flock were executed. So, all in 28 June 1940 began evacuation and of Czernowitz. report informative signed by General Army Corps Florea Ţenescu, prepared on this occasion , this following situation : Romanian troops were attacked and disarmed the Hebrew soldiers were beaten with stones , cooked with boiling water , the shooting of authorities military and Romanian civil Romanian churches destroyed and burned, occupation and destruction of headquarters administrative and military , etc.. At Vijniţa, Dr. Wisner , head Sanatorium , did not allow Romanian staff to leave the place , broke the Romanian flag was girded with a red flag on his chest , screaming that " the time has come the Jews. " In Soroca , also on 28 June 1940, Communists Hebrew occupied the police headquarters and City Hall. Advocate Jew M. Flexor shot the deputy commissioner Vladimir Murafa and agent Eustatiu Gabriel, have been killed Captain Georgescu and administrator financial John George. The Romanian ( Lapusna ) students, mostly Hebrew , which were at examinations end of year school , beat Romanian teachers , to Castle White , burned City Hall , the Bender , Jews Communist were stripped and beaten policemen. Worsening the situation of Romanians in these days because of the situation created by many Hebrew, preoccupied and King Charles II. So, in " Journal "or" he notes on 29 June 1940: "News of the events of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina are increasingly sad excesses of any kind of minority population , especially the Jews who attack and insult our Officers humiliated , units broken ... Jews and communists were held in a horrible way. Murdered and harassed officers and those who wanted to leave. " attitude Jews towards Romanian was so neomenească that of outraged even the commanders troops the occupying Soviet, who gave orders which warned they would punish with death robberies and murders . The string of crimes against the Romanians , committed by some Hebrew , in those days dramatic , is extremely long . I note still a few atrocities unjustified , unprovoked : they were murdered brutally tax collector and clerk in the village Ceadar - Lung priest Bender , collector and agent perception of common Calaglia Commissioner Chela Gregory Valcov , priest a Catholic in Chernivtsi , engineer railway Galbenu Mayor of Bolgrad etc . Another crime, really pogrom anti-Romanian difficult to understand and justify, occurred in Chisinau , where " 400-500 Hebrew communists organized into gangs , armed with rifles and revolvers , others with stones and sticks , have asked the director Ionut doctor Hospital Children's as immediately building its to be delivered. The trying doctor to calm everyone down, shot him , then rushed to hospital , devastându him completely, and children hospitalized , killing them and throwing them out the window. " ( Report Information of the General Staff, Department II of the 7 July 1940) . I do not propose an inventory of all crimes committed against Romanians by some Hebrew Bessarabia and Bukovina , in those tragic days of the summer of 1940 . There may , however, do not give a few extracts from the foreign press time , which strengthen , rather stout , the examples above. Thus , on 3 July 1940, the Journal de Geneve " in the article " Scene Tragic in Bessarabia and Bukovina, " offered its readers information about the cruelties to which they committed the Soviets and some Hebrew and pillaging and burning churches , shooting Romanian officials prevention eviction Romanians , arson headquarters Police , etc.. On 1 July 1940, the Italian newspaper La Stampa in the article " horrors and devastation committed Hebrew in Bessarabia and Bukovina, after reviewing some of the atrocities anti-Romanian , according readers that to Chernivtsi had formed " a provisional government composed of the Hebrew and communists. " Again, the important " Corriere della Sera " , insert in an article that: "While Romanians trying to flee the territories occupied , Jews gather in other parts there. In Chisinau and other towns of Bessarabia, subversive elements , the first usually Jews, seized the town hall, churches, banks and other institutions, robbing all while other gangs other wicked roamed the streets killing people. episodes terrorist ferocious have occurred in different cities, including the City White , where 80 children and three teachers were shot. In Chisinau, eight churches , among which the cathedral , burned to the arrival of the Russians. " ( Valeriu Florin Dobrinescu Ion Scurtu, Bessarabia during the years of World War II , p. 182). In his memoirs , Alexander Safran , chief rabbi in Romania between 1940 - 1946 , wrote . " ultimatum Soviet on 26 June 1940 and the annexation of territory between the Prut and Dniester Union Soviet was welcomed by some Hebrew left wing and communist. I sublinait, on another occasion , position 's Iorga towards these events , taken in his paper " nation Romanian " ( Article "Why such hatred ? "), so he no longer reproduce. What should not be overlooked in light of what will happen after the liberation of our territories in the North East with Jews, is that day tragic in late June - early July 1940, meant only the overture in tragedy the Romanian Bessarabia and Bukovina. Space does not permit us, but must be said without any restraint that in the first year of Soviet occupation , some Hebrew continued to show the same ferocity and hatred against the Romanians , working actively in the physical liquidation of thousands of Romanian and deportation In Siberia , other several hundred thousand that Siberia will be in eternity , hell and the grave. " In the hard days of the end of June 1940, when Romania was undergoing a great drama national , some citizens Hebrew of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina , by their conduct, have deepened the pain of the entire Romanian people , and from here , reaction the natural that occurred against them. " ( Valeriu Florin Dobrinescu, Ion Constantin , Basarabia in the years of World War II , p. 190). Do not hesitate to give the views of two diplomats British on the tragedy of the Romanians in the summer of 1940: Minister British in Bucharest, Reginald Hoare , advised his superior , Lord Halifax , that " ... Jews hate Romanian and have a strong tending to communism. "and J. Le Rougetel , with information from a Romanian, an eye witness , notes that " pensioners an asylum in Chisinau were gassed and killed in the style German and 10 trains loaded with landowners and peasants of Bessarabia had been sent to Siberia " ( Valeriu Florin Dobrinescu , John Constantine , op . cit. p. 212). The murder and deportation (also death proved ultimately ) of over 300,000 Romanian during 1940-1941 by Soviets turns out to be a attempt serious at existence biological of the Romanian people, a genocide premeditated , perpetrated by the Soviets , with help / supporter of hope , one of the Jews from Bessarabia. These are facts proven by historians, and the acceptance and ownership in the face of evidence undeniable should be the normal attitude. I emphasize : those Hebrew Bessarabia and Bukovina that perpetrators of many crimes and atrocities against the Romanians in the years 1940 - 1941, were Romanian citizens enjoyed equal , had rights equal to all residents of Greater Romania , it had suffered any assault or robbery of civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution of 1923. Moreover, minority Hebrew in Romania in the interwar period , controlled to a large extent, the Romanian economy , the banking system and the professions liberal prevailing. In 1939, as stated by Patriarch Miron Cristea (prime minister from October . II 1938 - 2 March 1939) , in Romania professed 4600 doctors Hebrew and only 4200 Romanian physicians. From immigration their Romanian land (XIX and the beginning century . XX), Jews had suffered , from the Romanian state or Romanians no persecution , no pogrom , most of them integrating successfully the Romanians proved their full understanding, tolerance and compassion. With the loss of provinces our in North- Eastern tragedy Romania in June 1940, has taken the dimensions of a true disaster national. Thus, the Romanian army lost 356 officers and NCOs and 48,276 soldiers , 5 times more than in the war of Independence , out of tens of thousands of civilians killed or disappeared as a result of criminal activities of the NKVD. losses material are estimated at sum a colossal of over one billion dollars. Morally, but the disaster Romania will cost us and expensive: crack , altered