Talk:Ion Antonescu/Archive 4

CRITICISM PARAGRAPH - (Protected edit request)

{{editprotected}}

Since one has the same right as anyone else to make contributions or express a different opinion, I would welcome help in opening a "criticism" paragraph at the end of the article.The fact that the article is a controversial one and subject to debate is already signaled, this talk page is proof enough. My own contribution to that paragraph will be, of course, documented. Thank you. HMycroft 15:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

 Not done - "this template should be accompanied by a specific description of the request." Also, if the edit is controversial I won't make the change unless a consensus supporting the inclusion exists. Please make sure anything you propose includes reliable sources and no original research or personal opinion. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This request should be resisted. There is no need for a "Criticism" (actually: "Revisionism") paragraph, as there is none for such a paragraph in the entry on Hitler or Heydrich, let's say. History entries on Wikipedia do not record opinions, but facts, as established by the consensus of the scientific community. --163.1.162.20 21:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I was going to go with simply ignoring the nauseating spam posted by Mihai Simu and HMycroft, but I will intervene to say that I fully endorse the point made by 163.1.162.20. Precisely: a "criticism" paragraph (criticism of what?!) would imply that the overwhelming consensus in all published scholarly, professional, unbiased, relevant, coherent, rational sources is "a point of view", and spuriously equivocating it with the rants we have had the displeasure of reading on this page. Dahn 22:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

REPLY

Mr Dahn, I am pained to see such a reaction from an intelectual of your stature. “Nauseating” ? Just because I happen to have another opninion than yourself ? “This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved.” That, sir, is the first line one reads when opening the article on Wikipedia’s Ion Antonescu. Meaning I was not the only one to have objections. So in your opinion, all of those who do have objections are…what ? Nazis ? How simplistic.

What happened to the universal values of self expression ? What happened to the “ I disagree to what you have to say, but I’ll fight to the death your right of saying it ! “ ? If you are so sure of your being right, backed as you are by an international consensus engendered by a report of a commission led by a Nobel Prize laureate, why do you fear of what I might have to say or object ? If my objections are so feeble and ludicrous, they will fail, to be sure. But if not…

Sir, I…am a scientist. And a patriot, thank you Mr Mircion for giving me at least that. I am also deeply religious. And, although you might find this hard to believe, more than a Jewish admirer, I am a Jewish lover ! Should I have been born thirty years earlier, I swear I would have helped and defended and fought for the opressed Jewish community at the risk of my life. I honestly think that one can rarely find an ethnic group with so many outstanding qualities in all recorded history.

Being a scientist, I think the world of the scientific method, which, simplified, can be reduced to this two points: 1. Elaborate a hypothesis and 2. Check it out trough an experiment. In my opinion this is still best way to find the factual truth. The truth based on facts…since otherwise, truth is a philosophycal concept that might regard unfactual and imaterial items, subjected to culture bias, as I am sure a person of your erudition is fully aware. If we are of different culture, my truth and your truth, might be completely opposite; meanwhile facts will be always there, unmovable, to be sure subjected to different interpetation, but at least a solid basis on which to build those interpretations.

Contrary of what you might think, I took as a work premise my impossibility of being totally objective, since I am a Romanian. So, I have run simulations. You are surely familiar with the discipine of Debate, as it is taught in American schools, in which the contender has to be as argumentative as he can for one side, and then for the opposite. I tried to do that the best I could, all the time fully aware that I must compensate for my inherent Romanian bias. I started therefore as a premise with your thesis, “Antonescu is an antisemite by personal convicion and personal action “ and searched for consistency, arguments, proof.

And I drew a blank ! After analyzging the best I could his whole life, THROUGH HIS ACTIONS mind you, I drew a blank. There are inconsistencies, of such a magnitude, that they could not being explained otherwise than dropping the premise. You agree, I hope, that when there is a divorce between the actions and the words of an individual, it is the actions that matter, that will ultimately tell you what he really believes in.

Sir, in my trade, (I am a practicing physician), one learns quite a bit of applied psychology. (You are wrong to scorn the discipline, since it is the only way that can give one an insight on the motivation for a person or group of persons acts. And, like it or not, it IS science). Most of my patients are in such a poor shape when they check in Intensive Care, that they are laying down their bare soul for you, with no hesitation, second thoughts or attempts to lie. I frankly doubt that there are many priests of my age who should have heard more confessions. By this I mean also that I already have met at least five times more individuals than any lay person in a lifetime (at an average of 30 to 50 new ones every week)…and I practice for more than a quart of a century. This enabled me, I think, to have an adequate knowledge on human nature. Sufficient to help me to establish some axioms. To be sure, they are personal and I won’t impose them; to be sure, so help me God, I saw them checked thousands of times and never contradicted, not once ! ( Don’r roll your eyes, I can feel I irritate you and I’m sorry for that, bear with me a little longer, I’ll come to the point). Here are some of them, the ones that could be appied to the topic of discussion:

1. People are basically good. (All people, Antonescu included) This is not wishfull thinking, it is based on biology, the gregarious spirit is so deeply imbedded in our genes, that we are utterly incapable of being happy otherwise than by having the approval of our group. This goes far, far back, exiting the frame of ontogeny, getting into phyolgeny for it is indeed older than the human race, it is certainly present to all mammals and to be sure, to all group-living animals. And, the genetic gregarious trait, it is reinforced by education. Unconditioned reflex way of thinking and acting is reinforced by conditioned reflex. From the craddle, we are taught the virtues of obedience, self sacrifice, serving the others.

2. Still, civilization is a fine layer on a thick mass of instincts, among which the survival one is very powerful. Subjected to malignant stress (situations one cannot possibly solve, he knows that, still he can't bail out), everyone has his breaking point. For some of us, that point is lower than for others (look at your own reaction, trying to suppress corrections and the very mention of criticism in a free-editing encyclopedia, just because subjectively you feel that this is threatening you).

3. Any leader, democratically elected or dictator, according to point 1, wants to go down in history as a positive figure, no exception. Actually, any person wishes to be remembered as a positive figure.

4. Different trades leave their mark on individuals. Professional military are very little or not at all prone to compromise, and therefore they make the worst politicians. For a professional soldier, there are ironclad values, to be held in all situations: God, country, military honor for instance. Such a person will risk his own life and those under his command without a second thought, in order to preserve them.

5. Nobody is “good by accident”. Especially when those actions spread over several years. People can only be bad by accident, when pushed far enough, and when this happens, it is almost always temporary.

6. Psychotic pathology excepted (fancy word for craziness), an adult will not become a turncoat over night, he won’t recant those values especially if he had a military education. On the contrary, against all odds, and risking unfair branding by posterity as a criminal (is there a higher punishment ? except perhaps being damned…), he will abide by them. There is total inconsistency in the natural acceptance of someone who was instrumental in stopping the germans at Marasesti, who was educated at Saint Cyr, who represented Romania in France and England, to turn into a savage beast at 58. And of course, when instead of recognition he thought he deserved, he gets blame, one might get sour remarks, even without really thinking them, like those alledged regrets, expressed in 1944, that he didn’t deport more Jews, presumably after finding out that the allies were ready to put him in the same basket with Hitler (like some people we won't mention) in spite of his actions.

