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 > The Interwar Period (1920-1940) > No written agreement with Germany

Posted by: MMM March 09, 2009 04:59 pm

Why wasn't there any military treaty between Romania and the 3-rd Reich? Who didn't desire it, Antonescu or Hitler?

Posted by: bansaraba March 09, 2009 09:21 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbJp6iYjliI

Or do you mean that Romania put no condition before signing the treaty?

Posted by: MMM March 10, 2009 06:04 am

No MILITARY ageement - that (tripartit) was political only!

Posted by: Imperialist March 11, 2009 08:12 am

QUOTE (MMM @ March 10, 2009 06:04 am)

No MILITARY ageement - that (tripartit) was political only!

What specifically do you mean by military agreement?

The Tripartite Pact was not political only:

They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means if one of the Contracting Powers is attacked by a Power at present not involved in the European War or in the Japanese-Chinese conflict.

Posted by: MMM March 11, 2009 09:44 am

Indeed, but no specific details, no military alliance treaty - just some conventions made AFTER the German troops entered Romania; furthermore, many military agreements were made after june 22 and after liberating Bessarabia. Why then and not sooner?

Posted by: Dénes March 11, 2009 01:25 pm

If we don't know of a certain document, it doesn't necessarily mean that it does not/did not exist.
I can hardly imagine the German "instruction" troops simply walked in Rumania on a sunny day in the Autumn of 1940, without prior written agreement, or Gen. Antonescu was made head of a mixed Rumanian-German (!) group of armies only based on a handshake...

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: MMM March 11, 2009 01:36 pm

Either I wasn't clear enough, or you mock me...

There was no military agreement made prior to the entrance of the 1-st German troops in Ro., as there was no military agreement between the two countries regarding their contribution in the anti-Soviet war.
I can only suppose that Antonescu didn't want an agreement because:
a ) he didn't really believe Hitler would finally win
OR
b ) he realised he won't get Transylvania back so easy, so he didn't want any piece of treaty between Romania and Germany which wouldn't mention it
What else could be?
And, Denes, "we don't know", as in how many historians, writers, researchers and politicians are you talking about? Do you honestly believe there was such a thing which isn't (yet) discovered?

Posted by: Victor March 11, 2009 01:46 pm

QUOTE (Imperialist @ March 11, 2009 10:12 am)

QUOTE (MMM @ March 10, 2009 06:04 am)

No MILITARY ageement - that (tripartit) was political only!

MMM is probably refering to a military convention regulating the way Romanian and german troops cooperated in the field. And in this respect he is correct. There was nothing.

Posted by: Dénes March 11, 2009 01:55 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ March 11, 2009 07:36 pm)

Either I wasn't clear enough, or you mock me...

It's not my intention to mock you. Why would I?

QUOTE

What makes you so sure about this? See first sentence in my previous post.

QUOTE

I can only suppose that Antonescu didn't want an agreement because:
a) he didn't really believe Hitler would finally win

I firmly believe in mid-1941 Antonescu was confident in a swift German victory.

QUOTE

he realised he won't get Transylvania back so easy, so he didn't want any piece of treaty between Romania and Germany which wouldn't mention it

This is a reoccurring oversight: Rumania did keep the larger half of Transylvania following the Vienna Resolution of Aug. 1940.
Other than this, it's plausible that the Rumanian party wanted to recover the other half of Transylvania, and wanted this to somehow happen with Berlin's assistance.

QUOTE

And, Denes, "we don't know", as in how many historians, writers, researchers and politicians are you talking about?

It's a collective knowledge, there is no need to put numbers to it.

QUOTE

Do you honestly believe there was such a thing which isn't (yet) discovered?

Yes, I do. However, don't ask me to produce it, as I am not really interested in diplomacy.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: MMM March 11, 2009 02:01 pm

I thought you accidentally or intentionally misquoted me; now I see you really think it is such a document - of whose existence nobody ever heard! Suppose there was one and it got lost/stolen/destroyed/whatever. How comes there is no refference to it? More exactly, I've never read a document which would say something on the likes of "as previously stated in our agreement nr. XX from YY.ZZ.1940" or "in conformity with the clause 1.6, paragraph A) from our treaty signed in WW city at DD.MM.1940" I don't believe in myths!

Posted by: Imperialist March 11, 2009 06:49 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ March 11, 2009 01:36 pm)

Either I wasn't clear enough, or you mock me...

There was an agreement made prior to the entrance of the German military mission to Romania.

I am not sure what you mean by military agreement regarding their contribution in the war. The countries were allied. Their military roles within that alliance were established at inter-military level, I don't think they needed any separate agreement for that.

Posted by: MMM March 11, 2009 08:04 pm

QUOTE (Imperialist @ March 11, 2009 06:49 pm)

I don't think they needed any separate agreement for that.

Really? Ain't that cute? But it's WRONG! I am beginning to think you don't know about all the alliances and treaties signed in Europe before the war (during it and after it, as well). They wre extremly precise, accurate and detailed. We had no such thing from a military point of view, unlike the economic one. And on the military side, there were (later on) a number of agreements which were really too "thin" for a live conflict. Especially one with the "monster"

Posted by: Imperialist March 11, 2009 10:26 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ March 11, 2009 08:04 pm)

QUOTE (Imperialist @ March 11, 2009 06:49 pm)

I don't think they needed any separate agreement for that.

Alliances are not extremely precise, accurate and detailed from a military point of view. They are political in nature and set only the general lines of the relationship. They would certainly not spell out the detailed military contribution of each signatory in case of war against country X. The allies can set those roles by holding inter-military meetings/consultations. The decisions taken there don't necessarily need the signing of extra military agreements, especially if they are within the general framework of cooperation set by the alliance.

Romania was already part of an alliance with Germany. What military agreement would you have liked to see? Saying what and what would have been its purpose?

BTW, several messages into this thread, you said:

QUOTE

Indeed, but no specific details, no military alliance treaty

What was the Tripartite Pact then?

Posted by: Victor March 12, 2009 07:04 am

QUOTE (Imperialist @ March 12, 2009 12:26 am)

What was the Tripartite Pact then?

The Tripartite Pact did not specify the way the two armkies would colaborate, what were their obligations towards eachother in terms of subordination, command, supply & logistics, military justice etc.

