Ion Antonescu Executed (Graphic)

[Daniel S.]

The Russians killed our people

I do not agree.
1)Antonescu and the Iron Guard were Romanian and they killed other Romanian citizens - Jews and Gypsies. These minorities had Romanian citizenship though.

2)The comunists killed in prisons all the political oponents and they were Romanian too, even they had support from the Soviets.

3)Let's don't see the evil always in 'others'.

Regards,

Daniel S.

[ihoyos]

another trivia coincidennce
Both fired squads was formed for the worse shooters available.
Everybody know and was filmed in the Antonescu case, the execution was a mess. ( the fire squad almot kill the doctor too).
In the Ceceascu case, not film, but witness said, the first shoot hit Cecescu in a foot.

[dragos]

another trivia coincidennce
Both fired squads was formed for the worse shooters available.
Everybody know and was filmed in the Antonescu case, the execution was a mess. ( the fire squad almot kill the doctor too).
In the Ceceascu case, not film, but witness said, the first shoot hit Cecescu in a foot.

Not exactly, the Ceausescu couple was executed by two paratroopers which fired their automatic weapons from close distance, so there was a quick death.

[notimetowaste]

How was Antonescu a dictator considering that the Head of the Army and Sovereign of Romania was King Michael until the Marshal's arrest and beyond? Had Antonescu been a real dictator, the first thing he would've done after becoming Marshal was to abolish the monarchy, which he didn't.

[ihoyos]

General Antonescu was appointed primer Minister for for the King Carol II.
Two days after his appoinment, he forced King Carol to abdicate.
Antonescu named himself CONDUCATOR ( leader) no elections for that. and assume full powers. The new King , the son of Carol ( who abdicate) was a decorative figure. Only in 1944 when every thing is lost. The king get support to put Antonescu under arrest.
In my opinion, that fi,t with the defintion of Dictador.
The "sole" presence of a King in the burocratic stablishment, dont means is not possible a dictatorship. Mussolini is exactly the same case. Italy had a king in Mussolini times.
may be the most legal of all this guys, was Hitler.
The source of the power of Hitler came from the people, at first by elections ( 2dn degree), and after that ( before the war) for huge popular suport. I mean Hitler get the power by politician, not for military, or by the force ( himself recognize the mistake of the Beer Hall putch as way to get the power).
Franco was another, who fit exactly like Dictator. He start a civil war, he get the power by fire, never conducted a party, and had his King too, for his purposes. The interesting about Franco is that he was the only who survive , and keep the power being fascist. Remain in the power until his dead, his grave is public a touristic place, and the postal stamps with his face were in use until last supplies and this was several years after his dead. The coins with the face of Franco ( pesetas) were the legal tender and use until Spain switch to the euro

[Victor]

another trivia coincidennce
Both fired squads was formed for the worse shooters available.
Everybody know and was filmed in the Antonescu case, the execution was a mess. ( the fire squad almot kill the doctor too).
In the Ceceascu case, not film, but witness said, the first shoot hit Cecescu in a foot.

Another coincidence is that both were executed by the Communists. In Antonescu's case they were his enemies, while in Ceausescu's case they were his own.

Regarding Antonescu as dictator. The Royal Decrees No. 3067 and 3072 from 6 and 7 September 1940 signed by Mihai I granted him more powers than he initially received from Carol II. He cumulated the legislative and executive powers. He could issue law decrees without being neccessary for the King to sign them, like in a normal constitutional monarchy. Also he could name and revoke ministers himself, he could negotiate and sign international treaties. All these had been royal attributes. On 9 September he assumed the title of "Conducator" (remember a certain "Carmaci"?).

Ion Antonescu had all the power strings in his hands and can rightfully be considered a dictator. He did preserve the monarchic institution, because it had more legitimacy in the eyes of the common man, than his dictatorship, because it was a good reserve to save Romania in case things didn't go well in the direction he chose (and this happened) and because he was himself a monarchist.

[dragos03]

Antonescu wasn't a full dictator, like Hitler, because he didn't control the Justice. He also gave clear orders to all his henchmen: don't interfere with Justice.
A true dictator is one that controls all 3 powers.
Also, Antonescu was willing to let somebody else rule the country, especially after Stalingrad.

[HerrGeneral]

So it's ok to show a pic of a dead Mussolini or common soldiers on the battle field, but not Ion Antonescu? What gives?

I tend to agree with the administrator here. Having seen Antonescu's execution before I think it's probably more disturbing than any static pic of hanged Mussolini. That is, however, more or less subjective.

Nevertheless, I think many Romanians, including myself would object to the "war criminal" label pinned on the Marshall by the starter of this thread. Antonescu has not been tried by the international court in Nurenberg. He was tried by a rigged tribunal instituted by the pro-russian Comunsit party which had "won" the previous elections by massive fraud. This is not an attempt to clear Antonescu of all guilt for Romania's wartime behaviour. But I do think he did what he had to do to preserve our country's chances of successfully surviving the war. All concessions that had to be made to Germany, inluding some on the situation of Romanian Jews were subbordinate to that objective. He definitely did not like Jews, but he was not consumed by the permanent preocupation of finding ways to oppress and exterminate them or others.

Anyway, no matter what one might think about Antonescu, he was convicted by an illegitimate court, working for an illegitimate government and many of the surviving officers of the Royal Romanian Army still revere him as the embodyment of the virtues and qualities of the traditional Romanian officer corps. I would also want to point out that Antonescu's services to our country go far behind WWII, stretching back to the years of WWI. He was a true career officer, not some improvised politician dwelling on his own extremist ideology.

In that case you might want to take a look and contribute to the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_Antonescu that is pretty pretty biased against Antoniescu.