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 > Eastern Front (1941-1944) > Red Army in Romania - August 1944

Posted by: allanteo667 June 23, 2003 09:42 pm

I don't know about Bucarest, but I know that in North Eastern Romania, in Moldavia, some isolated units continued the combat to the las man! The soviet army wasn't greeted as in Bucarest, where propaganda images show their T 34 as liberators in the capitals streets. Everybody was scared in Moldavia when they heard of the desastrous front switch on 23th of August! **** deleted by admin ****

Maybe you were expecting another message about the "liberators", but the truth is that everyone regretted the german presence of 1941!

un moldovean

Posted by: dragos June 24, 2003 09:49 am

allanteo667, you get a warning. Please read the http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27

Posted by: allanteo667 June 25, 2003 10:16 am

I don't see why my message was deleted, although I read the rules! What I said is historically true!

But if this is a propaganda group, and if you really think that Romania was "liberated" by the Red Army, I feel mercy for your ignorance!

Regards,

Allan

Posted by: dragos June 25, 2003 11:40 am

Your statement may be based on a truth, but the way you put it you call barbaric an entire people. There is no need for more explanations.

Posted by: Victor June 25, 2003 11:47 am

I do not know where you got your ideas. Nobody said that the Red Army "liberated" Romania, but this kind of attitude is counter-productive. Try behaving civilized.

Posted by: Geto-Dacul June 25, 2003 07:38 pm

allanteo667 just said that most Romanian-Moldavian peasants naturally hated the Soviets (Russians) for their historical behavior in that region... He didn't generalize by qualifying all Russians as monsters; he said that a certain Soviet institution (The Red Army) generally behaved very harshly on foreign territory (and even on her own soil). I don't see the false statement here(:?

The Russian armies (and Soviet) did occupy our country 12 times in history! The Romanian-Moldavians were the most unfortunate because the Russian juggernauth always hit them first. And if we add Bessarabia and Bucovina to all this mess, then hate towards historical enemies is a natural human emotion that cannot be hidden just for the interests of some foreign powers or organizations. National interests FIRST! Not all Russians were(are) barbarians, but these who invaded us behaved like real barbarians.

Posted by: allanteo667 June 25, 2003 10:23 pm

I didn't say that all russians were barbarians, but my own grandparents felt the difference between german (highly diciplinated) forces and the cossack units occupation!

As an example, when german forces were in romania, before operation Barbarossa started, some german officers wanted to adopt my mother. If a soldier made trouble in a village, you could complain about him to the Kommandantur and he would go in jail for a few days!

When the soviets arrived, all young girls had to put ashes on their faces and wear rags so they wouldn't be raiped by the soviets! The red army took every single living animal in the village and the cossacks didn't even coocked sheep before they ate them! So don't wonder that you see them as barbarians when they drink all the acohool they find at your house until they die of an ethilical coma!

sorry, but if you look further back in history, Stefan the Great of Moldavia who fought against the ottomans all his life (47 years), adviced his ministers to get an alliance with the turks than with the russians before he died! So you should understand that the average moldavian peasant saw the russian occupation of 1944 as one of the greatest catastrophies in the country's history!

But why did Kind Mihai the First had the "brilliant" dea of detroning the experienced Marechal Antonescu and delivering the country to the russians??!!

Allan

Posted by: MaxFax June 26, 2003 04:11 am

Hey guys, we are getting quite off topic here :!: For hystorical accuracy, remember please how barbarian did the Germans treated the russian population too, in some situations. There are no "good guys" and "bad guys" in a war. Anyway my father as a teenager was very near to be killed by a drunk russian soldier in 1944, who "collected watches"

I will tell you the entire story maybe in a separate topic 8)

Posted by: Ahmed June 26, 2003 05:35 am

That would be interesting to hear, Cristian.

Posted by: Victor June 26, 2003 06:06 am

QUOTE

sorry, but if you look further back in history, Stefan the Great of Moldavia who fought against the ottomans all his life (47 years), adviced his ministers to get an alliance with the turks than with the russians before he died!
Allan

Strange, since Russia was far, far away then from Moldavia. They did not have common borders.

Posted by: dragos June 26, 2003 08:30 am

QUOTE

Hey guys, we are getting quite off topic here :!: For hystorical accuracy, remember please how barbarian did the Germans treated the russian population too, in some situations. There are no \"good guys\" and \"bad guys\" in a war. Anyway my father as a teenager was very near to be killed by a drunk russian soldier in 1944, who \"collected watches\" :lol: I will tell you the entire story maybe in a separate topic 8)

I agree. I don't think the Germans behaved in Romania because they considered we deserve a better treatment than other european nations (Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia), but because they needed the advantages of such an alliance (manpower, oil, geographical position). The insurgency of 23 August 1944 is arguably a mistake, the way it was made, as well as a mistake can be considered the crossing of the Dniester and invading the Soviet territory, but we must be careful when we discuss such kind of decisions now, out of the pressure of the events.

Posted by: Geto-Dacul June 26, 2003 03:34 pm

Victor wrote :

QUOTE

Strange, since Russia was far, far away then from Moldavia. They did not have common borders.

Yes indeed, they had no common boundaries. But at that time, the Grand Duke of Moscow was Ivan III the Great (1440 - 1505).

Here's a little bit of history about his reign :

QUOTE

In 1480 Ivan, the Grand Duke of Moscow (1462--1505), renounced his allegiance to the Golden Horde who had ruled over most of Russia for several hundred years.
Ivan III united the Russian nation and strengthened the authority of the monarchy. His reign marks the beginning of Muscovite Russia. He assumed the title of 'Sovereign of all Russia', and adopted the emblem of the two-headed eagle of the Byzantine Empire.

Note :
After the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453, the Russians came to regard their branch of the Orthodox Church as the last stronghold of true Christianity. The myth of Moscow as the 'third Rome' established a sense of mission for the Russian people and their ruler, who was welcomed by the Orthodox Church, as God's deputy.

http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/people_n2/persons6_n2/ivaniii.html

It was Moscow's first steps as European power. The Russians proposed to Stephen the Great an alliance based on the "common" faith against the Muslim Turko-Tatars. Stephen refued it because he was a visionary.

Excuse me for being off-topic! :oops:

Best regards,

Getu'

Posted by: allanteo667 June 26, 2003 06:46 pm

Thanks Geto-Dacu for the historical details !

I didn' get off-topic! I only extended it, as you asked about the reaction in Bucarest, I told you about the reaction in other sides of the country! And I started going off-topic because you said I was a liar!

As for german behavior, I don't think that the average german soldier thought about the advantages of Romania's alliance with Germany when he behaved! It was the same thing in France before the allied operation overlord! But if you take it this way, the soviets also got a lot of advantages in the county's side switching. Even the local Pravda wrote a few days after thet "The entire german defensive system in the Balkans collapsed!" And they never behaved like civilised people! Look further back when they occupied Poland: they executed thousands of polish officers at Katyn! And I don't mention the massacres in the catholic Baltic states!

The carpathians would have been a strong german and romanian resistance line! And did king Michael make a mistake by switching fronts? Well if you consider the fact that he wasn't yet 20 years old, and that he didn't speak correctly before an advanced age, you will admit that he wasn't qulified to make such a decision! What did it bring to the country, than 50 years of communist occupation? The average romanians had a true will of resisting the soviets! "Codru-i frate cu romanul" = "The forest is the romanian's brother (interpretation : protector)" Even in the late 1950's some isolated "terrorist" groups fought the communist occupation since the carpathians! Some isolated combat units continued fighting (to the last man) even after the armistice order, not to mention the legionnaire resistance at Oravitza. If the soviets wouldn't have passed the carpathian line so easily and attacked the Reich itself (Austria), the germans wouldn't have retired so many units from the Ardennes offensive to stop the soviet winter offensive! So Romania was a major allie for the russians!

And I you think that the romanian reoccupation of Bessarabia and Bukovina and their return to the fatherland was a mistake, you can't be a true romanian!

If you find out more about the soviet terror, read authors like Virgil Gheorghiu (who is still banned in romania today!) and you will maybe understand!

Allan

P.S: I admire the finnish who resisted against the soviet assault and never got an "alliance" with them!

Posted by: dragos June 26, 2003 07:03 pm

QUOTE

As for german behavior, I don't think that the average german soldier thought about the advantages of Romania's alliance with Germany when he behaved! It was the same thing in France before the allied operation overlord!(1)
.......

The average romanians had a true will of resisting the soviets! \"Codru-i frate cu romanul\" = \"The forest is the romanian's brother (interpretation : protector)\" Even in the late 1950's some isolated \"terrorist\" groups fought the communist occupation since the carpathians! Some isolated combat units continued fighting (to the last man) even after the armistice order, not to mention the legionnaire resistance at Oravitza. If the soviets wouldn't have passed the carpathian line so easily and attacked the Reich itself (Austria), the germans wouldn't have retired so many units from the Ardennes offensive to stop the soviet winter offensive! (2)

........

And I you think that the romanian reoccupation of Bessarabia and Bukovina and their return to the fatherland was a mistake, you can't be a true romanian! (3)

.........

P.S: I admire the finnish who resisted against the soviet assault and never got an \"alliance\" with them! (4)

1. What do you mean by the "average german soldier"? How would an average german soldier behave in different countries? I don't think the French were happy with their German "guests".

2. You can't be serious saying that Romanian Army of that time would have a chance stopping the Soviet steamroller. You mention about some "legionnaire" resistance. IMHO the legionnaires have nothing to do with the development or outcome of any military operation. About the Ardennes offensive, the failure of the "Wacht am Rhein" operation has nothing to do with the Soviet winter offensive.

3. If you had read carefully, you would see that I said the crossing of Dniester (Nistru), not Prut. That is the advance into Soviet Union after the liberation of Bessarabia and Bucovina.

4. The Finns, unlike us, stopped after regaining their territories, and didn't joined the German's advance into the Soviet Union. This fact put them in a different position when negotiating the peace treaty.

Posted by: Geto-Dacul June 26, 2003 11:23 pm

Even if I'm not allanteo667, I would like to comment the following statements :

dragos wrote :

QUOTE

1. What do you mean by the \"average german soldier\"? How would an average german soldier behave in different countries? I don't think the French were happy with their German \"guests\".

The German Army, being more disciplined, was tending to behave better on European soil than the Soviet one. The "good" and "bad" behavior can also be associated with military operations... If the Germans are retreating, burning or taking everything valuable with them, they'll be judged differently than in the posture of advancing through offensive action. An invader HAS NO INTERESTS to burn or destroy what he captures, everyone must agree with this.
And of course that every nation dreams of freedom, without foreign troops on its territory. I'm sure that the French would have been 100 times happier without the Germans. Nobody is really happy when having uninvited foreign "guests". But let's say that France would have had to choose : Germans or Soviets!?

QUOTE

2. You can't be serious saying that Romanian Army of that time would have a chance stopping the Soviet steamroller. You mention about some \"legionnaire\" resistance. IMHO the legionnaires have nothing to do with the development or outcome of any military operation. About the Ardennes offensive, the failure of the \"Wacht am Rhein\" operation has nothing to do with the Soviet winter offensive.

Why the Romanian Army would not have any chance to stop the Red Army??? Not even for some 2 weeks? Not even for 2 days? Do not forget that 2 german armies were also there, and not just as spectators. The Focsani-Namoloasa-Braila fortified line was considered the strongest defensive (fixed) dispositiv in Central and Eastern Europe. That line could have held the Reds just the time to fix and arrange a REAL armistice, and not an unconditional capitulation with the capture of 150.000 Romanian troops by the "liberators". What Romania had to loose? Moldavia was already a battlefield. The "insurgency" (it was NOT an armed revolt as the communists teached us) had shortened the war, it's true, but not in favor of Romania's and Eastern Europe's interests.

QUOTE

4. The Finns, unlike us, stopped after regaining their territories, and didn't joined the German's advance into the Soviet Union. This fact put them in a different position when negotiating the peace treaty.

Finns did finnaly loose the recaptured territories of 1941. But what's really important, is that their country was not occupied by the Red Army. And this is not really because they did not invade "Soviet territory" (BTW, the Soviets considered "Soviet" territory everything captured until June 22 1941), but because Finland was not included in the Churchill-Roosevelt-Stalin gambling of Moscow, Teheran, Casablanca, Yalta or Postdam.

This is what I think. I am wayting the invectives

!

Regards,

Getu'

Posted by: Victor June 27, 2003 07:01 am

QUOTE

The carpathians would have been a strong german and romanian resistance line!

What remained of Romania then was mostly south of the Carpathians. :wink:

What was the point in continuing to fight when the war was lost? Why should the country be submitted to more destruction and devastation by the Soviets than it was?

QUOTE

And did king Michael make a mistake by switching fronts? Well if you consider the fact that he wasn't yet 20 years old, and that he didn't speak correctly before an advanced age, you will admit that he wasn't qulified to make such a decision! What did it bring to the country, than 50 years of communist occupation?

The 50 years of Communism would have come no matter what we did. It was out of out hands. Unfortunately those who made the coup did not know this then and hoped that Romania would not be left by the West to the USSR. You have the benefit of hindsight. They did not, so try to be more reasonable and see things as they are: Grey, not just Black or White.

QUOTE

If the soviets wouldn't have passed the carpathian line so easily and attacked the Reich itself (Austria), the germans wouldn't have retired so many units from the Ardennes offensive to stop the soviet winter offensive!

The Ardennes "offensive" was planned on the stocks of fuel they hoped to take from the Americans. I do not call that an offensive, but an act of desperation. The war was already lost.

