| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| WorldWar2.ro Forum > Eastern Front (1941-1944) > Rumania's June-July 1941 Campaign Legitimate |
| Posted by: Dénes February 26, 2007 02:54 pm |
| I am surprised this topic did not pop up here until now. Recently, a Rumanian judge ruled that Rumania's June-July 1941 Campaign for Bessarabia and Bukovina was legitimate, as it was a "pre-emptive war", which was "aiming towards eliminating the continuous and imminent martial law existing on the country's Eastern borders [since the Soviet annexation of those territories in 1940]": "CAB apreciaza ca razboiul de eliberare a Basarabiei si Bucovinei, din 1941, în conditiile starii de necesitate prelungite, a fost legitim, pâna la înlaturarea iminentei pericolului militar sovietic. Razboiul preventiv purtat de România a avut drept cauza legala justificativa starea de necesitate continua si iminenta de la frontiera de rasarit. Pentru acest motiv el nu a încalcat articolul 3 din Conventia de definire a agresiunii din 1933, întrucât nu s-a bazat pe justificari de natura subiectiva, ci pe una legala, respectiv reglementarea legala a scuzei de înlaturare a starii de necesitate." [Source: stiri.neogen.ro: http://stiri.neogen.ro/lotul-antonescu-achitat-partial-intr-un-recurs-al-procesului-din-1946/217940/2] This juridical rule could open a wholly new aspect of the anti-Soviet war. What is your opinion on this? Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Imperialist February 26, 2007 03:44 pm | ||
| The ruling talks about preventive war, not preemptive one. I find this part confusing:
reglementarea legala a scuzei de inlaturare....? Sounds like they're calling the action an excuse (?). |
| Posted by: dragos February 27, 2007 01:56 pm | ||
| Here is the text of Convention of July 3rd, 1933 the decision is referring to. Both Romania and USSR were signatories. http://www.letton.ch/lvx_33da.htm
|
| Posted by: Dénes February 27, 2007 02:50 pm |
| The key here is "the territory of another State". AFAIK, USSR never recognised officially the incorporation of Bessarabia and Bukovina into Rumania in 1918. Therefore, from their point of view, Soviet/Russian historians argue that the 1940 act was merely a recovery of their own territories. Another point. Based on the quoted text, the USSR was the agressor in case of Finland and Hungary as well, as Soviet bombers bombed these states' territories. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Victor February 27, 2007 08:17 pm | ||
Please point out the internationally recognized treaty in which Norhtern Bukovina and the Herta County were mentioned as part of the USSR/Russia prior to the Paris Peace Conference in 1947. |
| Posted by: Dénes February 28, 2007 10:34 am |
| Victor, don't shoot the messenger (or the pianist, if you will)! I am not implying here anything. I am not taking sides either. All I want to understand is the background and legal aspects of this ruling. So back to my question: if the USSR (and lately Russia) never officially recognised the incorporation of Bessarabia and Bukovina into Rumania (regardless if Bukovina was part of Russia or not), how would this legally affect the said ruling? Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Imperialist March 01, 2007 08:04 am | ||
If the incorporation was recognised by international law at the time, then from a legal stand-point USSR's non-recognition is irrelevant in changing the incorporation's recognised legality. take care |
| Posted by: dragos March 01, 2007 11:52 am | ||
| http://www.bbc.co.uk/romanian/news/story/2007/02/070220_antonescu_decizie.shtml http://portal.just.ro/InstantaDosar.aspx?idInstitutie=2&d=MjAwMDAwMDAwMTAwNDUw
|
| Posted by: mabadesc March 01, 2007 04:09 pm |
| As far as I know, the Soviet Union engaged in small (from several men to platoon size), short incursions into Romanian territory on a frequent basis. Both soldiers as well as civilian-dressed individuals were used in these incursions, with the goal of spreading panic in villages close to the border. Soviet recon planes were also often seen crossing into Romanian air space. These events continued well after the 1940 annexation of Bessarabia and N. Bukovina. Could these small-scale, but frequent raids be considered as a breach of articles 3 and 5 of the 1933 convention? Thanks. |
