With the new DLC being 95% likely to be a communist based, and Romania being right on the border with the Soviet Union and at the end of the war ending up communist (technically, it was democractic in 1945 - 1947, but they all knew what would happen sooner or later). And with each Hearts of Iron IV DLC getting more and more historically in-depth, I would like to present a summary of the life of Ion Antonescu. I gave my personal opinions close to the end of the text, but everything else are just facts letting you decide.
Mainly, I wanted this to be an interesting historical trivia, given that people passionate about Hearts of Iron IV are also passionate about history. But with a Soviet DLC in sight, it would very well work as a source of inspiration for some aspects of the game as well. Without further ado:
Ion Antonescu is a controversial figure, it's difficult to find a middle ground for him. If you ask randomly 10 Romanians what is their opinion about Ion Anontescu, 9 out of 10 will answer either national hero or war criminal. The 10th is the one who has no idea who Ion Antonescu is.
Jewish author Teşu Solomovici wrote a biography about Ion Antonescu that tried to reach a middle ground. Arguing that he was a complex individual who was neither completly good or completly evil. That there is truth in both the views towards him as a monster and as a liberator, that one does not exclude the other. Just as he tried to undo a diplomatic injustice, retaliating against the Soviet Union's annexation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, he was one of Hitler's most trusted allies and took part in Hitler's grand scheme of things, even if only for pragmatic reasons, to ensure a good position for Romania on the world stage at the end of the conflict. This was in contrast with Jewish author Jean Ancel's biography about Ion Antonescu, who focused more on the monster side and his alliance with Hitler.
Reuben Markham, a British journalist from Christian Science Monitor, wrote in his newspapper in 1946:
"When the time came for the execution, the marshal himself ordered the execution platoon to fire. The soldiers turned out to be more nervous than he was. (...) The boys, a few meters away from him, with their finger on the trigger of the weapon, looked into his bright eyes, trembled a little. When they fired, the marshal fell, but he was neither dead nor unconscious. Partially rising, he stretched out his right hand to the executioner and shouted, "Shoot again, boys, shoot!" Well, they fired again and again, and an officer shot him dead."
The facts are relatively recent, there are a lot of records, documents and even recordings. They are well known facts and you can find them reported almost the same way in every history book. But what conclusions we draw from them, that's where people differ.
Ion Antonescu either made or broke Romania, depending who you ask. Life brought him to prison in Romania where he was executed in 1946 after he spent time in prison in USSR, and before that he was one of the most powerful and controversial leaders of Romania.
Ion Antonescu rose to power in 1940 after Romania lost Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina, Northern Transylvania and Southern Dobruja to USSR, Hungary and Bulgaria. He managed to rise to power and rule Romania from 1940 to 1944 after King Carol II was considered too weak to rule Romania and deal with the situation at hand, and so he was forced to abdicate by General Ion Antonescu, who became as a strong military leader, the only "Conducator" (literally leader) of Romania.
He ruled Romania with an iron hand, took part in Legionary (fascist) and anti-semite movements following the same road as Nazi Germany, managing, due to his alliance with Adolf Hitler, to liberate Northern Bukovina and Bessarabia.
One of the most controversial questions about him is whether he should have stopped after liberating Northern Bukovina and Bessarabia. The question is in fact, whether he really had a choice? he could have stepped on his honor, break the promise he made to Hitler and stop advancing into USSR after the liberation.
Some argue, this would have only ensured that Romania would have had a bad position at the negociating table should Germany win the war, a position worse than Hungary who may go on and claim the rest of Transylvania as well. In a scenario where Hungary would go all the way into USSR but Romania would not, it's not far fetched for Adolf Hitler to award all of Transylvania to Hungary at the end of the war. While in the event of a Soviet victory, Romania would have still lost Northern Bukovina and Bessarabia therefore their liberations counting for nothing, look how it went for Finland. Basically, if Romania would have stopped at Bessarabia, the outcome would have been bad for Romania regardless of whether the Allies or the Axis won.
And there was also the problem of Northern Transylvania. If Romania would have stopped at Bessarabia, the Axis would have won the war, and Hitler wouldn't award all of Transylvania to Hungary. Romania would have still been overall a loser in this war. So the choice was not a choice at all.