Posted by: Victor June 27, 2003 07:02 am

QUOTE

Why the Romanian Army would not have any chance to stop the Red Army??? Not even for some 2 weeks? Not even for 2 days? Do not forget that 2 german armies were also there, and not just as spectators. The Focsani-Namoloasa-Braila fortified line was considered the strongest defensive (fixed) dispositiv in Central and Eastern Europe. That line could have held the Reds just the time to fix and arrange a REAL armistice, and not an unconditional capitulation with the capture of 150.000 Romanian troops by the \"liberators\". What Romania had to loose? Moldavia was already a battlefield.

To stop the Iasi-Chisinau Operation and retreat in order behind the AFNB line, one needed mechanized forces. More than there were available. The front in Moldavia had been broken. The gap was 140 km wide (Pascani – Chisinau) and 80 km deep. The front on the Dniester was no better: the Soviets had advanced about 90 km by 23 August. Resistance was futile and it would have yielded even more POWs for the Soviets. The time of negotiations had passed. In fact there was nothing to negotiate.

Posted by: allanteo667 June 27, 2003 10:02 pm

1) I accuse king michael of gambling with romania's future (not because he lost his bet). He wasn't experienced enough to take decisions of such scale! Even if the allies trid to prove the countrary, the germans lost the war with dignity! Romania didn't!

2) The ardennes offensive, which you qualify as a useless operation, made Gen. Patton himself doubt of the Allied victory! i know about the oil problem and the air supremacy problem (even though the "agonising" Luftwaffe launched an operation envolving some 1000 aircraft). Frightened by the german offensive's success, Churchill himself asked Stalin to releath the western front by launching an offensive, which he did by the end of the year! Many units, mostly Waffen SS (read Lothar van Greelen) were sent to Hungary!

3) A romanian resistance that would have lasted even a few days, wouldn't have been useless! Ribbentrop constantly complained that the military retreats always broke peace nnegociations, because they always motivated the ennemy into continuing the war!

4) The average german soldier was more disciplined and civilised than the caucasian or asian soviet soldiers, who lived in the desert steppe! Rember Ilya ehrenburg's call, to raiping, killing and destruction in all occupied territories!

5) You said that the armistice svaed many from becominng prisoners, but beside the 150000 already made what could have happened worse than the war at the west? the soviets humiliated the romanians by sending them do all the dirty work, and by leaving them no glory (if I'm not mistaking, they were send back after sieging Vienna -or Budapest- so they wouldn't "liberate" the city along with the red army! Their losses on the western front were probably proportionally higher *as getu' said) and they fought against "fascism", they didn't fight to defend the remains of their country!

Posted by: daveh June 28, 2003 09:06 am

Can anyone suggest any reliable sources for Romanian history in English or French please. We are not taught anything about Romanian history in England nor indeed anything of the wider Balkan area. I would like to know more to follow this sort of discussion better

Thanks in advance.

Posted by: Victor June 29, 2003 05:18 am

QUOTE

A very good English source should be Keith Hitchins.

Posted by: Victor June 29, 2003 10:26 am

QUOTE

I accuse king michael of gambling with romania's future (not because he lost his bet). He wasn't experienced enough to take decisions of such scale! Even if the allies trid to prove the countrary, the germans lost the war with dignity! Romania didn't!

He was not alone. He was aided by others more experienced. It was, IMO the only viable solution. Antonescu refused time and time again to sign the armistice. He simply did not want to give upon Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. This would have led to even more destruction and loss of life.

QUOTE

The ardennes offensive, which you qualify as a useless operation, made Gen. Patton himself doubt of the Allied victory

Please, some Americans still think that the war was won because of the Normandy landing. That does not make it true.

QUOTE

A romanian resistance that would have lasted even a few days, wouldn't have been useless! Ribbentrop constantly complained that the military retreats always broke peace nnegociations, because they always motivated the ennemy into continuing the war!

What negotiations? There was nothing to negotiate. The Soviet terms communicated through the Stockholm Embassy were pretty clear. Practically it was a dictate. Antonescu simply did not want to give up Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina as they requested and wanted to solve the problem at the end of the war.

In the meantime USAAF bombers could have continued their raids without any Actual opposition.

QUOTE

The average german soldier was more disciplined and civilised than the caucasian or asian soviet soldiers, who lived in the desert steppe! Rember Ilya ehrenburg's call, to raiping, killing and destruction in all occupied territories!

Actually the Wehrmacht committed a lot of atrocities on Soviet soil as well.

QUOTE

You said that the armistice svaed many from becominng prisoners, but beside the 150000 already made what could have happened worse than the war at the west? the soviets humiliated the romanians by sending them do all the dirty work, and by leaving them no glory (if I'm not mistaking, they were send back after sieging Vienna -or Budapest- so they wouldn't \"liberate\" the city along with the red army! Their losses on the western front were probably proportionally higher *as getu' said) and they fought against \"fascism\", they didn't fight to defend the remains of their country!

It was Budapest, not Vienna.

And they did fight for Transylvania.

Posted by: allanteo667 June 29, 2003 07:52 pm

When Romania started the war against the soviet union, it was mostly because of Bassarabia and Bukovina, so giving these ancestral romanian territories without a fight would have been uncomprehensible!

And the armistice didn't stop the destructions and the losses! As I said, the losses on the western front were considerable! And even if Romania had theoretically become an allied country, the soviets kept "behaving" as if before!

Which Americans still think that the Ardennes offensive of 1944 was insignificant? Are you sure that they are more qualified to judge it than general Patton, who is one of the best allied generals?!

Even though you do not want to admit it, the ardennes offensive and the failure of the Market Garden operation made the "western" allies consider the german peace offers! Ribbentrop said it to the famous german stuka ace Oberst Hans Ulrich Rudel!

Yes, the romanians did fight for Transilvania, but if we take it this way, Moldavia's soil had been romanian longer than transilvania! See the hungarian ethnical problems of today! Without trying to be "politically correct", the Moldavian soil is sacred![/quote]

Posted by: Benoit Douville June 30, 2003 12:59 am

Romania started the War against the Soviet Union mostly because of Bessarabia and Bukovina :? So, are you suggesting that Antonescu joined the Third Reich regime for those territories only.

Regards

Posted by: dragos June 30, 2003 10:29 am

QUOTE

It was because of the operation Barbarossa, which offered the opportunity to regain these territories. Our country alone against Soviet Union wouldn't have a chance. And Antonescu kept making pressures during the meetings with Hitler for Transylvania.

QUOTE

And the armistice didn't stop the destructions and the losses! As I said, the losses on the western front were considerable! And even if Romania had theoretically become an allied country, the soviets kept \"behaving\" as if before!

I don't side with russians, but how would you expect them to behave with an allied army that fought against them for 3 years, whose soldiers were used to shoot at them at sight?

QUOTE

Even though you do not want to admit it, the ardennes offensive and the failure of the Market Garden operation made the \"western\" allies consider the german peace offers! Ribbentrop said it to the famous german stuka ace Oberst Hans Ulrich Rudel!

There were indeed contacts between German and American officers involving an armistice, but Roosvelt had only one answer: unconditional surrender. The failure of Market-Garden (which was an allied offensive) or the German Ardennes offensive, resisted from the beginning, never made Allied Command think they could lose the war!

Posted by: Victor June 30, 2003 01:48 pm

QUOTE

It was not giving up without a fight. We had fought and lost them. There was ABSOLUTELY NO possibility to keep them. The best we could do was to go for Transylvania.

QUOTE

The little destruction in southern Moldavia, Wallachia and Dobruja would have been much, much greater if they would have become a real battleground. Not to mention even more refugees and civilian casualties.

What happened in the "western" campaign, happened (with the exception of NW Transylvania) on non-Romanian soil.

It is true that many Soviet soldiers behaved uncivilized, but imagine what would have happened if they encountered more resistance.

QUOTE

Which Americans still think that the Ardennes offensive of 1944 was insignificant? Are you sure that they are more qualified to judge it than general Patton, who is one of the best allied generals?!

Pay attention please to what I write. I said that some Americans still believe that the Normandy landing won the war (see Ambrose).

Patton doubted the Allied victory? Maybe he was trying to make himself look better for saving the day, just like Monty did. :wink:

I believe von Rundstedt knew better when he "washed his hands" about this operation.

QUOTE

Right. The Allies were really trembling. Just after they defeated the last forces in the west capable of mounting a counteroffensive in the event of an Anglo-American attack. :roll:
Also permit me to doubt Ribbentrop.

QUOTE

Yes, the romanians did fight for Transilvania, but if we take it this way, Moldavia's soil had been romanian longer than transilvania! See the hungarian ethnical problems of today! Without trying to be \"politically correct\", the Moldavian soil is sacred!

In fact Romanians most lived for a longer period and in greater numbers in Transylvania than in Bessarabia. But that is irrelevant. Hundreds of thousands died in WWI for the ideal of the Union. Do not make them twist in their graves.

Btw, there are no Hungarian ethnical problems today. Fortunately we have come to resolve our issues in a civilized matter.

Posted by: mabadesc July 11, 2003 07:04 pm

Nice debate! This just proves that different opinions provide interesting and stimulating discussions.

I have a couple of comments/questions (maybe a bit naive, so forgive me).

1. Just before 23 August, some officers were convinced that retreating the front line to the "Carpatii Orientali" would have allowed them to resist the Soviets almost indefinitely. Anybody heard of this, and what are your thoughts?

2. No doubt that Germany was losing the war, but I wonder if resisting the Soviets a few more days/weeks either along the FNB line or the proposed Carpati line would have allowed for a true armistice, instead of the capitulation offered by Mihai I and Sanatescu.

3. I don't think we can generalize and say "Germans were all civilized" and "Russians were all bad". Obviously, there are good people and bad people in each culture. Militarily speaking, German officers were more refined than Soviet officers, but they were just as opportunistic in sending Romanian troops as cannon fodder (carne de tun). In terms of theft, rape, pillage, and murder, however (at least in Romania), I think some Soviet soldiers won that category without a doubt.

All thoughts and replies appreciated.

Posted by: Dénes July 11, 2003 08:10 pm

QUOTE

1. Just before 23 August [1944], some officers were convinced that retreating the front line to the \"Carpatii Orientali\" would have allowed them to resist the Soviets almost indefinitely. Anybody heard of this, and what are your thoughts?

The Eastern Carpathian Mountains would have undoubtedly been a formidable natural fortress against the Soviet 'Steamroller', much easier to defend than any other man-made obstacle.
However, don't forget, in August 1944 it was also mostly the Hungarian-Rumanian border, so there were Hungarian soldiers defending it against the Red Army.

Dénes

Posted by: allanteo667 July 11, 2003 08:32 pm

About the Carpathians defense line, I don't think I still have to tell you how much I agree...

And what I said before about the german diplomatic efforts is valid for Romania! What conditions could a nation with a dismembered army propose to the "steamroller" ? Even a few weeks, or days, could have made the difference!

Even if I can't denie that there were civilized ussians, you can't compare the german soldier's behaviour in romania with the soviets' ! :roll:

Posted by: Geto-Dacul July 12, 2003 05:12 pm

Victor wrote :

QUOTE

There was ABSOLUTELY NO possibility to keep them. The best we could do was to go for Transylvania.

A real struggle for Moldavia would have meant a kind of historical investment for the future generations. Even if we lost them, that does not mean that we had lost them forever. After all, there are still 65% Romanians there! If we turn our back on them and only fight for Transylvania (as we did in 1944), just because Hungary is weaker, than we are opportunists and cowards. But we aren't, because the decisions taken on 23rd August were not approved by anybody other than an unexperienced young king, manipulated for sentimental reasons by a vicious 'camarila' (very similar to that of king Carol II).

QUOTE

The little destruction in southern Moldavia, Wallachia and Dobruja would have been much, much greater if they would have become a real battleground. Not to mention even more refugees and civilian casualties.

What happened in the \"western\" campaign, happened (with the exception of NW Transylvania) on non-Romanian soil.

It is true that many Soviet soldiers behaved uncivilized, but imagine what would have happened if they encountered more resistance.

The Soviets behaved as in an occupied country, as if they have encountered resistence. (Especially in Moldavia) As "allanteo" just said, we paid the same price, without exception, until the 50's, with the erradication of the Sovroms.

Just a little quote :

In the American Archives (that's what Dinu C. Giurescu says), there are the present statistics : Between 12 September 1944 - 30 June 1946, Romania payed for the "generous" armistice 1 050 006 910$ plus another 302 406 048$ for the war against Germany. Only between 12 Sept.1944 and 31 March 1947, the Soviet pillaging reached 1 500 Billion $

Source : SCORPAN Costin, ISTORIA ROMANIEI - Enciclopedie, Nemira, 1997, page 199.

QUOTE

The ideal of the Union did not only comprise Transylvania. As for the Romanians who lived more numerous and for a longer period in Transylvania (than in Bessarabia), from where did you take that? I don't want to be sarcastic, but such statements are also found in Roller's books! :wink:

Dacia was from the Nistru to the Tisa, after all I know (and even further in the East and West, comprising today's Odessa and reaching the Bug in Ukraine)...

Best regards,

Getu'

Posted by: C-2 July 13, 2003 09:57 pm

QUOTE

I don't know about Bucarest, but I know that in North Eastern Romania, in Moldavia, some isolated units continued the combat to the las man! The soviet army wasn't greeted as in Bucarest, where propaganda images show their T 34 as liberators in the capitals streets. Everybody was scared in Moldavia when they heard of the desastrous front switch on 23th of August! **** deleted by admin ****

Maybe you were expecting another message about the \"liberators\", but the truth is that everyone regretted the german presence of 1941!

un moldovean

About the dif.between the Russians soldiers and the Germans I heard a story from a well known person,which I won't mention his name;
After the German army occupied a village in Basarabia,a German oficer asked the people of the village who has the "best wine".He was told that Mr X has.
The next day a few army trucks entered Mr X's yard and took all the wine barrels from his celler.
MrX was glad he wasn't shoot.....
The very next day the German trucks and the German oficer came again..
They returned the empty barells ,gave Mr X a handfull of German Marks and a recipt !
Mr X could not belive his eyes!
A few years passed and the story repeted itself.Only with the Russians...
They entered Mr X celler opened fire on the wine barels ,and in a short time the celler was filed with wine.Then the soldiers jumped into the wine bath and the next day two were found drowned inside.
Mr X who was an old man made a remark:"those men cannot even loot"

Posted by: Geto-Dacul July 13, 2003 10:13 pm

C-2 wrote :

QUOTE

:\"those men cannot even loot\"

Good one!