God ! you know, sometimes I almost wish you were right and I were wrong, God forgive me. Because this, Mr Dahn and Mr Mircion, would simplify thinks so much. We’ll all celebrate the status quo, I’ll be a little sad for a while, for having misjudged Antonescu so, but brothers, what a relief !

Can’t you see ? The nightmare begins if I was right and you were wrong ! Because then it goes far deeper than tarnishing the memory of someone who tried and risked everything, including his place in history, to do the right thing. This is part of the perpetuation of Evil. Look at the XX-th century, eighty million dead in two world wars, and, if you were to believe statistics, more than that as casualties engendered by armed conflicts and armed aggression, between 1945 and 2000.

You claim that saving some 340000 lives is irelevant ? I say that every little bit of good should be emphasized, since it is in such a short supply. Not the killings, not the ugliness, not the injustice. We already emphasized those enough.

If I you are right, all I have learned in school still goes (my generation still learned of Antonescu as being a war criminal and nothing else). But if I’m right (and I’m almost afraid I could be), you are just fighting the lies with lies, the injustice with injustice, erecting a monument to injustice and evil, making it more than perennial, making them everlasting !

To cut a long story short, I will state the only hypothesis that in my opinion could explain consistently ALL Antonescu’s actions, that could reconciliate A) the positive - the Jewish influence in his life (stepmother, first wife, personal friend in the person of Dr Friedlander) - actions, like it or not, unique in all Europe, especially in a country allied with Germany, as quoted from The Library of the Congress: actively saving those 340000 lives, not just “letting them live” or “stopping killing them although he could”, repatriating Jews-Romanian citizens, TRANSFERING SOME OF THEM HOME FROM LABOR CAMPS – totally unheard of; counteracting racist dispositions like the obligativity of wearing the star of David AND THAT IN 1941; opposing to the deportations AND THAT IN THE SUMMER OF 1942 (look in the Wiesel report Mr Mircion, that’s 5 to 8 months before Stalingrad !; there goes your interpretation of him yielding only to the probable outcome of the war) with B) the negative: ordering the Odessa massacre, creating the labor camps in Transnistria, which, even if not death camps, produced thousand more deaths. The only explanation that could reconcile A) with B) is this:

He ordered killings in Transnistria, only too aware that those poor Jewish people were doomed anyway, if he would have refused and tried to protect them, disregarding the fact that among the victims of the 22 October 1941 attack were also german officers, the SS would have done the job in his stead, most probably at a far greater extent, no labor camps whatsoever, just killing. And such an efrontery and lack of solidarity with the german ally, would have undoubtedly bring his demise. Followed probably by his replacement with a pro-nazi marionette, only too happy to apply “the final solution” to those 340000 Romanian Jews. His rigid military mind, used to assess things only in black and white, identified those against he retaliate as russians first, communists and ennemies therefore, and jews second. Foreign jews, not HIS jews, not Romanian jews. One certainly cannot pin on Antonescu the association communism-judaism, very much en vogue since the beginning of the 20-the century, especially since, although exagerated, it wasn't totally unsubstantiated. Many communist exegetes WERE Jewish, historically speaking, starting with Karl Marx himself.

• That’s my explanation, what Antonescu did was realistic calculation. Look up the “talk” page, there is a transcript of a discussion of Antonescu and a high ranking military, regarding the Odessa retaliations, posted by “goodoldpollonius”. I assume that you agree it’s genuine. 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. 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) (My thanks to the user or editor (?) “goodoldpollonius”for presenting this transcrips on the “talk” page of the article).

This proves several important points

a) There was provocation. Antonescu didn't just round up the Jews in a peaceful city, SS style. The attack of 22 October and the “attacks from behind the fronts” had a powerfull Jewish participation. A courageous attitude, to be sure, but also one that would engender mandatory retaliation. This, along with the lesser of two evils calculation and the irritation of a general who already lost 70 000 soldiers in taking Odessa, might account for the lack of hesitation in ordering the retaliation. Still, that is NOT cold blood, premeditated planified murder, death camps fashion. Killing civilians, a reprobable act, but so widespread in a war zone, for war zone it was.

b) Antonescu was answerable to a higher authority “for the country and to history”. Since no one wants to go down in history as a mass murderer, the only valid explanation was his concern for the German reaction. He was accountable “for the country” in the eventuality he wouldn’t have defused the situation and turned Romania into an ocupied country. The immediate authority to whom he was answerable then, and on whom his continuation as a leader, his country’s independence and probably even his life depended was Hitler’s Reich.

c) He definitely was not in total control, since he was so worried about the retaliation could be interpreted as “sufficiently severe”. To someone in a position of absolute power, absolute authority, answerable to no one, the only concern would logically be the improvement of self image. Killing-retaliations can hardly improve anyone’s image. If Antonescu wasn’t even considering his image but was concerned that from outside the repression was seen as “sufficiently severe” even if it tarnished that image it should be obvious that higher interests were at stake.

d) Lack of options and the lesser of the two evils. Antonescu was in position of having access to classified data as early as 1940. (Another proof of astonishing naivete at best is the allegation in the article that Antoescu was noticed by Hitler of the Eastern offensive only 10 days in advance. Any military commander can tell it is utterly impossible to plan and implement a 10 divisions offensive in 10 days. For a successful joint operation, Hitler must have made his plans known to Antonescu much earlier). Then, in 1940, for seven years already the whole world could see Hitler’s antisemitic paranoia passing from theory to facts. During the common offensive Antonescu is sure to have received reports about the treatment inflicted by Einsatz SS to the Jewish in the conquered area. He was only too aware of the Himmler’s plans for the Jewish population in Ukraine. He knew that any attempt to openly protect the Jews in Transnistria, especially after the October 22 attack would bring him on a direct collision course with Berlin, i.e. to his destitution and to no use whatsoever to the Jewish population in the area, who would have been sacrificed anyway by the SS, at an even greater extent. And the Romanian Jews were sure to follow.

What is really puzzling is that non of the master historians contributing to this article bothered to comment on the main author of the Odessa Massacre: the NKVD. With a dark mastership, they succeeded in implementing the 22 Oct bombing, knowing perfectly that retaliation will follow, (the precedents were countless), knowing perfectly who's going to be the ethnic group targetted, and therefore getting the romanians and the germans to do their dirty work and getting the area Jews-free. The anti-Semitism was a reality in Soviet Union also.

Sorry for the length, wish I could have been more concised. Anyway, it’s shorter than your article….:)

One last point and I’m done: kindly LEAVE MY COUNTRY OUT ! Pick on Antonescu, if you can’t even consider of other possible explanaions, pick on me, if it makes you feel better, but leave Romania out. If anything, Romanians excelled by tolerance and almost total lack of aggressive expansion, 2000 years of history are there to prove it. Along with certain unique acts of mercy, during the WW2, that you CHOOSE to ignore. Don't spit where you ate, even if you didn't like the food, is a matter of moral hygiene.

