Talk:Ion Antonescu

An event mentioned in this article is an August 23 selected anniversary.

---

Antonescu and the Holocaust

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

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

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

p.s.: Vasile, I totally agree about that phrase.

--IulianU 08:49, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Factual Problems

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

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

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

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

why dictator? it's outrageous !

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

I put his official title of "conducător" (the equivalent of German "Fuerher"), for the sake of conformity with the Adolf Hitler article. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 12:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)