Talk:Mihai Antonescu

Untitled
You should quote your sources, especially about controversial political matters Are you sure that Mihai Antonescu sent Romanian Jews to Nazi deathcamps? I think Romanians would strongly deny this, so it is a controversial issue..


 * Actually, it seems that the Germans demanded him to hand them the Romanian Jews in order to be sent to the camps in Poland. Apparently, under German pressure he initially agreed, but then changed his mind. bogdan | Talk 08:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Antonescu's birthdate
This article mentions 1907 as his year of birth, while on the Romanian Wikipedia the date of November 18, 1904, is stated. I've also found November 5, 1904 on this website: - but it is likely to be the same date, Old Style. Does anyone have better sources? Mentatus 09:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know who wrote 1907, but 1904 is confirmed by the 1978 dictionary I have at home. Will change. Dahn 11:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Fascist?
I doubt he can be classified as fascist, since he was not a supporter of the Iron Guard.
 * Scholarly consensus is that the Antonescu regime was fascist. Dahn 11:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr. Dahn statement is obviously wrong. Where did he find this inexistant scholarly consensus? It is to easy to claim that any right-wing orientation is fascist. Actually fascist means only affiliated to the regime of Benito Mussolini. Even Hitler was not fascist, he was Nazi and so on. We should not oversimplify politicat epithetes and present the facts as they are. The romanian regime, was not linked to a political party and did not claim to support a certain ideology. Italian fascism is definitely linked to a political party. The problem is to avoid confusions and to present both the common parts and the differences.


 * Even the Iron Guard was not a "pure" fascist regime. The relations of the Iron Guard with the Church were definitely different from the other rightist regimes in Europe. That is why labels are dangerous.


 * However my discussion was related directly to the article. The author does not make the difference between Ion Antonescu and Mihai Antonescu and some of the facts of which Ion Antonescu is rightly or not accused are transfered without any substantiation to Mihai Antonescu. The teo men may have agreed on many things and they also have had many disagreements. Unfortunately historic events are rarely black or white. And if they are presented that way the image creaed is generally wrong.


 * I do not intend to defend him. I simply consider that the confusions between the acts of the two men has to be clarified.

Actually I found this article by chance as I wanted to find out when Mihai Antonescu took office as foreign minister. Some entries in the Wikipedia state January 1943 which appears to be wrong. This shows that what people try to find in an encyclopedia is not labels but facts. And because of such counterproductive discussions, persons who are looking for the facts are not able to find them. Afil 02:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Mention lack of relation
Should there be mention that Mihai Antonescu and Ion Antonescu were not related somewhere in the article? I had to search elsewhere to confirm they weren't. 101.98.118.156 (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)