If you have any decency in you, erase that ignominious phrase, with Romania having taking part in the Holocaust more than any other country except Germany, even if it comes straight from the Wiesel Report. There are the Report documents, available, and the article on that, leave it there, and don’t add insult to injury. One never EVER blames a whole nation. Jewish prosecutors stressed the fact that they were not blaming the german nations, just the individuals involved in killings. Germany is represented by Goethe and Beethoven, as Romania is by Enescu and Eminescu. (Yes, well intentioned as I think he was, Antonescu is not fit to represent the Romanian nation, his errors were too great). The English philosopher Burke was right when he said, "I do not know the means for drawing up the indictment of an entire nation." There is no collective guilt, for the Bible relates how the Lord wished to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for the evil of the men who lived in them, with their women and children, but how there was living among them one righteous man, and because he was righteous he was spared. Therefore guilt is individual, like salvation.” (Frederic Forsythe – The Odessa File).

Oh, I almost forgot: gentlemen, that’s still me, M. Simu. I logged out of Wikipedia unfortunately and I was unable to log in again. I tried to create a new account with the same name and the system replied that the name was taken. So that’s the solution I found, I’m not trying to hide. Should you want to continue to insult me in particular, or who knows, be able to discuss things in civilized and unemotional fashion, my email is soyouz_55@yahoo.com

And Mr Dahn, I expect you to reconsider, as an administrator, and to grant me my right, even to help me to add that criticism chapter to the article. The main substance of which, if you wish, I am ready to subject it to you on the talk page. I most certainly would do that for you, if our positions would be reversed.

I agree too with the user --163.1.162.20 and, as I promised, I will mention in my criticism only facts, that the author or authors so conveniently dismissed. Along with some pointing at obvious slanted interpretation of the facts that are mentioned. One of those facts being that, no matter how much you personally dislike Antonescu, many of his actions preclude him of being putted in the same pot with Hitler or Himmler, who almost never spared, much less saved a Jewish life, for political reasons or otherwise. HMycroft 03:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sock or meat? Dahn 11:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know Mr Dahn, I have never tasted socks. Obviously we have different culinary preferences. HMycroft 17:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} PROTEST

I do protest on the the mentioning of and the inclusion of the article of Ion Antonescu under the headings and within the project on Fascism. His regime, dictatorial no doubt, was not modelled afer the german nazi nor italian fascism. The specifically ethnic-targeted abuses were also absent; isolated cases could be blamed on the action of extremists against whom he and his government fought.

In fact he crushed the Iron Guard, the pro-nazi political movement, in open military confrontation. He is also known for remarcable pro-Jewish measures within the Romanian borders, measures uniques in a Europe dominated by nazism, that resulted in saving over 340000 Jewish lives.

Even such notorious anti-Antonescu figures as Elie Wiesel and his Commission, could not ignore that specific and clearly stated opposition of Antonescu on Jewish deportation from Romania-Old Kingdom borders resulted in the saving of 290000 to 340000 Jewish lives. Other clear pro-Jewish measures like allowing of official representation and official INTERDICTION of wearing the star of David, are also in the Wiesel Report, although under the negative interpretation of being the result of political caution and fear of recknoning.

This is a blatantly inaccurate interpretation since the dates of those actions place them well before the time the realization that Germany will lose the war, i.e. before november 1942. I have repeatedly posted the quotings from the Report on the talk page, they are here, and in the Report itself, for anyone to read.

I protest also on the fact that even such figures and facts as those described in the Wiesel Report are intentionally left out from the article on Ion Antonescu, since they could cast a doubt on the fierce anti-Jewish orientation the authors want to promote.

I ask therefore that at least the facts admitted and mentioned in the Wiesel Report such as the number of the Jewish lives saved, should be mentioned, the authors personal views kept to a minimum and that the reader be offered a fair chance of weighing the pro and the contras and let to decide by himself.

Reliable proof exist on the fact that for the whole duration of Antonescu's being in power, the Jewish community in Romania was permitted to have its own organization, and cultural settings, like Jewish schools and a Jewish theater. He even offered sanctuary in Romania for Jews that were caught by the events outside the borders, he offered pensions to any Jew who ever worked in Romania, even if that person would have neglected to have processed the proper paperwork before leaving Romania, and this resulted in a massive flow of Jewish refugees for the only place in Europe, except neutral countries, where they could find sanctuary. The taxations to which Jews were subjected were justified by their exemption from the military service in time of war, another clear measure designed to protect them, and one that the authors never mentioned.

THIS FACTS ARE UNIQUE IN HISTORY ! Neutral countries themselves could not claim of having offered more to the Jewish during WW2. Considering that these acts of undisputable caring were offered from and within a country who was a german satellite more by necessity than by choice and who was risking therefore the wrath of the superpower Germany was at the time, makes them even more meritorious.

I don't expect the authors to include that, only to take this fact into careful consideration and to avoid smearing Romania in their valiant attempt of destroying the reputation of a dead man.

To be sure, he is guilty of war crimes, since he specifically ordered retaliatory killings in Odessa and Ukraine, and there was a clear anti-jewish orientation in his orders.

Still, there is a non-disproved interpretation of thoses events that by doing this he was pursuing a deliberate policy of chosing the lesser of two evils, that his actions in Ukraine were an ostentious proof of bona fide vis a vis his overpowerfull german ally, and that by ordering himself retaliation against foreign Jews (Russian as he was seeing them) who with or without him were doomed(after the bomb attack of 22 Oct 1941 in which german officers died, this was unavoidable, the SS and the Gestapo were there, watching, eager to take over if necessary),by ordering killings that were about to take place anyhow, he managed to remain in power and capable of opposing Jewish killings and outside deportation in the territory where his control was greater.

Historical analysis and objectivity will prove that although allied with Germany until August 1944, at no moment during Antonescu's government were present all the parameters of a nazi or fascist regime, including those established by Wikipedia's authors of the article on "Fascism".

Therefore, I ask for the necessary corrections, in this article, in the biographical article on Ion Antonescu and his exclusion from the Fascist project of Wikipedia:

1.The introduction in the article of the fact that 340000 Jewish lives WERE saved, by direct decision of Antonescu.

2. The admission of other pro-Jewish measures in Romania promoted and permitted by Antonescu: right of organizing and representation; of maintaining cultural identity (Jewish schools and theaters that functioned for the whole duration of the war); the interdiction of wearing the star of David, the retroactive offer of pensions even for Jewish who were not Romanian citizens but who had worked in Romania and who in the meantime had left the Romanian territory, the offer and active help in repatriation of Jewish-Romanian citizens stranded outside Romania at the time; repatriation of Romanian Jews from the camps in Ukraine (who's existence I do NOT deny, nor try to diminish the importance).