Others argue, that Romania would have looked much better diplomatically if it would have stopped at Bessarabia, showing it's not fully commited to Hitler and that from the moment the Romanian army crossed the Dniester river they have turned from a victim to an aggressor.
In 1944 after the Germany army lost the eastern fornt, the Russian army reached the borders of Romania, Germany was pushed back and Romania became the first victim of the Russian army.
To try to save what is left of Romania, General Ion Antonescu thought about breaking off from the Axis, but he first needed a western guarantee that Romania would have a good position at the negociating tables, that Romania won't be occupied by Russian troops and that Northern Transylvania would be awarded back to Romania.
On 5th of August 1944, Ion Antonescu was at the table with Adolf Hitler and with a strong firm voice he said:
"Sir, I cannot hold the line, I have nothing left to defend myself with, I cannot stay in this war with you any longer, because I don't have what to fight with."
Angry towards Adolf Hitler, he kept talking:
"You don't understand that the Allies' fleet will enter the Black Sea and from the Black Sea they will take the Balkans, behind my back. What am I supposed to defend myself with? Can't you realise this? You're taking all my forces."
Adolf Hitler was shocked by the arguments and the language, but Ion Antonescu kept going:
"At your request to kill myself, I made you so many requests: To give us planes to fight the British and Americans, who bombard us day and night, to give us tanks because a huge amount of Russian tanks are coming towards us. What am I supposed to defend myself with? With a small division of tanks? And to give us anti-air."
"And one more thing. You asked for gold, we gave you gold, you asked for bread we gave you bread and all the requests that you made towards us, all of them were honored. Well, how do you think, that if you leave us without our own resources, that we can keep fighting, with money, with food and especially with oil? You need our oil just like you need our daily bread."
At this moment Ion Antonescu was literally screaming at Adolf Hitler, Hitler raised his voice and said:
"Enough, we are tired and irritated and burdened, you and me, let's eat and we'll talk afterwards."
They didn't talk afterwards. Ion Antonescu returned on 6th of August 1944 to Romania with negative ressuts and that's when his decline started. The Russian troops entered Romania and they weren't as sensible as the German troops. It's known that they stole, raped and abused in left and right.
The Allies forced he hand of King Michael I, they sent him an ultimatum, saying that if he doesn't give up on his collaboration with Ion Antonescu and doesn't join the Allies then Romania will be destroyed. Unfortunately, those allies that sent that message were the USSR. And USSR's plan was to depose Ion Antonescu, this was supposed to be made by communists, who at that time were nobodys, a small part of merely 1.000 people, all of them raised in USSR and that's when communism started to rise in Romania.
King Michael I talked with various military leaders as well as political parties, most notably the PNL (national liberal party), PNT (national peasants party) and PCR (Romanian communist party). He saw that many share his desire to depose Ion Antonescu because everyone was seeing that this was a lost war, including Ion Antonescu.
On 20th of August after the Russian offensive in Romania started and the Romanian army is being pushed back, the fate of Ion Antonescu was sealed. Together with the party and the army. The key figures of the coup were generals: Aurel Aldeal, Gheorghe Mihail, Constantin Vasiliu-Rascanu, Mihai Racovita, Dumitru Damaceanu, Constatin Sanatescu and Constantin Constantinescu-Claps.
On 23th of August King Micahel I met with Ion Antonescu to discuss the direction that he wishes to follow. King Michael I asked Ion Antonescu to give up on his alliance with Adolf Hitler, Ion Antonescu refused, then King Michael I used the key words that were supposed to signal his arrest.
"If things are like that, then we have nothing left to do."
Ion Antonescu was arrested, and at the insistence of USSR gave to the Russian army. Ion Antonescu was sent to Russia where he was kept for 2 years, in luxury conditions. He was always interrogated but he had a good life. After a lot of good life he is suddenly moved to a prison at the opposite extreme, on such harsh conditions and such hurtful interrogations that he wanted to commit suicide.
In 1946, he is sent back to Romania at Jilava, judged and these are the last days of his life. The trial lasted quite a lot, 11 days, between 6 and 17 May 1946, he was judged by the People's tribunal by a judge named Voitin Voitinovici, he had no experience in law but he was USSR's man, he was a communist.
