Talk:Ion Antonescu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This article is part of WikiProject Fascism, an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to the fascist ideology, its impact on history and present-day organisations closely linked to both of these (ideology and history). See project page, and discussion. This article may be listed on an index of fascist movements or people. Such listing may be controversial; feel free to contribute to discussions there. The presence of this Talk page-only template only implies that the subject is of interest to the associated WikiProject.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

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

---

Contents 1 Antonescu and the Holocaust 2 Factual Problems 3 why dictator? it's outrageous ! 4 Gruesome 5 King Mihai or Michael? 6 Jewish connections 7 Current Revision 8 the article 9 Fascist or not 10 Joining the Allies 11 Revising the Revisionists 12 Top 10 "Greatest Romanians" ?! 13 Execution of Antonescu 14 Transnistria 15 Some apologists of Antonescu constantly vandalising the article 16 who weren't Romanian citizens or who were considered "Communist agents" 17 Re-write/tidy-up 18 You can always count on Romania 19 User reverts 20 Recent reverts

[edit] 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)

mircion's answer: This is truly baffling... As if knowledge does not imply truth. As if knowledge means: mere opinion, conjecture, hypothesis, unwarranted belief, plain falsehood. I can't teach you philosophy here, but think for yourself: If it is true that you know that it is raining - is it raining or not? Of course it is raining! And if you know that my name is "mircion" - is my name "mircion" or not? Of course it is! Your mistake is to think that an encyclopedia is a place where every individual with some half-baked ideas and many gaps in his knowledge of a particular topic is entitled to express himself. But of course, in THAT case we should allow any Holocaust denier to contribute to the Wikipedia entry on the Holocaust. And any housewife ignorant of physics to state why she thinks that Einstein was wrong. And any conspiration theorist that J. F. Kennedy really was killed by the Mossad and that there was no moon landing. Etc. You confuse knowledge with opinion. It is well established and beyond any resoanable doubt that Antonescu WAS a war criminal. Please read Ioanid, Ancel, Heinen, Hausleitner and others before replying here again.

• 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)

• DEAR MIRCION (i don't know if you are still reading this page but you should to, since you are the original author). The truth is that many people in Romania, including part of the cultural-political "elites", do believe that Antonescu was a hero. (Arguments: he fought to recapture Bessarabia and Bukovina, which were historical Romanian regions and he was against Bolshevism). I can post links to semi-official Romanian educational sites where Antonescu is depicted as a hero. The truth is also that for the last years Romanians have started to dismantle Antonescu's statues (built immediately after 1989) and rename streets calles "Ion antonescu". But this is, methinks, not due to a real understanding of the fact that A. was a war-criminal or that Romania had a responsability for the Holocaust, but to foreign pressures. Most Romanians are unwilling to admit this (part of an explanation is that Communist Romania made the anti-Jewish Holocaust a taboo, claiming that the Communists were the main victims of the Nazis). That is, even if Romanians are at this moment (2005) ready to admit Romania's involvemenet in the Holocaust - at least officially- they do not and cannot sincerely believe and understand this.

If it is really an established fact that A. was a war criminal, then i suggest someone should put _online_ the indisputable evidence that you claim exists. (orders written by his hand that Jews of Odessa and Transnistria should be massacrated etc). Otherwise, the result will be that romanians will admit about Antonescu and the holocaust everything they are required to admit (by foreign pressures, be they the EU or the Yad Vashem), but will do so without really understanding the issue. (You seem to have philosophical inclinations: if i do assent to a sentence, like a parrot, without understanding it, do i really believe it? I think not).

MIRCION's reply to the last point: "someone should put _online_ the indisputable evidence ..." Nothing easier than that: Romania's government under Iliescu established an expert commission which eventually published a report about Romania's implication in the Holocaust. President Iliescu not only accepted the findings of that report, but unambiguously acknowledged and assumed Romania's guilt of ethnically cleansing Jews and Gypsies, and even established a National Holocaust Remembrance Day, as we have this in Germany, the UK, US and many other civilised countries.

The report has been published in both Romanian and English. Here is a copy (online, hence your request is fully met), including Iliescu's speech: http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/presentations/index.php?content=programs/presentations/2005-03-10/ Here are the main findings of this official report, as accepted by Romania's president:

• The Holocaust in Romania had deep Romanian roots in a century-long history of widespread anti-Semitism in the country’s political and cultural elites.

• Directives to degrade and destroy Jews and Jewish institutions came from the highest authorities in Bucharest.

• Between 280,000 and 380,000 Romanian and Ukrainian Jews were murdered or died at the hand of Romanian civilian and military authorities and in territories under their control.

• Approximately 340,000 Romanian Jews survived because the government terminated deportations in 1943, 16 months before Romania ended its alliance with Nazi Germany and entered the war against the Axis.

• Over 25,000 Romanian Roma were also deported during the Holocaust, and over 11,000 perished, resulting in the disappearance of some centuries-old Roma communities.

• Irrefutable and abundant documentary evidence shows Ion Antonescu’s personal responsibility for the deportation and the physical destruction of the Jews and Roma under Romanian jurisdiction.

• Approximately 135,000 Romanian Jews living in Hungary-controlled Transylvania and 5,000 Romanian Jews living outside Romania also perished in the Holocaust.

After a shameful period of denial and ambiguity, the debate over Romania's guilt is finally over. No nationalist denier will have an easy task from now on.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

mircion's reply: This is a very silly view. Of course Antonescu was a dictator. If he was not, what was he? A democrat?? The leader of a democratic country?? The FUEHRER of a democratic country?? Is this how we call the leaders of democratic countries? Or shall we call him a 'patriotic politician'? Is THIS the most neutral term?? Has he not killed hundreds of thousands of Jews and led millions of Romanian soldiers into the certain death by following Hitler into a desastrous, ill-fated and idiotic war?

