WorldWar2.ro Forum [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

WorldWar2.ro Forum > Romanian Army at War > German units flags

Posted by: MMM May 09, 2009 07:01 pm

I've just understood from a specialist in medieval history

that because the German units in Romania carried their flags (orig. "îşi arborau drapelul"), that would mean, according to some code of conduct, that Romania was NOT considered as a suveran country, thus under military ocupation! Care to comment?
I supposed he just had to comment something on my assertion (and many other historians and not only...) that Romania wasn't militarilly occupied, until 23.08.44 at least.
Go on, Radub, laugh, I've just met my kin who said something just to not keep his mouth shut! Only he's a lecturer (Conf. univ. dr. and didn't forget to underline, in another comment, to another person, something on the line of "as a future professor") and very proud of himself!

Posted by: New Connaught Ranger May 10, 2009 08:11 am

QUOTE

a specialist in medieval history

is he trying to apply a code of conduct / tradition from those times (medieval period) to the Nazi's in WW2?

"Some code of conduct" which code, can you be more precise or the point is useless.

Simply put, the Nazi military were in Romania for a purpose, while Romania played ball with them and did things they required of your own free will under their "advice" all was sweet, but they were ready to take over, if and when it suited them.

Another point, would you stop using your posts to take sly digs at member Radu, it is completely taking the post off topic, if you have a beef with him or vice-versa use the PM function.

Kevin in Deva.

Posted by: MMM May 10, 2009 09:01 am

NCR, I obviously know too little of medieval codes of conduct and such. Thanks for your help, though

I don't really think they were ready to take over with what they had IN Romania at a given time, except maybe from march to june 1941, when Romania was also a "springboard" for the Barbarossa; the German might in Romania hardly exceeded two divisions, which were not assembled, as they were used for "teaching purposes". The Wehrmacht's plans to occupy Romania were made in spring 1940 and spring 1944 and were based on the conflictual occupation hypothesis (ie the Romanians would have opposed them, so they needed a little more than a couple of armored divisions).
As for my "beef" with Radub, you just didn't get the self-ironic hint, did you? Try again...

Posted by: New Connaught Ranger May 10, 2009 09:26 am

QUOTE

As for my "beef" with Radub, you just didn't get the self-ironic hint, did you? Try again... wink.gif

The point I was making is with or without irony we don't need it.

With regards the Germans, seeing which countries were their Allies (Hungary / Bulgaria etc..etc) and the location of their Allies, drawing in extra troops to bolster a take over would not have been a problem, no doubt in some dark dusty filing cabinet proposed plans for such an eventuality were to be found just in case

Kevin in Deva.

Posted by: Victor May 10, 2009 09:44 am

MMM,

Unless this opinion is supported by more detailed arguments or, better yet, a published paper, there really is nothing to comment.

The taunt aimed at Radu is uncalled for and if you continue pursue this path in the future, sanctions will follow.

Posted by: MMM May 10, 2009 10:57 am

To NCR - it seems the Germans enjoyed more to have "allies" or even satellites (which provided troops, supplies, lodgings etc. from their own "will"), rather than military occuped (also enemies) countries! The plans were undoubtedly made, as this was the duty of every "High Command", especially an aggressive one, like Germany since 1933. But that's far OoT!. I just wasn't sure that the raised flag symbolized in XX-th century military occupation! I have my strong doubts that Antonescu, an educated officer and a very nationalist Romanian, would have agreed with that without opposing! He would have known way better than you or me or that "future professor" the meaning of that, right?

Posted by: New Connaught Ranger May 10, 2009 12:14 pm

All military units carried their flags with them,in the old days, (Still do today),

usually they had their Regimental colours, and their National flag.

the flag's was a rally point, on the field of battle, or as a unit moved forward the troops

followed the flag, at all times it was sought to prevent the enemy from capturing the

colours as this was seen as a sign of defeat and disgrace.

As time progressed down through the years it was and still is a symbol of unit pride,

but, the main flag that is flown on a daily basis is the National Colours.

In the case of the Nazi military in Romania, their unit flag would have

been flown, but it would have been the swastika flag, that took precedence.

Just because a foreign flag is displayed in itself,

is not an indication that that country is under occupation.

Kevin in Deva.