He was accused of destroying Romania and of crimes of war that betrayed the interests of the Romanian people, placing Romania at the servitude of he enemy, Adolf Hitler. He was also accused of crimes against hummanity.The humiliation was great and deliberate, the accusers were common people: a cook, a plowman, a peasant woman.
He replied to the accusations arguing that in that situation Romania had no other way of escape, it was completly isolated. Every single country that the tried to reach out to, all of them refused any kind of support for Romania. After that, about the crimes against hummanity he said that he was pressured by Nazi Germany also arguing that the numbers were also highly inflated.
Eventually, unfortunately for him, on 17th of May 1946 the People's tribunal condemned him to death.
When he was asked what is his last wish, he said that he doesn't want to be tied to the hands and blindfolded when shot so that he can see the ones who shoot him.
In the last half of hour of his life, he talked with his wife in French. He encouraged her to be strong, to man up, to move on, she, Maria Antonescu said that she can't stand it, she can't ressist his constant interrogation and in the end when the two of them got separated, they were both crying.
After that he talked with his mother for a few minutes, he told her that every Romania has to die for his country, and that he feels proud that he has to die for the happiness and the ideal of the Romanian people.
Seeing all this things we can see why Ion Antonescu's life is judged in such polar opposite ways, some call him hero, others call him criminal, it depends a lot from what angle you look form. He definetly ruled Romania with an iron hand for 4 years, he was a well-trained Romanian general, he managed to stand up to and sit at the same table with Adolf Hitler, unfortunately, his bet from 1941 that Adolf Hitler is going to win the war and will bring Romania in a good political position, didn't work.
In 1941 it seemed that UK was going to be defeated, only the US's entrence in the war changed the tide of war, one year later in 1942 even the USSR and Stalin didn't seem to handle Adolf Hitler. But the Russian steppes saved Russia again.
In his last letter to his wife, Ion Antonescu said the following:
"Nobody from this country served the people with such love, passion, lack of personal interest, as I served them. I gave them everything, from my work to my coin, from my soul to my life, without asking for anything in return. Even today, I don't ask for anything. His faulty judgment of today doesn't humiliate me and doesn't touch me. His judgment of tomorrow will be fair and will elevate me."
What can we understand from the way we judge the events concerning Ion Antonescu and what does that say about us?
Ion Antonescu is labeled by Romanians as either national hero, either war criminal. But these 2 don't exclude themselves. I'm not saying that both points of views are right, but just as reality shows, a man can be 2 different things at the same time.
Or even not so different, for some, he is a hero exactly because he was a war criminal. If some people view the extermination of an ethnic group as normal or desireable, then the one who applies it, for those people, he is going to be a hero. And for others, who who value life above all else, the life of anyone, any human life as all people, he is a criminal.
Born in Pitesti in 1882 in a family with a military career, his father being sublieutenant in the Romanian War of Independence, internationally known as the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878, therefore, he is raised from a young age in a military spirit.
He makes the military school. He is prizewinning pupil, the top of his class and raises the ranks of the army fairly quickly. Becoming a
renowned military man who proved what he is capable of on the frontline in World War I.
In the interwar he is sent as military attache in France, the United Kingdom and Belgium. He is also a good diplomat. Back in Romania he is awarded new responsabilities, new functions culminating with the function of Minister of Defense. For only 1 and a half month in a puppet government established by King Carol II.
He was never a good friend of King Carol II. Ion Antonescu publicly accused King Carol II of lack of morals, the corruption of the people close to King Carol II and for this he is sanctioned and set to forced domicile at Bistrita Monastery.
But, with things being out of his hands and Hitler's Second Vienna Award, King Carol II looks to overcome their differences and proposes to Ion Antonescu to form a new government as prime minister. Ion Antonescu uses the new power to force King Carol II to abdicate who leaves for Portugal with a lot of wealth.
Ion Antonescu tries to unite the political parties in a national union that would save the country, but the PNL (national liberal party) and PNT (national peasants party) refuse due to disagreements of Ion Antonescu's foreign policy.
