| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| WorldWar2.ro Forum > Romanian Army at War > After the War: Victory or Defeat? |
| Posted by: dragos October 07, 2004 12:55 pm |
| I'm interested in your opinions. |
| Posted by: Dénes October 07, 2004 02:17 pm |
| I think the two suggested options are not enough for such a complicated topic. I did not vote. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: dragos October 07, 2004 07:12 pm | ||
I know, but I was wondering what is the general perception today. Of course, I had in mind the moment immediately after the war, when the post-war drama was not figuring yet. |
| Posted by: Leo_Niehorster October 07, 2004 10:35 pm |
| Even without the benefit of hindsight, a pretty big victory, because Rumania certainly entered the war on the Axis side with an intent of reversing the IInd Vienna Award. (And they even managed to get a few licks in against the Hungarians on the Allied side.) Unfortunately for the Rumanians, the Soviets remained in Rumania. However, it could be debated whether Rumania in fact fared better under the USSR/Communist regime than it would have under a post-WWII victorious Nazi Germany. Leo |
| Posted by: Robert October 07, 2004 11:24 pm |
| I don't think that any of the Eastern European countries can be said to have won the war. All of them were used as pawns by both Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union. All of them, to one degree or another suffered losses, and I would argue that any territoral losses (or gains) were insigificant compared to the number of people killed and injured and the amount of national resources that were spent largely to support the interests of the Nazis and Soviets, rather than for the benefit of the Hungarians, Romanians, etc. Based on that criteria, Finnland can off best because it retained the largest amount of independence, and the lives and resources which it did lose benefited that country more than it did Germany and/or the Soviet Union. Bulgaria probably came off the next best, largely because it managed to stay out of the fight for the most part. Romania, Hungary, Poland, the former Yugoslavia, and the former Czechoslovakia all, unfortunately, are tied for the bottom of the heap. |
| Posted by: Iamandi October 08, 2004 08:00 am |
| Dragos, exists a partial victory? It is a victory if i say: i almost take your money? i almost beat you? i almost kill you?  i almost defeat you? - i partialy defeat you? We are partialy winners in world war 2...  Iama: we are suffering yet from this ... partialy victory! |
| Posted by: kaminski October 08, 2004 12:21 pm |
| Defeat, because Romania was forced to conclude the armistice on the terms of Soviet Union.and we got 50 year communism. The king was coward, the russians troopos may not crossing the carpathians montain. etc |
| Posted by: Victor October 08, 2004 12:33 pm | ||
Care to back your claims with anything? |
| Posted by: dragos October 08, 2004 12:37 pm | ||
Well, not even a winner can get everything he wants at the treaty's table. The idea is that something was achieved. |
| Posted by: Dan Po October 13, 2004 09:54 pm |
| After the sovient offensive from august 20, 1944, Romania was, anyway, without any chance to winn and even to resist ... Let s preted that the romanian army can hold the FNG fortifyed line (Focsani - Namoloasa - Galatzi - 160 km between Carphatians and Danube, with 1.600 pillboxes, mine fields, antitank ostacles etc)) - witch was incomplete in matter of weapons and troops ... for a long time. But in a few weks all Romania must become just a ruine, after massive allied bombardments, against all towns, factories, etc etc .... Even 23 august wasn t a very honorable act ... it was a neccesary one - becouse, anyway, the soviet ocupation was absolutely inevitable. |