Unii spun ca a fost salvatorul unei intregi natiuni…altii il condamna de genocid. Tu ce parere ai?

Poti sa iti argumentezi parerea.

About yonutz89

young'n full of life

3 responses »

  1. Kela Paul spune:

    E discutabil, adevarul e sigur undeva la mijloc. Problema pricipala e ca lumea nu e informata indeajuns ca sa inteleaga ce a presupus respectiva conjunctura istorica foarte complicata; cu rusii la granita, germania deja pierzand sistematic pe frontul Stalingrad-ului, nu cred ca era alta solutie, rea totusi, decat sa trecem de partea rusilor; aliatii erau deja pe continent; chiar daca am fi ramas aliantii germaniei razboiul tot era pierdut si Antonescu tot ar fi murit executat, nu rezolvam cu nimic situatia doar ca prelungeam condamnarea lui. Multa lume e subiectiva in legatura cu acest subiect, uitand ca la acel moment, de maxima tensiune politica pana la urma am ales raul mai mic. Oricum ajungeam in sfera de influenta a URSS pt ca aliatii nu puteau creea o enclava-„tampon” cu Rusia.
    In acest context este evident ca declaratia vis-a-vis de Maresalul Ion Antonescu si Regele Mihai, a presedintelui, nu este una de luat in considerare. El a preluat cliseele clasice si le-a reprodus, neganding si neaprofundand problema.

  2. Kela Paul spune:

    Iar referitor la perceptia sa (a Maresalului) „salvator” sau „autorul de genocid” e greu de spus daca a fost 100% ori una ori cealalta. Personal il consider pe Maresalul Antonescu un om al timpului sau, data fiind situatia geopolitica a acelor vremuri. Luand in considerare eliminarea evreilor si a tiganilor din tara noastra, avand in vedere ca eram sub sfera de influenta a Germaniei, era o obligatie de a executa acest ordin-Doctrinar si ideologic dealtfel.

  3. The problem is that every country records a different history. I’m sure what Romanian students are taught is completely different than what people in the rest of the world learn. Just as my American version of history differs other countries. Atonescu is is portrayed as a bumbling, cowardly psychopath. That he took it upon himself to initiate pogroms against the Jews and Roma was enough to get him convicted and his part in the Odessa Massacre was enough to get him shot. His cowardice caused him to first side with the Nazis and then later, when losing against the Russians, he tried to make an alliance with the Allied powers. I think in Romania he is portrayed as some sort of hero. Before Romanians tell me that I am a stupid American who knows nothing, I would offer a comparable story. This is a story of a leader who was involved in a civil war. He knew that the rebels would win, so he allowed his generals to burn farms, kill livestock, kill civilians, etc in an attempt to win the war. His brutal tactics worked and the rebels were eventually defeated. Most Americans know this man as a hero, Abraham Lincoln. He is even on our $5 bill. Yet to those of us who are descendants of those rebels, we view him a war criminal. As I said, we all have different views of history. Who is right and who is wrong? Ask the dead, they know.

Lasă un răspuns

Completează mai jos detaliile despre tine sau dă clic pe un icon pentru autentificare:

Logo WordPress.com

Comentezi folosind contul tău WordPress.com. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Poză Twitter

Comentezi folosind contul tău Twitter. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Fotografie Facebook

Comentezi folosind contul tău Facebook. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Fotografie Google+

Comentezi folosind contul tău Google+. Dezautentificare / Schimbă )

Conectare la %s