Was Romania right to join the Axis?

[Thomas]

What are your opinions?

[PogRomus]

Yes, it was the right and best thing to have done at the moment, the leaders of the country made the best decision for the day, - we can't judge them even today, because we don't know ALL facts and circumstances of those times....
:idea:

PS: I don't feel sorry for pulling out of the war on 23 august,,...what I feel sorry about and feel ashamed of is having to fight the germans,...after being their most valuable ally for 4 years....

Napoleon once said..."I love treason but I detest the traitors themselves"... :roll:

[Thomas]

Hey PogRomus, SS-Junkerschule Bad Tölz? What Lehrgruppe? :D

Well, it seems to me Romania reached two points, one of bravery and one of treason. Bravery because, loose from any ideologies, it was quite an effort for a ‘forgotten’ country such as Romania to ally herself with Germany against the super powers, but also treachery because of what happened in august 1944. The thing I can’t understand is why the Romanian soldiers just turned against the Germans from one day on another – especially the front soldiers. From what I gather the casualties while on the Russian side were quite high, which may account for low morale on the Romanian side, let’s say a real lack of will to fight. It always seemed to me the Russians used the Romanian manpower reservoir as just another flock of sheep to herd into their death, and then gave them nothing in return. The Romanians had to break the nuts but just got the shells to eat.

The alliance with Russia didn’t exactly bring good fortune to Romania, considering the state it is in today. But I wonder what Romania would have gotten in the case of a German victory, since Hungary wanted to expand again.

[Geto-Dacul]

Listen, we cannot blame the Romanian soldier or people for turning against their German ally! This decision was not taken after a poll or referendum... It was a treason and a coup d'état executed by elements hostile to marshal Antonescu and its regime. The Romanian soldier could only obey orders... That's the army.

[dragos]

My answer to thos poll is: yes, it was the only right thing to do at the time.

But you seem to go away from the true reason of the alliance with Germany. The alliance with Germany was not an ideological alliance, the Romanian Army made this alliance to achieve national interest. It's more our army fought against Soviet Union than it fought together with the Germans. For the ordinary soldiers, the alliance with Germany grew uncomfortable as the war progressed. After Stalingrad, there was a high tension between Romanian and German troops, and marshal Antonescu had to intervene by German highest echelons and Hitler to calm down the spirits. Apart of several German field commanders that worked directly with Romanian echelons (Schobert, Mannstein), the Germans attitude towards Romanian soldiers was not of classical "brother in arms" (camaraderie), but rather of arrogance and servitude.

[Geto-Dacul]

dragos wrote :

QUOTE

Apart of several German field commanders that worked directly with Romanian echelons (Schobert, Mannstein), the Germans attitude towards Romanian soldiers was not of classical \"brother in arms\" (camaraderie), but rather of arrogance and servitude.

German "arrogance" was less effective in 1944-45. The Germans suffered heavy defeats too, and they could no longer blame it on their allies. Higher echelons in the German army (maybe veterans from WWI) were even arrogant with their own troop... The ordinary soldier of the "Heer" was like any other Romanian, Hungarian, Finnish or Slovakian soldier.

QUOTE

The alliance with Germany was not an ideological alliance, the Romanian Army made this alliance to achieve national interest.

You (and others too) reproach to Antonescu that he finnally fought an ideological war, because he crossed the Nistru on "foreign territory". Some people say that our scope was not the "crusade against communism" but national interest... Yes, indeed, very nice. But why did we die like dogs in 1944-45 in Hungary, Czechoslovakia or Austria? For what interests??? Did we won something, a territory? Nope! If you say that this war was fought with the "great" and "invincible" Red Army to defeat the "fascist beast" than :

[Geto-Dacul]

My opinion is that Romania should have allied herself with Germany from the beginning. In that way, there would have been no 1940 and losses of national territories. Remaining in expectative as we did, wayting and hoping "British aid" was a stupid and blind policy. That's why Romania was gradually isolated. Germany wanted oil from and grain from the beginning, and we wanted good weapons, but also a powerful national industry. For us, Germany was the best example. Some people would say that the Germans were not our "traditional allies"... The reality is that there are no "eternal" or "traditional" allies, but only INTERESTS. If those defeated in WWI grew stronger than those victorious, than, to preserve our nation, we must go with the stronger one.

[mars]

Mr Geto-Dacul, are you also suggesting that Romania sould stick with Germany until the very end ? and do you think it was the best interest to Romanian people to rather allow their country be totally ruined by ally than "betraying" Germany ?

[Geto-Dacul]

mars wrote :

QUOTE

Mr Geto-Dacul, are you also suggesting that Romania sould stick with Germany until the very end ? and do you think it was the best interest to Romanian people to rather allow their country be totally ruined by ally than \"betraying\" Germany ?

Dear mars, I did and would never say that Romania should have remained with Germany till the end! No way! An armistice should have been signed... But not by a coup d'état and a betrayal. As marshal Antonescu said : I cannot continue this war to total destruction with Germany when half of my country is under foreign occupation...