Antonescu has been described as a dictator by most historians and standard encyclopedias, e.g. the authoritative Encyclopedia Britannica (check it out online: www.britannica.com), because he fits the usual definition of the term. There is no place for historical revisionism in an encyclopedia.

If the articles on Stalin and Hitler do not describe them as dictators, then this is a problem of THOSE articles, not of THIS one. You don't correct a mistake by commiting another one...

Besides, Hitler IS actually described as a dictator on Wikipedia. And so is Mussolini.

Of course he was a dictator, but this discussion is about the lead section, where we should put the official title, which was not "dictator". bogdan | ^Talk 09:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gruesome

The execution part is a little bit too gruesome. I propose either to remove it or reduce the detail. User:Dinu

[edit] King Mihai or Michael?

I'm not sure what the relevant standard would be, but I for one found the use of the two versions with no explanation briefly and unnecessarily confusing. Would it be possible to either only use one version, or to explicitly relate the two? Blurble 15:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish connections

This paragraph was deleted from the article in 2004 by an anonymous user without any comment. If this is true, then we should put it back in the article. bogdan | ^Talk 20:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Although his step-mother was a Jewish woman called Frida Cuperman, and, as a military attaché in London in the 1930s, Antonescu married a French-Jewish woman named Rasela Mendel, Antonescu was attracted to anti-Semitism early.

[edit] Current Revision

Can someone do something about the latest revision? I'm not versed enough on the subject to contest it, but as a casual observer it appears to have been seriously de-NPOVed re: Holocaust. Geoff NoNick 18:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I made the edits. The material is all from the comprehensive report accepted by the Romanian president, and I would suggest that any interested editor read it first (The section on Antonescu is here). The previous version was highly POV, and did not match what historians, and even the Romanian government, say about Antonescu's involvement. Whatever his merits as a national hero, there is no doubt that Antonescu was directly responsible for much of the portion of the Holocaust carried out by Romania, and there is substantial documentation of this. The material quoted is from the official report on the subject, I would be happy to discuss any factual objections, of course. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I've read the report. My concern is that the whole of the section should not be based on one source alone - it shouldn't surprise anyone that Romania would be eager to distance itself from the Holocaust by blaming its leader solely, as the commission ultimately found. And a section that begins "Antonescu's role in the Holocaust is a very controversial subject" can hardly be considered "highly POV". I'd just like someone who is versed in Romanian WWII history to review the edits, since they seem to completely rewrite what was there before. Is that alright? Geoff NoNick 20:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, some argue that if it wasn't Antonescu, the Germans would have sent every Romanian/Ukrainian Jew to extermination camps, anyway and all 300,000 Jews that survived in Romania would have been killed.

But Geoff is right, it appears that the Romanian government decided to blame it all on Antonescu. There was even a law passed that says that it is illegal to try to put Ion Antonescu in a more favorable light... bogdan | ^Talk 20:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Geoff, sure, other people should look at the material, but I do want to make a couple of points. First, the report was not written by the Romanian government, it was an outside panel of experts. Second, the report is not the only source blaming Antonescu, and Antonescu obviously does not solely have blame -- he didn't personally call for each execution order, etc. However, this is an article about him, and he certainly was responsible or fully aware of many massacres and slaughters of the Jews; as far as I know everything here is factual. If you want to bring in other sources that blame others as well, feel free to do so, but to call his role "controversal" would seem to imply that there was somehow controversy over whether he bore responsibility for much of the Holocaust carried out by Romania, it is, in fact a very POV statement (like "Eichmann's role in the Holocaust is a very controversal subject" as the starting sentence of a similar section). Who says it is controversal? And in what way? In any case, the article discusses his halt to the killings as well, but to say that he saved the Jews by not killing all of them is highly dubious, especially as there is no evidence that this was done out of any sense of goodwill. Again, I do welcome outside input, but it would be very helpful to cite sources, rather than make assumptions. That will make the discussion easier. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I am myself specialized on Romania and WW2, and I must say that the new version is much better. Goodoldpolonius2 has done a good job. He is entirely right about the Romanian government's report. This report was only *commissioned* by the government, and compiled by some of the best experts in the field. Trying to relativize it without having read it, speaking of "external pressures" and using other relativizing terms (why don't you then apply the same kind of argument to Hitler too??), as some users do here, is futile. Antonescu's guilt is not "controversial" in any way, and that first sentence should be removed. I will, when time allows it, update the literature list, which is much too short at the moment --mircion 13 November 2005

And to say that he killed Jews by not saving them is equally dubious. If I understand the counter-argument, the claim is that his antipathy towards Jews caused him to play a largely passive role in permitting the pogroms to occur up to a certain point before putting an end to the exportations. As a leader, he certainly has to shoulder his share of the blame and he did provide direct approval of some atrocities, but the point is that he was probably not the causal force either for the killing or the saving: in both cases he seems to have been responding to internal and external pressure. He's certainly "responsible", but there are other forces at work that deserve to be pointed out. But I agree we need more than word-of-mouth to substantiate that argument. I'll see what sources I can find to back it up, if any. Geoff NoNick 12:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I see why we are having a misunderstanding. If you read the report, he was not passive at all. He personally ordered the massacre of Jews in Odessa, many deportations, etc. A few things from the report, by why of example:

• "Ion Antonescu was directly involved in his regime’s major repressive acts against the Jews. Unlike in Hitler’s case, there is a wealth of documentary evidence proving this direct involvement. In early October 1941, for example, Col. Gheorghe Petrescu of the Supreme General Staff and gendarmerie General Topor initiated the deportation of the Jews from Bukovina on Antonescu’s personal order. Petrescu declared in 1945 that they had received their orders from Radu Dinulescu of Section Two (Sectia II) of the Supreme General Staff; this order—no. 6651 of October 4, 1941—also cited Marshal Antonescu’s decision to deport all Jews in Bukovina to Transnistria within ten days.12 The governor of Bukovina, General Calotescu, also confirmed that Petrescu and Topor had only been fulfilling Antonescu’s instructions"
• From the November 13, 1941 minutes of the Council of Ministers:

Antonescu: Has the repression been sufficiently severe?