Posted by: Victor July 19, 2003 10:49 am

QUOTE

An investment in the future? Really? Do you have any idea of the current situation in Bessarabia? I still have a lot of relatives there. Please, get back to Earth.

QUOTE

If we turn our back on them and only fight for Transylvania (as we did in 1944), just because Hungary is weaker, than we are opportunists and cowards.

It is called politics. We did the exact same thing in 1916, when we chose to fight the Central Powers for Transylvania and not Russia and the Entente for Bessarabia.

QUOTE

The Soviets behaved as in an occupied country, as if they have encountered resistence. (Especially in Moldavia) As \"allanteo\" just said, we paid the same price, without exception, until the 50's, with the erradication of the Sovroms.

No, we did not pay the exact same price. If we resisted longer it would have been worse. We would still have lost and the Sovroms would have still been there.

QUOTE

Only between 12 Sept.1944 and 31 March 1947, the Soviet pillaging reached 1 500 Billion $

Are you sure that is billion? That is much more than the US budget of the era, IIRC. There is a good book, which I missed buying, about the Red Army in Romania in 1944-47 and what they stole.

QUOTE

The ideal of the Union did not only comprise Transylvania.

Yes, that is true, but Transylvania was the central point of the Union. Later it also received more attention than Bukovina or Bessarabia, unfortunately. Bessarabia was a kind of Alaska for Romanian officials, which led to some resentment from the local population.

QUOTE

As for the Romanians who lived more numerous and for a longer period in Transylvania (than in Bessarabia), from where did you take that? I don't want to be sarcastic, but such statements are also found in Roller's books

Bessarabia, unlike Transylvania, was not part of the Roman Empire. The Romanization process started earlier there. It is also more favorable for a larger population, than Bessarabia was. In fact the southern part (the actual Bessarabia) was scarcely populated.

Posted by: Geto-Dacul July 21, 2003 02:45 am

Victor wrote :

QUOTE

An investment in the future? Really? Do you have any idea of the current situation in Bessarabia? I still have a lot of relatives there. Please, get back to Earth.

I do not know everyone's personal case, but ceding stuff that you pretend to be your's without a fight is shameful! You feel LESS frustration if you loose with dignity.

QUOTE

It is called politics. We did the exact same thing in 1916, when we chose to fight the Central Powers for Transylvania and not Russia and the Entente for Bessarabia.

Bessarabia - Transylvania... What's the difference? It's ROMANIAN land. Every inch of land was sacred for the Romanian soldier. Why did Romania go for Transylvania & Northern Moldavia (Bucovina) in WWI? Because Transylvania & Bucovina were geographically BIGGER than Bessarabia (Eastern Moldavia). Plus the Russians and the rest of the Entente guaranteed to Romania even more, with all of the Banat and parts of actual Hungary until the Tisa! So it's not only politics, but national interests too... We choosed what was bigger! Because we could go against Russia for Bessarabia!

QUOTE

No, we did not pay the exact same price. If we resisted longer it would have been worse. We would still have lost and the Sovroms would have still been there.

Communism would have been installed earlier in Romania...But these are only suppositions... We can be sure of a thing : Morale and internal resistance would have been better... And why resist longer? There's a actually a thread on it : To conclude a better armistice. The official dialogue was with Antonescu, not with the king's camarila or the "historical" parties.

QUOTE

Are you sure that is billion? That is much more than the US budget of the era, IIRC. There is a good book, which I missed buying, about the Red Army in Romania in 1944-47 and what they stole.

Yes, I'm sure... I'm not blind yet... The Soviets milked us pretty well... Petroleum, wood, weath, locomotives, BNR gold, military and commercial fleet, war material, cost of the Red Army in Romania, war effort etc. We are talking here of the whole period of occupation (1944-58).

QUOTE

Bessarabia was a kind of Alaska for Romanian officials, which led to some resentment from the local population.

Mda... That's generally the Anglo-American theory on Romanian administration of Bessarabia (Wolff - The Balkans, Le Monde Diplomatique etc)... Generally, the local minorities had resentments (Jews and Slavs). I wonder what kind resentments had the local population for the Soviet administration!!!

QUOTE

Moldavia too was not part of the Roman Empire... Northern Western and Eastern Transylvania too... The major part of Muntenia... Transnistria too... Only a little part of Dacia was kept under Roman occupation (essentially the ancient Dacian political center of the Orastie Mountains, roughly all of Wallachia West of the river Olt, and of course the gold mines of the Apuseni). I don't see how these Dacians, who were largely peasants, with a leading élite exterminated, could have been romanized so fast (in 167 years!!!), when the Russians, Magyars and Turks didn't assimilated us in 1000 years and with more modern methods... To assimilate a people, you need to build a propaganda network, much schools and other special education centers etc. There was no such thing in occupied Dacia. Maybe some small schools in the major towns, for the new Roman administrators and their families... I'll open a thread on this subject in "general discussions"...

Regards,

Getu'

Posted by: johnny_bi July 21, 2003 03:44 am

Geto-dacul said:

QUOTE

Unfortunatelly, we were not "too" romanized ...

Posted by: johnny_bi July 21, 2003 03:48 am

Geto-dacul said:

QUOTE

Unfortunatelly, we were not "too" romanized ... As character, we have nothing in common with the old Romans... Perseverence (Perseverare diabolicum est), pragmatism...hmmm... you can not build an empire only with the worst men on the earth...... hmmm...

Posted by: Geto-Dacul July 21, 2003 04:24 am

johnny_bi wrote :

QUOTE

Unfortunatelly, we were not \"too\" romanized ...

Why "unfortunately"? Is their so much proud to be "romanized"? Historically, empires did only harm us. The empires are like giant cyclones, destroying and absorbing nations and cultures. Empires rape, only for economical interests.

QUOTE

you can not build an empire only with the worst men on the earth...... hmmm...

I don't understand this... Could you developp? :shock:

Best regards,

G-D

Posted by: Victor July 21, 2003 08:01 am

QUOTE

I do not know everyone's personal case, but ceding stuff that you pretend to be your's without a fight is shameful! You feel LESS frustration if you loose with dignity.

IMO we did loose with dignity, because at that stage the war was already lost. We just had to get out of it one way or the other, without turning into a second Hungary.

QUOTE

Why did Romania go for Transylvania & Northern Moldavia (Bucovina) in WWI? Because Transylvania & Bucovina were geographically BIGGER than Bessarabia (Eastern Moldavia). Plus the Russians and the rest of the Entente guaranteed to Romania even more, with all of the Banat and parts of actual Hungary until the Tisa! So it's not only politics, but national interests too... We choosed what was bigger.

Actually it was more of a Transylvania vs. Bessarabia, since Austria-Hungary was offering Bukovina as a bonus. But that is only a side note.

I hope you realize you just supported my argument, probably unwillingly. :wink:
We also followed our national interest in 1944,since economically northern Transylvania was superior to Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. Plus, We had absolutely NO chance to keep the latter.

QUOTE

And why resist longer? There's a actually a thread on it : To conclude a better armistice. The official dialogue was with Antonescu, not with the king's camarila or the \"historical\" parties.

A better armistice could not be concluded, simply because there was nothing to negotiate. The Soviets stated their demands and that was it. They were unwilling to cede anything.

QUOTE

1944-58, that explains it. I thought you meant 1944-47.

Posted by: Geto-Dacul July 21, 2003 05:11 pm

Victor wrote :

QUOTE

IMO we did loose with dignity, because at that stage the war was already lost. We just had to get out of it one way or the other, without turning into a second Hungary.

That was Antonescu's plans too. But we couldn't get out of the war well by a coup d'état and by the sacrifice of 130-160.000 soldiers just stopped in face of an enemy that did not actually recognize the "new" government.

QUOTE

Actually it was more of a Transylvania vs. Bessarabia, since Austria-Hungary was offering Bukovina as a bonus. But that is only a side note.

Yes, you are right. But Bucovina + Transylvania until the Tisa was territorially and economically more important than Basarabia.

QUOTE

I hope you realize you just supported my argument, probably unwillingly.
We also followed our national interest in 1944,since economically northern Transylvania was superior to Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. Plus, We had absolutely NO chance to keep the latter.

:wink:

Maybe superior, but in what way, economically? From what I know, Bessarabia was a great and fertile land... (Most of the actual Bessarabia - the Bugeac) Northern Transylvania was more hills... Do not interpretated this as if I was thinking that we could have left Transylvania for Bessarabia! But, If I remember well, the gold mines were in the Romanian sector, Resita as well. In the interior Transylvanian plain (who was ceded to Hungary), there was natural gas... :?:

Yes... National interest... But the harsh armistice and the abusive capture of Romanian soldiers was not national interest.

QUOTE

A better armistice could not be concluded, simply because there was nothing to negotiate. The Soviets stated their demands and that was it. They were unwilling to cede anything.

That was the initial plan : Force USSR again to negotiations. For this, a major Soviet attack should have been stopped. In a few days, a better armistice could have been concluded... Who knows? And with a professional soldier as Antonescu controling the situation, we could have saved much more...

Posted by: Victor July 22, 2003 06:17 am

QUOTE

The plan Antonescu had was unrealistic. He did not want to accept the immediate annexation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina by the SU, but wanted the problem solved after the war. The Soviets did not even want to hear about it. So he kept on fighting, prolonging the tragedy.

QUOTE

Yes... National interest... But the harsh armistice and the abusive capture of Romanian soldiers was not national interest

It was not be the first time the Russian Empire behaved like that. Just look at WWI or the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78.

QUOTE

As I already told you there was nothing to negotiate. There were only Soviet demands. This is why the talks at Stockholm failed, because Antonescu did not want to accept this. But think at it another way. With the remains of the 2 German armies behind the AFNG line, would it be as easier to change sides? It is a two-edged sword.

Posted by: dragos July 22, 2003 08:42 am

QUOTE

Do you think a several days resistance would have impress the Soviets, after the massive operations of 1941-1943, when the russians became used to lose hundred of thousands of men with little or no gains? And their determination to fight against the Axis was never higher than in that moment.

QUOTE

If we turn our back on them and only fight for Transylvania (as we did in 1944), just because Hungary is weaker, than we are opportunists and cowards.

This statement just can't stand. You could not play with the fate of an entire nation for the sake of dignity or honor. Especially when the result of such an action is obvious (oposing the Soviet ultimatum). We must look into these matters also from a humanitarian point of view. And this can be a characteristic that differs our nation from the others, and it is nothing to be shame of.

Posted by: mabadesc July 23, 2003 01:18 am

I've been following the discussion and I think everyone has brought some valid points, but I think the whole issue is a two-edge sword.
Anyway, let me throw my 2-cents in.

Antonescu was definitely STUBBORN, but even more so during the Soviet Offensive of '44. Understandably, there was a LOT riding on his shoulders, and I think his nerves may have started to slowly give up on him. There is testimonial evidence from several generals who said that, while you could have a rational discussion with him in previous years, towards the end he just wouldn't even listen to your opinion. He wouldn't even consider it.
I don't have the knowledge to second-guess him, but I have the common sense to realize that he should have listened to his field commanders in the month of August '44, and especially on 19-20 August when all of them were saying that without the Panzer division that Hitler had promised them (but didn't deliver), the Romanian troops couldn't hold in front of the hundreds and hundreds of Soviet tanks. They repeatedly asked him for permission for an orderly retreat to the Carpathians-FNB line earlier in August, when they still had the force and morale to resist -some say indefinitely - from that position. I think Antonescu took "honor" and "dignity" too personally. I think he meant "honor" for himself more than for the country. I'm saying this because he kept refusing to retreat because he had told Hitler he wouldn't.
As for what would have happened if the troops retreated to the fortified line when their CO's wanted to, I really can't say. The Soviets would definitely have taken Romania somehow, but I don't know when or at what cost to the country. However, there is a valid theory to say that maybe we wouldn't have lost so much: 130000 prisoners right from the beginning (August 23-27), plus all the dead soldiers forced to fight in Hungary, Slovakia, and Austria. In addition to that, the Soviets ended up controlling the country 100% for the next 15 years, and had strong influence for the next 45 years. All these dead soldiers, the war debt, the Stalinization of Romania, these are all facts because they happened.

The alternative, we'll never know. But we have to admit that it couldn't have been much worse. And who knows, by some stroke of luck, it could've ended up better. Behind a fortified line, we would have had less casualties, the troops and officers' morale would have been higher, and if May '45 would have caught us in this stalemate defense, maybe the Soviets, having already finished the German war, would have agreed to more acceptable terms - after all, we were not threatening them and they were tired of fighting too. True, in Stalingrad they fought like crazy when they were tired, but they were defending their own country. With the war finished, why would they have bothered to continue dying just to invade us? I don't know...regardless, I just wish Antonescu would have listened to his field commanders in July-August. They knew the military situation much better than he did at Predeal and Bucuresti. Actually, that was one of the mistakes Hitler made too - giving out orders overriding his field officers (like Rommel, Runstedt, etc), or letting a "paper-pusher" like Jodl and his OKW/OKH override Rommel's suggestions.

As I said in the beginning, it's a two-edge sword. 23 August is far from being a success considering what happened to us: hundreds of thousands of prisoners, hundreds of thousands of deaths on the Western front, Stalinism with its purges, etc...
But I can't say for sure that the alternative would have had better results. All I'm saying is, it's hard to imagine that it could have been worse.