Only the Iron Guard shows up to the national union. The partnership with the Iron Guard led by Horia Sima is short lived, the Iron Guard tries to revolt and Ion Antonescu brings in the army. As such, from 1942 to 1944 he would be the sole Conducator (leader) of Romania.
He kept exchanging letters with the leaders of important political parties. The letters between Ion Antonescu and Iuliu Maniu show their different positions on the dynamic of the war.
Iuliu Maniu and Constantin Bratianu criticized Ion Antonescu repeatedly for continuing the offensive against USSR after taking back Northern Bukovina and Bessarabia.
Ion Antonescu replies to Iuliu Maniu and Constantin Bratianu that it's pointless to accuse him at this point. You had the control of the state for 20 years and you managed to do nothing. Only scandals, accusations and helplessness. And now that we are at war the country choose me to get it out of this mess.
Personally, I think Ion Antonescu was right in this discussion. The truth is that the interwar was an unstable period, not even today when the political atmosphere is a lot calmer than in interwar many countries a have problem with stability, even today it's difficult to make a well functioning state, there are still people looking to take advantage of everything. But what about in the interwar? after World War I that ravaged the country, with a country twice as big and with people of all kinds that you needed to bring to equality in front of the law. On top of that, there are huge and much needed reforms and an economic crysis in 1929, communist and fascist movements, try to keep democracy then, that is instability, try to govern in those times and see if you could have done a better job.
It's trivial to say "it could have been done better" but when you are right in the situation itself it's not so easy to make the right decision, it's easy to make mistakes, and this Ion Antonescu will experience on his own skin. On the other hand, for Iuliu Maniu and Constantin Bratianu it was simple to give advices and criticize, everyone could see the bad points, including Ion Antonescu, but when Ion Antonescu offered them the chance to make a government of national alliance, they all backed down, and so he remained the only responsable, and now they come to give advice.
Personally, I don't think he did anything morally wrong as far as the foreign policy is concerned. The Russians and the Germans were the same thing, not far from each other. The Allies working with the USSR was exactly like Romania working with Nazi Germany, an alliance out of convenience, because the enemy of my enemy is my friend, or he isn't because he also took parts of my territory but at least I can tolerate him because I can't beat USSR without him. He specifically said that he didn't want a war with US, UK or France but it mattered little to them, this war was all or nothing.
That he passed the Dniester going further into USSR, I also can understand that. He couldn't exactly tell Hitler "I'm done here, I will stop here". And even if assuming by absurd that he could, it didn't made sense from a military standpoint, it's not like it would have made any difference to the Russians if they had won the war, but it would have made all the difference in the world to the Germans if they had won the war.
But the part about him being a war criminal that I'm not going to discuss on this forum because it's forbidden is a breaking point. If you claim to do that in the name of your country, for the good of your country, you can argue that Hitler, Stalin and Mao Zedong also did what they did for the good of their country. That is basically what totalitarianism is about, whether in the form of fascism or communism, to put the country above people, not necessarly your people, although that is true as well for some dictators to this day, but people in general.
When the war turned in favor of the Allies in 1942 and USSR started pushing the frontline westwards, the Romanian politicians started negociations with the Allies and even Ion Antonescu realises that the war is lost from now on. On 23 August 1944 King Michael arrests Ion Antonescu, gives the order to turn the weapons against Nazi Germany and leaves Bucharest because he expected a violent reaction from Nazi Germany.
Which happened. Nazi Germany thought the coup was reverseable and kept fighting in Bucharest until 31 August 1944. The Russian offensive stopped, hoping that the Germans would clear the Romanians in Bucharest like they cleared the Poles in Warsaw.
King Michael I gave to Iuliu Maniu and Constantin Bratianu the task to form a team that would take care of Ion Antonescu while in arrest. But when the Russians came, they demanded that the Romanians give Ion Antonescu to them, Iuliu Maniu and Constantin Bratianu gave it to them, in a moment of weakness King Michael I argues. And sent Ion Antonescu to prison in Russia.
When they returned him to Romania, the communists orchestrated a false trial, condemned him to death and executed him. A summary of the trial of Ion Antonescu can be found on the internet with photos from the court room.