| Posted by: Dénes March 01, 2007 06:52 pm | ||
Such airspace violations happened the other way as well. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Dan Po March 05, 2007 06:30 am | ||
You can take a look http://istorie-militara.blogspot.com/2006/08/22-iunie-1941-preliminarii-romanesti_27.html, a very modest hobby-contribution  . In Romanian only. |
| Posted by: Dénes March 05, 2007 01:42 pm |
| Hello Dan, In your history blog, you wrote the following: "In iulie 1939, V.M. Molotov (...) a refuzat sa primeasca o nota de protest a guvernului roman, privitoare la un avion sovietic ce violase spatiul aerian al Romaniei (...)". Could you give us more details about this - and any similar air space violation - incident that occurred over the Rumanian-Soviet borderline in 1939-1941? It would be urgent. Thanks. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Dan Po March 05, 2007 07:46 pm |
| Mr Denes, You can find there my bibliography. In this moment I m very far from my books so I cannot help you. Good luck ! |
| Posted by: Florin March 10, 2007 04:11 am |
| My personal opinion: I would not qualify the operations of the Romanian Army, starting in the morning of June 22, 1941, as pre-emptive war. According to my understanding, a pre-emptive war is an action against an enemy ready to mount a full scale attack against you. This was not the case in June 1941. Germany made very clearly to USSR that an invasion over the Prut River is not acceptable, and as we know, in 1940...1941 Stalin was afraid of Germany. The Luftwaffe took over its Romanian airports starting with September 1940. I am not a professional historian, but I would not be surprised to learn that the provocations and the harassment from the Soviets, in all forms mentioned here, increased gradually from June 26, 1940 to the end of August, 1940, and then, as Romania entered under the German shade, at the beginning of September 1940, these aggressions gradually faded. A complete different situation was in the Romanian territory conquered by USSR, between Prut and Nister. There the aggression, humiliation and deportation of the ethnic Romanians increased steadily from June 1940 to June 1941. This last thing leads to the fact that even though not a pre-emptive war, this war started by Romania (as satellite ally) was a justified war. I consider very justified the revenge against the aggression of the Communist Russian leadership, even though not the Russian leaders suffered, but the common folk. Romania and Finland were much more justified to start their war in June 1941 than Germany. I am a little bit confused about Hungary: As Molotov called the Hungarian ambassador in Moskow, about 2...3 days after 22 June 1941, to tell him that Russia sees no problem if Hungary will grab from Romania the rest of Transylvania, I guess in those very first days Hungary did not have troops involved in the campaign, and possible Russia hoped that it will remain this way. In this last matter, I am sure just about the discussion between Molotov and the Hungarian ambassador. By the way, the Hungarian ambassador in Moskow informed the Romanian ambassador in Moskow about this discussion. Also the Romanian ambassador was called by the Russians and asked something like: "What did we do to deserve this?" If they really asked that, they played "stupid", because they couldn't be that stupid. |
| Posted by: Florin March 10, 2007 04:26 am | ||
The Russian leadership of today, at the highest ranks, expressed publicly their indignation regarding the way Romania is looking to her recent past. They made some aggressive comments against Romania. Well, you cannot please everybody, and the relations between the West and Russia are not honey sweet as 15 years ago, so who cares? But Russia is recovering. She is far from her weakness occurred in the 1990's, and this country will outlive NATO in the long run. However, as most Romanians feel that war was justified, we have to dare to express what we feel. [edited by admin] |
| Posted by: Dan Po March 12, 2007 01:17 pm | ||