You don't go to war just knowing that I am your ally. You also have to regulate who will be in charge and what would be his responsabilities and powers, what would be the rights of teh subordinate troops, how the supply routes will be used, who will discipline the troops when this is neccesary and so on.

Lacking such a convention, the Romanian troops were often at the complete disposal of the German commanders, who usually broke up large units, reorganized them as they pleased, used Romanian trucks to transport and supply German units, Romanian motorized artillery to support German units, Romanian battalions were "corsetted" between German ones and so on. There were instances when Romanian infantry was left behind to delay Soviet advance, while German motorized units retreated etc. This was ofcourse the best thing for the alliance, but a bad tghing for the Romanian troops.

Posted by: Imperialist March 12, 2009 08:32 am

QUOTE (Victor @ March 12, 2009 07:04 am)

QUOTE (Imperialist @ March 12, 2009 12:26 am)

What was the Tripartite Pact then?

The Pact was not supposed to provide those kind of details because it was an alliance treaty.

I don't dispute the point about the need to regulate those things. What I don't understand is why a military agreement would have to be signed when those details can be arranged at inter-alliance and inter-military level. Then each side issues its own orders based on those arrangements.

Posted by: MMM March 12, 2009 12:34 pm

QUOTE

inter-alliance and inter-military level

Oh, really? And why weren't they put into a nice treaty, tied with a ribbon? So, after all, everybody could see the difference between Germany, the victorious (then) power and a mere satellite country, such as Romania. Could it be possible that the Wehrmacht wouldn't have lowered itself so much to sign a treaty with ARR? (Let me be more specific army-to-army, not gov't-to-gov't treaty!) Denes, was there a treaty of that sort for Hungarian Armed forces or how did the "cooperation" occur?

Posted by: Imperialist March 12, 2009 06:13 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ March 12, 2009 12:34 pm)

QUOTE

inter-alliance and inter-military level

I never heard of an army-to-army treaty. Or an army signing treaties with other armies. Could you please tell me what treaty did the Romanian army sign with the other NATO armies in order to deploy its forces in Qalat?

The kind of cooperation details you refer to are established in meetings or consultations between the allied countries' political and military leaders. Those details don't need the signing of new treaties. They are passed as laws and/or they become orders in the army.

Posted by: MMM March 12, 2009 07:18 pm

OK! I see we speak two different languages here, but at least Victor understood my point. No use continuing this argument w/ u. Bye!

Posted by: Imperialist March 12, 2009 08:05 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ March 12, 2009 07:18 pm)

OK! I see we speak two different languages here, but at least Victor understood my point. No use continuing this argument w/ u. Bye!

We talk the same language but you used some terms and concepts that are pretty clumsy.

Posted by: MMM March 12, 2009 08:30 pm

At least you're not pretending such a document exist; you're "only" pretending it wasn't needed...

Posted by: Imperialist March 12, 2009 09:08 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ March 12, 2009 08:30 pm)

At least you're not pretending such a document exist; you're "only" pretending it wasn't needed...

There are documents.

The basis of the cooperation was established by Hitler and Antonescu through the letters of June 18 and June 23, 1941. Hitler expressed the need for a unified commandment and sketched the relationship at the military leadership level and Antonescu replied by saying "Ne vom conforma intocmai directivelor operative ale Excelentei Voastre".

Posted by: Radub March 13, 2009 09:51 am

The tripartite pact was signed on 23 November 1940. By that stage, the war was already raging in Europe. Poland, France, Netherlands, Belgium, had already fallen, the Dunkirk evacuation had taken place, etc. Everyone was aware that war was on. When Romania signed the treaty, which aimed "to assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three contracting powers is attacked", when the treaty said "ALL MEANS", in the context of the war that was alreday on, it was clearly undrestood what they were talking about.

According to "Third Axis Fourth Ally", on 11-12 June in Munich Antonescu offered Romania's military support to Hitler. Antonescu was appointed head of Army Group Antonescu comprising of Romanian 3rd and 4th Armies and German 11th Army. Considering the German penchant for documents signed and rubber-stamped in triplicate, there is no doubt that there is/was a document that contained the purposes of the appointment and what that entailed.

Radu

Posted by: MMM March 13, 2009 10:52 am

So, Imperialist, you're talking about a pact/agreement made on 23-rd June - a day after the beginning... not very early, is it? And not very "comprising", in a manner of speaking.
Radub, the "GAGA" (Grupul de Armate General Antonescu) was a mere makeshift, aimed to appease the Romanian suspicion that their troops would be under German command (as if things were different on the higher level

); it never existed in fact! The Southern Army Group was led by Rundstedt and the 11-th Army by general Schobert (at the beginning). Antonescu never led any troops directly - he held no command in ww2, except the "Conducător" title, as supreme leader. Wil be back w/ more details if needed.

Posted by: Radub March 13, 2009 11:26 am

I am still confused about what you are looking for. In as far as I can see, you seek a specific treaty that specifies specific words in a specific order... Maybe such a specific treaty that specifies specific words in a specific order never existed. Maybe there were other documents that covered the same bases, but not by specifying the specific words in the specific order that you are specifically looking for.
Maybe you should specify the specific words in the specific order you seek, so that we can save time looking through the actual relevant documents and point out the one you want.

As Homer Simpson once said, I'm no supervising technician, I'm a technical supervisor.

Radu

Posted by: Imperialist March 13, 2009 11:31 am

QUOTE (MMM @ March 13, 2009 10:52 am)

So, Imperialist, you're talking about a pact/agreement made on 23-rd June - a day after the beginning... not very early, is it? And not very "comprising", in a manner of speaking.

I am talking about written correspondence between the two dictators. Maybe they talked about the cooperation details earlier, but from what I have at my disposal and for the time being those letters are the closest thing I found. The point is not so much the date (June 18 actually - that's when Hitler informed Antonescu about how he sees the cooperation) but the manner of settling the details.

Posted by: MMM March 13, 2009 11:39 am

Believe me, I've read and re-read the letters changed by the "dictators" and there are no such details. Only general stuff - and that's why I insisted on the fact there should have been some sort of army-to-army cooperation prior to the beginning of the conflict.
Radu, here we go again...

