Due to an ongoing health crisis in the family, blogging will be 'on and off' as time and circumstances permit for the foreseeable future. I also beg your indulgence if I am slow in responding to emails. New posts will appear below this notice.

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Romanian President Launches Fierce Attack On King Michael

BUCHAREST, Romania (AP) — Romania's president has launched a stinging attack on the country's former ruler, King Michael, accusing him of being responsible for the Holocaust in Romania, and calling him "a Russian lackey."

In an interview on the B1 television channel late Wednesday, Traian Basescu said as Michael was head of state during the pro-fascist

regime of dictator Marshal Ion Antonescu — prime minister from 1940 to 1944, during World War II — he should also be considered responsible for the death of some 280,000 Jews and 11,000 Gypsies.

In 1944, when Romania was allied with Hitler's fascists, Michael staged a coup against Antonescu, and Romania switched sides to the Allies.

Basescu called Michael "a Russian lackey" in the interview, adding that his abdication — forced by Soviet-backed Communists in Dec. 1947 — was "an act of treason."

In Nov. 1947, with the communists gaining a hold over Romania and the region — which led to the monarchs of eastern Europe moving to Western Europe — Michael surprised the government by returning to Bucharest after attending the royal wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip in Britain.

A month later the Soviet-backed communist government told him if he did not sign his abdication, 1,000 Romanians would be executed. He abdicated on Dec. 31, 1947 and began a life of exile in Britain and Switzerland. His Romanian citizenship was restored in 1997.

Basescu's comments stunned Romanians, who respect the former monarch, and praise his role in their history. Basescu's stance echoed that of the communist era when Michael was belittled by the regime, and his role was downplayed.

Relations between Basescu and Michael became strained after the former king's son-in-law announced he would run for president against Basescu in 2009 elections.

The president is embattled after his plans to reorganize Romanian territory were refused by opposition parties and an ethnic Hungarian party whose support the government needs to survive.

Michael, who will be 90-years old this year, is one of the few surviving World War II leaders and had good relations with the Jewish community when he was king.
Source.

The Mad Monarchist has posted a response to this rather unjust attack (caution: language)...
The President of Romania, that traitor, that swine, that pinko-commie-bastard of a turncoat Traian Basescu, in a televised interview on Wednesday launched into a slanderous tirade aimed at his own lawful and legitimate monarch, HM King Michael I, a man held dear by many Romanians even if they do not support his restoration to his rightful throne. This political pig and walking insult to the Romanian nation, blamed the King for everything done by the pro-Nazi dictator General Ion Antonescu, including the deaths of all of the Romanian Jews and Gypsies killed in the Holocaust. This in spite of the fact that the pro-Nazi government was only removed from power when the young King Michael of the Romanians planned and successfully executed a coup against them that removed them from power and took Romania out of the Axis and into the Allied camp.
Read the rest here (he is just warming up).

2 comments:

James the least said...

Romania was in a similar situation to Finland, a country I know something of through family connections. They both faced two threats: from the Nazis on the west and the Communists on the east. They had to try to sail the ship of state between these two storms. Finland did so successfully being first assisted by the Third Reich, but not occupied, against the USSR and subsequently by being associated with the USSR but remaining more or less independent. Finland, however, was not as strategically or economically important as Romania. So the later was successively occupied and had thrust upon it puppet governments by these two systems. The king is blamed for both, when the truth is he could resist neither but only attempt to do the best for his country in the circumstances. That some johnny-come-lately b-----d of a politician should try to make capital of this over 60 years later comes as no surprise. They are all like it.

James the least said...

In the above 'later' should be 'latter'.