This recognision wasn't necessary anyway. You can see http://istorie-militara.blogspot.com/2006/08/22-iunie-1941-preliminarii-romanesti_18.html the story of bassarabian union. In 1918 Bassarabia decide to make a union with Romania, not with Russia or USSR. And, IMAO, let s remember the alliance's terms between Rusia and Romania from 1877. After the war, Rusia take a part from the former ally's teritory - sounthern Bassarabia  - a russian style alliance. - see http://istorie-militara.blogspot.com/2006/08/22-iunie-1941-preliminarii-romanesti.htmllater edit : Infrangerea Rusiei in Razboiul Crimeei (1853-1856) a schimbat radical raportul de forte european. La negocierile de pace Austria a incercat sa determine retrocedarea Basarabiei, fara insa sa reusesca. Prin articolul XX al tratatului de la Paris, Sudul Basarabiei este restituit Imperiului Otoman - in fapt, Moldovei. Aici este vorba de considerente de "realpolitik". Nimic altceva decat interesul a determinat Marea Britanie sa indeparteze Rusia de Gurile Dunarii, pentru a asigura securitatea importurilor engleze de cereale din Tarile Romane. Aparitia pe piata mondiala a graului american - mai bun si mai ieftin, a facut, alaturi si de alte considerente - ca Regatul Unit sa-si piarda interesul pentru aceasta regiune, astfel ca in urma razboiului ruso-romano-turc din 1877-1878 Rusia a "recuperat" Sudul Basarabiei de la "aliatul" Roman. Rusia asigurase in urma conventiei de la 4/16 aprilie 1877 integritatea teritoriala a Romaniei. Articolul 3 al acestei Conventii prevedea ca partea rusa se obliga "a mentine si a face a se respecta drepturile politice ale statului roman, asa cum rezulta din legile internationale si tratatele existente, precum si de a mentine si apara integritatea actuala a Romaniei" We cannot talk about preventive war. We have to talk about a liberation war, started at 22 june 1944. There is no comparation between today's preventive war from Iraq and the romanian atack of 22 june or 2 july, 1941. |
| Posted by: Dan Po April 16, 2007 06:05 am | ||
Germany played a smart game with Hungary and Romania: Transylvania - if you want more, bring me troops, oil, food, etc. If you'll be a good country maybe I ll decide to prefere you instead of your "ally" . This is the only reason of the presence of 2nd Hungarian Army at Don s bank: Transylvania. About the soviet declarations to romanian ambassador - "What did we do to deserve this?" - it s just a cynical blabla. Nothing more. There is no doubts about one true fact: in 1940 USSR was an agressor and they take a part of romanian lands. Was trully natural - in matter of national interests - for Romania to atack and to fight against a proved enemy. If we use the same logic, the war against USSR was more "justificated" than the war against Nazy Germany. USSR was by far more "criminal" than Germany and in USSR more inocent peoples was killed. The USSR comited by far more crimes against romanians after the 1940 than witch were comited against romanian in the annexed Transylvania. |
| Posted by: AGC April 16, 2007 09:47 am | ||
Unfortunately we don’t talk about the thousand of Romanians who died in Basarabia. The world should know what happened with the Romanians in Basarabia during WW2 and after. http://www.gid-romania.com/IndexSections.asp?SID=124 AGC |
| Posted by: Imperialist April 16, 2007 11:26 am | ||
Why was war more justified against the USSR than against Hungary? |
| Posted by: Dan Po April 17, 2007 05:46 am |
| Why Romania fought against Germany after 23 august 1944 ? Off. rep : because Germany was evil, and because Transylvania. Comment: USSR was more evil and also Bassarabia and N Bukovina was liberated >>>>> so, following this logic, the war against USSR was "more" justified. More than that, you cannot compare the annexation of Bassarabia in 1940 <<< justified in a stupid way because it was annexed first in 1812, with the history of Transylvania - centuries of hungarian/habsburgic/austro-hungarian state civilization and political life. |
| Posted by: AGC April 17, 2007 07:11 am |
| Romania had nothing with Germany. The German troops had time to leave Romania without making any problems. The German attitude after 23 August led to war with her. Theoretical the enemy was Hungary. The wars in the East and in the West where equally justified. AGC |