Alexianu: It has been, Marshal.

Antonescu: What do you mean by “sufficiently severe”?…

Alexianu: It was very severe, Marshal.

Antonescu: I said that for every dead Romanian, 200 Jews [should die] and that for every Romanian wounded 100 Jews [should die]. Did you [see to] that?

Alexianu: The Jews of Odessa were executed and hung in the streets….

Antonescu: Do it, because I am the one who answers for the country and to history. [If the Jews of America don’t like this] let them come and settle the score with me.

Actually, the Romanian Army received a unexpectedly powerful resistance from the Jews of Ukraine as the army was always under attack from behind the front. Even in Bukowina there were some organized militias that began sabotaging the Army installations. Antonescu was naive to think that a "severe repression" would stop this, but he was wrong: the Jews knew that in the eventuality of an Axis win, they'd all be exterminated. NPOW 14:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The Odessa massacres started in response to a bombing that later turned out to be conducted by the NKVD. The response, under Antonescu's direct orders, was not mere repression, but the slaughter of up to a hundred thousand Jewish men, women and children, none of whom had anything to do with the bombing: "On the evening of October 22, the center and right wings of the Romanian military general headquarters exploded, killing sixteen Romanian officers (including the city’s military commander, General Ion Glogojanu), four German naval officers, forty-six other members of the Romanian military, and several civilians. Following Antonescu’s order, which demanded “immediate retaliatory action, including the liquidation of 18,000 Jews in the ghettos and the hanging in the town squares of at least 100 Jews for every regimental sector,” the Jews were rounded up and brought to the execution sites by the Romanian army, gendarmerie, and police. Some 22,000 Jews of all ages were packed into nine warehouses in Dalnic, a suburb of Odessa, an operation that continued past nightfall on October 23. The Jews were machine gunned, burned alive, or blown up. Almost all of the survivors were deported. Huge columns of Jewish deportees were sent on foot toward Berezovka and Bogdanovka." --Goodoldpolonius2 15:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• "Observing at the December 16, 1941, Council of Ministers’ meeting that even Nazi Germany was slow to act, Antonescu urged his lieutenants to hasten Romania’s solution to its “Jewish question”: “Put them in the catacombs, put them in the Black Sea. I don’t want to hear anything. It does not matter if 100 or 1,000 die, [for all I care] they can all die.” This order resulted in the deportation of the surviving Jews of Odessa to Berezovka and Golta."

You mention the pressures he was under, but these don't seem like passive acts in the face of pressure, they seem very deliberate. Let me know if you have sources to the contrary.. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] the article

This article is a very bad joke!!! Antonescu was up set with jews because his wife, a jewish woman, did not make him good meals.--Dacodava

[edit] Fascist or not

While the Iron Guard is widely described as fascist, fitting very well the ideology of a fascist movement, it seems that for Antonescu there's not a consensus. For example, here's what Keith Hitchins says:

The regime which Antonescu instituted on 27 January 1941 cannot be classified as fascist. A more apt description would be military dictatorship. Unlike Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy, it lacked an ideology and was not supported by a mass political party. Instead of a philosophical justification for its existence, Antonescu made order and security, which he deemed indispensable for the progress of every society, the reason for being of his regime.

Hitchins, Keith (1994) Rumania : 1866-1947 (Oxford History of Modern Europe). Clarendon/Oxford University Press

bogdan 12:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joining the Allies

In 1943, Antonescu tried to join the Allies, but they refused, at the request of the Soviets. If anyone has some data or references... :-) bogdan 12:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revising the Revisionists

Honestly, what an entertaining mess this article is, edited and revised by a serious minded historians on one hand and deluded Romanian nationalists and Fascist apologists on the other. I couldn't help but make two deletions to the Political Power section. Hitler's attack on the USSR was not "preventive". That's a somewhat subjective opinion, hardly good history. And the work of an editor with Nazi sympathies, I suspect.

And given that the section dealing with Antonescu's role in the holocaust ascribes him direct responsibility for up to 380,000 Jewish deaths it's a little ridiculous to have the statement "Antonescu was no anti-semite" in section above it. 380,000 dead sounds like anti-semitism to me.

This is the first time I've edited Wikipedia. This is a great project but it'll need defending from deluded extremists with their own agenda to push. —This unsigned comment was added by Caliban303 (talk • contribs) .

the links don't work! --83.60.192.231 11:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What "deluded Romanian nationalists", brah ? As an unwavering Romanian nationalist, I can honestly say that no true "nationalist" in his right mind would rank Antonescu higher than feces, as he is the cretin responsible for losing Bessarabia and Bucovina to the Soviets, thanks to his brainless alliance with Nazi Germany. As far as I'm concerned, the only people who could glorify Antonescu are fascist nostalgists. Don't you go placing nationalists in the same boat with fascists, holmes. --Voievod 00:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top 10 "Greatest Romanians" ?!