3. MOST OF ALL, I ASK THAT ALL REFERENCE, IN CLEAR OR INNUENDO, TO ROMANIA ITSELF AND ROMANIAN NATION PARTICIPATING AS A WHOLE IN THE HOLOCAUST SHOULD BE REMOVED . I ALSO ASK THAT THAT THE ARTICLE CLEARLY STATE THAT THE ACCUSATIONS BROUGHT TO ANTONESCU BY NO MEANS REGARD OR CAN BE TRANSFERED TO THE WHOLE OF ROMANIA OR THE ROMANIAN POPULATION. By all possible laws, juridical and moral, collective accusations are forbidden. Unless is proven beyond any possible doubt that a whole nation or ethnic group willingly engaged in criminal actions, all the millions of people who are part of it (and this never happened as yet), nobody, no person, juridical or physical, and no authority has the right even to try it, much less to do it. Even if everything Antoescu is blamed of in the article were true (which obviously it isn't), the misdeeds of one person are not to be blamed on a whole nation. At Nuremberg and at the trial of Eichmann himself, there were no accusations and certainly no verdicts agains Germany. Individuals were tried for individual crimes.

4. Clearly mentioning the context in which Antonescu's crimes were perpetrated.

I do personally regret the horrific treatment the Ukrainian Jews were subjected to at the hands of romanian troops; I do state however that german troops and german authority was very much present and very much in a position of power.

Still, having an accomplice in crime is not an excuse, nor makes the crime smaller. I totally agree that the victims themselves or their living relatives are entitled to material compensation. Of course, as soon as the Russians equally agree of compensating for the Romanian civilians killed in the process of the Romania's invasion, not "liberation" by soviet troops in 1944, for the Romanian AND Jewish (interesting that nobody mentions that part) robbed and deported from Bassarabia after the region being lost to Soviet Union in 1940 and before the german-romanian troops re-conquering it in 1941; for the Romanian-German civilians deported to Russia AFTER the war, for the families of German and Romanian prisoners exterminated in Russian camps with a brutal efficiency equal to their SS counterparts (500 survivors from 90 000 Axis prisoners at Stalingrad - surely they were the agressors, but once prisoners of war, they should have been immune, under the Geneva convention).

This is the context of Antonescu's crimes, to be added to the more than three million lives, civilian and military lost in Ukraine during the war as a direct result of fighting. In this context, one can understand the somewhat diminished impact of a comparative 25000 Jews dead in the Odessa Massacre and the total of 100 000 Jews killed during the whole occupation in Ukraine (Wikipedia figures). This context is conveniently and constantly ommited. Not an excuse, but an explanation, for the Romanian troops involvement. When death and crime and horror represent the background and the foreground is very hard, maybe impossible to remain pure.

5. The clear statement that by historical parameters by which nazism and fascism are defined, Antonescu and his regime were none of these, and that he proved that factually by fighting such organizations.

For instance, checked out against Wikipedia parameters, he never declared his government as being part of a nazi or fascist party and, to be sure he did not engaged in systematic crime targeting political opponents. Pro-german, maybe,(though highly debatable too, being given his past) but not pro-nazi or pro-fascist, as forms of government.

This has less to do with Antonescu's rehabilitation than it has to do with demonizing Romania and with the concept of respect for historical accuracy.

Since I am not allowed to input these HISTORICALLY ADMITTED FACTS in a free-editing Encyclopedia, I appeal to the moral qualities of the authors to make the changes themselves.

I do protest also about their censoring me and about other administrators refusing to help. In all objectivity, once he contributor proves that his contributions are documented (mine are mostly from the Wiesel Report, I avoided other sources to emphasize the information validity - even an anti-Antonescu group mentions them), he should be allowed to insert them. I find highly objectionable the clause for "consensus"; if my input, valid as it is, is contrary to the personal opinion of the first authors, they will never agree and we will never have consensus.

To avoid any missintepretations, I repeat that my position is that of an enthusiastic and unreserved and affectionate PRO-JEWISH. HMycroft 16:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

 Not done I am closing this protected edit request with similar reasons to J.S. This isn't what the template is for. The template is for if you have a specific, non-controversial request to make (like Please change in the 5th paragraph "throughoughly" to "thoroughly" because it is misspelled). You are making non-specific, controversial requests. If you feel the page is ready to be unprotected so you can continue to edit the page, you are welcome to request unprotection. If you need to discuss matters further here on talk, then do so, but please understand why your editrequest was denied. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:12, 4 October 2007 (U

{{editprotected}} Boy, you sure know how to give someone a hard time. Still, I might have missunderstood the use of "editprotected". Please tell me, does this feature insure also non-erasing from the talk page before my request gets through ?

Anyway, if it's that simple, yes please, I do request unprotection. Of the article itself, not of the talk page. Question: once granted, can I fill in the material directly, or it has to be approved by administrators first ? Question 2: in order to keep everybody happy about the validity of the procedure, where exactly am I to indicate my source of documentation ? Immediately after the insert, or in the lower page bibliography area ?

Thank you for your prompt feedback, Andrew. Best regards HMycroft 03:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the edit protect template because AGAIN you are not requesting for an admin to make a specific change to the protected page. If you would like to request unprotection, please follow the instruction at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I'll try to address your other questions. If the article is unprotected, you are welcome to make minor or even bold changes to the article (by yourself, without the approval of an admin). But keep in mind, if you are reverted, please do not edit war by insert your changes again. For controversial changes, it is usually best to make proposals here on the talk page and gain consensus before adding them. As for citing sources, you can read WP:CITE. What we normally do is add ref tags surrounding the text of the reference (ref tags look like <ref>this is where the text of the citation goes</ref>). You can also use Wikipedia:Citation templates, which automatically format the reference, assuming you fill in the required fields. These also should be surrounded by the ref tags as well. Basically, you need to have the author's name, the work's name, the year, the publisher, and the page number. Other users can help you format and work out that sort of stuff, as long as you ask for help and provide ample information regarding the source you are citing. Hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: please ignore the first part of my message because the page has been unprotected.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

HMycroft 05:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)NOW YOU'RE TALKING !

Thank you again Mr Andrews.

And thank YOU Messieurs Dahn, Mircion and other possible authors of this article, in advance, for your fair play and understanding. Now that the page IS unprotected and theoretically I could paste on it any silly negationist items that, NOW only will I certainly refrain from trying to implement anything, without at least trying to get a consensus first.

To be sure, I disagree with the general tone of the article and with many important omissions of historical facts; however, out of respect for your work, undoubtedly professional and documented (even if somehow one-sided), I AM ASKING FOR YOUR PERMISSION TO INTRODUCE A PARAGRAPH THAT I WOULD CALL:

"CONTROVERSIAL ITEMS":

Many Romanian nationals, in an official capacity or not, as well as some exponents of foreign press and even prominent members of the Jewish diaspora are generally holding different views than the ones expressed in the conclusions of the Wiesel Commission Report, or even of the Romanian Court decisions of 2006.

The most virulent are claiming that the accusations of direct participation at the Holocaust of Antonescu's government became increasingly aggressive after 1990, as the number of Romanian Jews was dwindling and their willingless of bearing testimony in favor of Antonescu and Romania was corroded by the perspective of material gain.