| Posted by: Imperialist April 17, 2007 07:21 am | ||
Why would I compare the annexation of Basarabia with the history of Transylvania. No, I'm comparing the annexations of both. My long held opinion is that Romania should have resisted any ultimatums and any annexations. If I'm not mistaken, that would have meant standing up to the USSR first, in Basarabia. |
| Posted by: Dan Po April 17, 2007 08:38 am | ||
I agree with you. But there I try to think in "official way". Nobody talk today about the war against Hungary in 1944-1945 but against Germany. |
| Posted by: Dan Po April 17, 2007 08:44 am | ||||
Everything is already done. We can talk endless about a lot of "if" s. You can compare why Romania was "evil" in his Axis war and why was "good" in her ro-soviet brothership with Red Army. |
| Posted by: AGC April 17, 2007 10:29 am |
| I am not a jurist. Could it bee legally to declare war toward a country under following reason? 1. You have there a large minority (ex. Romanians in Basarabia). 2. The authorities sustain an ethnic cleansing policy against this minority (ex. 300.000 Romanians where deported from Basarabia between 1940 and 1941). AGC |
| Posted by: Imperialist April 17, 2007 10:46 am | ||||
My intervention started with your claim that the war against USSR was more justified than war against Hungary and Germany. Since both cases were ones of forced annexations, you based your claim on 2 levels of "evilness": 1. German crimes against people within own borders vs. Soviet crimes within own borders. 2. Soviet crimes in annexed territories vs. German/Hungary crimes in annexed territories. However this has little to do with this thread, imo, because it takes the whole discussion into an endless talk about who was more evil. Romania was not justified to attack USSR and get back Basarabia because the USSR was more evil, it was justified because like you said it was trully natural - in matter of national interests - for Romania to atack and to fight against a proved enemy. But I didn't see why you would call the campaign for Basarabia more justified than the one for Transylvania. And I still don't.
What is Off. rep? Official reply? That's not why Romania fought against Germany (because Germany was evil). |
| Posted by: Dan Po April 17, 2007 12:00 pm |
| Look, let s talk straight: In my last post I use a lot of "quotes" about the official policy and about how shy was the romanian autorities in their appreciations about the axis episode. There is no doubt: we don t have to be shy because the romanian army fought by german side or by soviet side: the romanian desired outcome was the national integrity and nothing else. We don t have to explain nothing, we don t have to excuse our fight. Romania was attacked in 1940. At 22 june 1941 Romania strike back, and the same thing was done after 23 august 1944. |
| Posted by: Victor April 17, 2007 04:49 pm | ||
Do you have a source for that figure? Impoerialist is right. There is no point in diverting the topic towards a who was more evil contest. Please try to stick to the original subject. |
| Posted by: AGC April 17, 2007 04:54 pm |
| http://www.gid-romania.com/IndexSections.asp?SID=124 Florin Matrescu, "Holocaustul rosu sau crimele in cifre ale comunismului international", Bucuresti, 1998, pg.56-57 Victor Barsan, "Masacrul inocentilor", Bucuresti, 1993, pg.18-19 AGC |
| Posted by: Dan Po April 17, 2007 09:33 pm | ||
Of course he s right ! For Romania basicaly there is not any difference between the eastern front and the western front. The final point was the same. I just tried to be a little bit ironical. Probably not clear enough. |
| Posted by: R-35 June 08, 2007 03:43 pm | ||||
Russia was as big a butcher as Germany in WW II and basicly got what they deserved. After bullying the Finns and Romanians out of land legally recognised by the League of Nations Germany came along and gave The Soviet Union the beating of it's life. Only by threat of war did Romania give give up the land and thus any legality in attacking The Soviet Goonian later on using force is quite legitamate.