I'm not seeking the "Grail", because there isn't any - as there is NO MILITARY TREATY between Ro and Ge! I was just wondering WHY there isn't!

Posted by: Radub March 13, 2009 12:10 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ March 13, 2009 11:39 am)

I'm not seeking the "Grail", because there isn't any - as there is NO MILITARY TREATY between Ro and Ge! I was just wondering WHY there isn't!

Let us take this forensically.
1. What is a "military treaty"?
2. What was its purpose?
3. What is its contents?
4. Why is it needed?
5. Who did Germany have a "military treaty" with? Was this "military treaty" between Germany and another nation signed before, after or in lieu of signing the Tripartite Pact? Depending on the timeline in comparison with the signing of the Tripartite Pact, did the Tripartite Pact uphold or annul the "military treaty"?

It is very likely that such a "military treaty" was not needed because the main tenet of "we will defend ech other in case of war" was clearly specified in the Tripartite Pact. All other stuff such as strength of troops and specifitc operations could not be specified in the Tripartite Pact simply because no one knew who would be attacked by whom with what kind of force.
When such a need arose to specify the strength of reaction and the specific foe, it was mentioned in the documents imperialist and I mentioned when Barbarossa was planned. Barbarossa was well planned and there is a lot of documentation that specifies what kind of military strength Romania contributed with.

Radu

Posted by: Imperialist March 13, 2009 12:18 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ March 13, 2009 11:39 am)

I'm not seeking the "Grail", because there isn't any - as there is NO MILITARY TREATY between Ro and Ge! I was just wondering WHY there isn't!

But the Tripartite Pact was a treaty that established a military alliance. There was no need to sign another military treaty.

To give you an example, NATO is a military alliance based on the North Atlantic Treaty. What extra military treaty with its allies did Romania have to sign in order to deploy troops to Afghanistan within the framework of the already signed North Atlantic Treaty? There was no need for another military treaty and I am not aware of any. Read the North Atlantic Treaty. It lacks the details you want. Those details are established at intra-alliance and inter-military level. Political leaders, ministers, chiefs of staff, etc.

The same goes for the 1940s, with the observation that Hitler and Antonescu were supreme leaders and the decision-making in their alliance was way less complex than it is in NATO.

Posted by: dragos March 13, 2009 12:20 pm

Here is another example of political and military treaty:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/brsov42.asp

Posted by: Dénes March 13, 2009 01:06 pm

QUOTE

Führer Directive 21

(...)II. Anticipated Allies and their Tasks
1. On the wings of our operations we can count on active co-operation in the war against Soviet Russia by Rumania and Finland. How exactly the combat forces of those two countries will be under German control when they go into action is a matter that the Armed Forces High Command will arrange and lay down at the proper time.

2. Rumania's task will be to pin down the enemy's forces opposite that sector and to give assistance in rear areas.
(...)
Signed: Adolf Hitler

[Source: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/F%C3%BChrer_Directive_21]

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: MMM March 13, 2009 01:21 pm

You seem to forget a very important detail: in that era the treaties were very frequent between almost all the countries. Also, they were usually regarded as a high accomplishment for the gov't implied in them. Even "Pravda" was allowed to praise the Molotov-Ribentropp treaty...

On the other hand, let's not compare those times with the today's diplomatic practice, shall we?

Posted by: Radub March 13, 2009 02:07 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ March 13, 2009 01:21 pm)

Even "Pravda" was allowed to praise the Molotov-Ribentropp treaty...

Ribentropp and Molotov were politicians who signed a political treaty. It mentions military assistance. This treaty is not different from the Tripartite Pact.

Who did Germany have a "military treaty" with?

Radu

Posted by: MMM March 13, 2009 02:30 pm

The Steel Pact with Italy!

Posted by: Radub March 13, 2009 02:34 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ March 13, 2009 02:30 pm)

The Steel Pact with Italy!

That is a two-part pact signed between politicians. One part is military and one part is economical/political.

Did Germany sign with anyone a pure "military" treaty? You clearly stated that you are looking for a "military teraty" with no political aspects.

Radu

Posted by: Imperialist March 13, 2009 02:44 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ March 13, 2009 01:21 pm)

On the other hand, let's not compare those times with the today's diplomatic practice, shall we?

Why not? Not much changed in international relations when it comes to treaties and alliances. Moreover, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed in 1949 ("those times") not today.

IMO you're looking for the wrong thing. You should be looking for staff documents, meeting minutes, correspondence between the leaders, orders/directives etc. Not for an extra treaty besides the Tripartite Pact. That's all.

Posted by: MMM March 13, 2009 04:18 pm

1. Radub: even so, the military part of the Ro.-Ge. treaties was sublime (Caragiale: "sublimă, dar lipseşte cu desăvârşire"). I'm not sure if with Finland, Germany didn't sign some sort of purely miiltary understanding. I have to search more. I did not say "with any political aspects"; I just said the military part is lacking...
2. Imperialist: yes, the first NATO documents were signed 60 years ago, but they went through a number of changes; plus, 1949 is not 1940! There was a world war between them...

Posted by: Victor March 13, 2009 04:41 pm

QUOTE (Imperialist @ March 13, 2009 02:18 pm)

Article 3 of the Tripartite Treaty stipulated that the signatory parties should come to eachother's aid if they were attacked. It didn't mention anything about initiating the attack themselves. Technically, Romania wouldn't have been forced to declare war to the SU together with Germany under the provisions of the Axis Treaty.

Also, maybe I do not remember correctly, but Romania sent troops to Afghanistan and Irak before it became a NATO member. But are yolu positive nothing was signed?

What MMM I believe was trying to find out, before the "avalanche" came pouring down, is why there was nothing official, except the correspondance between the two dictators. My guess is that:

1. The Germans underestimated the Soviet response and constantly needed more troops, mainly for secondary duties, but also for specialized missions, troops which they didn't have at their disposal. Thus they used what they had around in the Southern sector: Romanians

2. Antonescu's lack of political expertise. Ionel Bratianu would have probably drove the Germans crazy while barganing for even one division going beyond the Dnestr. This is why Romania was the best ally Germany had on the Eastern front in 1941-43 (before a flame war starts, I am not talking about military performance): Antonescu put its forces at the total discretion of the Wehrmacht. None of the other Axis sattelites (Italy included) has done this.