After a whole country praised him when he was on the winning side, once the tide of the war turned, with the Russians on the border, his popularity and support from the masses plummeted. Only a few would openly speak anti-Russia from now on.
Mainly, I wanted this to be an interesting historical trivia, given that people passionate about Hearts of Iron IV are also passionate about history. But with a Soviet DLC in sight, it would very well work as a source of inspiration for some aspects of the game as well. Without further ado:
Ion Antonescu is a controversial figure, it's difficult to find a middle ground for him. If you ask randomly 10 Romanians what is their opinion about Ion Anontescu, 9 out of 10 will answer either national hero or war criminal. The 10th is the one who has no idea who Ion Antonescu is.
Jewish author Teşu Solomovici wrote a biography about Ion Antonescu that tried to reach a middle ground. Arguing that he was a complex individual who was neither completly good or completly evil. That there is truth in both the views towards him as a monster and as a liberator, that one does not exclude the other. Just as he tried to undo a diplomatic injustice, retaliating against the Soviet Union's annexation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, he was one of Hitler's most trusted allies and took part in Hitler's grand scheme of things, even if only for pragmatic reasons, to ensure a good position for Romania on the world stage at the end of the conflict. This was in contrast with Jewish author Jean Ancel's biography about Ion Antonescu, who focused more on the monster side and his alliance with Hitler.
Reuben Markham, a British journalist from Christian Science Monitor, wrote in his newspapper in 1946:
"When the time came for the execution, the marshal himself ordered the execution platoon to fire. The soldiers turned out to be more nervous than he was. (...) The boys, a few meters away from him, with their finger on the trigger of the weapon, looked into his bright eyes, trembled a little. When they fired, the marshal fell, but he was neither dead nor unconscious. Partially rising, he stretched out his right hand to the executioner and shouted, "Shoot again, boys, shoot!" Well, they fired again and again, and an officer shot him dead."
The facts are relatively recent, there are a lot of records, documents and even recordings. They are well known facts and you can find them reported almost the same way in every history book. But what conclusions we draw from them, that's where people differ.
Ion Antonescu either made or broke Romania, depending who you ask. Life brought him to prison in Romania where he was executed in 1946 after he spent time in prison in USSR, and before that he was one of the most powerful and controversial leaders of Romania.
Ion Antonescu rose to power in 1940 after Romania lost Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina, Northern Transylvania and Southern Dobruja to USSR, Hungary and Bulgaria. He managed to rise to power and rule Romania from 1940 to 1944 after King Carol II was considered too weak to rule Romania and deal with the situation at hand, and so he was forced to abdicate by General Ion Antonescu, who became as a strong military leader, the only "Conducator" (literally leader) of Romania.
He ruled Romania with an iron hand, took part in Legionary (fascist) and anti-semite movements following the same road as Nazi Germany, managing, due to his alliance with Adolf Hitler, to liberate Northern Bukovina and Bessarabia.
One of the most controversial questions about him is whether he should have stopped after liberating Northern Bukovina and Bessarabia. The question is in fact, whether he really had a choice? he could have stepped on his honor, break the promise he made to Hitler and stop advancing into USSR after the liberation.
Some argue, this would have only ensured that Romania would have had a bad position at the negociating table should Germany win the war, a position worse than Hungary who may go on and claim the rest of Transylvania as well. In a scenario where Hungary would go all the way into USSR but Romania would not, it's not far fetched for Adolf Hitler to award all of Transylvania to Hungary at the end of the war. While in the event of a Soviet victory, Romania would have still lost Northern Bukovina and Bessarabia therefore their liberations counting for nothing, look how it went for Finland. Basically, if Romania would have stopped at Bessarabia, the outcome would have been bad for Romania regardless of whether the Allies or the Axis won.
And there was also the problem of Northern Transylvania. If Romania would have stopped at Bessarabia, the Axis would have won the war, and Hitler wouldn't award all of Transylvania to Hungary. Romania would have still been overall a loser in this war. So the choice was not a choice at all.
Others argue, that Romania would have looked much better diplomatically if it would have stopped at Bessarabia, showing it's not fully commited to Hitler and that from the moment the Romanian army crossed the Dniester river they have turned from a victim to an aggressor.