The only true fact here is that Nato outlasted the Warsaw Pact. I wish Countries like Poland and Romania were part of Nato because it would piss off Russia even more . Russia the x bully boy could not do anything but point a few missiles at someone.. R-35 [edited by admin] |
| Posted by: Victor June 08, 2007 04:08 pm |
| An out of place remark was removed. R-35, please inspect the forum rules: http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=27 Thank you. |
| Posted by: 21 inf June 08, 2007 05:27 pm |
| Even if this man said it in another time with another ocasion, here are his words: "Existenta unei natiuni nu se discuta, ci se afirma". |
| Posted by: R-35 June 09, 2007 08:42 pm | ||
I apologise and will be more aware of the Guidelines in the future.. Thankyou.. |
| Posted by: Matasso August 06, 2007 11:10 am |
| I think we cannot judge such a question by a court rulling right now. To consider that the war started on 22nd June 1941 on the romanian side as a pre-emptive war cannot be as there were no soviet intentions of attack whatsoever. Besides the soviets had "recovered" both Basarabia and Bucovina so from their point of view their aims towards the Danube were satisfied!! At the time there was no such thing as a justified war at least in regards to International Law. A war was viewed as an agression, even in cases where we could have seen a "casus belli". See the Society of Nations rullings against Japan from 1931 onwards. This being said, Romanian legitimacy for war in 1941 must be viewed simply as a moral act. Plain and simple. Basarabia and Northern Bucovina had a majority of romanian population and had been legally integrated in the country in March 1918, that is 8 months before the end of WW1. Besides, this territory did not include Transnistria at the time. This territory beyond the Dniest was always russian and the problem it represents today simply stands from the fact that after 1945 Stalin, always himself, added Transnistria to the Moldavian RSS simply to enhance the number of slavic population against the romanian ethnical background. I think we must consider it legitimate even when we read the opinions of men like Iuliu Maniu and the subsequent change of opinion of the vast majority of the romanian politicians and people towards the war from a sympathetic point of view for the 1941 campaign to the not so happy presence in the rest of the campaign. It was stated by Maniu, very clearly that with Basarabia and Bucovina, Romania had achieved its aims and to go further represented an act of agression. I think this is still the cause today. 1941 was in every way legitimate, even if not supported by the international law, the rest is history! Cheers Mathias |
| Posted by: dead-cat August 06, 2007 01:18 pm | ||
nevertheless the congress of the CPSU defined, that every war, which serves "the liberation of the oppressed proletariat" is a just one. and since the red army would fight only for this "noble goal", every war waged by the SU is inherently just. other than that, there is a much more pragmatic approach on this issue, by Clausewitz. |
| Posted by: Imperialist February 19, 2010 03:49 pm |
| It should be pointed out that the judge's decision has been overruled by the Constitutional Court some time ago (1 or 2 years). A foreigner bumping into this thread could be given the idea that his ruling is actually in force. |
| Posted by: cristianaliatul August 07, 2011 08:10 pm |
| OSTASI v am fagaduit din prima zii a noii mele domnii si a luptei mele nationale sa va duc la biruinta astazi a sosit ceasul celei mai sfinte lupte lupta drepturilor bisericii pentru vetrele si altarele romanesti de totdeauna OSTASI va ordon treceti prutul sdrobiti vrasmasul din rasarit si miaza-noapte. desrobiti din jugul rosu al bolsevismului pe fratii nostrii cotropiti reimpliniti in trupul tarii glia strabuna a basarabilor si codrii voievodali ai bucovinei OGOARELE SI PLAIURILE NOASTRE OSTASI VETI LUPTA COT LA COT SUFLET LA SUFLET LANGA CEA MAI PUTERNICA SI GLORIOASA ARMATA A LUMII INDRASNITI SA VA MASURATI VITEJIA SI SA VA DOVEDITI MANDRIA CAMARAZILOR VOSTRI FITI VREDNICI DE CINSTEA PE CARE VA FACUTO ISTORIA ARMATA MARELUI REICH SI NEINTRECUTUL EI COMANDANT ADOLF HITLER OSTASI IZBANDA VA FI A NOASTRA CU DUMNEZEU INAINTE GENERAL ION ANTONESCU 22 IUNIE 1941 ORA 2:22   |
| Posted by: cristianaliatul August 07, 2011 08:15 pm |
HAHAHA THE RUSSIANS beated the romanians hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaha the best JOKE I EVER HEARD  |
| Posted by: contras October 14, 2011 09:21 am |
| Causes and reasons about Dniestr crossing: http://cristiannegrea.blogspot.com/2011/10/ne-puteam-opri-pe-nistru.html |
