Marshal Ion Antonescu
''The Army is the last card a Nation plays'' M. Ion Victor Antonescu. National Hero
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://ww2incolor.com/gallery/romanian-forces/30202/marshal-ion-antonescu
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://ww2incolor.com/gallery/romanian-forces/30202/marshal-ion-antonescu
Well,Ardee it seems that no argument will satisfy you just because you dismiss every quotes from eye witnesses I give and you keep give me the example of Hungary with no arguments of my caliber, even realty learns us otherwise but this is a Hungarian problem an do not concerns me this is an subject exclusively for Hungarian people to discuss among themselves…About France unfortunately they did nothing for Romania just talks, that means they give up on us. France did nothing but cooperate with the Nazis in the matter of Anexation of Sudetenland 30 september 1938(On September 28, Chamberlain appealed to Hitler for a conference. Hitler met the next day, at Munich, with the chiefs of governments of France, Italy and the United Kingdom. The Czechoslovak government was neither invited nor consulted. On September 29, the Munich Agreement was signed by Germany, Italy, France, and the United Kingdom. The Czechoslovak government capitulated September 30 and agreed to abide by the agreement. The Munich Agreement stipulated that Czechoslovakia must cede Sudeten territory to Germany. German occupation of the Sudetenland would be completed by October 10. An international commission representing Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Czechoslovakia would supervise a plebiscite to determine the final frontier. The United Kingdom and France promised to join in an international guarantee of the new frontiers against unprovoked aggression. Germany and Italy, however, would not join in the guarantee until the Polish and Hungarian minority problems were settled.)…and even for themselves from the 19 june 1940 the Wehrmacht occupied the Alsace-Lorena…actually like Poland we needed actions like weapons or troops on the ground… but this arguments don’t satisfy you and they never will. … I also can find flaws in any western leaders they committed serious crimes like(…)but you still call them heroes and I do also because is not my business to judge how and with witch methods they run they county’s and gathered so much wealth for their people. You love them for their Qualities and you have also quotes from them in your history books. What I don’t understand why is my denied the right to call someone a hero, is that not a double standard?
Well, ionionescu, it is certainly remarkable to me that you claim to be more objective on this subject than I am. I’ll also go on to say your last post includes several mistakes: for instance, I believe France was Romania’s ally until Romania decided to abandon France, not the other way around (though I admit, in terms of real-politic, the Romanians probably had little actual choice in the matter). Also, the idea that the other powers knew in advance about the lengths to which Hitler would go against the Jews is pure poppycock. Nor am I ignorant or unappreciative of the extremely difficult position Romania was in. Antonescu was in many ways a very adept politician, and if he had stopped his army at the end of his disputed territory in the east, his legacy today might be quite different. But - he didn’t. Yes, Romania in many ways was treated in a far less-than-desirable fashion by the Allied Powers, especially considering the size of its involvement in the war with Germany, especially in contrast to, say, the treatment Italy got after changing sides. However, the difficult position of Romania, the actions or inactions of the Allied powers, are all irrelevant to the topic, as you yourself defined it on March 16: “…because the topic is the Marshal committed Holocaust…” I did not discuss any of the topics you raised because of their irrelevance; not because I am unaware of them. IF I read your last post correctly and you are renewing the suggestion that Romania had no choice to go along with Hitler on the issue of genocide, that to fails to stand up: as I noted before, Hungary, up until the time of the coup against the Horthy government, was able to be much more protective of Jews - not only their own citizens, but refugees from other states as well. While hardly guilt-free, the Hungarians are also said to have often actively interfered with German pogroms. Hungary admittedly had stronger cultural ties to Germany than Romania, but in every other fashion I can think of at the moment, was of lesser importance to Germany than Romania - and I believe Germany treated that way, too. In real-politic terms, Romania was in a stronger position with the Germans than the Hungarians. Suggesting that Antonescu would be overthrown by the Germans sounds improbable - again, the Germans took no such action against Hungary, until that nation tried to defect to the Allies. Yet - Hungary withstood German pressures on the “Jewish question.” Why was Romania “unable” to do so? Nothing you’ve said (so far) is convincing to me.