depth being of our national. But in this matter, guilt related , first, the irresponsibility of those who ran then the Romanian state led by King , deserter Charles II. Great Romanians in June-July 1940 " of the the essence relationship Romania - Jewry, demonstrating, with few exceptions, the complete lack of adherence to issues national to state - home to its willingness to collaborate with the enemy , hatred lingered , inhuman , repressed for two decades , unleashed paroxysm , when circumstances tragic to Romania have enabled her . " ( Theodoru , " was whether or not the Holocaust , p. 110) . Without being provoked in any way, Jews in Bessarabia and Bukovina unleashed pogroms against the Romanians , has taken serious terrorist attacks against authorities civilian and military Romanian , brought serious offenses and insults national symbols of the Romanian state . behavior criminal of part of Jewish community in Territories the Romanian Northern - East the Soviet Union the , has aroused strong feelings , reactions antiiudaice justified . So 1940 may be considered when a break in the relationship Romanian - Hebrew , resulting in the relation cause - effect side and reprisal on the far killings anti-Romanian perpetrated. In this historical context extremely tense, will occur and the incident in Dorohoi , 1 July 1940. But about this, and other such incidents character of retaliatory military , come back , too long. In the summer of 1941, more precisely , on June 22 , Romania respond to act of war of the Soviet Union in 1940 , moving to operations military for the liberation of Bessarabia and Bukovina Northern under Russian occupation. The heavy fighting Romanian territory in the are released. In the army's advance Romanian, the Russians destroyed everything, transforming towns and cities in piles of rubble. With the Russians, more than 100,000 Hebrew Bessarabia fleeing army Romanian , taking refuge in Union the Soviet , having regard conscience guilty to the Romanian. After the administration and state authority Romanian is restored, Antonescu act deportation across the Dniester , the Jews of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. During the struggle for emancipation of the Romanian provinces in the East, gang Hebrew have committed attacks terrorist and fought alongside the Soviets , who usually his let them in rear. What impresses bad is that, when we talk or write about some reprisals of the Romanian army against Hebrew or deportation other to Transnistria ( which meant, in itself , a tragedy ) , is presented these phenomena as if have dropped out of the blue , nefăcându is no connection between the horrors anti-Romanian of 1940 to 1941. researchers Hebrew who write about these facts are completely ignored, omitting deliberately or , worse, denying the atrocities committed Hebrew against Romanians a year ago. An example : on October 9, 2004, Radio Romania News, a lady Hebrew ( do not I remember the name, but it is easy to find ) to show " Destinies and passions " of 21.00, talking certainly and criticism about barbarians Romanian against Jews in Transnistria culpabilizându us and we, today. Realizatoarea issue, paralyzed by fear, he put only questions mild , harmless , and when he wanted to learn from invited some cases of deportations , said the supercilious and safe: "The Jews in Bessarabia were accused of committed alleged crimes against Army Romanian and Romanian during the withdrawal in 1940 . " Therefore , some Hebrew have committed crimes against the Romanians in 1940 , but " so-called crimes " ! It proves, if proof were needed, that the drama , both Romanians and the Jews from Bessarabia , the authors Hebrew emphasize only where it suits them. Transnistria case is crucial in the prosecution of the Romanian state of Holocaust. Over a hundred thousand Hebrew were deported not to extermination, but to ensure the safety of the Romanian state against a minority that had shown strong attitudes anti-Romanian, the state then in war with a enemy deadly , the Soviet Union. Furthermore, although Romania 's Antonescu had practiced really Holocaust, Jews never would have been deported across the river and can do crime in the country. Deportations in Transnistria did not mean extermination, beyond the river there were no camps extermination Romanian type of Nazi. The number of Jews killed, allegedly by the Romanian government in Transnistria , according to the Wiesel Commission, reaches hallucinatory , unbelievable : 280,000 to 380,000 , the Commission acting figures as the final , threatening anyone has other opinions , to jail. Hard to believe that the millennium third one can adopt and enforce judgments arbitrary, unjust , such bolşevico -Nazi. Note : just in these years, when some Hebrew were deported , most die of natural causes (as admit scholars Hebrew honest ) , Siberia and the Arctic Soviet were deported and exterminated more than 300,000 Romanian Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. From Siberia not will return any Romanian, Transnistria more than half of the Jews deported will return home. tragedies parallel of two people for that using criteria trial arbitrary. What would be worth, impressive less tragedy ( genocide ) of the Moldavian than the tragedy Jews in Transnistria? A major researcher Israeli of the problem, Ancel, in his book "Transnistria " , manipulates documents in its sole discretion , grant credit unlimited to allegations (such as that of VM Molotov in 1942 , where he said that the Romanian army killed 25,000 Hebrew in Odessa , an important document , there is no talking !) , based on the assumptions and truths pre-established , but fact of great severity, culpabilizează Romanian State and the entire Romanian people as perpetrators of the Holocaust. : " The Romanian army was fully involved at all levels, war crimes and crimes against humanity in Odessa, more even than in Bessarabia and Bukovina . The Romanian Army has received and implemented an order to commit genocide . " (Jean Ancel , Transnistria). Such statements by the Romanians and Romanian state institutions are charged with overall indiscriminately, are highly prevalent in book author's Israeli. Moreover, Jean Ancel , before the truths that emerge from the documents, not what, and concludes at one point that "the death of tens of thousands of Hebrew in districts northern and central ( in Transnistria - Ed ) was typhus , hungry and cold ... " ( op. cit. , vol III , p. 259). The same author, without realizing, perhaps , notes at one point that: " In the winter of 1941 / '42 , the Romanian authorities that were installed throughout Transnistria have ceased to inquire about the fate of the Jews " ( op cit. , vol III , p. 81). statement The above contradicts blatantly Jean Ancel, that 's Romania Antonescu should be practiced the Holocaust. What Holocaust would be the when a state has ceased to be interested in the fate of the Jews " ? In Transnistria, more than 100,000 Hebrew deported were not in camps of extermination of the type Nazi , but were settled in villages on the locals. Were administered alone, are free to work and be self-administration . They have created kindergartens , schools , hospitals , homes elderly , as will be seen on another occasion , receiving packages and were inspected by community leaders their . A fate grim in Transnistria have had only Jews who were settled in towns by Germans or fit on hand institutions of repression German , in which case were killed all . supply and housing the 110,000 Hebrew deported ( figure gives the researcher Jew The Dallin ) , raised problems serious , hence the emergence of epidemics and hunger , increased mortality in their ranks . Confronted with evidence , recognizes honestly and Radu Ioanid , in his book "The Jews under Antonescu : " Most of the deportees Hebrew from Bessarabia and Bukovina died because of typhus, hunger , misery and cold ... of over 110,000 deported only 77,000 were still alive in March 1943 " (Radu Ioanid , op. cit. , p. 281). This being the facts, " Auschwitz the Romanian over the Dniester ", as refer to some authors Hebrew the deportations to Transnistria , can not be argued , turns a cliché propaganda -free documentary . Similarly, although gives credence to some fictional memoir , the same actually it recognizes investigator English Dennis Deletant : "Of the 147,000 Hebrew from Bukovina and Bessarabia ... most have died from fever typhoid and hunger " ( Dennis Deletant , Transnistria : Romanian solution to " problem Hebrew " , in vol ' About Holocaust and Communism , p. 79) . No talk to longer can support a Holocaust Romanian . Who visit and wants to learn the truth about the tragedy of the Jews in Transnistria in 1941 - 1944 , has established and analyzed the facts , the established names, the perpetrators , if they can not be identified, pointed out the administrative unit , military or gendarmerie the appropriate ; so in this case are not relevant in relation to historical truth , complaints global , general , against the Romanians, but issuers of various kinds of order from the center of power and to the performers. Comments and formulations nature global want to mislead the public opinion the following : that the Romanians with their institutions, are all , globally responsible for the sins committed in the years 1940 - 1944 , that anti-Semitism , supposedly , would be a feature and constant Romanian nation , and the guilty hurled nation whole from 1940 - 1944 is explicitly extended to those of today. Such a manner research nature ethnicized, the blame is attributed to an entire communities human , the army and its institutions , for crimes committed by certain individuals and units , when writing expressed openly or barely avoided , resentment , hostility and even passion, the criminalization of Romanians is design overall past and suggested and the present then research not follow the rules cumpănirii and objectivity , the more imperative , as the facts were of maximum severity. It is a known fact in Romania of the Second World War, there were numerous reactions anti-Jewish , some motivated and religiously (An example : the Ripiceni , during the war , in a class is one student a Jew, and the Romanian children threw stones at him, shouting : " You you killed Jesus ! " ) , was imposed an legislation anti-Semitic was directed against wealth Hebrew , not their lives. Thus, in Romania of the Second World War, I do not think existed Holocaust that the : - Romanian state has made Jewish emigration from Romania and Europe Central state policy and managed to help them immigrate, approval 's Antonescu, approx. 200,000 Hebrew ; - Schools, synagogues , high schools Hebrew have worked, cultural events took place normally; - Antonescu resisted all pressures German to turn over the Jews Romanian to be taken and exterminated in German concentration camps ; - Bucharest, active theater Baraşeum , the only theater Hebrew in Europe dominated by Germany , throughout the government Antonescu ; - Antonescu had friendly relations with the leaders community Hebrew, Al. Safran and Filderman, saving their lives from the fury of Legionnaires ; - Because in Transnistria - and beyond - no were discovered mass graves by Hebrew executed; - Commission Wiesel, which accused Romania of the Holocaust, we must present evidence its , arguments on based statistics of those killed. A professor at the Faculty of History of Science, Janeta Benditer , who was deported to Transnistria , he never spoke to his colleagues and new students , about mass murder that had taken place across the Dniester. However, Janeta Benditer had no all reluctance to use department university to tell us lies the lowest case regarding some aspects of the Second World War. So, now I remember how rant rhetorical / aggressive , the department, about "the 15,000 Polish officers killed by criminals Hitler Katina !!!". What is hard to accept the view scientific is that this committee coordinated by Elie Wiesel, first established without any restraint , the fact that Romania, Romanian people are guilty of the Holocaust, not to prove , that first they established in pure tradition Bolshevik , the sentence for then the accused be obliged to prove his innocence ! This Commission has done in the meaning of words of the secretary Head of the Department of History of Science, in years student my , Ms. Folescu , which he used to tell teachers: " The best minutes is the one written before the hearing . " I mean, first of all blame , put them on the wall , and the truth does not interest us. All Commission 's E. Wiesel put a prize of $ 10,000, money that would be received at would be terminated any Romanian to killed Hebrew during the war , in Romania , there has been no single accusation , for In contrast to Poland, where this initiative has paid off in the direction desired by the laureate Nobel. And this, small but very relevant, contradicts the existence of any Holocaust Romanian. If there had been a Holocaust Romanian, towns and cities in northeastern Romania , Iasi , Dorohoi , Botosani, Darabani , Săveni etc. . would have been emptied of Hebrew , or at the end of the war, geography human population Hebrew in Moldova remained almost intact. It 's reality, given that the war ended , over every house in villages Romanian sit mourning , hundreds of thousands of young men dying on the battlefield. Mr. Teşu Solomovici so bitter and convinced of the existence of a Holocaust Romanian, forgets to tell us that , during the war , teach still at a high school in Focsani , his father worked to make a living. What kind of holocaust has carried a state in which young students learned book in schools Hebrew, synagogues were open, appeared newspapers , all Hebrew , leaders Jewish met with the Head of State who worked and maintained a friendly , could migrate ( even with consent Government accused of holocaust ) , operating theaters, and cultural mosaic was funded by the same state? Strange, strange holocaust ! Again do not believe in a Holocaust Romanian because Romania 's Antonescu adopted and practiced a strategy state deliberate that had the foundation racism. The idea of a Holocaust Romanian is based on totally different reasons than ones scientific. 's hope Antonescu, at his trial , that " the treatment they were subjected to Jews deported from Bessarabia and Bukovina , and the country , says that it exaggerates and will prove it later, both in terms of deaths , and on treatment . " (The Marshal Antonescu , Documents , II , p. 172), under current conditions is likely to remain only a dream. So, consider building the historic type of to that wanting to show and impose the existence of a Holocaust Romanian proves very inconsistent and not convincing that the Romanian state has practiced holocaust of during the the Second World War. This construction historiographical is based largely on fiction memoirs ( noticed the explosion of debt memoir, for the year 2000 , of " survivors "of the " Holocaust Romanian ") on măsluiri figures ( even those who accuse us have not reached agreement on the figures ) , and " campaign insistent undertaken abroad in order to present the Romanian people as anti-Semitic author Holocaust , by demonizing the figure of Ion Antonescu " seeks " financial claims and property " (Alex Michael Stoenescu History coups in Romania , Volume II , p. 336). Formulation of thesis guilt the Romanian people holocaust, 50 years after the war, before proof of this guilt, obliges us to believe that the goals pursued by those behind this theory follow does not the historical truth about those years tragic , but theft Romanian state huge amounts of money. For it is good to know, the State recognizes that practiced holocaust during the last World War II , be obliged , therefore , to pay compensation to huge survivors or their descendants. It took note !
 * Material published in "Life " regularly in Botosani, no. 220/ianuarie 2005. Distinguished thanked Director the weekly Traian Apetrei, for permission to reprint the article.