From a Romanian newspaper published in Montreal (Pagini Romanesti), I read that, along with Constantin Brancusi, Mircea Eliade, Mihai Eminescu, Carol I, Mihai Viteazul, Nadia Comaneci, Stefan cel Mare, Alexandru Ioan Cuza and Richard Wurmbrand...Antonescu made the Top 10 of a televised contest dedicated to "The Greatest Romanian". To the people responsible for allowing Antonescu to be on the list, I ask...what they have been smoking, as it's obviously something illegal. What has Antonescu actually DONE to deserve this "great honour" ? What worthwhile contribution has he made to Romania or the Romanian people ? Besides allying himself with Nazi Germany ? Catering to extremist orgainizations like the Iron Guard ? Collaborating with Hitler to organize the Holocast in Romania ? And, perhaps the most disastrous moment in the history of Romania, losing Bessarabia and Bucovina to the Soviets, no thanks to his bonehead alliance with the Third Reich ? Seriously, what exactly has Antonescu done that is or was beneficial to the Romanian nation ? Having direct responsibility for the collapse of everything that was accomplished after World War I, leaving Romania at the hands of the communists, thus condemning it to decades of misery and isolation ? To think that he is on the same list as geniuses like Eminescu and Brancusi, as great warriors and defenders of the country like Stefan, Mihai and Cuza, that just breaks my balls. The only explanation I have is that the all the fascists had nothing better to do (business as usual) and phoned in their vote. Not to say that this isn't little more than a mediatic roadbump, but it just lost even more merit. Congratulations to Antonescu, for making the Top 10 on merit of being an incompetent leader, and a spineless fool who reduced Romania to a state from which it will take centuries to recover all the territories that were lost thanks to him. --Voievod 00:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Further proof that the so-called contest ain't worth shit...Here's some runners-up to the prestigious title of "Greatest Romanian":

• 71: Ion Iliescu
• 12: GIGI BECALI
• 10: NICOLAE CEAUSESCU

I rest my case, I have nothing else to say. --Voievod 00:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Execution of Antonescu

The official report stated that Ion Antonescu asked to be executed by the army, not by prison guards, but he was refused, to which he replied: "Scumbags, scumbags!".

"Then the command for the execution was given. The weapons were loaded and when they were fired the Marshal saluted by raising his hat with the right hand, after which they all fell down. The Marshal immediately rose up, leaning on his elbow and said: You didn't shoot me gentlemen, fire!, after which the chief guard went with his pistol to Antonescu and shot him in the head. The doctor consulted them and came to the conclusion that the Marshal and Vasiliu were still alive. The chief guard fired another shot in the chest of Antonescu and then of Vasiliu and the doctor examined them and said they still weren't dead. The chief guard went again to Vasiliu, but his pistol jammed when he tried to fire it. He took a rifle from one of the guards and fired one shot in Vasiliu's head, but then it also jammed."

"He changed it with another one and fired another three shots in different parts of Vasiliu's body and then went to the Marshal and fired 3 shots in his chest. The doctor examined them and said that Antonescu was dead, but Vasiliu was still alive. Again the guard fired a shot in Vasiliu's head. The result: Vasiliu's brains were coming out of his head, but he was still moving and saying something we couldn't understand. The guard went again to him and fired two shots in the head and after this the doctor said that Vasiliu too was dead." ^[1].

[edit] Transnistria

Even after the recapturing of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, Antonescu took the Romanian army deeper into Soviet territory, trying to create a "Great Romania" at expense of Soviet territory which did not have Romanian population.

Actually, the occupied territory beyond the Nistru (named "Transnistria") had and still has some Romanian population, albeit the majority was Ukrainian, so the claim in the article is not quite correct. bogdan 11:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some apologists of Antonescu constantly vandalising the article

[edit] who weren't Romanian citizens or who were considered "Communist agents"

"In 1941, following the advancing Romanian Army and the attacks by Jewish "Resistance groups" (jews had also sympatized with the the occuping Soviet Army in 1940, shoothing and sometimes killing retreating Romanian soldiers in Bassarabian towns with a large jewish population like Edinet or Ismail) Antonescu ordered the deportation to Transnistria, of all Jews of Bessarabia and Bukovina (between 80,000 and 150,000) who weren't Romanian citizens or who were considered "Communist agents" by the Romanian adminstration. Few managed to survive trains and the concentration (labor) camps set up in Transnistria."

On January 21st, 1938 the royal decree no. 169 signed by Carol II and Octavian Goga, President of the Counsel of Ministers, did set up the "revision" of the Romanian citizenship of jewish people in Romania. In an interview given in January 1938 to A.L.Easterman, correspondent of the "Daily Harald", king Carol II and Octavian Goga were talking about 250.000 and respectively 500.000 jews considered "illegal". According to the royal decree jewish people had to go in front of the court and prove that they did fulfill certain conditions in order to be able to keep their Romanian citizanship. Some of them managed to do it. They were also deported.

Bukovina is divided into northern and southern Bukovina. If northern Bukovina was part of Romania just in some historical periods, southern Bukovina was always part of Romania. Jewish people from cities like Suceava, Dorohoi, Radauti, Campulung Moldovenesc were also deported and these cities were always part of Romania. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.196.244.127 (talk • contribs) .

