| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| WorldWar2.ro Forum > Reviews & Bookstore > Rebecca Haynes |
| Posted by: MMM May 01, 2009 05:53 pm |
| This book seems to be very well documented, but there are some things in it - appearently backed up by archive documents - which shed a very poor light upon Romania's "performance" in the period studied! Has anybody read it? |
| Posted by: Victor May 04, 2009 07:31 am |
| Yes, I did read it and found it very interesting. It was a PhD thesis btw. |
| Posted by: MMM May 04, 2009 12:32 pm |
Yep! I'll use some of the data in my PHD, as well...  How did you find her oppinions regarding the Romanian foreign policy? I mean, do you really believe that Romania "was desperate not to help Czechoslovakia" just before Munchen, trying thus to avoid a conflict with Germany at any costs, even advising the Czechs to give way to German demands? This is just one of the many interesting - and not very favourable to Romanians - things I've found in the book. |
| Posted by: Victor May 05, 2009 08:28 am |
| Given the fact that Britain and France pressured Czechoslovakia to give in to German demands, why would Romania do otherwise. The Little Entente was designed to counter any aggression attempted by Hungary. It was not intended and did not have the force to stand alone against Germany and Hungary (and maybe Italy). I have a book called "L'hipotesi H" or something like that in Italian, written in the 1930s by an Italian officer who investigates the scenario of a war between the Little Entente and Hungary aided by Germany and Italy. Brushing aside his impressions on the Italian army's war-making capabilities, the conclusion that the Little Entente would lose is very plausible. Furthermore, both Romanian and Yugoslavia had compatible economies with Germany's and were strating to do more and more trade with it, while Czechoslovakia was drawing nearer to the Soviet Union, considered back then the "Great Satan" in these parts of Europe. Given the circumstances, I think it was the logical thing to do. |
| Posted by: MMM May 05, 2009 11:24 am | ||
Because we were allied with them - closer than FR/EN were. Not to mention the fact that Hungary also fed from the corpse of CZ twice, both at Munchen 1938 and in march 1939! We stood and waited - until 1940, at least! |
| Posted by: Victor May 06, 2009 06:13 am | ||
The Little Entente was not an erga omnes allinace, so we were not allied against Germany also. Furthermore, France had signed treaties of alliance with all three states, so they were as close to Czechoslovakia as we were. Hungary annexed territory from Czechjoslovakia after the Munich Agreement took place, so it isn't relevant. |
| Posted by: MMM May 06, 2009 07:00 am |
| 1. My point exactly! It was an agression made after the big decisions so we still had to defend CZ. 2. There were talks to make an erga omnes alliance but Romania opposed bitterly - because they didn't want a conflict with Germany! |
| Posted by: Dénes May 06, 2009 08:29 am | ||
Just a small correction: At the time of the 1st Vienna Resolution (2 Nov. 1938), Czechoslovakia de jure did not exist any more; therefore, to be precise, Hungary re-annexed territories from Slovakia. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: MMM May 06, 2009 08:32 am |
How comes that it "did not exist any more"? I don't remember that happening until march 1939! BTW, how do you manage to link almost everything to Hungary - and then to make Hungary appear very "rightful" in its actions? Aren't you getting tired of that?  |
| Posted by: Victor May 06, 2009 10:20 am | ||
1. Czechoslovakia accepted the "arbitration" in Vienna and there was no military attack from Hungary into Czechoslovakia. 2. As if Yugoslavia would have accepted such an alliance. I also doubt Czechoslovakia would have wanted such a deal that involved going to war against the SU in case it attacked Romania. These alliances (the Little and Balkan Entente) were designed only to contain the smaller states that wanted to revise the WW1 peace treaties. They were not aimed against the any great power, because it was clear that they stood little chance on their own. Czechoslovakia was alone in 1938-39, just as Romania was in 1940. |
| Posted by: MMM May 06, 2009 12:09 pm | ||
Indeed, but in 1938-39 there was no open conflict, just yet! As for the intricacies of the alliances in Eastern Europe, the period showed (as if needed) that they lacked both the will and the means of a common external policy, as one's friend was another one's enemy! And the "divide et impera" policy of 3-rd Reich worked perfectly! |
| Posted by: Dénes May 06, 2009 12:28 pm | ||||
I try to correct some statements and 'facts' because lots of misconceptions are spread by ill-informed people (not to consider bias, etc). Since I can study the Rumanian-Hungarian (and not only) historical relations directly, from both (or more) sides, I believe I have a fairly well balanced view on this controversial topic. That's why my intervention in many (but not all) topics related to Hungary.
Yes, you're right, I am starting to get tired in repeating the same information and seeing that it doesn't really 'stick', and some people here keep repeating the same old plate, shaped in the national-communist times, over and over again. This is why, for example, I did not react to your previous post, posted recently in another thread, despite spotting several errors in it. Indeed, I am getting tired... As for "and then to make Hungary appear very "rightful" in its actions", I never say what was right and what was wrong. Let the reader decide, if needed. If you refer to the 1st Vienna Resolution, back then it was accepted by the main European "Western" powers as a legally biding action, and changed their minds only after the war started thus the political situation changed radically. By the way - last but not least - a relevant detail: the 11 927 km² area recovered by Hungary from ex-Czechoslovakia in Nov. 1938 had a Hungarian ethnic majority of 83%. Finally, I would like to ask you, again, do not attack the person, but rather the statements made. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: saudadesdefrancesinhas May 06, 2009 01:30 pm | ||
MMM, Rebecca Haynes is a member of the teaching staff at the same university institution as Dennis Deletant. I noted that Denes wondered if it would be a good idea to invite Dr. Deletant to come to visit the forum, in the same way it may be a good idea to ask Dr. Haynes. Romania in the 30s and 40s seems to be her particular area of research interest. |
| Posted by: MMM May 06, 2009 02:49 pm |
| Great idea, saudades! You have a too long name to quote it entirely Denes, I don't recall attacking you as a person - rather your oppinions! Which pst of mine contained "several errors"? |
| Posted by: Victor May 06, 2009 04:34 pm | ||
MMM, for the nth time: this is not a chat room. You want to discuss Rebecca Haynes' book, please do so, but stop drifting off-topic and picking fights. |