Such persistent claims and accusations were apparently absent for decades, practically during all the communist rule in Romania; since Ceausescu, dictator as he was had no jurisdiction or power to silence tongues and quills outside romanian borders, the only alledged possible explanation was the acknowledgment by Antonescu accusers that, if challenged, Ceausescu would have been able to produce irefutable anti-Romanian Holocaust witnesses, and consequently to ask for compensations then was a lost cause.

Appreciating this as an obvious text-book case of Holocaust Industry, the critic parties are explaining the 2004 sudden taming of the Romanian government and of President Iliescu as being the direct result of politico-economical blackmail (alledgedly the acceptance or Romania as a member of European Community was conditioned by a generous donation to the instances regulating the Holocaust compensations and by the ferm promise of indemnizations of the survivors of the deported Jews in ukraininan labor camps under romanian and german control during the war).

They point out at the sequence of events as an indirect proof (the nomination of Romania as honorary member of E.C. in 2004, to become a full member in 2007), and they appreciate Dr Wiesel phrase addressed to President Iliescu (“Don’t turn your back on your past and you shall prosper; fail to do that and you shall be doomed”) as a deliberate threat and proof of the blackmail thesis.

There is also criticism regarding the classification of the massive killings of Jews in Odessa and western Ukraine (Transnistria) unde the heading of Holocaust and Crimes against Humanity, since the deliberate premeditation clause cannot be filled – the Odessa Massacre, gruesome as it was represented relaliation following documented attacks against romanian and german military personnel after the official surrender of the city and therefore contrary to the promise by the defeated party (i.e. the russian troops and the civilians of Odessa) of ceassing all hostility.

On the same strict legal note, one could argue the complete lack of proof of criminal intent, that Antonescu never issued specific orders that the deportations at the camps in Transnistria should be preceded, followed or accompanied by executions or torture. To be sure, a commander ultimately IS responsible for the actions of the men under his command and is answerable himself for the crimes of his men; still the lack of orders that would present deportation as a stage in staged killings on a grand scale, legally should preclude those killings to be classified as Holocaust. The enormity of the retaliation is sure to justify the classification of the killings as war crimes against civilians, perpetrated in a war zone, but not Holocaust, since the victims were designated mainly on the main grounds of retaliation after provocation, and therefore not on the appartenance to the Jewish ethnicity as a sole criteria.

Other reason for criticism is represented by the alledged deliberate omission from the post-war established list of casualties directly caused by military confrontation of any person of Jewish persuasion. The critics point out at the total absence from these lists of any Jews as a physical impossibility; since the Jews were so numerous, many of them were bound to be among the civilan casualties of the war itself, after all, they say,shells and bullets do not choose and the retaliations and the killings took place after the violent fighting that led to the fall of Odessa, not during or before it. The Jewish victims of war, if subtracted from the number of the victims of retaliation would, in their opinion, diminish the latter considerably.

The wide approximation of the number of Jewish victims in legal documents is considered in the same circles as being at best proof of deliberate sloppy research; not to be sure if the total number was 280000 or 380000 is unacceptable, being given that it represents the main reason for accusations of crime. There is not such a thing as a “mere” one hundred thousand dead more or less, the figure being already equal with the population of a medium size city. They find tendentious the uncertainty of the figures, even in the present encyclopedia, Odessa Massacre is bound alledgedly to have produced 25 000 and 100 000 Jews were killed in Transnistria during the whole war(the Odessa Massacre article) while the present article speaks of 100 000 in Odessa only during and immediately after 22 Oct 1941 and over 300 000 in Ukraine.

Objectionable are also, according to these persons :

- the failure to mention that between 290 000 – 340 000 Jews were actively protected by Anonescu, as early as the summer of 1942 (Wiesel Report) when the project of deporting Romanian Jews to the death camps in Poland, although finished was not signed by Antonescu; the gesture found confirmation in october the same year, when Anonescu expressed his refusal in writing despite vigurous protests from Berlin and the pro-german factions in Romania. Since these events took place obviously many months before the defeat of german troops at Stalingrad and the beginning of the retreat, critics state that political prudence from the part of Antonescu could not be the cause of his decision.

- The documented better treatment of the Jewish community within Romania itself (excluding newly conquered territories) than anywhere else in Europe during the war, neutral countries included. This treatment alledgedly regarded:

o - the right to political representation by the Jewish League, who’s leader Dr Wilhelm Friedlander was alledgedly a personal friend of Antonescu, that maintained a notable positive influence over the dictator during the war o – the specific order in september 1941 to FORBID wearing of the star of David by the Jewish population in Romania. o -the possibility of specific cultural access (the Jewish school in Bucarest remained opened during the whole duration of the war, and so was the Jewish theater, who’s performances were attended constantly by Romanian admirers also o – exemption from military service, (this being by the said critics opinion the main reason for which the Jewish community was asked to pay a fee), at a time when the chance of survival of Romanian soldiers on the Eastern front were less than 1 in 10 o – the counter-balancing by the anti-jewish laws by definite pro-jewish ones, like the law that alloted Jews that have worked in Romania a pension, for any documented time since 1919, including emigrated Jews or Jews of other citizenship than Romanian, even if the Jewish claimer did not processed the proper paperwork for pension application before leaving Romania; this alledgedly produced an unprecedented influx of Jews from all countries of Europe. o – The offer of sanctuary for Romanian citizens of Jewish orrigin stranded outside Romania at the beginning of the war, providing passports with proper visas to those who had lost them and facilitating repatriation o – the repatriation of Romanian Jews deported to labor camps in Transnistria by mistake (the order of deportation regarded exclussively Jews from Bucovina and Bassarabia, lost to the Soviet Union in 1940) o – the dismantling of hostage camps in feb 1942

Protests were heard also on the topic of tendentiously constant association of Romania and Romanian Nation with the Holocaust. With some substance, protesters state that it is totally illegal and unethical to accuse a whole community, a whole nation, that prosecutors at the Nuremberg trial stated several times that individually identified criminals were on trial and not Germany or German Nation. Such presentation from a prestigious commission charged of checking and establishing historial facts like the Wiesel Commission would be unacceptable not only by romanian nationals but mostly by international laws.

To state that Romania (not just Antonescu and his government, but Romania, implying Romanian Nation, undiscriminately) has produced most Holocaust victims, second only to Germany itself and to deliberately ignore that same Romania on its own territory realized the unique performance of saving more than 300 000 Jewish lives while offering them conditions that, far from being luxurious were nevertheless the best to be found in Europe at the time, is in their opinion more than objectionable, downright condemnable.

Gentlemen, thank you for your time. I do welcome criticism. I apologize for not inserting the bibliographical texts, sources and links at this time, they are there, I assure you, I still try to find the best way to do it. I hope to have your opinions and who knows, eventual consensus soon. HMycroft 05:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing of this nature should go in until there are utterly reliable and unassailable sources. So faras I can see this is all your personal interpretation. David Underdown 08:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

HMycroft 04:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Kind of harsh, good sir. "Of this nature ?" As it would be clear slander from the start and nothing else ? Come on, you should appreciate the fact that I could have pasted all the above directly into the article, and till someone would have erased it, there was a good chance that quite a few readers get the gist of it. It IS bona fide, you have to give me that.