Like I already said, from the point of view of Germany and of the common goal, this was probably the best solution. From the point of view of the Romanian soldiers, it probably wasn't.

Posted by: Victor March 13, 2009 04:45 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ March 13, 2009 12:52 pm)

Radub, the "GAGA" (Grupul de Armate General Antonescu) was a mere makeshift, aimed to appease the Romanian suspicion that their troops would be under German command (as if things were different on the higher level

While von Schobert acted as CO over the German 11th and Romanian 3rd Armies, the 4th Army and the 2nd Corps were unde the direct command of the Romanian General Staff throughout 1941, hence, under Antonescu's command.

Posted by: MMM March 13, 2009 05:01 pm

Yep. However, the "GAGA" thing was brought back to life in 1942 at Stalingrad, but the Red Army felt differently about it

It is true that the 4-th Army was under Romanian command, but it attacked "at german orders", so to say...

Posted by: Imperialist March 13, 2009 05:44 pm

QUOTE (Victor @ March 13, 2009 04:41 pm)

Technically yes, but if I'm not mistaken the Axis presented the attack as a response to provocations, crossborder incidents and as a preemptive action against a Russia increasingly leaning towards the British with which the Axis was at war. Since Romania did not dispute that presentation and did not raise that technicality to stay out of the war, then that technicality was practically non-existent (in the sense of completely overlooked).

Indeed, Romania sent troops to Afghanistan in 2002 (decision taken in late 2001). BTW, great memory, I admit I forgot that fact. But it did so as a contribution to the UN-sponsored ISAF. The initiative was taken by the President, approved by the CSAT and the Parliamentary commissions and then voted in Parliament. The details were then negotiated with ISAF, but I am not aware of a treaty being signed! The same goes after entering NATO. Romania changed its area of operations several times if I'm not mistaken. Kabul, Kandahar, Qalat. And the size of its forces. I doubt treaties were signed with NATO allies in order to arrange the details.

I am not disputing MMM's basic point (need for negotiated details, agreements), but his use of the terms (treaty, army-to-army treaty etc.). And I don't understand why he insists anything less than a military treaty wouldn't have been enough.

@MMM The N.A. Treaty was revised 2 times in order to change the names or locations included in one of the articles. It underwent no major changes that would support the claim that the international relations of today are significantly different than those of 70 years ago in terms of treaties and alliances.

Posted by: MMM March 13, 2009 08:07 pm

How comes we don't have an agreement similar (or at least resemblant) to that from 1916? I understand - back then, Romania was "courted" to enter the war, but still there should have been something...
To make a long story short, we are in Afghanistan as members of UN (whose treaty we signed in the 1950's) and in Iraq as members of NATO and close allies/puppies of the master

Imperialist, 1949 is like a century far from 1940; at least an A-bomb and the beginning of a cold war (in which the former ally revealed to be not-so-different from the ex-enemy) - so things really changed very much in a short time! Basically, the diplomacy of the 1930's wasn't really different from that of the 19-th century, except the replacement of telegraph by telephone and sometimes radio!

Posted by: Imperialist March 13, 2009 09:10 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ March 13, 2009 08:07 pm)

To make a long story short, we are in Afghanistan as members of UN (whose treaty we signed in the 1950's) and in Iraq as members of NATO and close allies/puppies of the master

Not quite. We are in Afghanistan as members of NATO and in Iraq as part of a US-led coalition, both missions being legitimized by the UN.

Things did change, but not the basics of international relations.

Posted by: Dénes March 13, 2009 09:10 pm

QUOTE (Victor @ March 13, 2009 10:41 pm)

1. The Germans underestimated the Soviet response and constantly needed more troops, mainly for secondary duties, but also for specialized missions, troops which they didn't have at their disposal. Thus they used what they had around in the Southern sector: Romanians.

Hitler counted on Rumanian troops before the anti-Soviet offensive would start. See his Directive 21, quoted earlier.

I am also surprised no one picked up yet the text highlighted in bold in the second sentence of the said directive.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Victor March 14, 2009 05:43 am

QUOTE (Dénes @ March 13, 2009 11:10 pm)

QUOTE (Victor @ March 13, 2009 10:41 pm)

I did notice it, but I was referring to the fact that a clear role was not defined for the Romanian troops and after 1-2 months of operations, everything was regulated by letters from Hitler to Antonescu requesting further Romanian participation in some geographic areas or even direct appeal for troops from German commanders, like Manstein. This was caused IMO by Germans under estimating Soviet ressources and potential and overestmating their own.

IIRC from Halder's memoirs, the initial role reserved for Romanian troops was limited and, on the other side, many Romanians didn't think of a strong commitment on the Eastern Front beyond the Dnestr. Every small step eastwards wasa further concesion. What is certain, is that there was a big unknown regarding the Romanian participation to the war in the East among Romanians themselves. There was nothing official.

Posted by: Victor March 14, 2009 05:53 am

QUOTE (Imperialist @ March 13, 2009 07:44 pm)

Romania joined the attack wholeheartedly because of Bessarabia . However, in terms of international law, it was an attack, not an act of defense, no matter how it was portrayed by the Axis propaganda.

Off-topic: the 26th Infantry Battalion was deployed in Afghanistan in July 2002 and others followed every six months. It wasn't part of ISAF. The troops deployed with ISAF were a military police company and staff officers I think.

Posted by: dragos March 14, 2009 10:22 am

A written military convention between Germany and Romania before Barbarossa could be seen as impediment by Hitler, who wanted to keep secrecy on his plans and delayed informing Antonescu about his plans of invasion of USSR as long as possible. A written military convention without Antonescu knowing about Barbarossa would obviously mean difficulties in the future unfolding of operations.

Posted by: Imperialist March 14, 2009 11:08 am

QUOTE (Victor @ March 14, 2009 05:53 am)

Off-topic: the 26th Infantry Battalion was deployed in Afghanistan in July 2002 and others followed every six months. It wasn't part of ISAF. The troops deployed with ISAF were a military police company and staff officers I think.

Yup, those took part in the US-led "Enduring Freedom" coalition. Still, that was a Gov-to-Gov decision and Romanian officers were then sent to the US Central Command to negotiate the details. An agreement was then probably signed.