In 1944 after the Germany army lost the eastern fornt, the Russian army reached the borders of Romania, Germany was pushed back and Romania became the first victim of the Russian army.
To try to save what is left of Romania, General Ion Antonescu thought about breaking off from the Axis, but he first needed a western guarantee that Romania would have a good position at the negociating tables, that Romania won't be occupied by Russian troops and that Northern Transylvania would be awarded back to Romania.
On 5th of August 1944, Ion Antonescu was at the table with Adolf Hitler and with a strong firm voice he said:
"Sir, I cannot hold the line, I have nothing left to defend myself with, I cannot stay in this war with you any longer, because I don't have what to fight with."
Angry towards Adolf Hitler, he kept talking:
"You don't understand that the Allies' fleet will enter the Black Sea and from the Black Sea they will take the Balkans, behind my back. What am I supposed to defend myself with? Can't you realise this? You're taking all my forces."
Adolf Hitler was shocked by the arguments and the language, but Ion Antonescu kept going:
"At your request to kill myself, I made you so many requests: To give us planes to fight the British and Americans, who bombard us day and night, to give us tanks because a huge amount of Russian tanks are coming towards us. What am I supposed to defend myself with? With a small division of tanks? And to give us anti-air."
"And one more thing. You asked for gold, we gave you gold, you asked for bread we gave you bread and all the requests that you made towards us, all of them were honored. Well, how do you think, that if you leave us without our own resources, that we can keep fighting, with money, with food and especially with oil? You need our oil just like you need our daily bread."
At this moment Ion Antonescu was literally screaming at Adolf Hitler, Hitler raised his voice and said:
"Enough, we are tired and irritated and burdened, you and me, let's eat and we'll talk afterwards."
They didn't talk afterwards. Ion Antonescu returned on 6th of August 1944 to Romania with negative ressuts and that's when his decline started. The Russian troops entered Romania and they weren't as sensible as the German troops. It's known that they stole, raped and abused in left and right.
The Allies forced he hand of King Michael I, they sent him an ultimatum, saying that if he doesn't give up on his collaboration with Ion Antonescu and doesn't join the Allies then Romania will be destroyed. Unfortunately, those allies that sent that message were the USSR. And USSR's plan was to depose Ion Antonescu, this was supposed to be made by communists, who at that time were nobodys, a small part of merely 1.000 people, all of them raised in USSR and that's when communism started to rise in Romania.
King Michael I talked with various military leaders as well as political parties, most notably the PNL (national liberal party), PNT (national peasants party) and PCR (Romanian communist party). He saw that many share his desire to depose Ion Antonescu because everyone was seeing that this was a lost war, including Ion Antonescu.
On 20th of August after the Russian offensive in Romania started and the Romanian army is being pushed back, the fate of Ion Antonescu was sealed. Together with the party and the army. The key figures of the coup were generals: Aurel Aldeal, Gheorghe Mihail, Constantin Vasiliu-Rascanu, Mihai Racovita, Dumitru Damaceanu, Constatin Sanatescu and Constantin Constantinescu-Claps.
On 23th of August King Micahel I met with Ion Antonescu to discuss the direction that he wishes to follow. King Michael I asked Ion Antonescu to give up on his alliance with Adolf Hitler, Ion Antonescu refused, then King Michael I used the key words that were supposed to signal his arrest.
"If things are like that, then we have nothing left to do."
Ion Antonescu was arrested, and at the insistence of USSR gave to the Russian army. Ion Antonescu was sent to Russia where he was kept for 2 years, in luxury conditions. He was always interrogated but he had a good life. After a lot of good life he is suddenly moved to a prison at the opposite extreme, on such harsh conditions and such hurtful interrogations that he wanted to commit suicide.
In 1946, he is sent back to Romania at Jilava, judged and these are the last days of his life. The trial lasted quite a lot, 11 days, between 6 and 17 May 1946, he was judged by the People's tribunal by a judge named Voitin Voitinovici, he had no experience in law but he was USSR's man, he was a communist.