Anyway, I want to thank you for your feedback and to ask for specific directions and suggestions regarding the introduction of the reference and bibliographic notes in a proper and comfortable way for YOU, my critics and the orriginal authors to check. Far as I can see, there are at least two variants: 1. Mentioning just the number of the list of sources and leaving you and other readers with the rather extensive task of finding the right paragraph; 2. Introducing the precise quotes between brackets or parantheses after each paragraph - precise no doubt but prone to increase the bulk.

If you are an author then you know more about proper wikipedia procedure than me, thank you for sharing. Especially since it will make your life and task easier, and other authors too. You are now more than authors, you are my critics and censors and I really need your help, thank you.

I'm looking forward to meet the original authors of this article, it will be a pleasure, I'm sure. Not that I'm discriminating in any way but if there are persons of Jewish descent among them, as I think they are, I invite them to admit it, that would make both our positions clear, mine is crystal, name, nationality, trade, all stated on this page. Hope I'm not prying, names are perhaps not so important, nationalities are. If you are feeling uncomfortable of talking it here, I repeat, my email is soyouz_55@yahoo.com

I try to make it clear that we are NOT on opposite sides. I do resent what I consider to be an injustice (the way Romania and Antonescu are presented in the article) but I certainly understand how it got that way. If me and mine are hit, then it IS personal and it stays so. From the point of vue of a Jewish person who got trough the horror of seeing her familly slaughtered and she herself staying alive possibly by pure chance, labels are immaterial. I couldn’t care less if the responsible party is a war criminal or a criminal against humanity, all I’d want would be to nail the bastards.

But the bastard is nailed in this case and it might be the wrong bastard. And for the survivors, both victims and the bastard’s co-nationals labels ARE important, since the Holocaust cathegory is infinitely worse. War crimes might be sometimes the equivalent of passion crimes perpetrated by individuals who were driven too far and got out of control by stress, fear, fatigue and hate. Holocaust is none of these.

Holocaust, crimes against humanity, are worse than terrorist crimes since a terrorist might still be fighting for a good cause the wrong way. Holocaust…means waving the quality of being human, worse, of being part of the living things since its perpetrators hold human and life and its basic values in contempt. Certainly it places them far lower than an animal, for an animal when it kills it is driven by fear and hunger, maybe even hate and revenge if animals can get that complex. Never out of sadism, contempt, indiference or downright relish to the victims suffering. Never the result of a longtime planned butchery, carefully ergonomized for better efficience.

A war criminal may be a sadist or just a hot-head, a scared man with too much power at the wrong time; a Holocaust perpetrator is a monster. And this is the ultimate anathema, ultimately a conflict between humans and God, since God can forgive even this but humans can’t.

Every attempt should be made therefore and no effort should be spared, and every possible benefit of the doubt should be given and investigated and cross-checked before disclaiming someone the human quality. Because, if the accusation represents the highest and most horrendous kind of guilt, a responsibility of a matching magnitude will fall on the accusers, should the accusation be even partially false.

The prosecution’s case HAS to be perfect, airtight, solid as the rocks of the Mount Sinai, no creaks or doubts or discrepancies or unexplained-but-still-abandoned items whatsoever. Far, far better to err by being lenient to a guilty criminal than to misjudge a man and to try to damn his memory for generations to come.

Especially, no pecuniary angle must be allowed to bend opinions and decisions. There is a Romanian proverb stating that “Money is the eye of the devil”. Never truer. Money angle should NOT be tolerated.

The future impact and the ressentment caused by such a mistake would be immense. Philo-Semites can be turned into anti-Semites that way overnight and anti-Semites will appear and multiply more effectively than by any nazi propaganda. Goebbels will do sommersaults of joy in his hellish cauldron of tar seeing his victims continue his work so successfully.

And for the co-nationals of the victims of the misjudgement it would as hard to forget as it would be for the accusers to forgive the real monsters.

I am addressing now to the Jewish authors and readers of this page. In my opinion you could and should be the Guardians of everything that is pure, and good and beautiful and holly in this world.

For you have learned the value of all these values, and God ! at what shuddering price ! Nobody, no people in history suffered more. Nor longer.

After being the targets of injustice and suspicion and stupidity of other people for thousands of years, you maintained enough of those other Divine qualities to answer with philosophy and even good humor, to answer brutality with treasures of creativity and science that you choose to share with a suspicious and hostile mankind.

True, the 20-th century has been the worst. More victims in your ranks than in all the more than five thousand years that marked your civilization combined. Your unique and uninterrupted civilization. But there were victories too, a home again, after 2000 years of perpetual refugee life. And not anywhere, mark you, but, by your efforts, on the Place of your Fathers, certainly the holliest place on Earth for at least two main religions and a revered one for the third.

After paying a toll of 6 million of yours in the War, sacrificed by monsters produced by human ignorance, greed, intolerance and indifference and many others in many wars after that, you still found in your hearts to share your hard-won home with Semite cousins that tried to take it away from you for just themselves and after loosing repeatedly in fair fight, they tried by using terrorism, and continue to use it in the most revolting fashion, after grudgingly accepting your gift.

And I clench my teeth on my rage when I think how many potential Enstein and Heine and Mendelsohn were among those sacrificed and how miserably we were all deprived of what they might have create. I have made my own modest research and I can state head-high that Jewish persecution and slaughter troughout history set back the mankind with at least 500 years. Perhaps more. 500 years of technological and scientic retard was the figure expressed by the exegetes of the history of science as the price paid for the destruction of the Library of Alexandria. The number of potential Jewish geniuses killed or just harrassed enough to stop their intellectual growth over 2000 years of anti-Semitic paranoia has to be greater than the authors of the Library’s lost treasures.

But now there is a turning point. For the first time in 5000 years of merry slaughter (alledgedly 270 of years of peace total, in those 5000 years of more or less recorded history), there is the silver lining of the chance of putting an end to it. Because the technology was finally found a good use also and it enables communication and exchanging opinions and knowledge and understanding as never before. To understand means to forgive, remember ?

Now is the time for us, Guardians of Human Decency, to rally round, to combine effort and to coordinate. To point out at other sources of adventure than war, other sources of immense revenues than weapons-the biggest business of all times and other sources of satisfaction than just mindless power over other people’s lives. To focus on targets that can use the maximum of human resourcefulness for an as long a time as one can imagine. Like Outer Space and its infinite gifts for instance.

“Happy the Peace Makers, for they will be the Sons of God!" ...

But to do this we have to stop the ever-turning wheel, the hell circle of poverty – injustice – ressentment – war – back to poverty. Not a circle actually, a spiral, since it has cycle of course, but at higher levels of weapons technology and therefore of destruction, at the ever increasing height of successive epochs.

Help me in fighting to eliminate the sordid and the possibility of error in evaluating history, for it is absolutely essential in our fight against universal destruction by universal greed and universal blindness.

To risk wrong labels is bad enough; to allow price tags and distorsions to bend the factual truth is catastrophic ! The hell-circle is reset again from injustice-ressentment onwards.