Romania also signed an agreement with the Afghan Government before it first sent troops there. (Just as Germany signed with Romania before sending its military mission in WWII).

Posted by: MMM March 14, 2009 05:12 pm

@dragos: you want to say that it wasn't enough time... but Antonescu expressed his wish to collaborate with the Germans against USSR from november, when he signed the Tripartite Pact. So in the ten days remaining (12/22 june), it was time enough to also sign a secret treaty along the military papers that were agreed upon. I can find but one valid explanation, due to the fact that Germany was also reluctant to sign any military agreement with any ally - the assumed superiority of the Wehrmacht over the allied armies.
@Imperialist: nice parralel

QUOTE

Romania also signed an agreement with the Afghan Government before it first sent troops there. (Just as Germany signed with Romania before sending its military mission in WWII).

Did you think much at it?

Posted by: dragos March 15, 2009 02:07 am

QUOTE (MMM @ March 14, 2009 08:12 pm)

@dragos: you want to say that it wasn't enough time... but Antonescu expressed his wish to collaborate with the Germans against USSR from november, when he signed the Tripartite Pact.

No, I want to say it was not in Hitler's favor to seek a written convention. Even if Antonescu was committed against Soviet Union, Hitler did not put his true intentions on table from day one. Even the military mission sent to Romania had a second secret goal than the one known by Romanian side. By June 1941 both sides were going along without a written military convention and there was only time for establishing the cooperation at Army High Command level (as pointed by Denes).

Posted by: Radub March 15, 2009 12:45 pm

But the big and most burning issue here (the elphant in the room

) is the fact that when Romania signed the Tripartite Pact, Germany was already at war. The treaty clearly specifies that the states will "assist one another with all political, economic and military means".
Romania must have been aware that signing a treaty that clearly specifies "assistance" and "all military means" with a country that was at war at that time also meant military involvement in the war.
Radu

Posted by: MMM March 15, 2009 01:42 pm

Being aware of war (which was NOT with SU at that time - mind that!) and quantifying in writing the contribution and relations are two different things!

Posted by: Radub March 15, 2009 02:46 pm

Germany, Italy and Japan were the main players in the war - these were the three parties that the "Tripartite" thing is referring to. All three were heavily involved in operations in Asia, Africa and Europe at the time when Romania signed the Tripartite Treaty. Romania allied itself with the main perpetrators of the war and, somehow, expected to stay out of the war? How does that make sense? The treaty mentioned"assistance" as well as "all military means" and there was a war going on. What part of QED is so hard to accept here?

What you are saying is that your house is on fire, your neighbour has a hose that can be connected to the hydrant but you say to him, "No thanks, I do not want your water or hose to fight the fire, I just want you to sign this paper that says that you will help me only with political or economical aspects if I need them... Firefighting is not really needed now"

MMM, It is impossible for me to figure out why you want to separate the "Economical" and "Political" aspects from the "Military" in that treaty. No army can function without an "economy" that creates its weapons and generates the funds that the "political" "power that be" assigns to it in the budget. War is never purely "military". War has massive economic and political implications. Therefore, the purely "military" treaty that you seek may not exist.

The Tripartite Pact is possibly the strongest instrument that drew Romania into war. Saying that the Tripartite Pact is not a military treaty is impossible to understand.

Radu

Posted by: MMM March 15, 2009 03:38 pm

Let me be clear (or die trying): never I've said or implied the Tripartite Pact wasn't comprising military aspects as well! I just complained about the lack of a document which could state he military relations existing between Romania and Germany, as well as quantifying the contributions needed on the military plan, as on the economic plan there were many "papers" signed throughout the four years of "partnership". Am I clear enough now?

Posted by: Radub March 15, 2009 04:17 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ March 15, 2009 03:38 pm)

I just complained about the lack of a document which could state he military relations existing between Romania and Germany,

The "document which could state the military relations existing between Romania and Germany" IS the Tripartite Pact. As you already agreed, the Tripartite Pact has a military aspect to it. When Romania signed it, it became allied with Germany, ERGO "the military relation between Romania and Germany", is that they were ALLIES!

"Quantifying the contributions needed on the military plan" IS NOT the subject of treaties, which tend to be mostly political instruments. Military strength is what quartermasters and chiefs of staff decide and it all depends on needs and abilities. Equipment was supplied by Germany to Romania based on contracts (which were paid for in full, with a receipt) or lease documentation that is available and often quoted in books. Troops were requested and assigned based on documents that are known and quoted in books. Joint operation plans existed, are known and were quoted in books. Denes pointed one out above in relation to Barbarossa. Germany is well known for their bureaucratic approach to everything. Such documents in relation to assignment of troops and operational matters exist, are known and are quoted in books. There is no single document that contains all the military exchanges between Romania and Germany because such exchanges were the subject of thousands if not tens of thousand of documents at all levels, including military, political and economical and kept changing as the demands placed on the respective armies changed.

Who else did Germany sign such a treaty with? Which treaty that Germany signed with any other nation describes, in the lavish and specific detail that you demand, the strength of the forces and the quantities/types of equipments?

Look, I told you before, I have a sneaking suspicion that this is what is usually referred to as "trolling" on other forums. So far, no answer satisfied you, even the answers the contradicted the previous ones. Please tell us what are you looking for:

- please define "treaty"
- please define "military treaty"
- please point out similar "military treaties" so that we can have a "yardstick" (etalon)

Radu

Posted by: Imperialist March 15, 2009 05:32 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ March 15, 2009 01:42 pm)

Being aware of war (which was NOT with SU at that time - mind that!) and quantifying in writing the contribution and relations are two different things!

Antonescu and Hitler quantified the contribution and decided the relationship.

Their interaction was recorded (meeting minutes, memos, letters), their directives to their subordinates were recorded and the actions of their subordinates were also recorded. There is a paper trail.

If your theory is that the signing of extra agreements between allies for every military detail decided within the alliance is a must, then at least give some examples of that being the norm.

Posted by: MMM March 15, 2009 06:43 pm

Before accusing me of trolling and other crap, read more carefully what I've written; then, try to look at the treaties and agreements signed by Romania beginning from 1916. AFTERWARDS, tell me why didn't we have something alike in 1940 or 1941!

