Site description for Antonescu

You are free to interact or not.

I did not respond because I didnt get to read that topic and I need to do that in order to have a decent reply. So give me some time... I was a little busy. The week end is coming up, I will sure have time to read the link.

I am the one contributing to the discreditation? Omg, thats strong!
No matter...

I do not claim to represent other people, it is misleading to state that. I said others seem to agree with some points I presented. Hence I am not the only one, but I do not represent anyone but myself.

My opinion about Antonescu is not defined hence, it cannot be entrenched. I want to understand some things and, of course, I come with some ideas of my own from my research, ideas that could be false. Thats the point in discussing. Maybe my arguments are too strong, in the way I express them, but thats part of my personality I guess.

"Controversial" is not a neutral description... see my example. Not all text book definitions are reality wise correct.

If you see fit to continue this discussion, if other facts will be presented, please feel free to do so.

regards

The main war crimes that I could trace to Antonescu's orders from the bibliography at my disposal are listed in the article:
- deportation of Bessarabian and Bukovinian Jews, of which about a half survived
- deportation of Gypsies, of which about a half survived
- the second wave of reprisals at Odessa

Like Dragos already mentioned there are older threads about these subjects, like for example: http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=118&st=0.

The war crimes committed by others, which aren't now labeled as war criminals because they won the war, are besides the point weather Antonescu was one as well or not and they are also offtopic.

Ok, I will sketch a reply here. But first some introductory ideas: the Jewish subject is quite sensitive. Whatever one says can be interpreted in... many ways, so I would avoid making statements about numbers and actions that I cannot prove that existed or not. I will try to keep this neutral and tangle some issues. Also I am not fully documented on this matter as some of you might be.

So, basically the main war crimes are the deportation of a part of the Jews from the lost territories, of a number of nomands from the Kingdom and the Odessa incident.

I have read the link you provided, there are things in there I wont repeat myself, some of your messages in that topic received good replies imo.

For now I will resume to the Odessa situation and if there is a point in discussing further, I will make a few comments on the other "war crimes" also.

We know at Odessa the RO HQ was blown up and reprisals were ordered. Numbers are contradictory... some sources state one thing, other sources another... Orders that some say were given, other sustain that they are fantasy. I cannot claim to know the truth or how many people were executed.
But... I always try to look at the context. From what I have read regarding the actions of the RO Army after crossing the Nistru, inside the Soviet Union, communist partisan actions have always existed and we know that, for example in Crimea, several dedicated Operations from the RO Army were directed towards eliminating these partisans.
Now you have this incident in which RO high ranking officers and a general (I think) are blown up... so, I dont know, what would one expect? Not to take any actions? Its WAR - its savage, kill or be killed... I understand the partisans in their action, its logical they come up with sabotage and "terrorist" like ops. But... what should have Antonescu done? Remember, we are 1941 going for 42, you are at war with the Soviets - the first aggressors in 1940!, memories of the eviction of Basarabia are still fresh, behavior of the communist activists in there also... and you have your military leadership killed in an explosion.
We are easily jumping towards the "humanity of war" but it seems we are the only ones doing that. See the Vietnam war!!! Talking about reprisals... What about the Russian Soldier having the Commissar on his back... fight for the Motherland, for Communism or else we will kill you before the Germans do. How many Russian Military were purged by their OWN because of political and/or ethnic issues, previous, during and after ww2? Dont tell me we are not considering other situations, because Antonescu and the RO Army might be (made of) different individuals, but as a whole, they are human and basically human behavior has a known pattern -meaning you cannot expect "flowers" instead of "bullets", if you agree to the metaphor. Some would react in a more violent way, others with another type of violence, all in all, the response is between some known parameters, intensity varies.
What did the Communist Regime in RO with "other voices" / "partisans" of the state? And what "partisans" those people were, voicing some ideas only, not blowing up the Communist leadership. Anyway, returning to ww2... Partisan and sabotage actions were known to produce reprisals (what a surprise)! The partisans knew these risks and they knew most likely that civilians will pay. I am just saying, not stating that this is fair or correct.
So, I know you will quote me several figures and books... I cant verify all authors and their bias (not bios), but the point is: Did Antonescu order the execution of civilians / communists / partisans (whatever they were) in Odessa without reason? Or was it because the HQ was blown up? In my opinion this is the question and that might produce a part of the answer to this "war crime".

This post has been edited by RedBaron on September 30, 2010 11:52 pm

If deportation are considered war crimes what about civilian german ethnics sent to soviet labour camps after 23 august 1944. As far as I know at least half of them died.
That doesn't make king Michael war criminal ? (As a head of the state he could be made responsible )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_...er_World_War_II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vertreibung.jpg


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

This post has been edited by Cantacuzino on October 01, 2010 07:55 am

I don't know if king MI is war criminal or a traitor (not subject now) but certainly he is a coward (as he left the country he declaire now he loved it...maybe after 60 years in Switzerland he became more religious).

Back on our subject, my opinion is to avoid any extra/additional/gratuitously information (namely intorductory negative note) about a person (Antonescu) whos sentence is controversial.

What happens if Antonescu is rehabilitated (assumption)? Do you change the note or eliminate it?

Besides the fact that the Note there is negative, it sounds like an excuse. Excuse for what and to whom?
As redbaron I do not glorify Antonescu, just be reasonable and correct with him, do not judge his personality, God judge all of us.

Common Cantacuzino, let's not be naive. You could use the same kind of logic for the deportation of the Jews and of the Gypsies, because the King was the head of state also during Antonescu's regime. Yet he had little or no involvement in taking decisions during his entire second reign, first because of Antonescu's dictatorship and then because of the Soviet occupation, who btw ordered and carried out the deportation of the Germans.

Here is the international law in effect, which Romania signed in 1907, ratified in 1912

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp

Yet you do not extend the same Christian principle of not judging to King Mihai (see quote below). Typical.

Now to cut things short. This topic has become pointless. I no longer have the time and patience I used to have when dealing with people with ideas similar to you and redbaron's, so this is the picture:

1. The text will not be modified
2. Denial of war crimes will not be tolerated (see guidelines) and will result with eventual banning if perpetrated for too long.
3. If you and redbaron wish to discuss (in your cases euphemism for whitewash, justify, deny) the war crimes, there is already an opened topic for this. Please do so there.

Topic closed.