Actually, Southern Bukovina was not "always" part of Romania before WWI: see the map. bogdan 10:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-write/tidy-up

I've been right through the article for a major copy-edit and tidy up. I suspect many of the previous contributors were not native English speakers and the writing seemed a little awkward in places (still infinitely better than anything I could hope to write in Romanian). I don't think I've changed the sense of the article in anyway. I've also added some additional wikilinks when the context wasn't as clear to an uninformed reader (i.e. me), without much grasp of Romanian history. As ever, I won't be offended if you think I've made a complete mess of the article and re-write it again. David Underdown 10:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You can always count on Romania

"Of course I will be there from the start. When it is a question of actions against Slav, you can always count on Romania," he replied.

This sounds rather unlikely, has no source and has been like this for a few months. bogdan 21:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User reverts

To avoid further WP:EW, could 194.117.231.39 (talk • contribs) explain why the following comments are (repeatedly since [1]) added to the text concerning Ion Antonescu. The article should have WP:NPOV whereas these comment seems to be from work of apologist Iosif Constantin Dragan in 1993 article.

"in 1918 Romania had to make peace with Germany and her allies. At the same time, Antonescu sent two divisions into Bassarabia to restore order to a region brought into chaos by the disorderly Russian retreat."

"With France's defeat and Great Britain's isolation, Antonescu had no other choice than an alliance with Nazi Germany"

"because Antonescu knew that the war against the Soviests would lead to Romania's regaining of Bessarabia and northern Bukovina, territories lost to the Soviet Union in June 1940. Also, by participating in the war on the Eastern front, beyond the historical borders of Romania, Antonescu hoped to persuade Hitler to give back the northern half of Transylvania"

"He couldn't do in one year what the political class had ignored in 20 (in the interbelic period, Romania had the smallest % army budget in Europe)."

"A few days later, the Soviets occupied (the term "liberated" was used by that time's propaganda) Bucharest."

"The only things he wasn't found guilty of were claiming a fortune of his years of government and of Romania's war against the Soviet Union. Like all trials having taken place durring the Communist Regime, the "Trial of Great National Treason" - as it was called by the time's media - has many questionable aspects. Ion Antonescu was sentenced to death six times and executed "

"In 1941, following the advancing Romanian Army and the attacks by Jewish "Resistance groups" (jews had also sympatized with the the occuping Soviet Army in 1940, shoothing and sometimes killing retreating Romanian soldiers in Bassarabian towns with a large jewish population like Edinet or Ismail)"

"However Antonescu, did not apply the "final solution" on Romanian territory, like other German-alllied states did, nor did he send Romanian jews to German extermination camps. Romania even sheltered jews from other countries, like Poland and Czechoslovakia, refusing to turn them over to the Germans."

Perhaps you could express your views more clearly on this talk page. friedfish 16:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm repeatedly adding them because you continualy deleate them. i don't think citing JC Dragan is illeagal on this site. However all the words are mine, based on various sources (the last 3). I'll answer to you questions, in hope you won't delete these lines any longer.

1 is a fact. the Russians were leaving the front and plundering Chisinau, when the National Council asked Romania for help. It was Antonescu, from his position in the army, that sent troops into Bassarabia to disarm the Russians and restore order.

2 GB and France were traditional allies of Romania. However, in 1940 Romania could expect no aid from these countries, given the situation in the West. Germany was the only state able to guarantee the frail borders of Romania, and also the only one that could help Romania regain the lost territories to the Soviet Union.

3 This was not only the will of Antonescu, but of the entire Romanian people, who wished to redeem themselves for giving up Bassarabia and norther Bukovina without a fight one year before.

4 Another fact. Antonescu tried to reform the army in the 30s while he had important functions like Chief of Army Staff, but faced with the lack of funds, he quit, motivating that he wouldn't want to be responsable for the collapse of Romania's borders.

5 Yes, the Russians actually occupied Romania, and stayed for 13 years. Yet Romania continued to celebrate her "liberation" by her big brother from the East for 45 years.

6 another fact: from all charges, those were the only ones he was not found guilty of. As for the second part, I don't know where to start really. I think it's enough to say that the whole institution of the People's Tribunal was ilegal, as a tool of the Government, because it conflicts with the constitutional priciple of Separation of powers, or that the sentences conflicted with the principle of Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali, again from the Constitution.

7 This is from a testimony of G. Magherescu, who participated as a soldier to the Romanian withdraw form Bassarabia in 1940. You can find it the book "Antonescu" by your beloved JC Dragan.

8 All facts: no extermination camps on Romanian territory, Romanian jews sent to German extermination camps were from Hungarian occupied Transylvania. No jews were sent from Romania to German extermination camps, thus including the refugees form neighbouring countries. If we have a section about the Holocaust under Antonescu, then let's say the good things too, not only the bad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.117.231.39 (talk • contribs) .

• Thank you for expressing your views. Are you aware of the International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania. Presumably, for example, the events at Iaşi and Odessa were "preventive" measures.

I won't comment on other points, but I don't understand why the essence of point (2) is so disputed. Dahn, I think the anonymous user is essentially correct about that specific item. Why do you dispute it? --Gutza ^{T T+} 20:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't necessarily dispute, although I tend to view it as superfluous to this article and many others, and a bit single-sided, unless reformulated to "the new government though that such was the case". Let us not forget that the Iron Guard defended the alliance to Germany as an ideological tenet, not as the weakest of two evils ("in ziua urmatoare, vom orienta tara spre Berlin si Roma"), that the fall of British guarantees was not as obvious for, notoriusly, the peoples of Yugoslavia and Greece, and that several in Romania rejected Antonescu's solution from the very start (Maniu, Bratianu). In itself, the sentence would be coaching the reader into assuming that a more complex situation was simple and direct. However, you may introduce in the text something ammounting to that meaning (it was mpost of the rest of the points, their formulation, and their source which deserved a stiff revert). Dahn 08:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Please note that I explicitly said that the essence of point (2) seems ok to me, not the way it's currently formulated. Regarding the historical facts, I'm not disputing the Iron Guard's ideology--of course they were pro-German. But can you really talk about British guarantees when the Russians, Britain's allies, were chipping away at your territory? Hardly. The ironic thing is that Romania didn't want to fight against UK or USA, it only genuinely wanted to fight against USSR. Which subsequently ended up in a cold war with UK and USA. (Remember that by August 23rd 1944, Romania didn't fight on the Western Front.)