Posted by: Radub March 15, 2009 08:19 pm

Before you keep going in the same aimless direction, PLEASE answer the questions asked!

Did Germany sign a military treaty (in your understanding of the term) with anyone else? If so, with whom?

In as far as anyone with a modicum of sense is concerned, the document that gave Romania the status of military ally of the Third Axis was the Tripartite Pact. If that is "not what you are looking for", then at least do everyone a favour and explain what exactly you are looking for. Show us an example of a similar document (which you "define" so frustratingly vaguely and confusingly) signed by Germany with another nation.

Task for you: 1) Define "military treaty"! 2) Illustrate with an example!

Stop befuddling and confounding everyone with your cockamamey clueless flip floppery! What in the name of all is decent and fair are you talking about? In as far as I can see, in this case there is no such thing as a rubbish answer, just a rubbish question!

Radu

Posted by: Victor March 16, 2009 08:16 am

Radu and MMM,

You can disagree in a much less aggressive manner. This is not the first time you two are picking a fight. Let's try and make this the last time. I suppose you both are adults and can carry out a discussion in a calm an d civilzied manner. A web forum is a slighlty impersonal way of communication and it allows people to get more aggressive than they would in a normal face to face stiuation. In the past 7-8 or moderating (on a couple of forums) I have seen many people growing more and more aggressive in their arguments and eventually comming back to the forum only to fight or quitting. It's a path I wish none of our members should walk on, so let's try to keep our calm and discuss in a civilized manner. It's healthier, trust me. Thank you.

Regarding MMM's question, you should keep in mind that this idea is not his, but has surfaced in the post-1990 Romanian historiography and I think it even made its way into some alternative school books (to be verified).

The Tripartite Pact wasn't the "Holy Grail" of military treaties and by signing it Romania was trying to get some protection from the Soviet Union, not to join Germany and Italy's war against the UK. Romania, although a member of the Axis, did not join in the attack on Yugoslavia and only declared war to the UK by refusing the British ultimatum in late 1941. Japan and Bulgaria didn't fight against the Soviet Union until the Red Army attacked them, although both were part of the Tripartite Pact and Finland fought against the Soviet Union, with German troops on its territory without being a member of the Axis. The situation was much more complex.

Another question not asked yet (or maybe I have missed it) would be if Antonescu could have bagained for a military convetion in the style Ionel Bratianu did in 1916. Romania wasn't anymore in the situation of teh bride being courted by both sides, but in the situation of chosing from two evils threatening its existence and which were known to usually disregard treaties they signed.

Posted by: MMM March 16, 2009 08:35 am

This is entirely exact, Victor! I doubt that any schoolbook (manual şcolar?) would have such detailed references, but I'll try to ask around (after all, I'm a teacher of English

) about it.
The fact that both SU and Germany disregarded the treaties they signed does not mean that no country wanted to sign with them - and that was one of the things that many Romanian politicians blamed Antonescu (beginning with 1941 and ending with his execution in 1946).
The Tripartite Pact was (purposefully?) imprecise and left some maneuver room - as any other treaty closed by politicians, I presume - so that's why many historians (including my PHD attendant, prof. Ioan Ciupercă, Iaşi) still consider that Romania didn't have a signed agreement with Germany.
To end with a question: when did Romania signed the pact and whendid the first German soldier put his foot on Romanian soil? How about that?

Posted by: Imperialist March 16, 2009 08:59 am

QUOTE (MMM @ March 16, 2009 08:35 am)

The Tripartite Pact was (purposefully?) imprecise and left some maneuver room - as any other treaty closed by politicians, I presume - so that's why many historians (including my PHD attendant, prof. Ioan Ciupercă, Iaşi) still consider that Romania didn't have a signed agreement with Germany.

The treaty is pretty precise.

ARTICLE 3. Japan, Germany, and Italy agree to cooperate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means if one of the Contracting Powers is attacked by a Power at present not involved in the European War or in the Japanese-Chinese conflict.

ARTICLE 4. With a view to implementing the present pact, joint technical commissions, to be appointed by the respective Governments of Japan, Germany and Italy, will meet without delay.

The existence of no extra military agreements may be correct. So what? That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. Your claim was that it's wrong, so you have to show that the signing of extra military agreements (you even said treaties) is a must when allies coordinate their actions or settle the details of their intra-alliance cooperation.

Posted by: Radub March 16, 2009 10:13 am

What I am struggling with here is the fact that an allegation is made that Germany did not sign a "military treaty" with Romania for some kind of reason.
So far, I (and I am sure many others reading this) can not figure out what this "military treaty" should be.

In as far as I can understand, a "military treaty" between two parties should say something like "we are both on the same side" or "if anyone attacks you, I will help you".

On the other hand, MMM seems to imply that such a "military treaty" should read like a Gypsy "arranged marriage" dowry-agreement stipulating the number of troops, tanks, planes, guns, etc, in case of war.

And this is where the problem begins: I cannot find any single-document labelled "treaty" signed by either Romania or Germany with anyone else that reads like such a "menu". There are purchase or lease contracts, joint orders of battle, operational documents that cover all that. However, those were not "treaties" and were not signed by the leaders.

MMM, you said above that I should look at the "military treaties" signed by Romania after 1916. I am struggling with that also. Please point out to me what "military treaties" you are referring to.

Yes, in the communist times, the truth was well hidden. In fact, I was never taught anything meaningful about WW2 in school. All we were taught started with 23rd of August 1944, and the Germans were portrayed as occupiers rather than allies. The communists WANTED everyone to believe that Romania was never allied with Germany. In those days, it was quite easy to push such an agenda, because many were fed their information by the state-controlled media, no one had access to information to the same extent as we do today (access to books and Internet) and in the context of fear and distrust, such ignorance was preferred and so much easier to cultivate and maintain. Nowadays though, it is harder to push such "misinformation", as it is clearly evident here.

The truth of the matter that between the Tripartite Pact, the joint operation documentation, contracts, agreements, etc, there is a mountain of paperwork between Romania and Germany. Saying that the absence of some whimsically and capriciously defined document proves that there was no legally defined relationship between the two is plain silly.

Radu

Posted by: MMM March 16, 2009 02:53 pm

QUOTE

signed by either Romania or Germany with anyone else that reads like such a "menu".