Posted by: Geto-Dacul July 23, 2003 02:40 am

Victor wrote :

QUOTE

Antonescu motivated his campaign on the liberation of these territories, and also for a better security on the Eastern border. It's normal that he could not accept an immediat cession of them in the armistice. Antonescu refused the first offer because he considered it as a capitulation. And he could not get out of the war when he were still fighting in Ukraine and Crimea.
The first major Soviet offensive in Romania was repulsed with the big help of the Germans at Targu-Frumos... Why accept the armistice then? The second Soviet offensive was the Iasi-Chisinau.
This offensive had two main objectives :
1. Capture the Ploiesti oilfields, vital for the German war machine.
2. Force Romania out of the war.

Those 2 objectives were well accomplished indirectly by USSR... The first one was did by the Romanian Army, turned against her ally, and the second one was done by a disastrous coup d'état, in which were implicated people that had no idea about the situation on the front; like Michael or Mocsony.

Antonescu knew very well that the Soviets did not want any negotiations, because they were in a better position. The idea was to bring the Red Army in a difficult situation, and the FNB line was suited for this...
General Friessner, in a letter sent to his superiors on 23 August, considered that on this position he could resist until the Spring of 1945, if he received reinforcements (See Josif Constantin Dragan, ISTORIA ROMANILOR, Editura Europa Nova, Bucharest 1999, page 253).

QUOTE

It was not be the first time the Russian Empire behaved like that. Just look at WWI or the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78.

And this was when they were "allies"...

QUOTE

The eventuality that the Romanians could have resisted on the Focsani Line, and would have retarded the progress of the Red Army towards Berlin, could have made Stalin to accept an armistice with the modifications proposed by the Romanian government. The ambassador of USSR at Stockholm, Mrs. Kollontay, had communicated to the Romanian ambassador Frederic Nanu, that decision. The telegram sent from Stockholm to Bucharest, who should have been transmited to Marshal Ion Antonescu, who was the chief statesman, was handed by Niculescu-Buzesti, who was working at the foreign minister, to King Michael.
Michael, with some men of his entourage, were conspirating against the Marshal. The king, who should have encouraged the government's efforts to conclude an honorable armistice, sabotated these tratatives, with the scope to take the power personally. (Josif Constantin Dragan, ISTORIA ROMANILOR, Editura Europa Nova, Bucharest 1999, page 253)

Posted by: Geto-Dacul July 23, 2003 02:50 am

dragos wrote :

QUOTE

No, let yourself in the arms of the Russian bear!

Nu'l lasa sa intre pe Ivan, ca se suie pe divan! (something like this)

Maybe not days, but weeks... And even months... The Red Army was not defending her own territory, she was on foreign one. The determination was ours... Defend our country.

QUOTE

If it's like this, than politica e o curva! The idea was not to resist until we die, NO! It was to conclude a better armistice, with less losses... (which various sources indicate that it was possible. It was not the Romanian nation, who turned on 23 August against Germany, and allied itself with the Soviets. A minority of conspirators did it, and nobody knew it then.

Posted by: johnny_bi July 23, 2003 03:59 am

... double post ... sorry

Posted by: johnny_bi July 23, 2003 04:00 am

Geto-dacul said :

QUOTE

Why \"unfortunately\"? Is their so much proud to be \"romanized\"?

No... We have to feel nothing

... This is not a world of justice, goodwilling and so on...
Proud? Don't we admire, "sometimes", the Germans or maybe the Japanese or I do not know...
You have to make a diference between the ordinary people and the men who got the power.
Cruelty, rape, loot and so one are not "belonging" only to those on power and to empires...

Posted by: Victor July 23, 2003 08:10 am

QUOTE

It's normal that he could not accept an immediat cession of them in the armistice. Antonescu refused the first offer because he considered it as a capitulation

Well this is what it was. A capitulation, because we had already lost the war.

QUOTE

. And he could not get out of the war when he were still fighting in Ukraine and Crimea

Actually at the time the Stockholm talks were on the point of being finalized there were no Romanian troops in the Ukraine or Crimea. :wink:

QUOTE

. Antonescu knew very well that the Soviets did not want any negotiations, because they were in a better position. The idea was to bring the Red Army in a difficult situation, and the FNB line was suited for this...

How could the Soviets be brought in a difficult position in August 1944,when they had superiority in everything from tanks to airplanes? The AFNB could only slow them down, but would not really put them in a difficult situation.

QUOTE

. General Friessner, in a letter sent to his superiors on 23 August, considered that on this position he could resist until the Spring of 1945, if he received reinforcements

Note the sentence I underlined. There were no mobile reinforcements available, especially since most were up north plugging in the hole left by Operation Bagration. But spring 1945 is still very optimistic. Once the infrastructure would be completely destroyed by the 15th Air Force in maximum one month, resistance would be futile.

QUOTE

. The eventuality that the Romanians could have resisted on the Focsani Line, and would have retarded the progress of the Red Army towards Berlin, could have made Stalin to accept an armistice with the modifications proposed by the Romanian government. The ambassador of USSR at Stockholm, Mrs. Kollontay, had communicated to the Romanian ambassador Frederic Nanu, that decision. The telegram sent from Stockholm to Bucharest, who should have been transmited to Marshal Ion Antonescu, who was the chief statesman, was handed by Niculescu-Buzesti, who was working at the foreign minister, to King Michael.

I seriously doubt the statements mr. Dragan makes, since I see no evidence to back them up.
The first mistake he makes is that he thinks the advance to Berlin was through Romania. He should pick up a geography book.
The second is that he assumes that Stalin would have accepted to leave Bessarabia and Northen Bukovina to Romania, which is pure fantasy IMO.
The third is that he first says that Stalin could have accepted the Romanian pretensions and then he says that he did (through Mrs. Kollontay). What actually happened was that on 4 June Frederic Nano communicated to Bucharest that points 1, 2 and 4 of the minimal conditions are not negotiable. Moscow agreed to reduce the quantum of the reparations to some degree and to give 15 days to the Wehrmacht to retreat from Romania, even though it did not believe that the Germans would do such a thing willingly. They also agreed to leave a district of Romanian territory under Romanian control.
The fourth mistake is the fact that the telegram never reached the marshal, but was stopped by the king who apparently had some power ambitions. Besides the fact that it accuses the king, without actually bringing any evidence, it is wrong. The reply from Bucharest came on 11 June and it said that we were not willing to cede Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina and that the speeding up of the negations at Stockholm could hamper other efforts. The telegram was signed by Gheorghe Davidescu and Camil Demetrescu. The author was Ica Antonescu.

Please use a more serious source

Probably someone would have had to believe col. Masterson (the chief of the British Intelligence Service in Cairo) when he said on 29 April: If you do not accept now these conditions, later they will be much worse.

Posted by: Victor July 23, 2003 08:10 am

QUOTE

However, there is a valid theory to say that maybe we wouldn't have lost so much:

Oh, but we could have lost much more. The country could suffer even more destruction because of the prolonged military operations and American raids. What makes you think the Soviets would have kept their end of the bargain. They could have started arresting many officers and soldiers (maybe not 130,000) for reason of simply fighting against the SU. You have the perfect example in your family. The Soviets had on their list the destruction of the Royal Army, one way or the other. And then there would be a much stronger German army inside Romania, which would have to be driven out and it would be much, much more difficult than it actually was. And the list could go on.

QUOTE

Behind a fortified line, we would have had less casualties, the troops and officers' morale would have been higher, and if May '45 would have caught us in this stalemate defense, maybe the Soviets, having already finished the German war, would have agreed to more acceptable terms - after all, we were not threatening them and they were tired of fighting too.

May 45? You must be joking. The line would not have held for long, not without serious mobile reserves and with the American bombers destroying the infrastructure behind the front, without encountering any real opposition. It is that simple.

Posted by: dragos July 23, 2003 10:07 am

QUOTE

No, let yourself in the arms of the Russian bear!

I can never agree with this, because I don't think we could have resisted so long. We simply were not strong enough.

QUOTE

It was not the Romanian nation, who turned on 23 August against Germany, and allied itself with the Soviets. A minority of conspirators did it, and nobody knew it then.

And it was Romanian nation that wanted to carry on military operations on the territory of Soviet Union, beyond Dniester ? Our logistics at Odessa could not even provide basic rations. Our soldiers were foraging the countryside to find food!

At least the intention of the "conspirators" was to stop a bloodshed, not to make one.

Posted by: mabadesc July 23, 2003 05:32 pm

Victor, I think 23 August was a fiasco, but I accuse both Antonescu AND the King/Sanatescu/Communist circle.

Mihai and his circle admittedly were in a desperate situation but they shouldn't have allowed the situation to get to that point. Also, I don't agree with them capitulating.

Antonescu was responsible for being so stubborn and listening to Hitler by advocating the illogical don't-give-up-a-single-yard resistance on the Moldavian front. Once again, he should have listened to his Field Commanders (Romanian and German) well before 23 August. Who knows what would have happened?

About the "how much worse could it have been" question, it's pure speculation. I can't say what would have happened. You're right, maybe it would have been worse, although it's hard to imagine how. But you have to admit that maybe, maybe it could have been a little better. By "better" I mean less dead people, fewer war reparations...

Posted by: C-2 July 23, 2003 07:55 pm

QUOTE

Victor, I think 23 August was a fiasco, but I accuse both Antonescu AND the King/Sanatescu/Communist circle.

Mihai and his circle admittedly were in a desperate situation but they shouldn't have allowed the situation to get to that point. Also, I don't agree with them capitulating.

Antonescu was responsible for being so stubborn and listening to Hitler by advocating the illogical don't-give-up-a-single-yard resistance on the Moldavian front. Once again, he should have listened to his Field Commanders (Romanian and German) well before 23 August. Who knows what would have happened?

About the \"how much worse could it have been\" question, it's pure speculation. I can't say what would have happened. You're right, maybe it would have been worse, although it's hard to imagine how. But you have to admit that maybe, maybe it could have been a little better. By \"better\" I mean less dead people, fewer war reparations...

From what I heard from veterans ,the days before 23 August ,were days of shortage,fear and total chaos.
Dezertion was hight and there was alot of mistrust on the leaderschip.
Cannot imagin myself a better situation than the one that occured.
At least our cities were not distroyed by bombing and house to house fighting.
The political arangments were already made at Yalta,(betwen the sick old man,the drunk,and the psiho).
I just can't imagine myself that people belive that the Romanian army could stand the Russians almost without tanks and anti tanks weapons!
A lot of army units were equiped with ww1 Russian equipment.....

Posted by: Geto-Dacul July 25, 2003 12:59 am

C-2 wrote :

QUOTE

I just can't imagine myself that people belive that the Romanian army could stand the Russians almost without tanks and anti tanks weapons!
A lot of army units were equiped with ww1 Russian equipment.....

Do not forget that the new refielded Romanian Army of 1944 was best in equipment and tactics. And one of the most important things acquired by the Romanians was experience. It's for sure that the Russians had some six times more tanks (maybe even more), but despite the violent breaktrough, Romanian and German armies (maybe less for the German 6th Army) were still capable of a general and gradual retreat behind the FNB line on 23 August. Axis forces were lightly superior in men to the Soviet forces.

Getu'

Posted by: Geto-Dacul July 25, 2003 01:17 am

dragos wrote :

QUOTE

And it was Romanian nation that wanted to carry on military operations on the territory of Soviet Union, beyond Dniester ? Our logistics at Odessa could not even provide basic rations. Our soldiers were foraging the countryside to find food!

At least the intention of the \"conspirators\" was to stop a bloodshed, not to make one.

For the moment, you are only right with the Odesa thing ; Antonescu was in part guilty of that horrible campaign, but we cannot accuse only him for the bad situation in which was the army and logistics. (in 1940, she was even weaker). The 1941 war was inevitable, and the destruction of potential bases on the Nistru and beyond was capital. Of what I remember, Antonescu organised some national polls on the subject after crossing the Nistru, in which his action received more than 85% approbation... Of course you could say that it was not a free and "democratic" poll, as was the régime too. King Michael and Sanatescu never consulted the nation for the crossing of the 1938 boundary between Romania and Hungary... So who's better?! :wink:

Conspirators stopping a bloodshed!? :shock:
Hoy they could stop a bloodshed when they lied an entire country at the radio, on 23 August, with the joke that "we accepted the armistice"??? What armistice? A Soviet dictate was signed at Moscow, on 12th September 1944! But no armistice... In these conditions, it was normal that the Soviets captured 150.000 Romanian soldiers... You know what did the conspirators? They largely opened the doors to the Red Army, without any guarantee! They betrayed the honor of a people by giving it's leader (Antonescu) in Russian hands, unconditionally... Not only they did not stop a bloodshed, but they had given the country to Stalin. As Nicolae Baciu said : Sell out to Stalin!

Posted by: Geto-Dacul July 25, 2003 01:57 am

Victor wrote :

QUOTE

Well this is what it was. A capitulation, because we had already lost the war.

When could we sign the armistice? When the Luftwaffe was bombing Moscow, in December 1941? :shock:

QUOTE

Actually at the time the Stockholm talks were on the point of being finalized there were no Romanian troops in the Ukraine or Crimea.

Stockholm talks began when Romanian troops were still evacuating from Crimea... (is it true?)

QUOTE

The plan was to stop the offensive for some weeks on the FNB line. A too great extension of the Ukrainian Fronts could not have let them to assault so fast the FNB line. How much airplaines did had the Soviet 15th Airforce on the front? And the Germans? The Romanians had roughly some 600... From which a number were fighters.

QUOTE

Once the infrastructure would be completely destroyed by the 15th Air Force in maximum one month, resistance would be futile.

Concrete bunkers? And with flak batteries?

QUOTE

The first mistake he makes is that he thinks the advance to Berlin was through Romania. He should pick up a geography book.