He was accused of destroying Romania and of crimes of war that betrayed the interests of the Romanian people, placing Romania at the servitude of he enemy, Adolf Hitler. He was also accused of crimes against hummanity.The humiliation was great and deliberate, the accusers were common people: a cook, a plowman, a peasant woman.
He replied to the accusations arguing that in that situation Romania had no other way of escape, it was completly isolated. Every single country that the tried to reach out to, all of them refused any kind of support for Romania. After that, about the crimes against hummanity he said that he was pressured by Nazi Germany also arguing that the numbers were also highly inflated.
Eventually, unfortunately for him, on 17th of May 1946 the People's tribunal condemned him to death.
When he was asked what is his last wish, he said that he doesn't want to be tied to the hands and blindfolded when shot so that he can see the ones who shoot him.
In the last half of hour of his life, he talked with his wife in French. He encouraged her to be strong, to man up, to move on, she, Maria Antonescu said that she can't stand it, she can't ressist his constant interrogation and in the end when the two of them got separated, they were both crying.
After that he talked with his mother for a few minutes, he told her that every Romania has to die for his country, and that he feels proud that he has to die for the happiness and the ideal of the Romanian people.
Seeing all this things we can see why Ion Antonescu's life is judged in such polar opposite ways, some call him hero, others call him criminal, it depends a lot from what angle you look form. He definetly ruled Romania with an iron hand for 4 years, he was a well-trained Romanian general, he managed to stand up to and sit at the same table with Adolf Hitler, unfortunately, his bet from 1941 that Adolf Hitler is going to win the war and will bring Romania in a good political position, didn't work.
In 1941 it seemed that UK was going to be defeated, only the US's entrence in the war changed the tide of war, one year later in 1942 even the USSR and Stalin didn't seem to handle Adolf Hitler. But the Russian steppes saved Russia again.
In his last letter to his wife, Ion Antonescu said the following:
"Nobody from this country served the people with such love, passion, lack of personal interest, as I served them. I gave them everything, from my work to my coin, from my soul to my life, without asking for anything in return. Even today, I don't ask for anything. His faulty judgment of today doesn't humiliate me and doesn't touch me. His judgment of tomorrow will be fair and will elevate me."
What can we understand from the way we judge the events concerning Ion Antonescu and what does that say about us?
Ion Antonescu is labeled by Romanians as either national hero, either war criminal. But these 2 don't exclude themselves. I'm not saying that both points of views are right, but just as reality shows, a man can be 2 different things at the same time.
Or even not so different, for some, he is a hero exactly because he was a war criminal. If some people view the extermination of an ethnic group as normal or desireable, then the one who applies it, for those people, he is going to be a hero. And for others, who who value life above all else, the life of anyone, any human life as all people, he is a criminal.
Born in Pitesti in 1882 in a family with a military career, his father being sublieutenant in the Romanian War of Independence, internationally known as the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878, therefore, he is raised from a young age in a military spirit.
He makes the military school. He is prizewinning pupil, the top of his class and raises the ranks of the army fairly quickly. Becoming a
renowned military man who proved what he is capable of on the frontline in World War I.
In the interwar he is sent as military attache in France, the United Kingdom and Belgium. He is also a good diplomat. Back in Romania he is awarded new responsabilities, new functions culminating with the function of Minister of Defense. For only 1 and a half month in a puppet government established by King Carol II.
He was never a good friend of King Carol II. Ion Antonescu publicly accused King Carol II of lack of morals, the corruption of the people close to King Carol II and for this he is sanctioned and set to forced domicile at Bistrita Monastery.
But, with things being out of his hands and Hitler's Second Vienna Award, King Carol II looks to overcome their differences and proposes to Ion Antonescu to form a new government as prime minister. Ion Antonescu uses the new power to force King Carol II to abdicate who leaves for Portugal with a lot of wealth.
Ion Antonescu tries to unite the political parties in a national union that would save the country, but the PNL (national liberal party) and PNT (national peasants party) refuse due to disagreements of Ion Antonescu's foreign policy.
Only the Iron Guard shows up to the national union. The partnership with the Iron Guard led by Horia Sima is short lived, the Iron Guard tries to revolt and Ion Antonescu brings in the army. As such, from 1942 to 1944 he would be the sole Conducator (leader) of Romania.