I pray God to make you listen. You have no ideea what hopes I, we, have invested in you, brothers !

And I feed my hope and I find sanctuary on history and historical facts. My Saviour, the Son of God and the founder of my religion IS Jewish.

HMycroft 04:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr Simu, HMycroft or whatever is your name: None of your requests are acceptable. They amount to revisionism, denying Romania's indubitable contribution to the Holocaust, are morally outrageous and historically nonsense. READ the literature I have suggested before you spam us again with your amateurish speculations. You are in no position to give us lessons. You know next to NOTHING about the incriminated period, and your fervent love for your country does not make up for your blatant ignorance and your tendentious apology. And spare us your prayers to God and the Saviour and the Holy Motherland and what not. There won't be any reply by me anymore to anything you say, but I will watch closely any changes of the entry. --mircion 15:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have added some titles and deleted Florin Constantiniu's book, which is not specifically on Antonescu, not a serious monograph and ignores the crimes against the Jews (apart from mentioning, and misdescribing, the Iasi massacre). Will expand the literature list at a later point. --mircion 17:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Mr Mircion, you understood nothing of what I have tried to say. Is it because you failed to read most of it again ?

Sorry if my religious connotations offended you, they shouldn’t have. They were trying to convey my philo-Semite orientation, my loyalty, in a way. You really think your position, personal and collective. is so secure that you can afford to slap away an extended hand ?

And where on earth did you get my mentioning the Motherland from ?

I totally reject (and resent !) your accusations of ignoring my country’s history and and I personally certainly have no reason to be apologetic, especially towards you. I suggest you check your dictionary sir, apology = expressing remorse. I have expressed empathy, if I may hope you can grasp the meaning of that word. Real grasp, like capable to feel it...

I resent and reject the accusation of "revisionism" also, since you are using it in the sense of "negationism" and not of historical revisionism of distorted facts.

I repeatedly pointed out to serious omissions of historical facts in the article itself, last time on this page, after your former comment to one contribution on this talk page. (Former as associated with latter, meaning “the first of the two”). I have used for that the one source you could not label as “revisionist”, the Wiesel Report.

1. One big time omission is the failure to quote the fact that in Antonescu’s Romania between 290000 to 340000 Jewish lives were not just spared, but actively protected from deportation and murder. The Comission couldn’t ignore that, even if it gave it a negative interpretation.

2. The misplacement of historical dates, regarding pro-Jewish actions prior to the autumn of 1942, or even in 1941 and 1940. Since you seem to suffer from a strange affliction that prevents you from reading replies, and/or from scrolling up the talk page, I will re-post a few excerpts from Wiesel Report, please note the dates:

"The Conducator wrote back, asking Filderman (Dr Wilhelm Filderman, leader of the Jewish Community in Romania) “to show understanding and to make the members of the Jewish community from all over the country understand that General Antonescu cannot perform miracles in one week….I assure Mr. Filderman that if his colleagues do not undermine the regime directly or indirectly, the Jewish population will not suffer politically or economically. The word of General Antonescu is a pledge.” On September 19 1940, a new decision of the Ministry of National Education for Religions and Arts suspended the implementation of the September 9 resolution on places of worship (temples and synagogues) until there was a definitive regulation on the status of associations and religious communities in Romania."

"On September 8, 1941 Filderman obtained an audience with Marshal Antonescu and came accompanied by the Jewish architect H. Clejan. The main purpose of the meeting was to discuss the yellow star. “After a short conversation, the Marshal said to Mihai Antonescu: ‘All right, issue an order to forbid the wearing of the sign throughout the country.’”12 During a session of the Council of Ministers, the Marshal explained that the measure had “great consequences for the public order and from other points of view. The representatives of Jewish community came to me, and I promised them to strike down this measure.” Considering the results of this “battle,” Israeli historian Theodor Lavy observed, “it was a battle in which the victims were victorious.”13"

"On February 24, 1942, General Vasiliu summoned Streitman and Gingold to the Ministry of Interior and promised them he would refrain from adopting any severe measure against Jews. He also asked that the Jewish population be made to understand that it had been under constant suspicion after the attitude it displayed during the 1940 withdrawal from Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, so the government was obliged to take safeguard measures. General Vasiliu also ordered the dismantling of hostage camps, though that did not mean that all hostages were set free."

"In the summer of 1942, the Antonescu regime agreed in writing to deport the Jews of the Regat and southern Transylvania to the Nazi death camp in Belzec, Poland, and was planning new deportations to Transnistria. Yet only months later, the same Romanian officials reversed course and resisted German pressure to deport their country’s Jews to death camps in Poland. Initially, Romania had also approved the German deportation of Romanian Jews from Germany and German-occupied territories, which resulted in the death of about 5,000 Romanian citizens. But when the shifting tides of war changed minds in Bucharest, thousands of Romanian Jews living abroad were able to survive thanks to renewed Romanian diplomatic protection. And while Romanian Jews may have been deported en masse to Transnistria, thousands were subsequently (if selectively) repatriated. Ironically, as the vast German camp system realized its greatest potential for killing, the number of murders committed by the Romanians decreased, as did the determination with which they enforced their country’s antisemitic laws. Such contradictions go a long way toward explaining the survival of a large portion Romania’s Jews under Romanian authority."

"Within the framework of the negotiations with Radu Lecca at the end of 1942, the Jewish Agency proposed to transfer the Jews who had survived in Transnistria first to Romania and then to enable them to leave. The ransom plan was viewed as a possibility to make the Romanian government change its policy or at least to win time. And, indeed, various liberal, or simply decent, Romanian politicians and public figures occasionally intervened on behalf of the Jews or Roma."

I ask you to remember that the outcome at Stalingrad became obvious only in January 1943. Von Paulus surrendered in February. You realize that the latest date in the quotes is "end of 1942"; that's still too early for anyone savvy to talk about certain german defeat. So no, "the shifting tides of the war" is not the explanation, since the tides didn't shift yet, at that time

I would certainly like to see this data presented in the article, with the clear mention that they could imply another interpretation of Antonescu’s actions than political adaptation. Since they are clearly documented and from the Wiesel Report, surely you won’t object Mr Mircion. Please insert them or I wil.

I want to extend my simpathy and condoleances (one day maybe you’ll grasp these meanings also), regarding the recent passing away of Prof Raul Hilberg, one of the leading historians of the Holocaust. It did happen this August, I didn’t know, I was looking forward to write to him. Sad that the number of witnesses and really documented scholars is dwindling, a matter of profit for some…Prof Hilberg was, as you are aware I think, very appreciative of Dr Norman Finkelman’s work, another remarcable Jewish figure, with both parents survivors of death camps. (Don’t ge me started…) HMycroft 01:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me see if i can make you understand once and for all: the Report you are "citing" from does not allow you to make any of the claims you made above, HMycroft/Mihai Simu. It is simply infuriating and insulting to anybody's intelligence that you would be persistently spamming here about Antonescu's supposed innocence by citing texts which, even when cropped, make it extremely clear that his regime deported Jews (and not just) to a place whence very few ever returned. The exact numbers of victims are plain to see in the Report and countless other sections of scientific literature - all of which you seem to ignore - clearly indicating that the Romanian state through its political leadership was responsible for a genocide.