O REVENIRE NECESARĂ SAU DE CE NU CRED CĂ A EXISTAT UN HOLOCAUST ROMÂNESC Publicat de Ion Coja in Holocaust, Textele altora pe 26.09.2010 | 3 comentarii Gică Manole* NU EXISTA, nu poate exista în istorie fapt/eveniment care să nu poată fi explicat: nu pot exista evenimente fără cauze, de orice natură ar fi ele. Important rămâne un fapt: cel/cei care analizează, evaluează, judecă un fenomen istoric, să ţină seama de întregul ansamblu de factori cauzali ce a determinat un eveniment sau altul să se producă. În judecata istorică se impune, obligatoriu, ca o axiomă, sfatul istoricului roman Cornelius Tacitus din Anale: „sine ira et studio” (fără ură şi părtinire). Dar, când judecata asupra unor evenimente istorice este profund marcată, viciată, de interese care nu au nimic comun cu adevărul istoric, sintagma marelui istoric roman este călcată, cu brutalitate, în picioare, iar interesele de care vorbesc se substituie adevărului istoric. De câţiva ani buni se scrie mult, îndeosebi de către istorici străini, despre existenţa unui holocaust românesc în anii celui de-al doilea război mondial. Istoricii români, cu foarte puţine excepţii, au o reacţie palidă, se simt timoraţi, aproape că le este frică să abordeze chestiunea în cauză. Alţi istorici, au trecut fără ezitare şi discernământ, de partea acelora care ne aşează stigmatul holocaustului pe frunte. Înţeleg că, indiferent cum ar fi fost, noi trebuie să fim solidari, dar şi răspunzători, cu / de trecutul nostru. Noi, şi nu străinii, trebuie să fim interesaţi în cel mai înalt grad, de ceea ce s-a petrecut cu poporul nostru în trecutul recent. Căci, în cazul despre care doresc să-mi exprim opiniile, nu mai este vorba doar de aflarea adevărului sau de o reconciliere cu trecutul, ci de culpabilizarea statului român, a poporului român, iar dacă vinovăţia care ni se impune cu tot dinadinsul, ne-o vom asuma, consecinţele vor fi dramatice. Sunt sigur că românii au puterea să înţeleagă că fiecare epocă, inclusiv, sau în mod deosebit, a noastră, trebuie să fie solidară cu trecutul; iarăşi: românii trebuie să ştie că epoca noastră se află prinsă într-o reţea de cauze şi efecte ce nu lasă nici măcar puţin loc hazardului, dar, solidaritatea de care vorbeam, ne obligă, ne descurajează la o judecată subiectivă asupra poporului nostru trecut. Nu avem voie, nu trebuie să dăm voie ca alţii să ne impună punctele lor de vedere, aşa-zisele lor adevăruri cu privire la noi şi istoria noastră recentă. Istoricii, acum, sunt obligaţi să iasă din tăcere, să se aplece organizat, stăruitor, asupra acestor grave acuze ce se aduc statului şi poporului român; sunt obligaţi, de jertfa sutelor de mii de români, victime ale războiului şi genocidului bolşevic, să nu tacă sau să fie indiferenţi. M-am aplecat, încă din adolescenţă, prin specificul ocupaţiei mele, asupra îngrozitoarei tragedii provocată poporului evreu de Holocaustul nazist. Am fost, şi sunt încă, profund impresionat de suferinţa imensă îndurată de poporul evreu în Europa ocupată de Germania nazistă. Sunt de acord cu marele istoric englez A. J. Toynbee, că, chiar şi după câteva mii de ani de penitenţă, poporul german numai cu greu va putea fi iertat de crima comisă. Căci, marea crimă înfăptuită de Germania nazistă împotriva evreilor (şi nu numai împotriva lor), nu s-a constituit într-un accident, ci a fost expresia unei strategii statale, bazată pe discriminare rasială, rezultatul unor teorii rasiale în care antisemitismul cel mai virulent devenise politică de stat. Consecinţele acestei politici se ştiu: milioane de evrei vor fi exterminaţi, iar Germania s-a acoperit de ruşinea unei crime fără egal în istorie. În legătură cu această problemă, îmi pun o întrebare firească, ştiut fiind faptul că I. Antonescu a fost aliat (nu satelit) al Germaniei naziste: care a fost rolul, ce loc ocupă România în cazul tragediei de care vorbesc? A practicat România lui Antonescu o politică de stat bazată pe o strategie rasială? Sunt românii părtaşi la „soluţia finală“ preconizată de Hitler şi banda sa? A trimis Antonescu evrei români spre lagărele de exterminare germane? Au existat lagăre de exterminare în România celui de-al doilea război mondial? Iată întrebări esenţiale la care trebuie să dăm răspunsuri numai în raport cu adevărurile istorice ale acelor ani. Spuneam că nu pot exista evenimente istorice care să nu poată fi explicate. Aşa şi în drama unei părţi a evreilor din România lui Antonescu, explicaţiile, cauzele acestei tragedii pot fi identificate fără greş, vinovăţia fiind, într-o primă fază, de partea unei părţi a evreilor basarabeni. Se ştie, statul naţional unitar român se prăbuşeşte în vara anului 1940, ca urmare a înţelegerilor dintre Hitler şi Stalin, precum şi a agresiunilor ce au derivat de aici. La sfârşitul lunii iunie 1940, când România este ameninţată cu războiul de Uniunea Sovietică, regele Carol al II-lea decide să renunţe, fără luptă, la teritoriile româneşti de peste Prut. În momentul când Armata Română şi o parte a populaţiei civile (inclusiv evreii bogaţi) se retrag din calea invadatorului bolşevic, în Basarabia şi Nordul Bucovinei, o parte a populaţiei evreieşti de acolo, adoptă o atitudine antiromânească de o violenţă rară şi de neexplicat. În această direcţie există mărturii documentare numeroase, certe, atât româneşti, cât şi străine. Nimeni nu putea să explice ura atroce manifestată de o parte a evreilor din teritoriile cedate, crimele comise împotriva românilor ce trăiau o adevărată catastrofă naţională. Pentru că din comportamentul agresiv / barbar al unor evrei contra Armatei Române (şi nu numai) în zilele de sfârşit de iunie ale anului 1940, precum şi din prigoana dusă, tot de ei, împotriva românilor în primul an de ocupaţie sovietică (1940 – 1941) în Basarabia şi Nordul Bucovinei, descind direct represaliile militare româneşti de mai târziu, precum şi deportările în Transnistria. Am să ofer câteva mărturii, extrem de elocvente, cu privire la toate acestea. Astfel, când sovieticii au ajuns, la 28 iunie 1940, la Chişinău, prin desant aerian, imediat evreii au arborat drapelele roşii, au barat străzile şi au oprit accesul spre gară, pentru a nu permite să plece celor ce voiau să fugă din calea sovieticilor. Unii evrei strigau sloganuri precum „Jos Armata Română“, „Trăiască Stalin“; comisarii de poliţie Pascu Nicolae, Mateescu Severin şi Stol au fost executaţi. La fel, tot în 28 iunie 1940, a început evacuarea şi din Cernăuţi. Raportul informativ semnat de generalul de Corp de Armată Florea Ţenescu, întocmit cu această ocazie, prezenta următoarea situaţie: trupele române în retragere au fost atacate şi dezarmate de evrei, soldaţii au fost bătuţi cu pietre, opăriţi cu apă fiartă, împuşcarea unor autorităţi militare şi civile româneşti, biserici româneşti devastate şi arse, ocuparea şi distrugerea unor sedii administrative şi militare etc. La Vijniţa, dr. Wisner, şeful Sanatoriului, nu a dat voie personalului român să părăsească locul, a rupt steagul românesc, s-a încins cu un steag roşu pe piept, urlând că „a sosit ceasul evreilor“. La Soroca, tot la 28 iunie 1940, comuniştii evrei au ocupat sediile Poliţiei şi Primăriei. Avocatul evreu M. Flexor a împuşcat pe comisarul adjunct Vladimir Murafa şi agentul Eustaţiu Gabriel; au fost asasinaţi căpitanul Georgescu şi administratorul financiar Ion Gheorghe. La Româneşti (Lăpuşna), elevii, în majoritate evrei, care se aflau la examen de sfârşit de an şcolar, au bătut profesorii români; la Cetatea Albă, au dat foc Primăriei; la Tighina, evreii comunişti au dezbrăcat şi bătut pe jandarmi. Agravarea situaţiei românilor, în aceste zile, din cauza situaţiei create de numeroşi evrei, l-a preocupat şi pe regele Carol al II-lea. Aşa, în „Jurnalul“ său, el notează pe 29 iunie 1940: „Ştirile asupra evenimentelor din Basarabia şi Nordul Bucovinei sunt din ce în ce mai triste: excese de orice fel ale populaţiei minoritare, mai ales evreii care atacă şi insultă pe ai noştri, ofiţeri batjocoriţi, unităţi dezorganizate… Evreii şi comuniştii s-au purtat într-un mod oribil. Asasinate şi molestări ale ofiţerilor şi ale acelora care voiau să plece.“ Atitudinea evreilor faţă de români a fost atât de neomenească, încât a revoltat până şi pe comandanţii trupelor de ocupaţie sovietice, care au dat ordonanţe prin care avertizau că se vor sancţiona cu moartea jafurile şi crimele. Şirul crimelor împotriva românilor, comise de unii evrei, în acele zile dramatice, este nespus de lung. Notez încă vreo câteva atrocităţi nejustificate, neprovocate: au fost ucişi cu bestialitate perceptorul şi notarul din comuna Ceadar – Lung, preotul din Tighina, perceptorul şi agentul de percepţie din comuna Calaglia, comisarul Chela Grigore din Vâlcov, preotul catolic din Cernăuţi, inginerul CFR Galbenu, primarul din Bolgrad etc. O altă crimă, adevărat pogrom antiromânesc, greu de înţeles şi justificat, s-a produs la Chişinău, unde „400-500 de evrei comunişti constituiţi în bande, înarmaţi cu puşti şi revolvere, iar alţii cu pietre şi bastoane, au cerut directorului Ionuţ, medicul spitalului de copii, ca imediat clădirea acestuia să fie predată. La încercarea medicului de a calma spiritele, l-au împuşcat, după care au năvălit în spital, devastându-l complet, iar pe copiii internaţi, omorându-i şi aruncându-i afară pe geamuri“. (Raport informativ al Marelui Stat Major, secţia a II-a, din 7 iulie 1940). Nu-mi propun o inventariere a tuturor crimelor comise împotriva românilor de unii evrei basarabeni şi bucovineni, în acele zile tragice ale verii anului 1940. Nu pot, însă, să nu dau şi câteva extrase din presa străină a timpului, care întăresc, şi mai vârtos, exemplele de mai sus. Astfel, la 3 iulie 1940, „Journal de Geneve“, în articolul „Scene tragice în Basarabia şi Bucovina“, oferea cititorilor săi date despre cruzimile la care s-au dedat sovieticii şi unii evrei precum prădarea şi incendierea bisericilor, împuşcarea oficialilor români, împiedicarea evacuării românilor, incendierea sediilor Poliţiei etc. La 1 iulie 1940, ziarul italian „La Stampa“ în articolul „Ororile şi devastările comise de evrei în Basarabia şi Bucovina“, după ce trece în revistă unele din atrocităţile antiromâneşti, anunţă cititorii că la Cernăuţi se formase „un guvern provizoriu compus din evrei şi comunişti“. Iarăşi, importantul „Corriere della Sera“, însera, într-un articol, următoarele: „În timp ce românii încearcă să fugă din teritoriile ocupate, evreii se strâng din alte părţi acolo. La Chişinău, şi în alte oraşe din Basarabia, elemente subversive, în care primau de obicei evreii, au pus mâna pe primărie, biserici, bănci şi alte instituţii, jefuind totul în timp ce alte bande de alţi nelegiuiţi cutreierau străzile omorând oameni. Episoade de terorism feroce au avut loc în diferite oraşe, între care la Cetatea Albă, unde 80 de copii şi 3 profesoare au fost împuşcate. La Chişinău, opt biserici, între care şi catedrala, ardeau la sosirea ruşilor.