| Posted by: dragos October 14, 2011 04:31 pm |
| Can someone who read the entire article post a resume? That would be helpful for those who can't read Romanian and for those like myself who don't have the patience to read that wall of text to get to the point. |
| Posted by: ANDREAS October 15, 2011 07:28 pm |
| I will refer only briefly to the issue of crossing the Dniester by the Romanian army, as presented in this article. Cristian Negrea said that in order to answer the question of title (Crossing the Dnestr), he'll have to take into account several types of cases: operational causes, political causes, military causes and strategical causes. Operational causes : Even the shape portion of the Prut and Dniester, wider and narrower south to north, one could deduce that our army couldn't reach at the same time simultaneously the Dniester. There was also the nature of the land (areas with difficult terrain to cross) and degree of resistance (areas with enemy forces who defending themselves with energy) to the enemy. Thus it was that 3rd Romanian Army to occupy Northern Bukovina faster than the 4th Romanian Army and the 11th German central and southern Bessarabia. So the next mission of the 3rd Romanian Army was forcing the Dnestr in the area of Mogilev, operation conducted in July 17, 1941 3.45 pm, in the evening they built two bridgeheads east of the Dniester that are developed by heavy fighting, operation that takes place while heavy fighting took place in Bessarabia in order to liberate it from the Soviet forces. From these bridgeheads, because the situation was favorable, on July 21, 1941, the 3rd Romanian Army started their offensive in general direction of Voznesensk Bug. No doubt that the action from Mogilev and subsequent offensive was of real help to the other armies that fought in Bessarabia, Cetatea Alba city was occupied only five days later, on 26 July. |
| Posted by: ANDREAS October 15, 2011 08:24 pm |
| Political causes : Return to the international political and geopolitical situation back in 1941, France, one of the great powers of the interwar period had ceased to exist. England, another great power, have a fight in conditions of isolation, desperately trying to defend the island against the german aviation, in air and at sea, trying not to be totally blocked. The entire western and central Europe was either under german occupation or in alliance with Germany. Germany became the dominant power on the continent, and it seemed that nobody could stand in the way. Nor was who. The U.S. public opinion was clearly against intervention in the war, she was willing to let the Europeans to fight among themselves as they wish. The experience of World War I, with five hundred thousand American soldiers dead, wounded and missing on the plains of France were still traumatized. Precisely because of that Franklin Delano Roosevelt could not openly supported the British in 1940 for fear campaign that followed. Only after Pearl Harbor at the end 1941 and with the support of Hitler WHO unilaterally declared war on U.S. in december the US entered the war. More on that is that the British declared war on us not in June 1941 when we crossed the Prut River, not in July when we crossed the Dniester, not in October when we besieged Odessa, but that on December 6, when our troops passing the Bug river. Suppose that we stopped on the Dnestr river and we said to the germans that our objectives were reached. But the Hungarians went on, even if they had lower troops involvement in the campaign. If the war ended with a German victory, which was very likely in 1941, in light of geopolitical considerations above, who think that North of Transylvania would remain : to the Hungarians who went all the way or Romanians who stopped at the Dnestr river? Any analysis made after 1941 or 1942 can be qualified as postfactum, so unrealistic for the situation we speak. |
| Posted by: ANDREAS October 15, 2011 09:15 pm |
| Military reasons : One of the strengths of the arguments that support that we could stop our advance on the river Dnestr is the fact that we were not asked by Hitler to continue. But Hitler asked specifically someone to continue? In 1941 his position was so strong that he didn't had to ask. He act only if somebody does not, as in Yugoslavia. Another argument is that the Romanian army was not prepared for such a war. But who was prepared for such a war? Who would have thought that the war will last another four years? Was Germany prepared for such a war in summer 1941 with only 3500 tanks (half of them light) on a 2900 km front line, or England, which coastguard was armed in 1940 with clubs? And which recruits troops were training with broom handles, each