Putting aside the allegations you made on me (I don't feel so influenced by the "ancient" ideas), shouldn't you take a closer look at the armistice agreement made by Romania with SU, signed on 12.09.1944? It is clear in that case who's the Gypsy daughter and who's the son - the only question remaining is "Where are the bloodied sheets?", because Romania, after more than three years of fighting against the USSR, was no more virgin

Also, you might want to check the treaties signed in the 1920's with Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia ("Mica Înţelegere"): although ineffective, they DID have all the arrangements of a Gypsy Party (because a wedding with three partners is highly unusual).
PS: as you can see, I can make a mockery of it as well, but it's beside the point.
REGARDLESS WHAT YOU NAME IT, TREATY OR MILITARY AGREEMENT OR "cockamamey clueless flip floppery" DOCUMENT - WE DIDN'T HAVE ONE PRIOR TO THE ENTRANCE OF THE GERMAN TROOPS IN ROMANIA.That's why we were considered an "occupied country" - and not only by the communists, but by the USA as well! Keep on reading what was written after 1990...
PPS: Sorry for yelling

[edited by admin]

Posted by: Radub March 16, 2009 03:27 pm

I am going to take Victor's advice.

I strongly dislike the racist undertones of your Gypsy rant - that rant is totally unnecessary. My history teacher used to say that if one wants to be witty , one must be witty either with very intelligent people or with very close friends. She was proven right yet again.
When I used the word Gypsy, it was in the context of the "dowry" related to an "arranged marriage". Instead of Gypsy, think of an Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Tibetan, Chinese or any other group of people that "arrange marriages". The nationality is irrelevant - what matters is the "dowry" (equipment, troops put forward by the respective nations) and the "arranged marriage" (alliance between the respective nations). You took all of that out of the context and turned it into a distasteful rant.

I am interested in this discussion, but only as long as we can discuss about it. If it is just a matter of "who shouts more abuse at the other" and "who can prove that the other is an idiot", I am out. That is not the way to learn about history.

I repeat my previous questions:
What is a "military treaty"?
Who did Germany have such a "military treaty" with?
Who did Romania have such a "military treaty" with?

Others and I already put answers forward. You did not. Other than shouting, going on rants and being vague, do you actually have any answers to those questions?

Radu

Posted by: MMM March 16, 2009 04:24 pm

Supposedly...
1. A military treaty is an agreement between two or more parties (states or alliances) which regulates the terms of military cooperation - and of course it should be as precise and detailed as possible.
2. Nobody, except Italy (AFAIK)
3. None in use in 1940, after the dismissal of Czechoslovakia and the defeat of France.
To make it clear, I have nothing against the Gypsy people (nothing to put in discussion, anyway) but I wanted to ridiculize your illl-found analogy - every treaty has to comprise many more aspects than a wedding!
PS: OK, you took the advice; what have you done with it? Set it free again...

Posted by: Radub March 16, 2009 05:06 pm

Your reply No. 1) Please give an example of a "military treaty" that, in your defintiion, is an agreement between two or more parties (states or alliances) which regulates the terms of military cooperation - and of course it should be as precise and detailed as possible. Even though you described the Tripartite PAct, you said that the Tripartite Pact is not "it". Please give an exmaple of "it".

I am not aware of any such "military treaty" going into such detail in force between any nations at the time when the German troops arrived in Romania.

Your reply No. 2) The treaty that Germany had with Italy did not go into that kind of detail that you demand. It is not different in structure, purpose and stipulations from the Tripartite Pact.

Your reply No. 3) The Little Entente that did not go into that kind of detail that you demand. It is not different in structure, purpose and stipulations from the Tripartite Pact.

In October 1940, Antonescu publicly invited a German Mission to come to Romania in order to train the Romanian troops. That means that when the first Germans arrived, they did so as invited guests, not invaders. A few weeks after they arrived, he signed the Tripartite Pact, after which any German troops that arrived did so as allies for the purposes of Operation Barbarossa and all that followed. All of those oprations are based on known operational military documents. In any case, considering the way that the Germans invaded other countries, it is not really possible to say that the Germans came as invaders to Romania.
An Italian Military Mission also arrived in late 1940. Did Romania need to sign a "military treaty" with Italy? Or did Italy invade Romania too?

Radu

Posted by: Imperialist March 16, 2009 05:46 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ March 16, 2009 02:53 pm)

REGARDLESS WHAT YOU NAME IT, TREATY OR MILITARY AGREEMENT OR "cockamamey clueless flip floppery" DOCUMENT - WE DIDN'T HAVE ONE PRIOR TO THE ENTRANCE OF THE GERMAN TROOPS IN ROMANIA.

That's why we were considered an "occupied country" - and not only by the communists, but by the USA as well! Keep on reading what was written after 1990...
PPS: Sorry for yelling

Antonescu told the Germans that he wanted a German military mission and equipment. Hitler responded by dispatching a General Staff member to talk the details with Antonescu. Antonescu presented him with his list of conditions or demands. OKW and the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs then prepared a list of rules for the military mission, what we would call a status of forces agreement today. On September 20 the German government then notified the Romanian governmnet that it agrees with those conditions.

Posted by: MMM March 16, 2009 06:09 pm

I know that; I also have the documents in cause, but we stil talk about foreign soldiers in times of war; remember that in 1939 we also asked (however, half-hearted) for a French military mission - which they (the French High Command) considered as unnecesary.

Posted by: Radub March 16, 2009 07:32 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ March 16, 2009 06:09 pm)

But, had the French mission arrived as requested, would that have meant that Romania was invaded by France?

Radu

Posted by: MMM March 16, 2009 08:13 pm

I'm sure there would have been a few oppinions in that sense (mainly the legionnaire movement). However, France wasn't Germany - and this was clearly seen at 23.08.1944, when we switched sides quite easy, because we had no real comradry with Wehrmacht. And we did have treaties with France - the collective security system whose pillar was Titulescu.
PS also the communists (all ten of them

) could have objected...

Posted by: Imperialist March 16, 2009 08:38 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ March 16, 2009 06:09 pm)

I know that; I also have the documents in cause, but we stil talk about foreign soldiers in times of war;

Their war was not against Romania and they did not invade this country. Romania was an occupied country only for those that did not agree with the increasingly close Romanian-German relations. Just as there are some people today that consider that the US is occupying Romania.