“ (Valeriu Florin Dobrinescu, Ion Scurtu, Basarabia în anii celui de-al doilea război mondial, p. 182). În memoriile sale, Alexandru Şafran, rabin şef în România între 1940 – 1946, scria. „Ultimatumul sovietic de la 26 iunie 1940 şi anexarea teritoriului dintre Prut şi Nistru la Uniunea Sovietică au fost întâmpinate cu bucurie de unii evrei din aripa stângă şi comunişti“. Am sublinait, cu altă ocazie, poziţia lui Nicolae Iorga faţă de aceste evenimente, luată în ziarul său „Neamul românesc“ (articolul „De ce atâta ură?“), aşa că nu o mai reiau. Ceea ce nu trebuie omis, în perspectiva celor ce se vor întâmpla după eliberarea teritoriilor noastre din Nord-Est cu evreii, este faptul că zilele tragice de la sfârşitul lunii iunie – începutul lunii iulie 1940, au însemnat doar uvertura în cumplita tragedie a românilor basarabeni şi bucovineni. Spaţiul nu ne permite, dar, trebuie spus fără nici o reţinere, că în primul an de ocupaţie sovietică, unii evrei au continuat să manifeste aceeaşi ferocitate şi ură împotriva românilor, colaborând activ la lichidarea fizică a câtorva mii de români, precum şi la deportarea, în Siberia, a altor câteva sute de mii, care Siberie le va fi, în veşnicie, iad şi mormânt. „În zilele grele de la sfârşitul lunii iunie 1940, când România traversa o mare dramă naţională, unii cetăţeni evrei din Basarabia şi Nordul Bucovinei, prin comportamentul lor, au adâncit durerea întregului popor român; de aici, reacţii fireşti care s-au manifestat contra lor“. (Valeriu Florin Dobrinescu, Ion Constantin, Basarabia în anii celui de-al doilea război mondial, p. 190). Nu ezit să redau şi opiniile a doi diplomaţi englezi cu privire la tragedia românilor din vara lui 1940: ministrul Angliei la Bucureşti, Reginald Hoare, îl informa pe superiorul său, lordul Halifax, că „…evreii urăsc pe români şi au o pronunţată tentă spre comunism.“, iar J. Le Rougetel, având informaţii de la un român, martor ocular, notează faptul că „pensionarii unui azil din Chişinău fuseseră gazaţi şi ucişi în stil nemţesc şi 10 trenuri încărcate cu moşieri şi ţărani din Basarabia fuseseră trimise în Siberia“ (Valeriu Florin Dobrinescu, Ion Constantin, op. cit. p. 212). Uciderea şi deportarea (tot moarte s-a dovedit până la urmă) a peste 300.000 de români în anii 1940 – 1941 de către sovietici se dovedeşte a fi un atentat grav la existenţa biologică a poporului român, un genocid premeditat, înfăptuit de ocupantul sovietic, având ca ajutor /secundant de nădejde, o mare parte a evreilor basarabeni. Acestea sunt fapte dovedite de istorici, iar acceptarea şi asumarea lor în faţa probelor de netăgăduit, ar trebui să fie cea mai normală atitudine. Subliniez: acei evrei basarabeni şi bucovineni ce au înfăptuit multitudinea de crime şi atrocităţi împotriva românilor în anii 1940 – 1941, erau cetăţeni români, se bucurau de egalitate, aveau drepturi egale cu toţi locuitorii României Mari, nu suportaseră vreo agresiune sau ştirbire a drepturilor cetăţeneşti garantate de Constituţia din 1923. De altfel, numeroasa minoritate evreiască din România, în perioada interbelică, a controlat, în mare măsură, economia românească, sistemul bancar iar în profesiunile liberale predominau. În 1939, după cum afirma patriarhul Miron Cristea (prim ministru între 10. II 1938 – 2 martie 1939), în România profesau 4600 medici evrei şi doar 4200 medici români. De la imigrarea lor pe pământ românesc (sec. XIX şi începutul sec. XX), evreii nu suportaseră, din partea statului român sau a românilor nici o prigoană, nici un pogrom, mare parte dintre ei integrându-se cu succes, românii dovedindu-le din plin înţelegere, toleranţă şi compasiune. Odată cu pierderea provinciilor noastre din Nord-Est, tragedia României din iunie 1940, a căpătat dimensiunile unei adevărate catastrofe naţionale. Astfel, Armata Română a pierdut 356 de ofiţeri şi subofiţeri şi 48.276 soldaţi, de 5 ori mai mulţi decât în războiul de Independenţă, în afara zecilor de mii de civili ucişi sau dispăruţi fără urmă ca urmare a activităţilor criminale a NKVD-ului. Pierderile materiale se cifrează la suma colosală de peste un miliard de dolari. În plan moral, însă, dezastrul României ne va costa şi mai scump: fisurarea, alterarea profundă a fiinţei noastre naţionale. Dar, în această chestiune, vinovăţiile ţin, în primul rând, de iresponsabilitatea celor care conduceau atunci statul român, în frunte cu regele-dezertor Carol al II-lea. Tragedia românilor din iunie – iulie 1940 „a esenţializat relaţia România – evreime, demonstrând, cu puţine excepţii, lipsa totală de aderenţă la problematica naţională a statului – gazdă a acesteia, disponibilitatea de a colabora cu inamicul, ura zăcută, inumană, refulată de două decenii, dezlănţuită paroxistic, atunci când împrejurările tragice pentru România au permis-o.“ (Radu Theodoru, „A fost sau nu Holocaust“, p. 110). Fără a fi provocată în vreun fel, evreimea din Basarabia şi Bucovina a dezlănţuit pogromuri împotriva românilor, a întreprins grave atentate teroriste împotriva autorităţilor civile şi militare româneşti, a adus grave ofense şi injurii simbolurilor naţionale ale statului român. Comportamentul criminal al unei părţi a evreimii din teritoriile româneşti din Nord – Est cedate Uniunii Sovietice, a trezit puternice sentimente, reacţii antiiudaice justificate. Aşadar, anul 1940 poate fi considerat momentul de ruptură în relaţia români – evrei, determinând, în baza relaţiei cauză – efect, reacţii şi represalii pe măsura crimelor antiromâneşti înfăptuite. În acest context istoric extrem de tensionat, se va produce şi incidentul de la Dorohoi, la 1 iulie 1940. Dar, despre acesta, ca şi alte asemenea incidente cu caracter de represalii militare, voi reveni, nu peste mult timp. În vara anului 1941, mai precis, la 22 iunie, România răspunde la actul de război al Uniunii Sovietice din 1940, trecând la operaţiuni militare pentru eliberarea Basarabiei şi Bucovinei de Nord de sub ocupaţia rusească. Prin lupte grele, teritoriile româneşti în cauză sunt eliberate. În faţa înaintării armatei româneşti, ruşii distrug totul, transformând târgurile şi oraşele în mormane de ruine. Odată cu ruşii, peste 100.000 de evrei basarabeni fug din calea armatei române, refugiindu-se în Uniunea Sovietică, având conştiinţa vinovăţiei faţă de români. După ce administraţia şi autoritatea statului român sunt restabilite, Antonescu hotărăşte deportarea, peste Nistru, a evreilor din Basarabia şi Nordul Bucovinei. În timpul luptelor pentru dezrobirea provinciilor româneşti din Est, bande de evrei au comis atacuri teroriste şi au luptat alături de sovietici, care, de regulă, îi lăsau pe aceştia în ariergardă. Ceea ce impresionează neplăcut este faptul că, atunci când se vorbeşte sau se scrie despre unele represalii ale Armatei Române împotriva unor evrei sau despre deportarea altora în Transnistria (care a însemnat, în sine, o tragedie), se prezintă aceste fenomene ca şi cum ar fi picat din senin, nefăcându-se nici o legătură între acestea cu ororile antiromâneşti din 1940 – 1941. Cercetătorii evrei care scriu despre aceste fapte, fac cu totul abstracţie, omiţând cu bună ştiinţă sau, şi mai grav, negând atrocităţile comise de evrei împotriva românilor cu un an în urmă. Un exemplu: pe 9 octombrie 2004, la Radio România Actualităţi, o doamnă evreică (nu i-am reţinut numele, dar asta este lesne să aflu) la emisiunea „Destine şi pasiuni“ de la ora 21.00, vorbea cu