My opinion is that Romania was not pro-German as much as it was anti-USSR. Which all of Western Europe ended up being when it became convenient. I agree every country does what it suits them best (USSR helps spark a war between Western European countries, only to join it against the country it helped build the military capacity; the Allies use USSR which they despised to get rid of Nazis, and then start the cold war when things calm down, and so on.) But if we agree everything's hypocrisy and self-interest, why blame ourselves for doing what everybody else was doing at the time? A world war where every soldier is either coward or villain except all soldiers of two nations sounds very dubious to me.

First of all, allow me to apologize for spliting your posts into two: it makes it easier for me to reply. I had understood that your reply was aimed at the essence of the point (and I apologize as well if I had been vague in my awknowledgement of this). Moving on, some things need to be detailed. For one, the USSR and the UK were not allies, and maintained only the least cordial relation after the German-Soviet Pact had been signed. Romania's alliance to the UK had been compromised by the rapprochment between Carol and Hitler, with Romania accepting (from a Brit perspective) mediation on the Vienna Award/Diktat and some other crazy stuff. What Romania expected (IMO, absurdly so) was that the UK guarantee its borders while the UK was trying hard to break up the German-Soviet love affair (a lot of stupidity on all sides, given that the UK had rejected Stalin's offer to resist Germany as early as the Munich Agreement/Diktat - while we may well wonder if Stalin was serious about this, we could also evidence the fact that his main priority in the 1930s had been building a Popular Front against Hitler, everywhere but, for very intersting reasons, in Romania).

You are indeed very right about all the other points as applied to 1940, but not earlier and certainly not later in the war. For one, the choice to resist Germany (a state which was, as I have said, apparently in love with Russia at the time) would have been idiotic, as the Czechs had understood by then. However, this is not to say that Britain would not have supported such a move, as they did in Yugoslavia (who, as Romania, was by then a member of the Axis). Yugoslavia, I figure, was not as much wrong in making that choice, as the chance of winning seemed evident to them (and was more evident than to Romanians). I cannot ask that Romania had resisted: I can, however, point out that Romania chose between combativeness (which would have led to British support) and virtual neutrality (as, at that point, Germany needed Romania to be small and pacified). There are, however, other issues to address in the subsequent period, which make the point as formulated a bit harder to support: for one, Romania itself chose a little bit more than neutrality with a bowed head. It gave itself an Iron Guard government with Antonescu in there, knowing full well that a more balanced position was doomed (of course, the German preferences had a say in that, but it is hard to establish to what measure - indeed, the Nazis despised Carol, but they probablly could have done with a Bulgarian-like "Zveno"-type solution from the very start). On a side note, this indicates the very first reason why Antonescu cannot be the Mannerheim dreamed of by revisionists - he was playing with the big boys instead of offering a transitional solution.

On another level, much of my original answer was not about the chance of Romania in a probable anti-German resistance, but about what Romanians at the time knew and could argue. For example, I believe that the critique I have read in a left-wing magazine of the 1930s (Viata Romaneasca) about the failure of Romania to open some doors to the Soviets, while probably absurd in its assumption that the Soviets would have reciprocated, came back to haunt some of the public in 1940. This and other alternatives, if perhaps unworkable each and every one, would have still been present in the minds of Romanians, contradicting the solidity of the point about lack of guarantees, which may be obvious in hindsight (but the government at the times was not travelling in thne future). I admit that this is a hard point to support, given that public opinion stepped out of one dictatorship to jump into another. It is, however, very certainn that, after Vienna, most Romanian politicians were probably either too demoralized or to booed to even consider anything other than a fetal position while the Legionaires were rocking their cradle. Dahn 20:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

But I digress. Let's assume Romania had started the war on the side of the Allies, because it believed, like the Yugoslavs and the Greeks, in the British guarantees. On one hand, we have the comfort of hindsight now, which wasn't available at the time. But even so, what do you think would've changed? Do you think we would've had Bessarabia now? Or do you think we wouldn't have been Communists? I find both claims hard to believe. Of course, we would've received some monetary compensations at the end of the war, and maybe the communism would've been slightly more relaxed. But with Ceauşescu as president, I doubt we could've had a radically better situation than what we experienced.