Posted by: MMM March 17, 2009 08:10 am

THAT I didn't know... Still, it's not to compare ww2 with the today's situation.

Posted by: Radub March 17, 2009 08:53 am

QUOTE (MMM @ March 16, 2009 08:13 pm)

I'm sure there would have been a few oppinions in that sense

And this may be the crux of the issue here...
When you asked the original question, were you looking for facts of opinions?

Radu

Posted by: MMM March 17, 2009 12:23 pm

Maybe unknown facts, maybe interesting oppinions... I wasn't looking for a fight, anyway! (And that's what I got

)

Posted by: Radub March 17, 2009 12:51 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ March 17, 2009 12:23 pm)

Maybe unknown facts, maybe interesting oppinions... I wasn't looking for a fight, anyway! (And that's what I got

)

I think that the fight started when facts were not acknowledged and opinions were pushed beyond the limits of common sense. On both sides.
Radu

Posted by: MMM March 17, 2009 01:27 pm

I'll take that as a peace offer, then!

Posted by: MMM March 21, 2009 07:40 am

Hey, what do you know!?!? Dennis Deletant, on which we agreed he's not biased and has a good knowledge of the period: http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=5160&st=0&#entry70524
wrote in his book (p. 75) that "In spite all this, the Pact (Tripartite Pact, signed by Antonescu on 23.11.1940) did not affect the relation of the parties signing it with the SU, nor did it refer to the state of war existing between Germany and Great Britain. [...]In this sense, it must be underlined there was no treaty to link Germany and Romania in respect to a war with SU of the two countries above."
How about that?

[edited by admin]

Posted by: MMM March 25, 2009 02:50 pm

... and also in the conclusinos' side of his book, Deletant states that (p. 292) "when
Romania went to war against USSR the next year, it did this as an ally of Germany and thus attracted Great Britain's hostility. Its alliance with Germany was not incorporated in any treaty, being shown only by the adhesion to the Tri-partite Pact."
So I'm not the only one saying that!

[edited by admin]

Posted by: Victor March 25, 2009 04:54 pm

MMM,

Plwease do not abuse of capital letters and increased sizes. Bold should be enough to emphasize something.

Posted by: Imperialist March 25, 2009 06:42 pm

MMM, you have to consider that when the Tripartite Pact was signed it was impossible to openly admit it was directed at Russia. But if you think about it, at that time Russia was the only significant power that was not involved in the European war and that could have gotten involved.

Posted by: MMM March 26, 2009 09:32 am

However clear that would have been, not only it wasn't stated (as in the Anti-Comintern Pact, for instance, where it was clear from the very name whose enemy was

), but no specific documents were signed as well. I just wanted to show you that a foreign author, a respected and documented one, has the same oppinion as me (and many other historians)!

Posted by: Imperialist March 26, 2009 02:10 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ March 26, 2009 09:32 am)

However clear that would have been, not only it wasn't stated (as in the Anti-Comintern Pact, for instance, where it was clear from the very name whose enemy was

), but no specific documents were signed as well. I just wanted to show you that a foreign author, a respected and documented one, has the same oppinion as me (and many other historians)!

MMM, your opinion was that:

Why wasn't there any military treaty between Romania and the 3-rd Reich?

While Deletant's opinion is that:

In this sense, it must be underlined there was no treaty to link Germany and Romania in respect to a war with SU of the two countries above.

Posted by: Cantemir March 26, 2009 02:16 pm

The Little Entente was not an anti-Soviet alliance. As of 27 September 1938, according to the Romanian government it was only operable in the event of one of the signatories being attacked by Hungary. In addition, however, Romania had a bi-lateral treaty with Poland that was aimed at the Soviet Union. Both countries refused to let Soviet troops cross their territory in the midst of the Sudentenland crisis. Before the crisis the Polish Foreign Minister had encouraged Romania to have closer diplomatic ties with Germany. Because of the lack of firmness shown by Britain and France towards the German demands on Czechoslovakia and because of fears of the Soviet Union signing an agreement with Hitler, fears that eventually turned out to be justified, the Romanian government moved towards neutrality. This undermined the Little Entente (at a meeting of Romania and Yugoslavia governments on 5 May 1938 they refused to give guarantees to the Czech government) while Romania had already signed the Balkan Pact that was originally aimed against Bulgaria, that had claims on the territories of the signatories, but in fact aimed at establishing neutrality in the Balkans, by extending it to other Balkan states, thereby providing no excuse for any of the major powers to intervene there. The Understanding had therefore already been undermined by the attitude of King Carol (who removed Titulescu who was a believer in the French guarantee to Romania), believing that his government had sway with the German government, offering an inducement to Hungary, as a way of influencing the Germans, an attempt that was totally counter-productive after Hitler washed his hands of the Transylvanian question and refused to intervene to sustain the status quo, and by the reluctance of the Turks and Bulgarians to be drawn into committing themselves (Bulgaria having a claim on Yugoslavia for Macedonia) and by Poland's action in Teschen.

Posted by: MMM March 26, 2009 02:37 pm

I see no relevance of that, Cantemir! It is clear that "Mica Înţelegere" was an instrument to deter Hungary's claims or aggressive attitude, as well as the fact that "Înţelegerea Balcanică" was directed against Bulgaria. What's that to do with the (lack of) military treaties between Romania and Germany?
I must point out that the above alliances functioned very well as long as they weren't needed (or should I say "challenged"?) - in the moment the states should have "acted like one", nothing happened and Czechoslovakia was dismembered, then Poland, then Romania and finally Yugoslavia. How's that for a succesful system of alliances in the region?
Still, they had negotiated to the last letter and the last centimeter every position and every attitude and every little (no)thing between them.
To finish, the Polish gov't was the victim of the "divide et impera" succesful policy of Hitler - the first thing Germany did was to close a treaty of non-agression w/ Poland in 1934 (IIRC, at least), making them to disengage from the "western system"; Teschen was only a late reward for that attitude, as they surely didn't believe they're "on the menu of" instead of "at the table with" Germany. Romania was first on the menu (1940), then at the table (until 23.08.1944)...