siguranţă şi reproş despre barbariile româneşti îndreptate împotriva evreilor, în Transnistria, culpabilizându-ne şi pe noi, cei de astăzi. Realizatoarea emisiunii, paralizată de frică, îi punea doar întrebări blânde, inofensive, iar când a vrut să afle de la invitată unele cauze ale deportărilor, a declarat dispreţuitor şi sigur: „Evreii din Basarabia erau acuzaţi că ar fi comis aşa-zise crime împotriva Armatei Române şi românilor cu ocazia retragerii din 1940“. Aşadar, unii evrei nu au comis crime împotriva românilor din 1940, ci „aşa-zise crime“! Se dovedeşte, dacă mai era nevoie, că în drama, atât a românilor, cât şi a evreilor basarabeni, autorii evrei pun accentul doar acolo unde le convine. Cazul Transnistriei este de o importanţă crucială în acuzarea Statului Român de Holocaust. Peste o sută de mii de evrei au fost deportaţi în Transnistria nu spre a fi exterminaţi, ci pentru a asigura siguranţa statului român faţă de o minoritate ce dovedise puternice atitudini antiromâneşti, stat aflat atunci în război cu un inamic de moarte, Uniunea Sovietică. De altfel, dacă România lui Antonescu ar fi practicat cu adevărat Holocaustul, evreii nici n-ar mai fi fost deportaţi peste Nistru, putând înfăptui crima în ţară. Deportările din Transnistria nu înseamnă exterminare, dincolo de Nistru nu au existat lagăre de exterminare româneşti de tipul celor naziste. Numărul evreilor ucişi, chipurile, de statul român în Transnistria, în viziunea Comisiei Wiesel, atinge cifre halucinante, de necrezut: 280 de mii – 380 de mii, Comisia hotărând aceste cifre ca definitive, ameninţând pe oricine are alte opinii, cu puşcăria. Greu de crezut că la începutul mileniului III se mai pot adopta şi impune judecăţi arbitrare, nedrepte, de tipul bolşevico-nazist. De reţinut: exact în aceşti ani, când unii evrei au fost deportaţi în Transnistria, majoritatea murind din cauze naturale (după cum o recunosc cercetătorii evrei oneşti), în Siberia şi regiunea arctică sovietică au fost deportaţi şi exterminaţi peste 300.000 de români din Basarabia şi Nordul Bucovinei. Din Siberia nu se va mai întoarce nici un român, din Transnistria mai mult de jumătate dintre evreii deportaţi vor reveni acasă. Iată două tragedii paralele, a două popoare pentru care se folosesc criterii de judecată arbitrare. Cu ce ar valora, impresiona mai puţin tragedia (genocidul) românilor din Basarabia decât tragedia evreilor din Transnistria? Un important cercetător israelian al problemei, Jean Ancel, în cartea sa „Transnistria“, mânuieşte documentele după bunul său plac, acordă credit nelimitat unor afirmaţii nefondate (cum ar fi cea a lui V. M. Molotov, din 1942, prin care acesta afirma că armata română a ucis 25.000 de evrei la Odesa, important document, nu încape vorbă!), pleacă de la premise şi adevăruri dinainte stabilite, dar, fapt de mare gravitate, culpabilizează Statul Român precum şi întregul popor român ca făptuitori de Holocaust. Iată un exemplu: „Armata Română a fost deplin implicată la toate nivelele, în crime de război şi în crime contra umanităţii la Odessa, mai mult chiar decât în Basarabia şi Bucovina. Armata română a primit şi implementat un ordin de comitere a unui genocid“. (Jean Ancel, Transnistria). Asemenea afirmaţii, prin care românii şi instituţiile statului român sunt acuzaţi global, fără discernământ, sunt extrem de numeroase în cartea autorului israelian. De altfel, Jean Ancel, în faţa adevărurilor ce reies din documente, nu are ce face şi conchide, la un moment dat, că „moartea zecilor de mii de evrei în raioanele nordice şi centrale (din Transnistria – n. n.), a fost de tifos, foame şi frig…“ (op. cit., vol. III, p. 259). Acelaşi autor, fără să-şi dea seama, probabil, notează la un moment dat, că: „în iarna lui 1941/’42, autorităţile române care erau instalate în întreaga Transnistrie au încetat să se mai intereseze de soarta evreilor“ (op, cit., vol. III, p. 81). Afirmaţia de mai sus îl contrazice flagrant pe Jean Ancel, că România lui Antonescu ar fi practicat Holocaustul. Ce fel de Holocaust ar fi acela când un stat „a încetat să se mai intereseze de soarta evreilor“? În Transnistria, cei peste 100.000 de evrei deportaţi, nu au fost închişi în lagăre de exterminare de tipul celor naziste, ci au fost aşezaţi în localităţi, pe la localnici. S-au administrat singuri, fiind liberi să muncească şi să se autoadministreze. Şi-au creat grădiniţe, şcoli, spitale, azile de bătrâni, după cum se va vedea cu altă ocazie; primeau pachete şi erau inspectaţi de lideri ai Comunităţii lor. O soartă crâncenă, în Transnistria, au avut-o doar evreii care au fost aşezaţi în localităţi cu etnici germani sau au încăput pe mâna instituţiilor de represiune germane, caz în care au fost lichidaţi cu toţii. Aprovizionarea şi adăpostirea celor 110.000 evrei deportaţi în Transnistria, (cifra o dă cercetătorul evreu Al Dallin), a ridicat probleme grave; de aici, apariţia epidemiilor şi a foametei, creşterea mortalităţii în rândurile lor. Pus în faţa evidenţei, o recunoaşte cu onestitate şi Radu Ioanid, în cartea sa „Evreii sub regimul Antonescu“: „Majoritatea deportaţilor evrei din Basarabia şi Bucovina au murit din pricina tifosului exantematic, a foametei, mizeriei şi frigului… din peste 110.000 deportaţi, numai 77.000 se aflau încă în viaţă în martie 1943“ (Radu Ioanid, op. cit., p. 281). Aşa stând faptele, „Auschwitz-ul românesc de peste Nistru“, cum denumesc unii autori evrei deportările din Transnistria, nu se poate susţine, se dovedeşte un clişeu propagandistic fără suport documentar. La fel, cu toate că dă crezare şi unor ficţiuni memorialistice, acelaşi fapt îl recunoaşte şi cercetătorul englez Dennis Deletant: „din cei 147.000 de evrei din Bucovina şi Basarabia… majoritatea au murit din cauza febrei tifoide şi foametei“ (Dennis Deletant, Transnistria: soluţia românească la „problema evreiască“, în vol. „Despre Holocaust şi comunism“, p. 79). Nici vorbă să se mai poata susţine un holocaust românesc. Cine cercetează şi doreşte să afle adevărul privind tragedia evreilor din Transnistria în 1941 – 1944, are de stabilit şi analizat faptele, de stabilit, cu nume, vinovaţii; dacă aceştia nu pot fi identificaţi, de arătat unitatea administrativă, militară sau de jandarmerie corespunzătoare; la fel, în acest caz nu au relevanţă, în raport cu adevărul istoric, acuzele globale, generale, la adresa românilor, ci emitenţii feluritelor ordine, de la centrul puterii şi până la executanţi. Comentariile şi formulările cu caracter global doresc să inducă în rândul opiniei publice următoarele: că românii cu instituţiile lor, sunt cu toţii, global, răspunzători de cele făptuite în anii 1940 – 1944; că antisemitismul, chipurile, ar fi o trăsătură caracteristică şi constantă a naţiunii române; iar vinovăţia aruncată asupra naţiunii întregi din 1940 – 1944 este explicit extinsă asupra celei de astăzi. O asemenea manieră de cercetare cu caracter etnicizat, când vina este atribuită unei întregi colectivităţi umane, armatei şi instituţiilor ei, pentru crime săvârşite de anumiţi indivizi şi unităţi, când scrisul exprimă făţiş sau abia ocolit, resentimente, ostilitate şi chiar patimă, când incriminarea românilor este proiectată global în trecut şi sugerată şi pentru prezent, atunci cercetarea nu mai respectă regulile cumpănirii şi obiectivităţii, cu atât mai imperative, cu cât faptele au fost de o maximă gravitate. Este un fapt cunoscut, în România celui de-al doilea război mondial, au existat numeroase reacţii antievreieşti, unele motivate şi religios (Un exemplu: la Ripiceni, în anii războiului, într-o clasă se afla un singur elev evreu, iar copii români aruncau cu pietre după el, strigând: „Voi l-aţi ucis pe Iisus!“), a fost impusă o legislaţie antisemită care a fost îndreptată împotriva averilor evreieşti, nu a vieţilor lor. Aşadar, în România celui de-al doilea război mondial, nu cred că a existat holocaust pentru că: - statul român a făcut din emigrarea evreilor din România şi Europa Centrală politică de stat, reuşind să ajute să emigreze, cu acceptul lui Antonescu, cca. 200.000 de evrei; - şcolile, sinagogile, liceele evreieşti au funcţionat, manifestările culturale s-au desfăşurat normal; - Antonescu a rezistat tuturor presiunilor germane de a-i preda pe evreii români spre a fi duşi şi exterminaţi în lagărele germane; - la Bucureşti, activa teatrul Baraşeum, singurul teatru evreiesc din Europa dominată de Germania, pe toată perioada guvernării Antonescu; - Antonescu a avut relaţii amicale cu capii comunităţii evreieşti, Al. Şafran şi dr. W. Filderman, salvându-le vieţile de furia legionarilor; - pentru că în Transnistria – şi nu numai – nu s-au descoperit gropi comune cu evrei executaţi; - Comisia Wiesel, care acuză România de Holocaust, trebuie să ne prezinte dovezile acestuia, argumentele pe care se bazează, statisticile celor ucişi. O profesoară de la Facultatea de Istorie din Iaşi, Janeta Benditer, care a fost deportată în Transnistria, niciodată n-a vorbit colegilor săi sau nouă, studenţilor, despre crime în masă care s-ar fi petrecut dincolo de Nistru. Or, Janeta Benditer n-a avut deloc reţinere în a folosi catedra universitară pentru a ne spune minciuni de cea mai joasă speţă privitor la unele aspecte ale celui de-al doilea război mondial. Aşa, şi acum îmi amintesc cum declama retoric /agresiv, de la catedră, despre „cei 15 mii de ofiţeri polonezi ucişi de criminalul de Hitler la Katin!!!