[mars]

would Germany would let Romania go ? Would ally accept a merely armistice ? Was it too late for Romania to simply quit from Gremany, it was a war and not a child's play, too many blood from both sides had already be sheded, because of the resource Romania had and her important stagery position, I do not think Romania goverment had another choice.

[Geto-Dacul]

mars wrote :

QUOTE

would Germany would let Romania go ?

This question is not an easy one, because I can only suppose... Hitler knew very well at his meeting with Antonescu of 4th August 1944 that Romania will quit the war... Both sides clearly knew that Romania's 'surrender' was now only a matter of time, but for both a little mileage remained in the alliance. Antonescu dared not make the break immediately, and Hitler dared not precipitate the break prematurely.

Antonescu was the only respected person in Romania, by Hitler. On 23 August, Antonescu announced the German minister in Romania, Clodius, of his decision of withdrawl from the alliance with Germany, and a telegram had to be received by Hitler officially on 26 August 1944. But Antonescu was arrested and Romania declared war on Germany on 25 August.

QUOTE

Would ally accept a merely armistice ?

That's what Romania was negotiating with the Allies (USSR).

[mars]

Yes, Romania goverment was negotiating with Soviet and USA, but sadly for romania, in August 1944, there was almost nothing left for her to bargaining for, even suddently Stalin became an angle and decided to accept Romania without any punishment, but to stop supply oil to Germany and to start supply oil to Soviet would be two very basic and I have to say reasonable terms Stalin would apply to Romanian, do you think what Hilter would think about either of the term? it did not matter what Hilter thought about Antonescu , he would not tolerate either of . so that it was certan that the date Romanian declared to break up with Germany would be the day Hilter ordered to attack Romania, and Romania would be dragged into the war with her former ally, she simply had no other alternative.

[Geto-Dacul]

mars wrote :

QUOTE

Yes, Romania goverment was negotiating with Soviet and USA, but sadly for romania, in August 1944, there was almost nothing left for her to bargaining for

As we discussed in other threads, the idea was to stop the Iasi-Chisinau offensive on the strategic FNB line, and retard Soviet operation, for concluding an armistice.

QUOTE

even suddently Stalin became an angle and decided to accept Romania without any punishment, but to stop supply oil to Germany and to start supply oil to Soviet would be two very basic and I have to say reasonable terms Stalin would apply to Romanian, do you think what Hilter would think about either of the term?

Hitler couldn't do anything, because Germany's military situation was disastrous. But the thing with Stalin "became an angle" is only a supposition. The loss of Romania should have reminded seriously Hitler that he was no going directly to disaster.

QUOTE

so that it was certan that the date Romanian declared to break up with Germany would be the day Hilter ordered to attack Romania, and Romania would be dragged into the war with her former ally, she simply had no other alternative.

I agree that a short war with Germany was possible, just like in the case of Finland, but not on Hungarian, Austrian or Czechoslovakian territory.

[mars]

you may get a little confuse here, the coup d'état occured AFTER the front was broken, and there was nothing between Soviet and Bucharest, and only because of this, the king of Romania and some of his royal ministers and generals, none of them were communist by the way, decided to take action before it was too late. it was not the coup d'état occured caused the defeat, on the contrary, it was the defeat caused the coup d'état occured.
And Finland was different to Romania, Finland did not have have the oil, and here location was not that stragic important for both Germany and ally.
By the way, the "Stalin became an angle" is just a sacastic sentence, I of course did not really mean that.

[Geto-Dacul]

mars wrote :

QUOTE

you may get a little confuse here, the coup d'état occured AFTER the front was broken, and there was nothing between Soviet and Bucharest, and only because of this, the king of Romania and some of his royal ministers and generals, none of them were communist by the way, decided to take action before it was too late.

I know that the coup d'état occured after the beginning of the operations... But what do you mean by "nothing between Soviets and Bucharest"? And why before it was "too late"? What was too late? Antonescu could also have concluded the armistice, and in better terms. And yes indeed, none of the "royal ministers" (more "advisors") and of the generals were communists but they were in "alliance" with communists inhabiting the palace like Lucretiu Patrascanu and Emil Bodnaras (the second was a Soviet agent, who was landed in Romania in 1943). Later, Antonescu was given to Bodnaras, who send him in USSR.

QUOTE

it was not the coup d'état occured caused the defeat, on the contrary, it was the defeat caused the coup d'état occured.

What are you meaning by defeat? The Romanian Army surrendered (was defeated) on 24 August in the morning, after the coup d'état.

QUOTE

And Finland was different to Romania, Finland did not have have the oil, and here location was not that stragic important for both Germany and ally.

And what? If Germany was not able (or did not want) to defend her interests (the Romanian oil), that means that a secure withdrawl from the Axis was not possible (without surrendering and leaving 150.000 Romanians on the road to Siberia)?