One of the Ukrainian Fronts that "liberated" Romania, participated in the battle for Berlin.

QUOTE

The second is that he assumes that Stalin would have accepted to leave Bessarabia and Northen Bukovina to Romania, which is pure fantasy IMO.

It was more a moral boost, in the kind of : "See, we did not totally abandon Basarabia"... After the war at the peace negotiations : "Ok. We lost Basarabia, but we did not lost our independence"... This is a naive point of view, taking in account that Romanian politicians "did not know" of the Teheran, Casablanca and Yalta arrangements. I'm sure that Antonescu had suspicions. After all, that point was discusses it its last interview with the fuhrer :
After Hitler had warned Antonescu that the Soviets would never allow a British landing in the Balkans, the meeting broke up in mutual exhaustion.

Mark Axworthy's THIRD AXIS, FOURTH ALLY page 161.

QUOTE

The fourth mistake is the fact that the telegram never reached the marshal, but was stopped by the king who apparently had some power ambitions. Besides the fact that it accuses the king, without actually bringing any evidence, it is wrong. The reply from Bucharest came on 11 June and it said that we were not willing to cede Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina and that the speeding up of the negations at Stockholm could hamper other efforts. The telegram was signed by Gheorghe Davidescu and Camil Demetrescu. The author was Ica Antonescu.

Dragan talks about a Soviet reply from Alexandra Kollontay on 23 August, that never reached the Marshal. For sure that Dragan has NO source for it, but he must have taken it from somewhere. The citation was from a "brief" Romanian history book... I'll study his other book about the subject (more serious) : Antonescu, maresalul Romaniei si rasboaiele de reintregire, Nagard, Switzerland.

Getu'

Posted by: dragos July 25, 2003 07:53 am

QUOTE

Conspirators stopping a bloodshed!? :shock:
Hoy they could stop a bloodshed when they lied an entire country at the radio, on 23 August, with the joke that \"we accepted the armistice\"??? What armistice? A Soviet dictate was signed at Moscow, on 12th September 1944! But no armistice... In these conditions, it was normal that the Soviets captured 150.000 Romanian soldiers... You know what did the conspirators? They largely opened the doors to the Red Army, without any guarantee! They betrayed the honor of a people by giving it's leader (Antonescu) in Russian hands, unconditionally... Not only they did not stop a bloodshed, but they had given the country to Stalin. As Nicolae Baciu said : Sell out to Stalin!

I did not said they stopped the bloodshed, but this was the intention.
The capture of Romanian soldiers was probably inevitable in any situation. They were still in contact with the enemy, and even if all Soviet units received new orders immediately (although I doubt), many probably found the oportunity to take revenge against their enemy. During the previous of war, much anger and hate has accumulated.
The difference is not the way the armistice was made, but wether to make an armistice, or turn Romanian land into a real battleground, as Victor said, and I strongly believe that the price in the latter case was much higher.

Posted by: Victor July 25, 2003 11:49 am

QUOTE

When could we sign the armistice? When the Luftwaffe was bombing Moscow, in December 1941?

I fail to understand your joke. Do you not think that in 1944 the war was already lost?
Btw, the Luftwaffe's systematic air raids over Moscow ended in August 1941. Until April 1942,they carried out sporadic missions over the Soviet capital, but with 3 to 10 bombers. I would not really call that bombing Moscow. More like disturbing the peace.

QUOTE

Stockholm talks began when Romanian troops were still evacuating from Crimea... (is it true?)

What is the relevance of when they began? The reply from the Soviet side I mentioned on 4 June was after the Romanian troops came back from Crimea.

QUOTE

How much airplaines did had the Soviet 15th Airforce on the front? And the Germans? The Romanians had roughly some 600... From which a number were fighters.

The15th Air Force was American not Soviet. J:)
The Soviets employed the 5th and 17th Air Armies in the Iasi-Chisinau Operation. That is 1952 aircraft.

And from where, might I ask did the Romanians had "roughly some 600... From which a number were fighters"?
On the Moldavian Front were only 9th Fighter Group, which was like a squadron strong after the fights with the Americans, and the IAR-81C equipped 2nd and 4th Fighter Groups.

QUOTE

Concrete bunkers? And with flak batteries?.

Infrastructure means railroad, bridges etc. Can you put these in bunkers? Please do not make comments just for the sake of it.

QUOTE

One of the Ukrainian Fronts that \"liberated\" Romania, participated in the battle for Berlin.

Really? Which one?

QUOTE

It was more a moral boost, in the kind of : \"See, we did not totally abandon Basarabia\"....

Morale boost? When your house is destroyed and you can barely find any food, do you really think you would be more happy because you did not totally abandon Bessarabia? The same Bessarabia which was the Cinderella of the inter-war Romania?
But even if we look at things this way, I would still not consider that we abandoned Bessarabia. We fought, we lost many men and we were defeated. There was nothing more we could do.

Posted by: Geto-Dacul July 28, 2003 02:18 am

dragos wrote :

QUOTE

I did not said they stopped the bloodshed, but this was the intention.

If the intention was to stop a bloodshed, than they should have worked differently... And never gave the country's leader like a dog or criminal to the invading power. All this just proves that they had only one intention : take power.

QUOTE

The capture of Romanian soldiers was probably inevitable in any situation.

It was not inevitable if the gradual and defensive retreat would have been executed under Antonescu's lead. The Soviets promised that "the Romanian Army wouldn't be disarmed" only to Antonescu's government. The coup d'état of 23 August rendered obsolete every Soviet promise, because USSR did not negotiate anything with King Michael or Moscony, but with Antonescu and his emissaries.

QUOTE

The difference is not the way the armistice was made, but wether to make an armistice, or turn Romanian land into a real battleground, as Victor said, and I strongly believe that the price in the latter case was much higher.

Marshal Antonescu knew very well the danger of turning the country into a battle ground between USSR and Germany. On 23 August, Antonescu was ready to conclude an armistice, according to Mircea Ioanitiu, in his personal "Memoirs", at page 24 : "In the morning of 23 August I was awakened by Mihai Antonescu's phone, who asked an audience for him and the marshal to the king, that day."

So it seems that it was not Michael who convoqued Antonescu, but the contrary.

Posted by: Geto-Dacul July 28, 2003 02:58 am

Victor wrote :

QUOTE

I fail to understand your joke. Do you not think that in 1944 the war was already lost?

I was not really intending to make a joke!

:wink: And yes, I think that after Zitadel, the initiative was lost by the Axis powers on the Eastern Front.

QUOTE

Btw, the Luftwaffe's systematic air raids over Moscow ended in August 1941. Until April 1942,they carried out sporadic missions over the Soviet capital, but with 3 to 10 bombers. I would not really call that bombing Moscow. More like disturbing the peace.

Even if sporadic, there were still victims... In 1944, I don't think that the Luftawaffe had the power anymore to bomb Moscow.

QUOTE

The15th Air Force was American not Soviet. J
The Soviets employed the 5th and 17th Air Armies in the Iasi-Chisinau Operation. That is 1952 aircraft.

Thanks for the info!!!

QUOTE

And from where, might I ask did the Romanians had \"roughly some 600... From which a number were fighters\"?
On the Moldavian Front were only 9th Fighter Group, which was like a squadron strong after the fights with the Americans, and the IAR-81C equipped 2nd and 4th Fighter Groups.

In Mark Axworthy THIRD AXIS FOURTH ALLY, page 297 :

On 1st February 1944, Romania had 958 serviceable aircrafts of all sorts.

QUOTE

Really? Which one?

Sorry, my fault. I was confused here... It was the 1st Ukrainian and not the 2nd, at Berlin! :oops:

QUOTE

The same Bessarabia which was the Cinderella of the inter-war Romania?

The inter-war politics and administration were very different of these of WW2, as the political regimes.

Posted by: inahurry July 28, 2003 04:21 am

Victor's bias against Antonescu is well known. I understand him, anyway, these days one risks jail. Long live demmmmmmm... [ hey, what's this gag - says : Ordonanta de Urgenta - dar parca le mai stie cineva numarul ]

Posted by: Victor July 28, 2003 07:28 am

QUOTE

On 1st February 1944, Romania had 958 serviceable aircrafts of all sorts

Of all sorts also includes training, liaison and transport aircraft. Also February 1944 is before the US 15th Air Force bomber offensive and the horrible losses they provoked to the ARR, in both men and aircraft.

According to Denes’ Rumanian Air Force: Prime decade 1938-1947 the Luftwaffe and ARR could muster on 20 August at most 300 fighters, of which less than 200 were serviceable. The Soviets had 802figters in the two air armies and also several regiments in the VVS-ChF. Note that the majority of the Romanian fighters on the front were the obsolete IAR-81Cs of the 2nd and 4th Fighter Groups. The 2nd FG lost 8 aircraft and had 2 damaged during those 3 days. Only the skill of the pilots brought the 4 confirmed (+1 probable) kills against superior aircraft.

QUOTE

On 23 August, Antonescu was ready to conclude an armistice

If that were true it would have come up in his written testimony from the evening of 23 August 1944. Instead he argues that he could have never accepted the Soviet demands.

IMO the two Antonescus were a little confusing in their actions. Mihai Antonescu told Neagu Djuvara (who was at Stockholm) in the evening of 22 August that the military situation compels us to ask for an armistice. He also told him to ask if the Soviet conditions were the same as the ones in April and with whom they want to negotiate: the government or the opposition. Whne Djuvara asked ifthere was still time to negotiate, Ica Antonescu replied that we still have the Focsani-Glati line, Muntenia, the Carpathians.
He also asked the Turkish ambassador on 23 August to transmit a message to the English and American governments in which he asked what would they prefer: to send a Romanian representative to Moscow to sign the armistice, to enter talks simultaneously with all the Allies to set the armistice conditions or to discuss the terms only with them at Cairo.
But the bottom line is that the Soviets terms would have remained the same and I doubt the marshal would have accepted them.

Posted by: Victor July 28, 2003 07:28 am

QUOTE

Why am I biased? Just because I have different views than you do? I generally base my opinions on facts and try to see the things as they were: grey. Not like some who prefer myths.

Posted by: dragos July 28, 2003 10:59 am

QUOTE

It was not inevitable if the gradual and defensive retreat would have been executed under Antonescu's lead. The Soviets promised that \"the Romanian Army wouldn't be disarmed\" only to Antonescu's government. The coup d'état of 23 August rendered obsolete every Soviet promise, because USSR did not negotiate anything with King Michael or Moscony, but with Antonescu and his emissaries.

Well, in this case I'm sure the Soviets would have kept their promise. :?

Posted by: Geto-Dacul July 28, 2003 03:07 pm

Victor wrote :

QUOTE

If that were true it would have come up in his written testimony from the evening of 23 August 1944. Instead he argues that he could have never accepted the Soviet demands.

At Antonescu's "trial" of 1946, Gheorghe Bratianu made a very interesting deposition :

"In the morning of 23 August 1944, I was send to Snagov by the chiefs of the opposition, who gave me the task to talk with Mr. Marshal[Antonescu] for the immediate conclusion of the armistice. This, after the events on the Moldavian front. I executed this task. I went to Snagov and I talked with Mr. Marshal and Mr. M. Antonescu. I add that before me was also for the same scope Mr. Ion Mihalache. They agreed to give the written assentiment, that was to be given during the day. ]"During our discussion, Mr. Mihai Antonescu and Mr. Marshal have had the initiative of an audience at the [Royal] Palace, and there was even a phone call, myself being there, in that scope. Mr. Marshal demanded me the written assentiment of the chiefs of the opposition to conclude the armistice in the known conditions and he said to me, I remember, that if he received that written aprobation, indifferently of the German's point of vue, he will conclude the armistice. He wanted that I brought the written answer before 15:00PM. I assured him that I'll be with it before 15:00PM. I got back to Bucharest. There was a certain delay before the chiefs of the three parties of the opposition could meet. I communicated to them Mr. Marshal's answer. But they authorized me to communicate to the Marshal before 15:00PM that he could use the assentiment at the meeting with the King, at 16:00PM, at the Palace. When I was at Snagov they informed me about the meeting with [German minister] Clodius, and I knew that Mr. Marshal was to sign the armistice."

Posted by: Victor July 28, 2003 07:01 pm

Yes, interesting indeed, since during the Council of Ministers on 23 August the marshal communicated his intention of going on the front on 24 August and taking direct command of the troops, leaving Mihai Antonescu to take care of the government. Also, during the meeting at the Palace, before his arrest, he said that he said that he could not sign the armistice. In his so-called "testament", written during his hours of detention at the Palace, he motivated this decision.

QUOTE

according to Mircea Ioanitiu, in his personal \"Memoirs\", at page 24 : \"In the morning of 23 August I was awakened by Mihai Antonescu's phone, who asked an audience for him and the marshal to the king, that day

I found a somehow different version, taken also from the same source. Mihai Antonescu asked for the audience for him, but from the Palace it was requested that the marshal come also. The marshal then changed his mind and gen. Sanatescu managed eventually to convince him to come.

Posted by: inahurry July 29, 2003 08:24 pm

Of course you have different views than I do. And those views of yours are neither "middle of the road" nor very subtle, they always lead to one conclusion even if you don't always express it explicitly and even if your style is evenly paced.

And the reality you paint is not grey it's bleak. Sure, if anyone, including myself, wants to paint it differently I suppose is free to do it, or am I wrong ? And part of my way to do it was to post that short comment reflecting what I think of your position about Antonescu.

I read most of your post and when it comes to Ion Antonescu it is always the same. It's your choice to select and arrange information the way it pleases you, you are biased nevertheless. Others may think otherwise, is their choice and I surely invite them to read your posts, I'm sure there are people more knowledgeable than myself, maybe historians too who may contribute with interesting views.

Posted by: Dénes July 29, 2003 10:04 pm

inahurry wrote:

QUOTE

It's your choice to select and arrange information the way it pleases you, you are biased nevertheless.