There are clear policies on this project referring to what you plan to do here. On one hand, editorializing from a source to make it seem like it endorses a point it refutes is contrary to WP:OR; on the other, as you were already told, we are here to use reliable sources, not personal deductions. As far as I can tell, admins have a zero tolerance attitude toward Holocaust revisionism; to be blunt: it clearly decreases the value and credibility of this project. This especially since speculation such as the one on this page will most likely land one a fine in Romanian jurisdictions.

As for the rest: I have little interest in debating a person who manifestly cannot see the difference between fascism and antisemitism (and will not look into sources saying saying that Antonescu's regime was both), I have little patience for the implied notion that anybody who admits Antonescu was a murderer has a philo-Semitic bias, and I simply laugh at "sound psychological" investigations into Antonescu's character. It is frankly too much trouble to hunt down and list all of the fallacies laid out in your posts. Any such debate would constitute education, and I'm afraid I cannot be asked to provide that service for free. You, sir, have the opportunity of educating yourself, instead of making a mockery of this page. Dahn 03:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

HMycroft 12:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Let's keep our emotions to ourselves, Mr Dahn, shall we ? I am sorry that what I have written infuriated you. Frankly I have hoped to get another reaction. That in itself is a clear indication of an incapability of historical objectivity, since history and historians are required to deal with facts first and only then with their interpretation. And it proves, as in the case of Mr Mircion that you didn't read what I wrote, or didn't read all I wrote here.

A contribution at a talk page cannot be called "spam" = unsolicited electronic mail, since I don't have to ask for your permission to contribute to such a page. What I "plan to do here" (I wasn't aware that I had a plan), was to indicate a clear bias of the tone of the article, and, conforming to the requests of Wikipedia article, I have tried to point out at what I considered to be errors and omissions that ultimately might reduce the intrinsic value and work put into this article by their original authors. Am I to understand that you deny that my quotations from the Report are genuine ? Please point out where and be specific in your criticism. For all I know, I have copied and pasted them from the Wiesel Report, without direct editing, so if there are errors, they have to be minor and they are certainly not mine.

You seem incapable also of appreciating that my quotations were NOT followed by protests or comments against the negative interpretation of positive facts, though God only knows I disagree with those interpretations; my point was that though the article’s authors deliberately ignored them, the Wiesel Report itself found proper to mention them, and the Report is certainly not pro-Antonescu prose. I am genuinely curious to know your interpretation of the dates in question. If you insist that even according to them Antonescu's "change of hearts" was strictly political motivated and datable only in 1943, I would like to know your arguments.

I am surprised and pained to see your total lack of appreciation that even AFTER the unprotection of the article, I have extended you and other authors every courtesy and I have tried to obtained a consensus, as prompted by Wikipedia status, before adding or changing anything.

I also remind you that according to Wikipedia policy, threats are off the charts, and yours, regarding my being fined by Romanian authorities just for expressing other opinions than your own, represents in itself a breach on same Wikipedia policy, along with your insults, not to mention manners.

It is nowadays ilegal in most civilized countries, including Romania to overtly state that the Holocaust never took place. I have made not such statement.

It should be illegal for a historian to ignore facts; the universal access provided by Wikipedia makes enforcing such a requirement impossible. That leaves the ethical aspect: if an amateur in the field, a person for whom history is a passion but not a profession tries hard to abide by that requirement, a professional historian has no excuse for not following it.

There is nowhere mentioned in Wikipedia policy and advice on the proper form of an article, the necessity to please the administrators, or to cajole their opinions. Should I be a revisionist or a clear negationist, (which I am not), I would still have the right of expressing my vues on the talk page.

I am not familiar with WP:OR, could someone explain ? It is true however that I was trying to beat the authors bias with their own weapons, by showing that even the Wiesel Report is more objective, since it presents data the authors choose to ignore.

I still insist on presenting ALL historically documented facts in the article, even those subjected to your personal dislike, even those that could be interpreted in Antonescu’s favor, along with the negative ones and let the reader decide for himself. My position, sir, is much more objective than yours, since I am not trying to supress the authors opinion and to censure what I disagree with, but merely asking that ALL facts should be presented. This is in total accordance with the requirement of NPOV of a Wiki article.

I am not the only one that made observations on the “strong anti-Antonescu bias” of the article, look further up on the talk page. And bias should be avoided, agreed ?

Since it deals with objective facts and not opinions and interpretation, history is a science, although it might not fit the rather narrow frame expressed in the phrase “if it cannot be measured it’s not a science”.

I assure you of my being totally sincere when I state that, although I think it unlikely, scientifically there is a possibility that I might be wrong. You on the other hand you don’t even dream about such a possibility on your side, do you ? Although logic and reason should tell you that you might not be in possession of all the facts, obviously you react violently even at suggestions that contradict your vues and refuse to examine such facts even when mentioned by anti-Antonescu partisans.

I is impossible of knowing the exact number of victims during a war, as you say. The fact that among military and civilian casualties there is a "missing" cathegory is the proof of that.

You say you are not willing to debate; I say you are not capable (at least not yet demonstrated) of civilized debate. Are you at least capable to examine and comment facts ? I enclose the following proposition, to spare eachother self-righteous indignation from now on, to avoid getting personal and to have a dialogue, politely if possible, based on facts. If you disagree with something I wrote just say it, point at it and leave labels and insults aside.

Feel free to leave aside my psychological arguments too, since they seem to bother you so (although for more than forty years now investigators all over the world are using psychological and psychiatric profiles as powerfull tools for building a case and experts in those profiles are frequently asked to bear testimony in courts of law). Speaking of education, I cannot ask someone that lacks specific information in a field to accept or process specific data; this is NOT an insult, just common sense, nobody can be knowledgeable in everything.

Please tell me exactly which of the facts I have presented on this here page are you challenging. HMycroft 12:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have named in the article the highest romanian decoration who's recipient Ion Antonescu was: The Order of Michael the Brave. Hope everybody agrees, since it represents factual information and constitutes the object of a separate Wiki article.

Author, please provide the source regarding Antonescu being nicknamed The Red Dog (cainele rosu), thank you HMycroft 12:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish to congratulate the guardians of this article, authors or not, for the excellent job they are doing. You really manage to cool down the enthusiasm even in genuine Jewish supporters.

There were rumors that the Israeli government had secret treaties drawn with several states that in case Israel was overwhelmed by ennemies, those states should accept Jewish refugees. Romania apparently is on the list. After the initial shock of such a perspective diminished (in the Middle East conflict I back Israel 100 %) and after I realized that this doesn’t mean it is so bad so soon, but it’s rather a contingency plan, worst case scenario, I tried, as I always do, to imagine myself in the middle of the events.

At the time, my first reaction was that I would be glad to invite even a whole family of such refugees in my house. Now, I don’t know…If by doing that I might see myself accused a few years later of having deported or imprisoned those people, I’d rather not take that chance. HMycroft 22:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)