The only real victims in the local Romanian hypocrisy and self-interest game were the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, etc detained, deported or murdered by Antonescu's regime. That is something I find tragic, and I would want that to have been different. But apart from that, which, again, is truly regrettable and probably could've been avoided in a great measure, I think it's hypocritical to keep blaming Romania very hard for making the other decisions it made, under the circumstances. --Gutza ^{T T+} 14:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As I have answered above, I think that Romania could not have been (and should not have been) an Ally in 1940. In hindsight, this would not even have been neccessary, as both Finland (the lucky one) and Poland (the unlucky one) have shown. In fact, the choice was less manicheistic at the time (let us note that Poland was one of Czechoslovakia's aggressors at Munich). There is, nonetheless, a world to cover between Romania and, say Bulgaria, and this is what adds to the point raised, although it may seem an answer to post-1940 realities: aside from the fact that the Iron Guard had been placed in power (compromising all future rapprochement with the UK), I cannot possibly understand the argument raised by those who claim Antonescu would have "turned us Ally" on his own in 1944, or even, given the chance and the momentum, at any other time in the war. When you kill hundreds of thousands of Jews, when you whipe out all the Roma pop. in Bucharest on the basis of a Vlad the Impaler-like take on moral justice, and when you go and make yourself an empire in Ukraine, you kinda lose that cherised Mannerheim position. This is not to say, of course, that you would not agree to this point (as you indicated you do), but it does bear a consequence on 1940: it is to say that Antonescu saw 1940 as a chance, as an excuse, as a means, and not just as a tragedy (as most Romanians arguably did). From my perspective, point 2 should at least allude to the differences between choices facing Romania (while pointing out what Romania had done to get there - and there is much to be said on Ro-Soviet relations in the 1930s) and choices facing Antonescu: otherwise, we risk turning it into an unvolontary excuse for Antonescu's own policies.

You raise an interesting point, which is a bit beyond the point of this discussion, but allows me to clarify my position on one matter. I cannot under any circumstance pretend that Bessarabia could have been returned to Romania, and I cannot vouch for us avoiding communism (although a scenario where Romania wouldn't have danced with the wolves could have, in pure theory, changed the situation for the entire Eastern Europe in various ways - from a Cold War turning Warm to the eventuality of less daring demands from the Soviets). However, I believe, and this is speculation given the presumption (but not speculation given the chances), that a Romania not having danced with the wolves would have given us an Eastern and Central European type of communism, not the original and bankrupt form we gave ourselves to save face from some utter chimeras (no need for a national communism, but rather a bureaucracy concerned enough to give the Comecom what is the Comecom's; no need for Ceausescu, but rather a Kadar, or at least a Gheorghe Apostol; no need for Patriotic Guards, but rather a Solidarnosc or Berlin-like riots to shame the communists for having lost not just the support of the intellectuals, but that of proletarians as well). Let us not forget that Romania had only become socially comparable to Czechia or Poland in 1944, and that the recouperation of a die-hard nationalism which came to pass into political discourse (of the communists! by the 1950!) removed all chance of any reasonable and productive way out. In my view, Antonescu is responsible for most of that. Dahn 20:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Before I start, I want both of us to take a moment and realize that, by the looks of it, we're probably going to fill the equivalent of several pages of print just to discuss one phrase. I don't find that ridiculous, just amusing. Ok, now on to the reply.

So, we agree on how regrettable the losses of lives were among the Jews, Roma and other minorities--it's bad that it happened, and it's good that we agree. Let's let that rest then--I don't intend to minimalize the issue, but we'd only go on patting each other's backs.

Regarding your assertion that Antonescu wouldn't have turned against the Germans on his own accord, I agree 100% with both the statement and the implied ideological reasons. Regarding Antonescu's willingness to murder "undesired" minorities, I can't say much. I've heard opinions going both ways ("he had to be convinced to slow down the killings/deportations", but also "he needed to play Hitler's way"). I'm not sure he would've initiated the violence against Jews/etc, but I really was unable to form an opinion on whether he did it because of German pressure or because he had the opportunity. At any rate, this is unconsequential--the important thing is that in this case nobody can use the ridiculous Ceauşestian "he didn't know about it" excuse: we know he not only knew, but ordered and probably indirectly supervised most of the atrocities.

I think, however, that it is very clear Antonescu was a violent anti-semite from back in the day (before the actual war), and I think we can agree that Romania's Holocaust was generally independent from both German overseeing and German control. It stuck with me that Eichmann once expressed his disgust for the uncivilised (read: chaotic, crude) way in which Jews and others were killed in Romania by Romanian authorities, and begged his superiors to allow German authorities to do it "the proper way". Dahn 22:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I was unable to form an educated opinion about this, so I'll refrain from commenting. I'm not disagreeing with you, but I haven't got enough reliable data to agree either. --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

However, this entire thing seems inconsequential when you really try to re-live 1940: Romania basically didn't have any viable choice except join whoever was fighting USSR at the time. Nobody knew what was about to start happening, and almost everybody wanted to fight back against the Soviets. That's what the phrase we're discussing is all about: options available at that time. I don't think it's fair to look forward in history and find reasons why that proved not to be a good idea after all--the reader can draw his own conclusions. --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In 1940, the Germans were not fighting the USSR, nor did they show that they were ever going to. In fact, the most vocal opponents of the Soviets were the Brits. Moreover, if you want to split hairs, Romania's borders were the way they were because of German policies, including those in Bessarabia. Dahn 22:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're obviously right on the first part, I got carried away. But of course there was the oil thing which persuaded the Germans to offer some territorial guarantees which nobody else seemed to be able to hold. However, I'm curious about the second part of your argument (the Bessarabia situation being caused by the Germans) which I'm curious about--what do you mean? --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The territorial guarantees offered by the German were to a Romania without N.Transylvania and Bessarabia-Bukovina-Hertza (not to mention the Cadrilater). The Germans had guaranteed Russian demands in Bessarabia etc. through the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact; at the time of the establishment of the National Legionary State, Germany and the USSR had been giving each other sizable presents in Poland. Germany had backed both Hungary and Bulgaria.