Posted by: MMM May 10, 2009 04:00 pm

Somehow this seems plausible - and AFAIK the swastika was also the national flag of Germany until 1945...

Posted by: New Connaught Ranger May 10, 2009 06:21 pm

Yes but there were many variations on flags in the iii reich,

whole books have been written on the subject

Posted by: MMM May 10, 2009 08:07 pm

Off-topic!
However, you DO agree it was bs what he said about occupied country and stuff like that? I mean, if Romania was an occupied country, what was Greece, then?

Posted by: New Connaught Ranger May 11, 2009 06:41 am

Depends on how you define "occupied" in my view:

1. Any country that was forcibly annexed (Austria, the then Czechoslovakia, Sudetenland.)

2. Any country that fought and lost against the Germans was occupied.
Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland Belgium part of France. Greece, into the Balkans.

3. Any country where the Germans had control of the running of the country.
or that country was in fear of being taken by force so agreed to do the bidding of nazi Germany, Vichy France, Hungary, Bulgaria, and some extent Romania.

4. Parts of countries under the control of Nazi Germany, Tunisia, Libya. Russia.

Kevin in Deva

Posted by: Dénes May 11, 2009 09:28 am

QUOTE (New Connaught Ranger @ May 11, 2009 12:41 pm)

3. Any country where the Germans had control of the running of the country.
or that country was in fear of being taken by force so agreed to do the bidding of nazi Germany, Vichy France, Hungary, Bulgaria, and some extent Romania.

Rumania, Bulgaria was not militarily occupied by Germany at any times.
Hungary was occupied on 19 March 1944.
Vichy France was occupied in mid-November 1942.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: New Connaught Ranger May 11, 2009 10:58 am

QUOTE (Dénes @ May 11, 2009 09:28 am)

QUOTE (New Connaught Ranger @ May 11, 2009 12:41 pm)

Rumania, Bulgaria was not militarily occupied by Germany at any times.
Hungary was occupied on 19 March 1944.
Vichy France was occupied in mid-November 1942.

Gen. Dénes

QUOTE

or that country was in fear of being taken by force so agreed to do the bidding of nazi Germany, Vichy France, Hungary, Bulgaria, and some extent Romania.

so part 2 of my comment applies.

Posted by: MMM May 11, 2009 11:59 am

NCR, point 3) applies to the so-called "satellite" countries! I guess that we were.

Posted by: Radub May 11, 2009 01:48 pm

MMM,
"according to some code of conduct" sounds terribly whimiscal, ad hoc and willy nilly.

Flags are not rags! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colours,_standards_and_guidons

Please suggest to your learned friend that he should do a bit of further reading on the subject of "heraldry".

Allow me to quote: "They therefore became a link to the Regiment's past and a memorial to the fallen, and thus took on a more mystical significance than as mere identifying markers on the battlefield: they became the heart of the regiment, in which all of its history was woven. Such became the significance in this context that, for a regiment to lose its colours was (and still is) a major disgrace, with the capture of an enemy's colours (or equivalent) being seen as a great honour. This is why that, whenever the colours are paraded, they are always escorted by armed guards and paid the highest compliments by all soldiers and officers, second only to those paid to the sovereign."

Flags are consecrated. A regimental flag is an altar. That is the church where the troops worship. Abandoning the flag is akin to treason. Therefore, the ONLY honourable thing for a German unit abroad is to "fly their own flag". This is not a denial of alliances or an act of "occupation".

Radu

Posted by: Dénes May 11, 2009 02:27 pm

QUOTE (New Connaught Ranger @ May 11, 2009 04:58 pm)

so part 2 of my comment applies.

I believe your #2 point is inproper, in regards of (military) 'occupation'.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Radub May 11, 2009 02:47 pm

Law of Occupation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_occupation
Radu

Posted by: MMM May 11, 2009 03:37 pm

Well, that "learned friend" met me for the 1-st (hopefully, also the last) time this saturday - and IIRC, he said something about "codul onoarei", whatever that meant for him; I fail to see the connection with 1940

I also guess that he, being a specialist on medieval history, does know a little bit more than you or me on that subject...
That's what I thought, too about the flags - how could a unit parade w/out its flag?
To conclude this "topic"

let's just say that either I misunderstood what he said or he was just talking out of his hand-puppet instead of his head!