I don't think Victor can be accused of bias. I also follow all his posts - not only on this forum - and, so far, there is no clear trace of a biased approach to any particular topic.
I think there are other visitor of this forum who would also agree with me.

Dénes

Posted by: Bernard Miclescu July 29, 2003 10:53 pm

Indeed a very interesting "channel". Several ways to think and to juge the history. For my part, Mr Victor, Mr Dragos are seeing history from above. Like a historian should do. Mr geto-dacul and ... (forgot the name) are seeing history with passion (pasiune) because they have the same willings and thoughts of the xxth century balcan nationalists. Maybe i'm a little bit harsh. Please excuse me.

If Mr geto-dacul could read a great book that I finnished one week ago, maybe he will see one point of vue similar to Mr Victor: "Romania in al doilea razboi mondial" by Dinu C Giurescu. But please don't forget: we can not interpret History, we only can show History like it was.

With respect,
Bernard Miclescu

Posted by: Geto-Dacul July 30, 2003 02:57 am

Bernard Miclescu wrote :

QUOTE

Mr geto-dacul and ... (forgot the name) are seeing history with passion (pasiune) because they have the same willings and thoughts of the xxth century balcan nationalists. Maybe i'm a little bit harsh. Please excuse me.

And nationalists are inevitably bad people, if I can read between the lines? So this kind of people (of the "past 20th Century") cannot and should not exist today too? Passion is a pure HUMAN feeling, that cannot be minimized, even in history books. Passion is a vital and natural thing in life, and everyone does what he likes more with passion... Or Mr.Giurescu writes books like an automat for money?

QUOTE

But please don't forget: we can not interpret History, we only can show History like it was.

I did not invent any of my citations, which are original... If you do not like them, you could sure come with something better, from your recently finished book of Giurescu, for example... :wink:

Regards,

G-D

"Les passions abaissent, la passion élève."

-Mihai Eminescu

Posted by: Victor July 30, 2003 10:14 am

QUOTE

If Mr geto-dacul could read a great book that I finnished one week ago, maybe he will see one point of vue similar to Mr Victor: \"Romania in al doilea razboi mondial\" by Dinu C Giurescu.

Actually most of the information I used on this thread was taken from that book, which IMO is one of the best yet (excepting the military actions where it contains some mistakes and is too "thin"). I also used Romania in al doilea razboi mondial (1941-45) by Mihnea Romalo, but which is a little biased towards marshal Antonescu.

QUOTE

And the reality you paint is not grey it's bleak. Sure, if anyone, including myself, wants to paint it differently I suppose is free to do it, or am I wrong ? And part of my way to do it was to post that short comment reflecting what I think of your position about Antonescu

I read most of your post and when it comes to Ion Antonescu it is always the same. It's your choice to select and arrange information the way it pleases you, you are biased nevertheless.

Examples would be more convincing.

Posted by: Bernard Miclescu July 30, 2003 12:56 pm

geto-dacul wrote:
And nationalists are inevitably bad people, if I can read between the lines? So this kind of people (of the "past 20th Century") cannot and should not exist today too? Passion is a pure HUMAN feeling, that cannot be minimized, even in history books. Passion is a vital and natural thing in life, and everyone does what he likes more with passion... Or Mr.Giurescu writes books like an automat for money?

Sir, please read again my message. I didn't tell anything rong about the the XXth century balkan nationalists. For me it's only an archaic way to present History. The passion is natural, of course, but even with this we can not change History. That's why I am trying to see History like it was.

geto-dacul wrote:
"Les passions abaissent, la passion élève."

Eminescu was a romantic nationalist, like Iorga. Today things are changing. We can't live in two separated worlds (past and present)
But this is only my point of vue.

For more explanaitions please read the first chapter of the book "N Iorga - o biografie" written by Nicholas Nagy-Talavera.

Trully yours,
Bernard

Posted by: Geto-Dacul July 30, 2003 05:06 pm

Bernard Miclescu wrote :

QUOTE

I didn't tell anything rong about the the XXth century balkan nationalists.

From your point of vue, of course that what you did tell about Balkan nationalists is not wrong... What is wrong is that you contradicted your own "scientific and objective" point of vue by judging subjectively the Balkan nationalists, but under the same paravan of "modern objectivity"... E la mintea cocosului...

QUOTE

For me it's only an archaic way to present History.

Archaic or not archaic, history repeats herself, like it or not. What is past, is still valuable for the future.

QUOTE

The passion is natural, of course, but even with this we can not change History.

The idea here is not to change history, but to present it from multiple angles... Read my other statements and quotations.

QUOTE

That's why I am trying to see History like it was.

Giurescu is far from being the only Romanian source of history.

QUOTE

Eminescu was a romantic nationalist, like Iorga.

Eminescu's opera is not only poems... See his political side too.

QUOTE

Today things are changing.

Things ARE NOT necessarily changing in good, just because we are in the 21st Century (which is an international convention)...

QUOTE

We can't live in two separated worlds (past and present)

Present without past cannot exist, as an old man (cannot exist) without having been young.

QUOTE

For more explanaitions please read the first chapter of the book \"N Iorga - o biografie\" written by Nicholas Nagy-Talavera.

No need of more explanations; I already read that book, very interesting and understanding for a book wrote by a Hungarian Jew!

Best regards,

G-D

Posted by: Victor July 31, 2003 01:10 pm

Please get back on topic.

Posted by: Geto-Dacul July 31, 2003 03:59 pm

Victor wrote :

QUOTE

Yes, interesting indeed, since during the Council of Ministers on 23 August the marshal communicated his intention of going on the front on 24 August and taking direct command of the troops, leaving Mihai Antonescu to take care of the government. Also, during the meeting at the Palace, before his arrest, he said that he could not sign the armistice. In his so-called \"testament\", written during his hours of detention at the Palace, he motivated this decision.

The only ones who knew the story about interview at the palace were the Marshal and Mihai Antonescu, Michael, Sanatescu, Mocsony and Aldea (the last two were behind a door)... So versions can be different, taking in account that interests were different. Actually, we have see generally only the king's version.

Let's see what is general's Aurel Aldea point of vue, when he was Minister of the Interior :
"The day of 23 August, a day of salvation for the country, found us un-prepared technically. The coup d'état was planified for the day of 26 August, but, in the morning of 23 August, I was informed by the king that in the after-noon of that day, he will accept an audience to Marshal Antonescu and Mihai Antonescu. In the morning of 23 August was held a counsil of ministers, and the decisions of it were unknown for me.After the breakfast at the Palace, were general Sanatescu, Niculescu-Buzesti and Mocsonyi-Styrcea participated, a conference was organized with all of us, on the theme of what could have determined Marshal Antonescu to demand an audience to the king. Marshal Antonescu communicated during the audience, his decision of making the armistice, adding that he talked with the [German] minister Clodius on the subject. This could have made the Germans occupy the entire country, and maybe even the arrest and deportation of the king and of those of were collaborating with him. At the audience, were general Sanatescu was also participating, was brusquely interrupted by the king, who, for a few minutes, comed to communicate, to us who were still in an adjacent room, the Marshal's decision of making the armistice. After we advised ourselves a little bit, we comed to the conclusion that, without wayting anymore the day of 26 August, and with risking our lifes, we must arrest immediately the Marshal and Mihai Antonescu.(!!!)"

ALDEA, Aurel : article published in Curierul of 13 October 1944.

Posted by: Victor August 01, 2003 04:34 pm

QUOTE

The only ones who knew the story about interview at the palace were the Marshal and Mihai Antonescu, Michael, Sanatescu, Mocsony and Aldea (the last two were behind a door)

I was referring to the Council of Ministers that took place early on 23 August. This had nothing to do with what happened at the Palace. The written summary still exists and apparently supports the version that the marshal said he was going on the front the next day to take effective control of the army and leaving Mihai Antonescu in charge of the government.

During his detention at the palace the marshal wrote a memoir through which he motivated his attitude:
For about two years now, Mihai Antonescu tried to obtain from the Anglo-Americans guarantees for the future of the country. If he would have found any, I would have signed the armistice even when Germany was strong.
I requested from Berlin the permission to negotiate an armistice
The acceptance of the Soviet conditions from April would have meant:
to allow the Soviets to move around Romania where they wanted to, that is to allow them to occupy the territory, with all the consequences
to put the country in a perpetual state of slavery, because the sums for reparations were not mentioned
to practically renounce at Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina

He concluded that:
The fact that we are its neighbors, its attitude towards Finland, the Baltic countries and Poland, the tragic experiences of the others, which were subjugated by Russia after believing its promises, save me from insisting.

From this document the only thing that results is that he wanted to negotiate the armistice. Not sign it.

Posted by: Geto-Dacul August 01, 2003 05:55 pm

Victor wrote :

QUOTE

From this document the only thing that results is that he wanted to negotiate the armistice. Not sign it.

YES. Antonescu was wayting for a "clearer" response from the Soviet part. I actually see as naive the attitude of both Antonescu & opposition, to hope obtaining Anglo-American "gurantees", when it was obvious that the Soviets had the initiative.

QUOTE

He concluded that:
The fact that we are its neighbors, its attitude towards Finland, the Baltic countries and Poland, the tragic experiences of the others, which were subjugated by Russia after believing its promises, save me from insisting.

His conclusion was sincere, correct and realistic...

Posted by: inahurry August 01, 2003 08:45 pm

A bit late, better late than never, with a comment.

Nationalists are the bad guys, nothing new about that. Neither new but at least more interesting the assertion the nationalists can't look "from above" (like a Condor maybe?) and that they are inevitably biased because they are emotional and (the Balkan reference) outdated. The truth is simpler, there are people who see the present days interests in occulting certain historical interpretations. The conformists see or even promote those interests but never admit it. Outdated, outdated but even if they use the word 'patriotism' instead it strikes me Americans are outdated too, iraqis, muslims (though prone to be internationalists) as they may be are a little displeased with the American patriotism and use their own to counter it, Israelis are a bit biased toward their country too, frankly I don't know of any nation who isn't resorting to the 'outdated' nationalism when the need arises.

Ideological imperialisms have proven to be far more devastating than national imperialisms and yet the internationalist god is not satisfied with the sacrifices he demanded until now. I don't advocate any kind of imperialism, mind you.

The above comment doesn't refer to the administrators of this site, especially one of them whose posts I followed more thoroughly, I think he genuinely is convinced of his interpretation based on his analysis and what I consider bias comes thus from his confidence he is right. I openly challenged that as he challenges some of my assertions. I doubt he likes to be categorized by a third party. I know I wouldn't like it.

Posted by: Victor August 02, 2003 07:29 am

QUOTE

YES. Antonescu was wayting for a \"clearer\" response from the Soviet part. I actually see as naive the attitude of both Antonescu & opposition, to hope obtaining Anglo-American \"gurantees\", when it was obvious that the Soviets had the initiative.

Well, they did not know about the talks between Churchill and Stalin and the percentages. Would a true Anglophile like Antonescu think that such a thing was possible?

QUOTE

His conclusion was sincere, correct and realistic...

Yes, but unfortunately for us it was inevitable, no matter what we would have done in the 1940-44 period.

Posted by: tempesta August 02, 2003 11:33 am

About resisting on the AFNB line after 23 August 1944:
By the summer of '44 the war was lost. Capitulation was inevitable.
But i think that, if instead of waiting for a soviet ofensive, either marshal Antonescu or the king should have accepted soviet conditions while the front was still stable (like in early August). By that time the germans sufered catastrophic defeats in Normandy and Bielorussia and they were in no better position to take measures against Romania than they were in late August, and the soviets were not yet ready to move against Bucharest. By accepting the armistice in early August and by falling back in order behind the AFNB line, may be the russians would not have taken in captivity 150+ thousands men; and may be the occupation of the whole country didn't happened.
After the soviet offensive started, it was a bad thing to simply stop fighting and wait for the mercy of the enemy. By holding the russians on the AFNB line a few weeks, it was posibil to sign an armistice agreement (read surrender) avoinding some of the human losses. But the king had only one chance to depose af the stubborn Antonescu, and he had to use it.
If one think af a better alternative to the real history, that would be not resisting longer, but surrendering a bit earlier.
About the way Red Army acted in Romania:
Romania was under soviet ocuppation. They acted like in a conquered land. All the things about alliance and liberation were just propaganda. The situation cannot be compared with that of Wermarcht in Romania: germans were in a allied country and they had to behave acordingly.

Posted by: inahurry August 02, 2003 05:48 pm

I agree, tempesta.

One comment: capitulation makes sense only before an ennemy you hope will abide to certain unwritten rules, should not be the offering of a lamb to the wolf hoping the wolf suffers of indigestion, wolves are always hungry.

Posted by: tempesta August 02, 2003 07:51 pm

The soviets ofered to Romania a conditional surrender, even if I doubt they would have respected the initial conditions. The most important of these was that a part of Romania would remain under romanian administration. Is logical to presunme this part to be southern Romania, with the russians ocupping Moldavia and then advancing aganist Hungary thru the Carpathians.
So an armistice agreed before the colapse of the front was not unconditional capitulation, the wolf promised to not swallow the lamb in one bite

. With their offensive developing well is obvious that the soviets were in no mood to accept anything but total surrender.

Posted by: Geto-Dacul August 03, 2003 12:41 am

tempesta wrote :

QUOTE

What's interesting to realize is that all the official conditions were mainly negotiated with Antonescu, and not with king Mihai and his camarila. So when the king arrested Antonescu, all conditions became obsolete. King Mihai facilitated the Soviets in Romania, without complicating with Antonescu...
That's why Michael received the highest Soviet award, "Pobeda"...

Posted by: inahurry August 03, 2003 12:48 am

The front didn't collapse.

In a few days the Russian offensive would have ended and before a new one could start a few weeks of partial acalmy would have sufficed.