“. Ceea ce este greu de acceptat din punct de vedere ştiinţific, este faptul că această Comisie coordonată de Elie Wiesel, întâi a stabilit fără nici o reţinere, faptul că România, poporul român, sunt vinovaţi de holocaust, fără să aducă dovezi, adică întâi au stabilit, în pură tradiţie bolşevică, sentinţa, pentru ca după aceea cel acuzat să fie obligat să-şi probeze nevinovăţia!!! Această Comisie a procedat în sensul spuselor secretarei şefe a Facultăţii de Istorie din Iaşi, din anii studenţiei mele, d-na Folescu, care avea obiceiul să spună profesorilor: „Cel mai bun proces verbal este cel scris înainte de şedinţă“. Adică, întâi acuzăm, îi punem la zid, iar adevărul nu ne interesează. Tot Comisia lui E. Wiesel a pus un premiu de 10.000 de dolari, bani pe care i-ar fi primit cel ce ar fi denunţat vreun român care a ucis evrei în anii războiului; în România, nu s-a primit nici un singur denunţ, spre deosebire de Polonia, unde această iniţiativă a dat roade în direcţia dorită de laureatul premiului Nobel. Şi acest fapt, mărunt dar deosebit de relevant, contrazice existenţa vreunul holocaust românesc. Dacă ar fi existat un holocaust românesc, târgurile şi oraşele din Nord-Estul României, Iaşi, Dorohoi, Botoşani, Darabani, Săveni etc., ar fi fost depopulate de evrei, or, la sfârşitul războiului, geografia umană a populaţiei evreieşti din Moldova a rămas aproape intactă. Aceasta-i realitatea, în condiţiile în care, la sfârşitul războiului, peste fiecare casă din satele româneşti se aşternuse doliul, sute de mii de flăcăi murind pe front. Dl Teşu Solomovici, atât de înverşunat şi de convins de existenţa unui holocaust românesc, uită să ne spună că, în anii războiului, învăţa liniştit la un liceu din Focşani, iar tatăl său muncea pentru a-i asigura traiul. Ce fel de holocaust a practicat un stat în care tinerii elevi învăţau carte în licee evreieşti, sinagogile erau deschise, apăreau gazete, tot evreieşti, capii evreilor se întâlneau cu şeful statului cu care colaborau şi se întreţineau amical, puteau să emigreze (chiar cu acordul guvernului acuzat de holocaust), funcţionau teatre, iar cultural mozaic era subvenţionat de acelaşi stat? Ciudat, straniu holocaust! Iarăşi nu cred în existenţa unui holocaust românesc deoarece România lui Antonescu nu a adoptat şi practicat o strategie statală premeditată care ar fi avut ca fundament rasismul. Ideea unui holocaust românesc se bazează pe cu totul alte considerente decât cele cu caracter ştiinţific. Speranţa lui Antonescu, la procesul său, că „în ce priveşte tratamentul la care au fost supuşi evreii deportaţi în Transnistria, din Basarabia şi Bucovina, şi din ţară, afirm că se exagerează şi se va dovedi aceasta mai târziu, atât în privinţa morţilor, cât şi în privinţa tratamentului“. (Procesul Mareşalului Antonescu, Documente, II, p. 172), în condiţiile actuale, riscă să rămână doar un deziderat. Aşadar, consider construcţia istorică de tipul aceleia ce doreşte să demonstreze şi să impună ideea existenţei unui holocaust românesc se dovedeşte cu totul inconsistentă, şi nu poate convinge că statul român a practicat holocaustul în anii celui de-al doilea război mondial. Această construcţie istoriografică se bazează, în mare parte, pe ficţiuni memorialistice (de observat explozia de titluri memorialistice, spre anul 2000, a unor „supravieţuitori“ ai „holocaustului românesc“) pe măsluiri de cifre (nici cei care ne acuză nu au căzut de acord asupra cifrelor), iar „campania insistentă făcută în străinătate cu scopul de a prezenta poporul român drept antisemit, autor al holocaustului, prin demonizarea figurii lui Ion Antonescu“ urmăreşte „pretenţii financiare şi patrimoniale“, (Alex Mihai Stoenescu, Istoria loviturilor de stat în România, vol. II, p. 336). Formularea tezei vinovăţiei poporului român de holocaust, la 50 de ani de la sfârşitul războiului, înainte de a se face proba acestei vinovăţii, ne obligă să credem că scopurile urmărite de cei din spatele acestei teorii urmăresc nu adevărul istoric despre acei ani tragici, ci spolierea statului român de imense sume de bani. Căci, e bine să se ştie, statul care recunoaşte că a practicat holocaustul în anii ultimei conflagraţii mondiale, va fi obligat, în consecinţă, să plătească despăgubiri uriaşe supravieţuitorilor sau urmaşilor acestora. De luat aminte!
 * Material publicat în “Viaţa”, periodic din Botosani, nr. 220/ianuarie 2005. Distinse multumiri directorului saptamânalului, Traian Apetrei, pentru permisiunea de a republica articolul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.35.44.113 (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have made a new section of this huge wall of text, as I am a bit flabbergasted to what I should do with it. Phoib (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Harrqy, 15 July 2010
Ion Antonescu was Marshal of Romania, not soldier.

Harrqy (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Spigot Map  20:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The idea is to provide a description of his career, not his final position. That said, army officer might be a better description than soldier.

Infobox
I'm uncertain what the several issues are with the infobox. Most of the changes made were capitalizing words and using correct grammar...why would anyone want to revert these? Lt.Specht (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Since User:Biruitorul never replied or explained his revert of my edit which he labeled "arbitrary and superfluous", I re-added my edits (which are supported with sources). Lt.Specht (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Cretz2, 16 February 2011
edit semi-protected

Wich historical act says that Ion Antonescu was war criminal? In the english page I found a lot of differences from the romanian page.

Cretz2 (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Are you saying there is wrong information in this article? If so, please provide sources that say so. -Atmoz (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"scion of an upper-middle class Romanian Orthodox family"
I think that mentioning Orthodox here is confusing, it might misled readers that the family had connection with Orthodox clergy. It's fine to mention his religion in the infobox, but otherwise it is not notable to be mentioned there (giving that about 90% of the Romanians are of Orthodox religion anyway). Also, I looked at other pages, Hitler, US presidents, the religion of their family is not mentioned in general, except for Kennedy, but in his case that was a notable thing. man with one red shoe 15:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How is it "confusing"? Does its grammatical structure say that he had a connection with the clergy? Do any other such entries imply a connection with the clergy? Your claim about, say, US Presidents is easily debunked: that John Adams was a Congregationalist is mentioned in the first paragraph; that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was Episcopalian is also found somewhere in the first paragraphs; ditto on Thomas Jefferson's Presbyterianism; we learn that Dick Nixon's family was Quaker somewhere in the first two phrases, etc. In fact, even Hitler's Catholic roots are quite clearly mentioned in one of the first paragraphs, although his is a special case (hence the existence of a section on his religious views, right there in that article). Let me also note that your removal leaves the infobox unsourced, obliterates one of the infos found in the quoted source (arbitrarily), and ignores the fact that there are still some other facts on Antonescu's religious views further down in the text (where the main topic of his faith is not restated, since to do otherwise would be redundant). This is poor and careless editing, and I'm still hard pressed to understand why.