platoon having only one rifle? The truth is that nobody was prepared for such a war, but in 1941 nobody suspected that the war would be so long! Furthermore, who made Romania not ready for war, when all the signs were clear for years that we are heading towards a confrontation? Our political class our leaders from the middlewar period who stand and do nothing and have seen only on their domestic political bickering and petty (as they do today, in fact) making Iorga to speak of "our political hara that embarrass us in face of all nations"? What could Antonescu make in just one year to turn the mistakes and indolence of twenty years? When the time comes, it don't ask you if you're ready or not, it just comes so you need to act. Another stupid argument to justify, in the minds of some, that we could stop to the Dnestr river, is that Hitler did not put any basic on the Romanian troops, that he consider weak. His opinion was biased, but many forget Hitler's statement after Romania entered the war, on 12 August 1941, to the Spanish ambassador, Espinoza de los Monterosi : "Romanian troops, our allies are absolutely outstanding." Earlier, on 29 June, Hitler wrote to thank him Antonescu for "valiant attitude and activities of the Romanian army." Many other German officers and generals experienced in combat, most able to judge behavior and combativeness of fighters, wrote in appreciative terms about the Roman troops. And you think that the Germans would give up slightly of the contribution of such soldiers? That would be simply to give up the main force of the southern armies of Army Group South? That would have brought troops to besiege in the place of Romanians the city of Odessa, Odessa who was the only major city conquered by an ally of Germany without their competition (it is true, with heavy losses)? |
| Posted by: ANDREAS October 15, 2011 09:52 pm |
| Strategical causes: Tracking enemy forces is essential in improving the victory on the battlefield. It is not enough to defeat your opponent but you must follow him to get him out (eliminate him) of the war, lest you find yourself fighting him again tomorrow. All the great generals and commanders had scrupulously respected this basic principle of military strategy. And could we violate this basic principle, by refusing to follow and catch the soviet forces as they withdrew in disarray? If we have left them, we woke up tomorrow with the same forces on the front line fighting, as happened to us in other occasions. Other analysts said they we didn't have to go over the Dnestr because we don't conduct a war outside our borders, only went to war to defend our territory. Another stupidity who shows a total ignorance of not only military strategy but also our history. And those who support such nonsense can see they don't know basic things such as the difference between a war of aggression and a preventive war. A preventive war is to attack your opponent where you are sure that he wants to attack you, attack him before he is ready to attack you. Examples are enormously more in history, including our history. And Romanians brought many wars outside the national territory, preventive wars of defense. The purpose of any war is destruction of the opponent forces. Not only to defeat them but to destroy them. Following his forces, that we are talking about, is a mean, a corollary of the destruction operation. And the destruction of the opponent's forces involves the pursuit, often beyond his borders. If you do not make that, you pay a heavy price later, as we did in 1919. We have not followed the Hungarian troops over the Tisza in April 1919, they came back and attacked us in July 1919. Other losses, other victims could have been avoided. There were voices in the Entente even then in July, who asked us to stop on the Tisza. Why, to be attacked once again when the Hungarians regroup? King Ferdinand acted correctly in passing the Tisa river, follow the opponent and the occupation of Budapest. More recent examples: In 1991, the international coalition drove Saddam Hussein out from Kuwait, but not pursued his forces and not stripped him of power. He remained a threat despite the 1998 bombing or air interdiction areas. It was removed only in 2003 after Baghdad was taken. In 2008, the Russians drove the Georgian back, but did they stop at the border of South Ossetia? No, they went on their trail in the Georgian territory. And we, was it not normal and logical to follow the soviet troops across the Dnestr river to their destruction, as it is only natural and possible in 1941? If not, the Soviets would have regrouped and we would be attacked again on the bank line of Dnestr, this time even stronger. A military adage says that when you enter a war, you must have the stomach to take him to the end. We were forced to enter the war, and had to get him through. |