The Focsani-Namoloasa line was placed such way that prevented an important bridgehead over the Siret. Tanks action would have been reduced considerably. It wasn't that frail as some stubbornly suggest. There were bunkers which after aviation bombs were detonated inside only cracked. For sure it could held a few weeks.

Would be interesting to know who advised Mihai (and what exactly said him), from a military point of view, before August 23. Not that it matters too much, Mihai is a simpleton so obviously someone else decided what he was to do.

Posted by: Victor August 03, 2003 01:15 pm

QUOTE

What's interesting to realize is that all the official conditions were mainly negotiated with Antonescu, and not with king Mihai and his camarila. So when the king arrested Antonescu, all conditions became obsolete. King Mihai facilitated the Soviets in Romania, without complicating with Antonescu...
That's why Michael received the highest Soviet award, \"Pobeda\"...

Actually for the Soviets it would have been much better to have Antonescu in power when Romania switched sides, so that all the "complications" in the 1945-47 period would have been avoided. After the war ended Antonescu could have much more easily been replaced with a Communist government and all that circus with the "elections" would not have been necessary.

QUOTE

In a few days the Russian offensive would have ended and before a new one could start a few weeks of partial acalmy would have sufficed

The Soviets had hundreds of thousands of Axis troops encircled or retreating and had to eliminate them. But a mechanized spearhead could try to get through the line.

QUOTE

The Focsani-Namoloasa line was placed such way that prevented an important bridgehead over the Siret. Tanks action would have been reduced considerably. It wasn't that frail as some stubbornly suggest. There were bunkers which after aviation bombs were detonated inside only cracked. For sure it could held a few weeks

Nobody said it was frail. I believe I already posted its strength in another topic. But any defensive line is practically useless if the mobile reserves lack. The Soviets only needed to breach it in several points and launch their tanks in deep penetration maneuvers. After that all would be lost. Of course we must also take into consideration the fact that since 18 August the 15th Air Force could bomb almost unopposed any target in Romania and could seriously obstruct the communications behind the front lines. But these are only unimportant details, which only some stubborn people see. :roll:

Posted by: Geto-Dacul August 03, 2003 04:10 pm

Victor wrote :

QUOTE

Actually for the Soviets it would have been much better to have Antonescu in power when Romania switched sides, so that all the \"complications\" in the 1945-47 period would have been avoided. After the war ended Antonescu could have much more easily been replaced with a Communist government and all that circus with the \"elections\" would not have been necessary.

Are you sure of that? Even Bodnaras said that if Antonescu would have concluded the armistice, cu greu vom mai putea ridica capul... :wink:

There were three plans...
1. That the Soviets destroy the Romanian-German armies with the battle of the Siret, and occuoy Bucharest : In this situation, there would be no need of Antonesco or the king... The Soviets prepared at Cernauti a govermment in exile, chief of it being apointed Petru Groza.

2. That the king concluded the armistice, and in that case, the opportunity was for the communists of the "interior" (Dej, Patrascanu, Georgescu & co.)

3. That Antonescu concluded the armistice.

Posted by: inahurry August 03, 2003 05:50 pm

A line of defense is frail if it's useless even if the materials used and density of fortifications are formidable.

In the most optimistic scenarion the line couldn't be held indefinitely but in the context of the armistice talks the few weeks or few months could mean everything.

Fortress buster aircraft coming from Italy ? Let's be serious. Longer range bombers, ok, but their efficiency against targets, some mobile, at thousands of kilometers, debatable. Too risky and against the Anglo-American policies.

Bodnaras was a communist but before that a SSI member. Probably an action like the August 23 managed to comfort both his, let's say, double loyalties. I doubt though he foresaw the full consequences. 14 years later he was an active force behind the Romanian success in persuading the soviets to withdraw their troops. With Antonescu in power Soviets still could have succeeded to impose their will at a later moment but at least we could have an armistice, which the August 23 coup didn't deliver.

Posted by: Victor August 03, 2003 07:22 pm

QUOTE

Fortress buster aircraft coming from Italy ? Let's be serious. Longer range bombers, ok, but their efficiency against targets, some mobile, at thousands of kilometers, debatable. Too risky and against the Anglo-American policies.

I will repost what Isaid earlier. Maybe this time you will actually read it:
Of course we must also take into consideration the fact that since 18 August the 15th Air Force could bomb almost unopposed any target in Romania and could seriously obstruct the communications behind the front lines.

Where does the word "fortress" appear?

The American bombers had already destroyed many marshalling yards and railroad stations. And in the process they destroyed most of the Axis fighter force that opposed them. They could continue to do this almost undisturbed after 18 August, as seen on 19 August.

QUOTE

With Antonescu in power Soviets still could have succeeded to impose their will at a later moment but at least we could have an armistice, which the August 23 coup didn't deliver.

This would have also meant a much better prepaired German foe.

Posted by: inahurry August 04, 2003 12:48 am

Very vigilant, as always. Yes, that was a mistake from my part. Next time I should quote you in full so I have the text right under my eyes, all the time, day and night. You didn't say fortress busters. I did. This is what could have helped the Russians most.

Unopposed bombing at such distance from the airfields is theoretical. Also the frequency of such raids against rather small targets, if you exclude railway stations, is questionable.

But the main question remains. Why would Anglo-Americans do that regardless of the possible efficiency ?

Posted by: tempesta August 04, 2003 03:43 pm

inahurry wrote:

QUOTE

The front didn't collapse

I think that when talking about a front with two large breeches and a army encircled (the 6th German Army was encircled by the russians) the word "collapse" is appropriate.
But I agree that the way in which Romanian Army stop fighting without any agreement with the soviets was wrong. IMO the AFNB line was strong enough to delay the soviets for a few weeks in order to perfect an armistice agreement.

Posted by: mabadesc August 11, 2003 10:37 pm

I also agree with the AFNB solution, but I strongly disagree with Antonescu's decision to retreat only when the front was broken. The retreat should have been made 3 weeks or one month earlier, as even Runstedt agreed during Antonescu's last visit to Germany. Friessner himself also advocated this, as well as the Romanian CO's, but Antonescu kept his loyalty to Hitler much too strong by obeying him and refusing to retreat sooner.

In terms of Allied bombing raids, I agree that it would not have been in their interest to invest so much effort in bombing Romanian infrastructrure. At least as far as Americans were concerned, I think they would have been happy to have finished the war with Germany and "let the Russians deal with Romania".

Finally, I don't think we should underestimate the Romanian soldier. The troops panicked and became disorganized in August 20-24 because they were not in a good strategic and geographical position to stop the huge mass of Soviet Armor.

However, we should remember that just a few weeks later, these "remnants" of the defeated Romanian Army were reorganized quite effectively and fought well in the liberation of Transylvania, despite huge shortages in equipment and supplies.

Posted by: allanteo667 August 21, 2003 05:18 pm

Mabadesc wrote:

QUOTE

Finally, I don't think we should underestimate the Romanian soldier.

Yes, but the only problem with the romanian soldier was that he wasn't as fanatical as the german! In the east, when the situatiopn turned bad, they tended to run away (so did the italians!), like for example when the frontline was penetrated by the soviets at the Don.

At those moments the germans behaved "arrogantly" towards the romanians. I talked to a veteran who said that the germans didn't take any romanians in their vehicles while retreating from the Don. :roll:

In Russia the romanian soldier didn't believe that he fought for an important cause, so we can understand that he sometimes behaved cowardly, but we can't say the same thing about summer 1944 when he fought to protect his fatherland (and sometimes family)! :oops:[b][/b]

Posted by: Geto-Dacul August 21, 2003 05:22 pm

Great to have you back, allanteo667!!!

:wink:

Getu'

Posted by: Geto-Dacul August 21, 2003 05:31 pm

allanteo667 wrote :

QUOTE

The Romanians are fanatical when defending their country & national honour... I wonder how could we be fanatical at Stalingrad when we had nothing to stop the Russian tanks. It was desperate situation ; the Romanians found themselves betrayed by the Germans.

Posted by: C-2 August 21, 2003 07:55 pm

Not only German soldiers did't took Romanian soldiers with them in their vehicals but I was told also by a vet that the same German Ju 87 that they used to protect in Stalingrad era one morning left for a "mission"unescorted and never came back....
A few hours later the airfield was storm by Russian soldiers.It seemd like the Germans got information about the closing Russians because little by little also the ground crews left .
Isn't that a sort of strange way to be camarads??!!
And I'm sure those weren't the only examples.

Posted by: Victor August 22, 2003 07:01 am

QUOTE

In terms of Allied bombing raids, I agree that it would not have been in their interest to invest so much effort in bombing Romanian infrastructrure. At least as far as Americans were concerned, I think they would have been happy to have finished the war with Germany and \"let the Russians deal with Romania\".

Actually the USAAF was already bombing RR stations and marshaling yards in Romania. Why would not they continue to do it, especially since there was little opposition left?

QUOTE

the only problem with the romanian soldier was that he wasn't as fanatical as the german! In the east, when the situatiopn turned bad, they tended to run away (so did the italians!), like for example when the frontline was penetrated by the soviets at the Don.

Generalizing is usually bad, especially in a long and vast conflict like the one on the Eastern Front. I can give you many examples of Germans fleeing the battlefield and Romanian troops staying and fighting against very difficult odds, but that does not entitle me to make a conclusion similar to yours.

Posted by: allanteo667 August 23, 2003 05:46 pm

QUOTE

I can give you many examples of Germans fleeing the battlefield and Romanian troops staying and fighting against very difficult odds

Yes, I would actually be quite interested.

Sorry for the generalization :oops: but I could only get my info from one vet who has a very high opinion about the germans as soldiers!

Posted by: C-2 August 23, 2003 07:19 pm

I agree!most vets talks about the german soldiers with respect but not always were the Romanian soldiers first to run.
And if we talk about Stalingrad for example ,the Germans had much better supplies and that does not include only armament but also food that has a major importance at-40C.
And not to forget that a lot of Romanian soldiers felt that thay are fighting for the German cause rather than for the Romanian cause and that an explanation for a lack of interest.

Posted by: Victor August 23, 2003 07:32 pm

While the battle for Feodosiya was just beginning, the Chernomorskiy Flot made a second landing at Sudak in the night of 15/16 January. The first attempt was only 3 days before and was repulsed by a Romanian company, under the command of Cpt. Tomescu. But this time they were grossly outnumbered by a force made up of two Soviet mountain regiments and forced to evacuate the Taraktash village. However, with the arrival, later that day, of the Romanian 13th Mountain Battalion, of a battalion from the 4th Artillery Regiment as well as of a German battalion, AA company and an artillery battery, the situation stabilized. All the units were put under the command of the German Col. Rusker. On 17 January, the "Rusker" Group attacked and manage to take the eastern part of Taraktash. The next day the western part of the village was taken, only to be lost to a Soviet counterattack. The same day, the "Otusi" Detachment was created, with the mission to defend the Sudak-Otusi highway. It was made up of the 4th Mountain Pioneer Battalion, a squadron from the 3rd Motorized Roşiori Regiment, a machine-gun platoon, two German infantry companies and an AA company. The attack was renewed on 20 January, but only the "Otusi" Detachment made any progress. Because the Soviets received a strong support from partisan units in the area, it was decided to eliminate them. Between 21-23 January about 200 partisans were killed in the fights. On 24, with stronger air and artillery support, the group finally managed to take Taraktash. The 17th Mountain Battalion reinforced the Romanian-German formation and on 27 and 28 January the Soviets were pushed back towards Sudak. A company managed to take the city and cut their retreat. 880 prisoners were taken and 770 dead were found on the battlefield. In a report, Col. Rusker mentioned that "the audacious actions of the vânători de munte won the admiration of the German battalions from the 170th Division, who operated timidly and impressed by the amplified echo of the bombardments"

Posted by: CCJ June 27, 2004 06:17 pm

I cannot offer a real opinion on the switch as I am not Romanian. My uneducated opinion is that the Romanians should not have switched sides in 1944. I would posibly feel different had I been born in Romania. :drunk:

Posted by: C-2 June 27, 2004 08:12 pm

Romanians were forced to join Germany.They were not an historical ally.
Many vets said that Germans soldiers often told them that "It's the Germans war".
The Romanian economics went very well before the war,there were no reasons to go to war.
While in all Europe,there were small engines cars been used,in Romania most cars were American V6 and V8 cars .
Romania was sort of a Dubai then.The national coin,the Leu,was one of the strongest curency.
Like I said,no resons going to war!

Posted by: Carol I June 27, 2004 08:39 pm

QUOTE

The national coin,the Leu,was one of the strongest curency.

March 1937: 1 British Pound is about 667 Lei. I do not think that Romanian currency was that strong. Maybe stable?

Posted by: C-2 June 27, 2004 09:00 pm

My mother's uncle,Dr Dumitru Vasiliu,went in 1937 to a trip in the US and Argentina. Anywhere he used Lei and they were more than welkomed.
Any place he've been he was presented as a Romanian doctor and got a lot of respect.
The US costom didn't even serched his laugage(there were prohibition days)
Today everywhere ,when you say you are from Romania,people are watching their pokets....

Posted by: Carol I June 27, 2004 09:15 pm

QUOTE

My mother's uncle,Dr Dumitru Vasiliu,went in 1937 to a trip in the US and Argentina. Anywhere he used Lei and they were more than welkomed.

This does not prove that the Romanian currency was strong. Only that it was accepted.

QUOTE

The US costom didn't even serched his laugage(there were prohibition days)

Prohibition ended 4 years earlier, on 5 December 1933.

Posted by: C-2 June 27, 2004 09:27 pm

I may be wrong about the year.
I red his book more than 20 years ago.
Anyway he didn't know about the prohibition and could go to jail for two bottles of coniac.
Try to change some Lei today.Not in US,but next door in Turkey or Bulgaria!
Your negation to the Romanian prosperity,in pre ww2 period ,sounds familiar to me... :?

