Editing Ion Antonescu (section)

===Debates of the 1990s===
Romanians' image of Antonescu shifted several times after the [[Romanian Revolution of 1989|1989 Revolution]] toppled communism. Polls carried out in the 1990s show the ''Conducător'' was well liked by portions of the general public.<ref>Boia, pp. 28–29, 340, 344; Shafir, p. 230</ref> This tendency, Lucian Boia argues, was similar to a parallel trend favouring [[Wallachia]]'s 15th century [[Prince of Wallachia|Prince]] [[Vlad III the Impaler]], indicating a preference for "authoritarian solutions" and reflecting "a [[Pantheon (gods)|pantheon]] that was largely set in place in the 'Ceaușescu era' ".<ref>Boia, pp. 28–29</ref> It was also popular at the time to see the 1944 Coup exclusively as the onset of [[communization]] in Romania,<ref name=r3/><ref>''Final Report'', pp. 319, 322, 330–331; Boia, pp. 340–341; Bucur (2004), p. 178; Deletant, pp. 270–271</ref> while certain sections of the public opinion revived the notion of "[[Jewish Bolshevism]]", accusing Jews of having brought communism to Romania.<ref>Boia, p. 259; Deletant, pp. 270–271</ref> British historian [[Tony Judt]] connected such reflexes to growing [[anti-Russian sentiment]] and Holocaust denial in various countries of the former [[Eastern Bloc]], and termed them collectively "mis-memory of anti-communism".<ref>[[Tony Judt]], "The Past is Another Country: Myth and Memory in Post-war Europe", in Jan-Werner Müller (ed.), ''Memory and Power in Post-war Europe'', [[Cambridge University Press]], Cambridge, 2002, p. 175. {{ISBN|0-521-00070-X}}</ref> [[Vladimir Tismăneanu]], a prominent Romanian-born political scientist, referred to Antonescu's "pseudo-sacred" image with the post-1989 public, and to the phenomenon as "fantasies of persecution."<ref>Deletant, p. 4</ref> The wartime dictator's image appealed to many politicians of the [[History of Romania since 1989|post-1989 period]], and sporadic calls for his rehabilitation were issued at the highest levels of authority.<ref name=r1/><ref name=r3/><ref>''Final Report'', pp. 349, 352–353, 360–361; Boia, pp. 340–341; Bucur (2004), p. 178sqq; Deletant, pp. 269–271, 312; Ioanid, p. 246sqq; Kenney, p. 93; Laqueur, pp. 205–206</ref> [[Far right]] groups issued calls for his [[canonization]] by the [[Romanian Orthodox Church]] (together with a similar request to canonize [[Corneliu Zelea Codreanu]]).<ref>Ramet, pp. 172–173</ref> Certain [[Neofascism|neofascist]] groups claim to represent a legacy of ''Codrenism'' from which Sima was a [[deviationism|deviationist]], and these have also become Antonescu apologists.<ref>Laqueur, p. 205. Both factions have also been known to endorse integral denial (''Final Report'', pp. 365–367).</ref>

A particular case in this process was that of forces gathered around the [[Greater Romania Party]], a group often characterized as merging [[Xenophobia|xenophobic]] or neofascist messages and the legacy of Ceaușescu's national communism.<ref>''Final Report'', pp. 349, 350, 351, 353–354, 359, 373–374; Boia, pp. 340–341; Bucur (2004), p. 178; Deletant, pp. 6, 269–271; Geran Pilon, pp. 67–71; Ioanid, pp. 246, 250–252; Laqueur, pp. 203–205; Shafir, pp. 214–215</ref> Founded by party leader and former ''Săptămîna'' contributor [[Corneliu Vadim Tudor]], ''[[România Mare (magazine)|România Mare]]'' magazine is known to have equated Antonescu and Ceaușescu, presenting them both as "apostles of the Romanian people".<ref>''Final Report'', pp. 349, 350, 373; Boia, p. 340; Bucur (2004), p. 178; Deletant, pp. 6, 269, 281–282</ref> In his bid for the office of [[President of Romania|President]] during the [[1996 Romanian presidential election|1996 election]], Vadim Tudor vowed to be a new Antonescu.