In 1940, Romania was already engaged in joining the Axis, and the Allies had, of course, lost too much to anger the Soviets by vouching for Romania - in any case, the former half of this sentence should kinda overweight the latter. In retrospect, Romania and Yugoslavia had already refused to guarantee Czechoslovakia's borders (which they were bound to do by forming the Little Entente), Romania had maintained extremely poor contacs with the Soviets and had refused Stalin's obscure (and probably insincere) offer for an anti-German block made before 1939 (the Pact with Germany was, indeed, his very last resort after knocking on all doors), and was simply hoping that the Germans would not hit too hard when they were to. Dahn 23:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't slog through reading all of the long section here, but I believe I got the gist; my apologies if the two things I'm about to say are redundant to things already said.

1) Romania had been slowly tilting away from the western Allies, toward Germany, over the last few years of Carol's reign. As I understand it, Carol certainly preferred the Western alliance, but it had become obvious even before the invasion of Poland that France and the UK would/could do nothing for him. The first moves toward Germany were economic, then, increasingly, political. Hitler resented that Carol had held out so long, so he screwed him totally at the Second Vienna Arbitration, but Carol's very agreement to submit to the arbitration indicates how far his government had already moved into Germany's orbit. Anotonescu's overt alliance with Germany was just a continuation of a trend; the Iron Guard, of course, unquestionably favored alliance with Germany for reasons of ideology, not mere expedience.

2) On the matter of the Holocaust, Iliescu's official acceptance of the Wiesel Commission report should settle the matter: Antonescu's government and Romania's forces, even post-Iron Guard, actively—in some cases even enthusiasticaly—participated in the Holocaust. The fact that the Jews of Wallachia were never liquidated is a good thing, but only a small credit against the policy of a genocidal regime. One does not praise or exonerate someone merely for stopping short of fully exterminating an ethnic minority. - Jmabel | Talk 23:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent reverts

I don't understand why 194.117.231.39 (talk • contribs)'s edits are labeled vandalism, since obviously they don't fit the definition. At most they are not WP:NPOV, and that should be dealt with on the talk page, not by reverting. As for the I.C. Dragan "argument", why is that grounds for reversal?! As far as WP policies go I.C. Dragan is as good a source as any other since it's verifiable. Dmaftei 22:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - looking back over the 4½ years of this article there have been so many reverts, opinions, apologies, etc., that it's difficult to sieve out the history of the man. 194.117.231.39 (talk • contribs)'s edits have been reverted, removed or whatever since June by many different users, that it's good that 194.117.231.39 (talk • contribs) is finally using this TALK page. Tell us more about I.C.Dragan. friedfish 00:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I was pointing out that you've been reverting edits that you considered vandalism while by WP policies those edits don't qualify as vandalism; please address the issue if you're interested in solving it. I'm not sure what to make of your "tell us more about I.C.Dragan" comment... If you really want to learn more about the individual I'm sure you'll find plenty of info at the library and around the Web. Dmaftei 01:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - comments by 194.117.231.39 (talk • contribs) only add POV arguments to the article and compromises the "slowly emerging" neutrality of the article, hence why these are consistently removed/edited by myself and others. friedfish 09:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you review the WP policies regarding NPOV disputes. Constantly reverting edits that seem to you POV is not among the recommendations; if anything, that make you look like vandalizing. Dmaftei 12:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - you speak from considerable NPOV dispute experience! friedfish 13:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not you want to listen to an honest observation is up to you... As regards your attempts at irony I find them both inappropriate and counterproductive, so I'm going to stop here. Dmaftei 17:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Dragan is a minority POV, a Ceausescu enthusiast, an amateur historian, and a widely discredeted source throughout the world, and, given his far right past, a biased source. He himself does not seem to be able to quote any source, and the result is an essay at best: containing his views on the matter, and not facts rubbing on facts. As none of the recent edits is confirmed by any other source, it is time to simply revert this bullshit. Dahn 23:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Which part of the above argument did you fail to comprehend, anonymous IP? As for your "point" about "testimony" (which, "of course", should indicate that Dragan "is right" about "resistance groups", the trial and some other things he fantasizes about), I suggest you do a little reading in the article for Sophistry. And, hell, why have you not been banned yet?! Dahn 07:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because I'm right, you're vandalizing this article, not me. THat book wans't the only place I read/heard about the retreat of 1940 and the behavior of the jews. The sixth book in the references is another example, as well as a TV show on Bassarabia. So yes, in this case, Dragan was right. And again, as long as using Dragan as reference isn't prohibited on this site, I'm going to continue using him as source.

There are clear policies against using unprofessional references which do not back up their claims with anything but hearsay. It is also utterly bewildering that someone would indicate that Dragan was an eyewitness to all that crap you and him slid about the trial et al. This is answer to your "not prohibeted" point.

As to the behaviour "of Jews", let me indicate to people reading this the very obvious collective responsability which both the IP and Antonescu (and Dragan) endorse is, in itself, a moot point from a moral and rational perspective. This counts as apologism, and all "proof" that asserts such things in this manner, all claims that allow for Jews to be separated from the bulk of those pro-Soviet Soviet citizens (without at the very least pointing out that Romania was by then an officially anti-semitic state allied to the mother of all anti-semites), all of them, if referenced at all, should be referenced in a section dedicated to Antonescu and Holocaust revisionism. Dahn 08:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the book before making any more comments. Then you'd see that it's structured as an interview given by G. Magherescu to JC Dragan. So Dragan wasn't the witness himself to these events. Secondly, if you read more carefully that paranthesis, you would have seen that it started with "these jews" thus reffering to those hostile to the Romanian administration. There sure were exceptions, although if you read G. Magherescu's words you will se that the entire jewish population of Iedinet was waiting eargerly for the "liberation" of the Soviet Army. I hope you understood now, if not, I can do no more for you.