Posted by: Carol I June 27, 2004 09:32 pm

QUOTE

Your negation to the Romanian prosperity,in pre ww2 period ,sounds familiar to me... :?

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: What negation?

I only said that the Romanian currency was not strong in comparison to the British pound. A strong currency is not the same thing as a convertible currency. And the prosperity of the economy is not necessarily related to a strong currency. On the other hand I agree that the 1939 Romanian economy was quite prosperous and that it has not been equalled for many decades to come. But this does not have anything to do with the strength of the currency.

Posted by: CCJ June 28, 2004 12:04 am

Well,

What about the opinion that Romania should have continued their alliance with Germany instead of siding with :twisted:

Posted by: Carol I June 28, 2004 06:49 am

QUOTE

What about the opinion that Romania should have continued their alliance with Germany instead of siding with :twisted:

It depends who's the :twisted: . I think Romania was then between the rock and a hard place, or as you put it between :evil: and :twisted: . And continuing the alliance with Germany would not have brought anything good.

As for the alliance with Russia, you know what the boy said to the father of his girlfriend when he asked for her hand. "I do not want to see you my father-in-law, but I cannot see any other way of marrying your daughter."

Posted by: dragos June 28, 2004 07:54 am

QUOTE

Well,

What about the opinion that Romania should have continued their alliance with Germany instead of siding with :twisted:

The result would have been a country devastated by war, a harsh Soviet occupation regime, and probably the loss of Transylvania as well.

Posted by: salo July 29, 2004 01:03 pm

Geto-Dagul wrote

QUOTE

Finns did finnaly loose the recaptured territories of 1941. But what's really important, is that their country was not occupied by the Red Army. And this is not really because they did not invade \"Soviet territory\" (BTW, the Soviets considered \"Soviet\" territory everything captured until June 22 1941), but because Finland was not included in the Churchill-Roosevelt-Stalin gambling of Moscow, Teheran, Casablanca, Yalta or Postdam.

This is what I think. I am wayting the invectives

:D :lol: !

Actually Finns did occupy pre-1939 Soviet territory in Eastern Karelia. Finns occupied (liberated) almost all the area inhabitated by the ethnic Finns (or Karelians) reaching to the lake Ääninen (Onega) and the town of Äänislinna (Petrozadovsk).

But it is true that Finland was never occupied by the Red Army and the question is why. We don't know really. The Red Army was stopped cold on Tali-Ihantala Battle on June 1944 and the Russian advance was stopped later on Viborg Bay with huge Russian losses. Simultaneously Stalin had let the Germans do his dirty work in Poland destroying the Warsaw uprising and was getting busy reaching Berlin before the Western Allies. So he had not enough troops to spare destroying the small Northern republic. He obviously thought that he can do it later.

The Finns did turn their weapons on Germans later in 1944 and early 1945 in the War of Lapland when the remaining German troops were driven off the country. The Germans retaliated by burning nearly every house and building in Lapland. The civilian population was however spared because they were evacuated to Sweden (thanks to the marvelous effort of the Swedes).

Finland never became a communist country either. The communists were a strong political power and still in the eighties aiming for a "revolution" (actually the current president Tarja Halonen and foreign minister Erkki Tuomioja were among those and very active in trying to make Finland a Soviet Republic!) and a Sovietification of Finland but the semi-dictator-president Kekkonen and the first truly patriotic president since 1956, Mauno Koivisto were able to defend Finland. Thanks to them, Finland remained independent and the Finns avoided the horrors that f.ex. the Estonians had to suffer in the hands of Russians.

Posted by: ^All^ September 16, 2004 04:13 pm

allanteo667 I agree with your opinion about the Red Army. There's a word in Romanian: nu este padure fara uscaturi (there isn't any forest whitout dead vegetations, it means that there isn't an aplle tree whitout rotten apples). The Germans had their own "rotten apples", but on the other side the reds army was made up almost by "rotten apples". En fin....I think that Romania made its bigest mistake on 23-rd august 1944. I admire the hungarian people, some of their units fought 'til the capitulation of the Third Reich, that's until 9 may 1945. Why couldn't we, the Romanians do such a thing?

Posted by: johnny_bi September 16, 2004 04:23 pm

QUOTE

I think that Romania made its bigest mistake on 23-rd august 1944. I admire the hungarian people, some of their units fought 'til the capitulation of the Third Reich, that's until 9 may 1945. Why couldn't we, the Romanians do such a thing?

The Hungarians fought until the end because there was no political power in Hungary able to do such changing side... Horthy tried to make such a move and you know what happened to him and Hungary...

Posted by: ^All^ September 16, 2004 04:29 pm

I guees....I've heard on tv that a ukrainian unit continued the fight against the SU even after the Romanian 23-aug '44 pact. What do you coment on that?

Posted by: mabadesc September 16, 2004 04:41 pm

QUOTE

I guees....I've heard on tv that a ukrainian unit continued the fight against the SU even after the Romanian 23-aug '44 pact. What do you coment on that?

Apparently when the Germans first entered SU territory and marched to the East, they encountered quite a few villages in Russia, Ukraine, Crimea, which welcomed them as liberators. Among these, some men volunteered to fight alongside the German troops.
Some happened to be people of german origin displaced in the Ukraine, while others were just happy to fight against communism (the tatars in Crimea).

It's an interesting subject, unfortunately, I don't know much more about it. Maybe others with more in-depth knowledge on this subject can post some more information.
Thanks for bringing up the topic, though...

Posted by: Victor September 16, 2004 07:11 pm

QUOTE

I guees....I've heard on tv that a ukrainian unit continued the fight against the SU even after the Romanian 23-aug '44 pact. What do you coment on that?

Are you refering to the anti-Communist partisan activity in the Ukraine after the war, similar to the situation in Romania, or to the Vlasov army which continued to fight after the German surrender until 12 May 1945?

Posted by: ^All^ September 16, 2004 07:32 pm

K I will be more explicit. In a tv show (I guess I saw it on ProPatria at TVR1) there was a man who said that after the fall of the Antonescu regim some of the population fled from the russians to the west. Among them was this man. Acompanying them were German soldiers cut off from their comrades and a unite composed of ukraines. On their march to the west from a cornfeld some russians opened fire on the crowd. The ukraines opened fire with a machinegun and after a few minutes the cornfeld was cut short above the ground with the reds along.

Posted by: Dénes September 16, 2004 08:06 pm

QUOTE

German soldiers cut off from their comrades and a unite composed of ukraines.

Those were UPA soldiers, i.e. anti-Communist Ukrainians.

IIRC, Cornel Marandiuc mentions these Ukrainians while retreating through Moldavia in late August 1944 in his magnificent book, 'Inimi cit sa cuprinda cerul patriei'.

Col. Dénes

Posted by: ^All^ September 16, 2004 08:12 pm

Thanks for your help. I'm also wondering, were there any Romanian independent units that continued the war on the Axis side? If I had lived then I would have continued the war fighting sholder by sholder with the Germans :smg: , against the russian front not against the Romanian one.

Posted by: Victor September 16, 2004 08:30 pm

No Romanian army units comitted acts of treason. However, from volunteers, the Germans could raise several Romanian Waffen SS Regiments (see here: http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/viewtopic.php?t=44)

Posted by: Dénes September 16, 2004 08:38 pm

QUOTE

The Hungarians fought until the end because there was no political power in Hungary able to do such changing side... Horthy tried to make such a move and you know what happened to him and Hungary...

What you wrote, Johnny, covers the truth only partially.
Regent Horthy did indeed attempt to declare a cease-fire with the Soviets in mid-October 1944, but most of the Honvédség units simply did not obey his broadcast order, as these Hungarian officers could not envisage fighting with the Red Army against the Wehrmacht.

Dénes,
freshly promoted to the rank of (virtual) General!

Posted by: ^All^ September 17, 2004 04:40 pm

Sorry Victor but I do not think that you would be a traitor if you would continue to fight against the reds. Remember that Transilvania was under hungarian control til 25 oct 1944 when Carei was liberated by the Romanian Army. From summer 1940 til 25 oct 1944 all men who were enlisted in the army did not fight under Romanian leadership, but under Austro-hungarian. I know this because I live in Crisana region, county Bihor, and my grad-father, God rest his soul, was called under arms in the Austro-hungarian army. If you think a little maybe some Romanian units did fight against the reds, but under Austro-hungarian comand. What's your opinion?

Posted by: ^All^ September 17, 2004 04:51 pm

I'm searching for the 26-th or 27-th Panzergrenadiere regiment. Can anyone help me? I'm a Sven Hassel fan and in one of his books, Suflete ciuruite , he tells the whole story of his fighting retreat from Campia Romana to Carei where he crossed in Hungary. That's why I wanna know if what he has written is the truth or a fiction story.

Posted by: Dénes September 17, 2004 05:40 pm

QUOTE

From summer 1940 til 25 oct 1944 all men who were enlisted in the army did not fight under Romanian leadership, but under Austro-hungarian.

That would be Hungarian command, namely your grandfather served in the Honvédség, or Hungarian Army.
The Austro-Hungarian Empire ceased to exist in late 1918.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Victor September 17, 2004 07:11 pm

QUOTE

First, like Denes said, the Austro-Hungarian ceased to exist in 1918.
Second, please be more coherent in expressing your ideas. You asked abouth Romanian units continuing to fight on the Axis side after 23 August. The Romanian army carried out the orders it received from its commander (King Mihai I). To ignore such an order, would mean of course treason.
What happened with the Romanians within other armies (Hungarian or the Waffen SS) is another issue.

Posted by: Le_Conducator January 18, 2005 12:13 am

Did anyone mentioned that the soviet liberators, after freeing Moldova, raped some thousands Romanian women?

Posted by: dragos January 18, 2005 07:03 am

QUOTE (Le_Conducator @ Jan 18 2005, 03:13 AM)

Did anyone mentioned that the soviet liberators, after freeing Moldova, raped some thousands Romanian women?

Please don't make claims unsuported by proofs. It is known that rape and plunder was commited, but do you have sources for this "some thousands" ?

Posted by: Le_Conducator January 18, 2005 10:32 pm

QUOTE (dragos @ Jan 18 2005, 07:03 AM)

Please don't make claims unsuported by proofs. It is known that rape and plunder was commited, but do you have sources for this "some thousands" ?

Yes I have sources: historians(books, tv appearances), history teachers, writers who witnessed the events, my grandma who wasn't raped 'cause she was in Bucharest in august '44, but she told me what happened in her village near Galati, go in Moldova in any village and ask how was with the russians liberators.

Posted by: C-2 January 19, 2005 08:57 pm

In that war as in many others ,unfortunatly,every army had his rapists.

Posted by: Der Maresal January 25, 2005 05:04 am

QUOTE (C-2 @ Jan 19 2005, 08:57 PM)

In that war as in many others ,unfortunatly,every army had his rapists.

Not quite every army
Some were more disciplined then others.

Posted by: C-2 January 25, 2005 08:14 pm

Name ONE!

Posted by: Dénes January 25, 2005 08:17 pm

The Army of Luxembourg.

gen. Dénes

Posted by: dragos January 25, 2005 08:19 pm

QUOTE (Der Maresal @ Jan 25 2005, 08:04 AM)

QUOTE (C-2 @ Jan 19 2005, 08:57 PM)

In that war as in many others ,unfortunatly,every army had his rapists.

Not quite every army
Some were more disciplined then others.

It's not only about personal discipline, but also how this discipline was enforced by commanding officers. For example, there is difference how Wehrmacht troops behaved in the occupied France and how did they act in Russia,

Posted by: C-2 January 25, 2005 10:43 pm

QUOTE (Dénes @ Jan 25 2005, 08:17 PM)

The Army of Luxembourg.

gen. Dénes

I'm sure they had rapists too...

Maybee the Swiss guards of tha Vatican,or the border patrol of Liechtenstain

Posted by: C-2 January 25, 2005 10:46 pm

QUOTE (dragos @ Jan 25 2005, 08:19 PM)

there is difference how Wehrmacht troops behaved in the occupied France and how did they act in Russia,

Even it's not so "on topic",on WW1 Germans troops didn't behave so nice in France and especialy in Belgium.

Posted by: mabadesc April 14, 2005 06:03 pm

Can someone please post a map of the August '44 offensive? It doesn't have to be a military map, as long as it's detailed and shows most of the villages.

Also, can anyone list the German divisions present in Romania (on August 20, '44) as part of the Southe Ukraine Army Group?

Thanks.

Posted by: allanteo667 May 11, 2005 02:15 pm

One can not say that all the armies were morally equal at war...

Even if some hate to admit it, the german soldier respected his officers, aswell as other axis civilians and soldiers! You cannot compare their behaviour in France and in Italy (where they were occupyers), or even in Romania, with the Soviet way of liberating land and people...

Posted by: Victor May 11, 2005 02:48 pm

You are generalizing. I suggest you study more closely the German occupation in Poland and the Soviet Union, before drawing such conclusions.

Posted by: Imperialist May 22, 2005 06:43 pm

QUOTE (allanteo667 @ Jun 27 2003, 10:02 PM)

4) The average german soldier was more disciplined and civilised than the caucasian or asian soviet soldiers, who lived in the desert steppe! Rember Ilya ehrenburg's call, to raiping, killing and destruction in all occupied territories!

I'm sorry to reply to an older message, but I've seen this argument several times here and I felt I had to say something.
This argument about the asiatic hordes is over-used without people realising that the "asiatic hordes" appeared in Europe mostly because the european russian soldiers were pretty much butchered en masse by the German forces and the survivors taken as slave labourers back in the Reich. The russian had to replace them with "asiatic hordes".

Posted by: Victor May 22, 2005 07:12 pm

Actually the majority of the population and thus the soldiers were from the western (European) part of the USSR.