 * And lastly, the remark that "90% of Romanians are Orthodox" serves no purpose for an international audience, and its implication that we don't mention religion unless non-Orthodox is remarkably parochial - if not indeed offensive to, say, the very Romanian Greek- and Roman Catholics. Dahn (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All those example that you provided are different in one way or anther, most importantly they talk about the religion of the presidents themselves, not about their family (unless that's notable, being a Quaker in US is notable, being an Orthodox in Romania is not -- nothing insulting about this simple fact), Bush for example was not "born in a upper class American Protestant family" when the religion is mentioned, it's about him, not his family. I haven't removed the reference, so your claim that infobox is unsourced is a bit strange, you can always move the reference to the infobox if you think it's unclear where that comes from. And look at Stalin's page they don't even mention directly that he's born in an Orthodox family, even though he ended up studying at a theological seminar. In any case I give up this is not that important, I just tried to explain why I wanted this changed, I don't want to fight to convince you or anybody else. (for what is worth I'm an Atheist, I don't care about religions that much, maybe that's why I would like them mentioned only in the infobox, I also don't like to see people characterized by the religion of their family) man with one red shoe 14:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This actually is a way of talking about Antonescu's own religion, as far as researchers have cared about it. The turn of phrase I used just seems to place emphasis on his family, but it's exactly the same as Adams or Roosevelt or Hitler. As for your claim that such entries only talk about the Presidents, not their families, again I'm afraid you're wrong: if you actually read the sections I directed you to, you'll note that the phrasing is quite often very similar to the one used here. And, lastly, if you don't think religions matter that much, I would love to see you arguing this case about, say, Romanian communists born into families of the Jewish faith - it has so far been an obsession of Romanian users to emphasize the "Jewishness" of such individuals, so why not make those articles your test cases? Romanian wikipedia is still rife with this discreet antisemitism, so you'd actually be doing the good work... Dahn (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, this is an issue of notability, Romanian born in a Christian Orthodox family = blah, Romanian born in a Jewish family = notable fact. Plus, I guess you can't be both ethnic Romanian and ethnic Jew at the same time (since "Jewishness" is not only about religion, as far as I know Israel for example recognizes Jews even if they are non-religious). Can I protest though against the word "scion" it rubs me the wrong way (sounds like a pretender to the throne), can we use "descendant" or "born into"? man with one red shoe 00:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I know that rationale, it comes into urban folklore and the collective psyche by way of Sămănătorul and Gândirea - "all Romanian are Orthodox, Jews 'try as they might' can't also be ethnic Romanians"... But, yes, if you can think of way to preserve the info and change the wording, you're welcome to try - but let me note again that the text was several times reviewed by proficient English speakers. Dahn (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't subscribe to the notion that "all Romanians are Orthodox" and a Romanian converted to Judaism or Islam or any other religion is still an ethnic Romanian, but Jews usually are a separate ethnicity with their language and different customs. Different religion, customs and language are usually the mark of different nations. man with one red shoe 14:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The images
As I have stated long ago, this article has a couple of image problems. Many have been uploaded on commons with an antiquated and questionable PD rationale, and are likely to get deleted in the near future. What's more, the image in the infobox comes to us from the self-published book of a Holocaust denier - although it was uploaded, I presume, in good-faith - who cannot claim PD for the images, but (as he does) only for the text. I presume the PD release for the text is there to help him popularize such nonsense ("read me, copy me"), but the images are still copyrighted by their original authors, from whom the author took his images without proper credit. Unless I see some serious arguments as to why to keep the images, sometime in the near future, I myself will visit wikicommons with a couple of deletion requests. (The only reason why, in an earlier version, this article was introduced by the Antonescu-Ribbentrop photo is that it is the only such portrait yet that is clearly released into the public domain.) Dahn (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Awards and decorations
User:Dahn, could you please explain why you consider sources in this section to be unreliable? And how flagcruft fits into this in any way? Take a look at Josip_Broz_Tito for an example of many other articles which have similar sections. Lt.Specht (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources such as Watts are questioned by the vast majority of other reseacrhers (as the very text of this article points out), while Treptow is simply laughable (clue: he co-authored books with one of Antonescu's greatest apologists, not to mention his parallel career as a convicted pedophile). The cavalier text is lengthy and pointless, as well as unreliable, the citation format ignores what is already consistently used in the text above it (as it does in other such edits you keep adding from your personal interpretation of primary sources), and yes, no matter where still used, the colorful flagcruft is still below our standards, as in WP:MOSFLAGS. Dahn (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And since we're on 'answer me this riddle' time, how about some justification for the image sources and the issue I raised in the section above? Dahn (talk) 10:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Clue: he co-authored a book with somebody that has a different POV than me and he had personal problems that don't have anything to do with the reliability of his work. Laughable, I tell you. I don't think WP:RS talks about this situation, this seems to be a higher standard of reliability that has more to do with POV issues than with what is deemed to be a reliable source in general by WP standards. man with one red shoe 12:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, he co-authored works with a member of a far right party, initiated into history by the national communist school, who self-publishes his texts and who is universally discredited by historians who actually stand by the reliability standard enforced by WP:RS. Clue: those historians bluntly refer to the pair as denialists or revisionists. If you want to talk some more about Buzatu and Treptow, and how they relate to WP:RS (which says, for instance: 'How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them.'), make sure you actually glance over professional opinion. You could for instance look no further than references in the Wiesel Commission report, which I do believe reflects something other than 'my POV' - if it's worth calling it a POV, it is the POV on the matter, as far as RS policy is concerned. My own, additional, non-binding POV is that one shouldn't stoop to quoting such sources because they are monstrous in both style and content, and appear to have been scribbled by monomaniacal schoolchildren; but, as noted, there are plenty of objective reasons not to claim that Treptow et al are reliable here or anywhere. The fact about him being a convicted pedophile is probably secondary, but it also casts a shadow on Treptow's actual purpose for being in Romania, his willingness to conduct veritable research, not to mention the moral annoyance it poses for wikipedia at having to republish the conclusions of works written by a predator on the hunt. At least for the sake of good taste, let's not open the 'personal problems' can of worms. Will there be anything else? Dahn (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I didn't know who he co-authored the books with. Yet, I still don't entirely like this idea of "unreliability through association", it doesn't sound relevant to Treptow's reliability as a source if one of his co-authors in other works self-publishes his texts, as long as Treptow is published. Same thing goes about the political views of his co-authors, political views don't rub on people... man with one red shoe 14:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I hear you, but unfortunately for Treptow RS policy disagrees: if you hold an extremist position, and if you are identified as such by professionals in the field, wikipedia refrains from quoting you on any facts. Note that Treptow's scholarship on Antonescu is strictly connected to him being caled a negationist: with or without Buzatu, Treptow has circulated the notion that there was no Holocaust carried out by Romanian authorities, and this is, quite clearly, an extremist stance. Also, as far as I can tell, Treptow has not achieved academic ranks in the relevant field of history, but simply wrote a number of commercial books on trite aspects in Romanian history and was coopted for a while, under a Romanian nationalist gvt, on the board of a local 'academic instition' widely held to be a front for the post-communist intelligence service. To sum up, this is the reputation Treptow enjoys, in just some English language sources:, ,.
 * As for Watts, he has a better standing, but his ideas on Antonescu are criticized by, for instance, Deletant. While Treptow is seen as a tool for the Antonescu fans, Watts' unabashed tribute to the guy (Romania's Cassandra, he calls him!) to held by more recent scholarship to be the byproduct of older communist misinformation: Watts basically tells that Antonescu saved the Jews, because he relies on sources which willingly obscured the massacres ordered or condoned by Antonescu. Again, RS policy favors the mainstream and non-antiquated, and scholarly consensus is easily discerned. I mean, Watts' work, with all its additional problems, is obscurantist in comparision to even the basic facts now taught in Romanian schools. Dahn (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand now. man with one red shoe 16:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Dahn, could you provide specific instances of other reliable English sources stating Watts and Treptow are unreliable? Both publishers of the cited works, Center for Romanian Studies and East European Monographs appear to be academic sources, and are used for sources on other pages. Why would these publishers publish them? The three English sources you provided appear to be self-published and non-academic sources and are unreliable themselves (one is a blog). An explanation for the revert of other edits completely unrelated to Watts or Treptow seems to be in order too, such as requesting requesting a source for an image's caption. Flags also appear to be appropriate to have, as said in MOSFLAGS, literally hundreds of other articles use flags next to the allegiance country for a military person. Why not Antonescu? Lt.Specht (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've re added the section with different reliable sources. Lt.Specht (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)