<ref>Deletant, pp. 281–282; Shafir, p. 231</ref> Boia remarks that this meeting of extremes offers an "extraordinary paradox".<ref>Boia, p. 340</ref> Drăgan also openly resumed his activities in Romania, often in collaboration with Vadim Tudor's group,<ref>''Final Report'', pp. 350, 353; Ioanid, pp. 246, 251; Laqueur, pp. 205–206</ref> founding three organizations tasked with campaigning for Antonescu's rehabilitation: the media outlet Europa Nova,<ref>''Final Report'', pp. 350–352, 362–363; Ioanid, p. 246</ref> the Ion Antonescu Foundation and the Ion Antonescu League.<ref>''Final Report'', p. 350; Shafir, p. 215</ref> His colleague [[Radu Theodoru]] endorsed such projects while accusing Jews of being "a long-term noxious factor" and claiming that it was actually ethnic Romanians who were victims of a communist Holocaust.<ref>Deletant, pp. 271, 352. Theodoru stands out for his complete form of Holocaust denial (''Final Report'', pp. 350–352, 354, 362, 373).</ref> [[Ion Coja]] and [[Paul Goma]] notably produced radical claims relying on fabricated evidence and deflecting blame for the crimes onto the Jews themselves.<ref>''Final Report'', pp. 356, 357–358, 372, 375–376, 378</ref> Several journals edited by [[Ion Cristoiu]] repeatedly argued in favour of Antonescu's rehabilitation, also making xenophobic claims;<ref>Among those cited are ''Expres Magazin'' (Ioanid, pp. 129, 250) and ''Dosarele Historia'' (Deletant, p. 350) ''[[Evenimentul Zilei]]'' did the same in the early 1990s. (Weber, p. 150).</ref> similar views were sporadically present in national dailies of various hues, such as ''[[Ziua]]'', ''[[România Liberă]]''<ref>''Final Report'', pp. 349, 354, 356, 375</ref> and ''[[Adevărul]]''.<ref>Ioanid, pp. 247, 248</ref>

Various researchers argue that the overall tendency to exculpate Antonescu was endorsed by the ruling [[National Salvation Front (Romania)|National Salvation Front]] (FSN) and its successor group, later known as [[Social Democratic Party (Romania)|Social Democratic Party]],<ref>Boia, pp. 340–341; Deletant, pp. 269–270; Ioanid, pp. 247–250, 251–252; Kenney, p. 93; Laqueur, p. 205</ref> who complemented an emerging pro-authoritarian lobby while depicting their common opponent King Michael and his supporters as traitors.<ref>Boia, pp. 340–341; Deletant, pp. 269, 270; Kenney, p. 93</ref> Similar attempts to deny the role of Antonescu in the Holocaust were also made by the main opposition parties, the [[Christian Democratic National Peasants' Party]] and the [[National Liberal Party (Romania)|National Liberal Party]], with [[Radu Câmpeanu]], the latter party's president, publicly describing the wartime leader as a "great Romanian" who tried to defend the Jews.<ref name="shafir2010">{{cite book |editor-first=Roni|editor-last=Stauber|author-first=Michael|author-last=Shafir|author-link=Michael Shafir|chapter=Romania’s tortuous road to facing collaboration|title=Collaboration with the Nazis: public discourse after the Holocaust |date=2010 |publisher=Routledge |location=London, New York |isbn=978-0415564410 |pages=255–258}}</ref> Sections of both governing and opposition groups contemplated the idea of rehabilitating the wartime leader, and, in May 1991, [[Parliament of Romania|Parliament]] observed a moment of silence in his memory.<ref>Deletant, p. 270; Ioanid, p. 247</ref> The perceived governmental tolerance of Antonescu's rehabilitation raised international concern and protests.