He kept exchanging letters with the leaders of important political parties. The letters between Ion Antonescu and Iuliu Maniu show their different positions on the dynamic of the war.
Iuliu Maniu and Constantin Bratianu criticized Ion Antonescu repeatedly for continuing the offensive against USSR after taking back Northern Bukovina and Bessarabia.
Ion Antonescu replies to Iuliu Maniu and Constantin Bratianu that it's pointless to accuse him at this point. You had the control of the state for 20 years and you managed to do nothing. Only scandals, accusations and helplessness. And now that we are at war the country choose me to get it out of this mess.
Personally, I think Ion Antonescu was right in this discussion. The truth is that the interwar was an unstable period, not even today when the political atmosphere is a lot calmer than in interwar many countries a have problem with stability, even today it's difficult to make a well functioning state, there are still people looking to take advantage of everything. But what about in the interwar? after World War I that ravaged the country, with a country twice as big and with people of all kinds that you needed to bring to equality in front of the law. On top of that, there are huge and much needed reforms and an economic crysis in 1929, communist and fascist movements, try to keep democracy then, that is instability, try to govern in those times and see if you could have done a better job.
It's trivial to say "it could have been done better" but when you are right in the situation itself it's not so easy to make the right decision, it's easy to make mistakes, and this Ion Antonescu will experience on his own skin. On the other hand, for Iuliu Maniu and Constantin Bratianu it was simple to give advices and criticize, everyone could see the bad points, including Ion Antonescu, but when Ion Antonescu offered them the chance to make a government of national alliance, they all backed down, and so he remained the only responsable, and now they come to give advice.
Personally, I don't think he did anything morally wrong as far as the foreign policy is concerned. The Russians and the Germans were the same thing, not far from each other. The Allies working with the USSR was exactly like Romania working with Nazi Germany, an alliance out of convenience, because the enemy of my enemy is my friend, or he isn't because he also took parts of my territory but at least I can tolerate him because I can't beat USSR without him. He specifically said that he didn't want a war with US, UK or France but it mattered little to them, this war was all or nothing.
That he passed the Dniester going further into USSR, I also can understand that. He couldn't exactly tell Hitler "I'm done here, I will stop here". And even if assuming by absurd that he could, it didn't made sense from a military standpoint, it's not like it would have made any difference to the Russians if they had won the war, but it would have made all the difference in the world to the Germans if they had won the war.
But the part about him being a war criminal that I'm not going to discuss on this forum because it's forbidden is a breaking point. If you claim to do that in the name of your country, for the good of your country, you can argue that Hitler, Stalin and Mao Zedong also did what they did for the good of their country. That is basically what totalitarianism is about, whether in the form of fascism or communism, to put the country above people, not necessarly your people, although that is true as well for some dictators to this day, but people in general.
When the war turned in favor of the Allies in 1942 and USSR started pushing the frontline westwards, the Romanian politicians started negociations with the Allies and even Ion Antonescu realises that the war is lost from now on. On 23 August 1944 King Michael arrests Ion Antonescu, gives the order to turn the weapons against Nazi Germany and leaves Bucharest because he expected a violent reaction from Nazi Germany.
Which happened. Nazi Germany thought the coup was reverseable and kept fighting in Bucharest until 31 August 1944. The Russian offensive stopped, hoping that the Germans would clear the Romanians in Bucharest like they cleared the Poles in Warsaw.
King Michael I gave to Iuliu Maniu and Constantin Bratianu the task to form a team that would take care of Ion Antonescu while in arrest. But when the Russians came, they demanded that the Romanians give Ion Antonescu to them, Iuliu Maniu and Constantin Bratianu gave it to them, in a moment of weakness King Michael I argues. And sent Ion Antonescu to prison in Russia.
When they returned him to Romania, the communists orchestrated a false trial, condemned him to death and executed him. A summary of the trial of Ion Antonescu can be found on the internet with photos from the court room.
After a whole country praised him when he was on the winning side, once the tide of the war turned, with the Russians on the border, his popularity and support from the masses plummeted. Only a few would openly speak anti-Russia from now on.
- 5
- 5
- 3