<ref name=r3/><ref>''Final Report'', pp. 360–362; Boia, p. 29; Ioanid, pp. 249–250, 252; Kenney, p. 93</ref> While the FSN-supported Romanian President [[Ion Iliescu]] publicly opposed attempts to rehabilitate Antonescu and acknowledged the "crimes he committed against the Jews", it was his successor, [[Emil Constantinescu]], a representative of the [[Romanian Democratic Convention|Democratic Convention]], who in 1997 became the first Romanian officeholder to recognize the collective responsibility of Romanian authorities.<ref>''Final Report'', pp. 374–375; Deletant, pp. 271–272</ref><ref name="shafir2010"/> Nevertheless, during the same period, [[Attorney General]] [[Sorin Moisescu]] followed a since-deprecated special [[appeal]] procedure to overturn sentences passed against Antonescu and other 1946 defendants, which he eventually withdrew.<ref>''Final Report'', p. 349</ref>

To a certain degree, such pro-Antonescu sentiments were also present in post-1989 historiography. Reflecting back on this phenomenon in 2004, [[Maria Bucur]] wrote: "the perverse image of Antonescu is not the product of a propaganda campaign led by right-wing extremists, but a pervasive myth fed by historical debates and political contests, and which the public seems indifferent to or accepts unproblematically."<ref>Bucur (2004), p. 158</ref> After the Revolution, archival sources concerning Antonescu, including those in the [[National Archives of Romania]], were made more available to researchers, but documents confiscated or compiled by Soviet officials, kept in [[Russia]], remained largely inaccessible.<ref>Deletant, pp. 2, 3, 5</ref> Although confronted with more evidence from the newly opened archives, several historians, including some employed by official institutions, continued to deny the [[Holocaust in Romania]], and attributed the death toll exclusively to German units.<ref>[[Régine Robin]], "Une juste mémoire, est-ce possible?", in Thomas Ferenczi (ed.), ''Devoir de mémoire, droit à l'oubli?'', Éditions Complexe, Paris, 2002, p. 109. {{ISBN|2-87027-941-8}}; Bucur (2004), pp. 158, 178–179; Deletant, pp. 4–7, 262, 270–273</ref> In parallel, some continued an exclusive focus on Northern Transylvanian massacres.<ref>Bucur (2004), p. 178; Ioanid, p. 245. According to Ioanid, these Romanian-sourced interpretations affected historiographic accounts at an international level, when they were republished by the [[Yad Vashem]].</ref> Local authors who have actively promoted Antonescu's image as a hero and wrote apologetic accounts of his politics include historians [[Gheorghe Buzatu]]<ref>''Final Report'', pp. 348, 350, 355–356, 357–359, 361, 367; Bucur (2004), p. 178; Deletant, pp. 7, 270–271, 352–353</ref> and [[Mihai Pelin]],<ref>''Final Report'', p. 348</ref> and researcher [[Alex Mihai Stoenescu]].<ref>''Final Report'', p. 353; Deletant, p. 273</ref> Larry L. Watts published a similarly controversial [[monograph]] in the United States.<ref>''Final Report'', pp. 348, 362; Deletant, pp. 273–274</ref> Although criticized for denying the uniqueness of the Holocaust and downplaying Antonescu's complicity, [[Dinu C. Giurescu]] was recognized as the first [[Post-Communism|post-communist]] Romanian historian to openly acknowledge his country's participation,<ref>''Final Report'', pp. 179, 341, 379; Deletant, p. 272; Ioanid, p. 249</ref> while his colleagues [[Șerban Papacostea]] and [[Andrei Pippidi]] were noted as early critics of attempts to exculpate Antonescu.<ref>''Final Report'', p. 379; Deletant, pp. 281, 253, 352</ref> The matter of crimes in Transnistria and elsewhere was first included within the [[Education in Romania|Romanian curriculum]] with a 1999 state-approved alternative textbook edited by [[Sorin Mitu]].<ref>Deletant, p. 272</ref>