| Posted by: ANDREAS October 15, 2011 10:00 pm |
| .... Responsibilities must be sought from those who for decades were not concerned with the essential problem of the country, the defense. They preferred to argue for government and elsewhere to dispel the funds for purchase of arms. And then to come as analysts do to cast all blame on Antonescu's back that he did not stop on the Dnestr river, seems to me the height of hypocrisy. Article translated (with some errors probably) from Cristian Negrea's blog, called "Could we stop at the Dnestr?" |
| Posted by: Dénes October 16, 2011 07:16 am | ||
I see that Mr. Negrea often uses the "Hungarian threat", or "rivalry" in justifying certain historical or current political events. Apparently, he is either not knowledgeable enough of certain historical details, or deliberately uses half thruths for his own agenda. For example, in his detailed reasonings shown above he comfortably skips the basic fact that while Rumania was the first ally of Germany to go to war with the USSR from the very first day, without any casus belli, the Hungarians joined the war the last, and only after her territory was attacked repeatedly. Also, weak Hungarian troops (one mobile Corps) stopped in their advance in the Autumn of 1941, and did not go any deeper for well over a year. I will not pick up again the topic of the 1918/1919 war between Rumania and Hungary, as enough has been written in other topics of this forum, and I would only repeat myself. Enough having been said, what I've read of Mr. Negrea's reasonings I wasn't impressed. By the contrary... Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: dragos October 16, 2011 07:25 am |
| Thanks Andreas! |
| Posted by: contras October 16, 2011 08:30 am | ||
I think the cassus belli was the occupation of Basarabia and nothern Bukovina one year earlier. |
| Posted by: Dénes October 16, 2011 02:15 pm |
| Casus belli is an actual incident that provokes war. The recovery of the lost territories was the political and (temporary) military goal for Rumania, but not a casus belli. In this particular case, there was no casus belli for Rumania starting offensive actions against the USSR. The bombing of Kassa and the strafing of a civilian train near Raho by (presumably) Soviet warplanes on 26 June were the actual casus belli of Hungary going to war against the USSR. Indeed, following these incidents Hungary first noted a state of war between the two countries and only then the Hungarian troops crossed the borders. Or, if Hungary went to war against Rumania in August 1940, to recover her lost territories, the 1918/1919 local war was not a casus belli. It was the political and military goal of the would-be action. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: dragos October 16, 2011 03:06 pm |
| Most casus belli at that time were staged and not very credible. See for example the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Mainila. IMO the goal of reclaiming Bessarabia and N Bukovina was more reasonable for going to war rather a poorly staged casus belli. |
| Posted by: Beta October 16, 2011 04:29 pm |
| There is currently a very interesting poll on Historia.ro, under the section "Tell us your opinion", entitled "Should have Romania had the same reaction as Finland to the 1940 Soviet ultimatum?". Up to now, total votes - 1,658. 1. Yes, it would have been the best option - 54%; 2. No, Romania is not Finland. It was good that it retreated - 13%; 3. Yes, we would have forced the Germans to protect us - 25%; 4. I don't know - 8%. I voted for no. 3... ~S~ |
| Posted by: ANDREAS October 16, 2011 06:15 pm | ||
Even if it is a little off-topic I express my personal opinion on this by saying that major differences between the two countries (Romania and Finland) in terms of military training of the army, the morale, the support of the country's leadership in the eyes of the population and last but not least geography and weather conditions are and should be considered in any comparative analysis! |
| Posted by: contras October 17, 2011 07:09 am | ||
There were many provocations and border incidents between July 1940 and June 1941, for example Soviets occupied some islands in Danube Delta by surprise. Many aviation raids against our teritory, some kind of nerve war, some time attrition war. I suppose that exery provocation of this kind could serve as casus belli. |
| Posted by: MMM October 17, 2011 10:56 am | ||
Yeah, and then some! The very idea of those provocation was to force some kind of response from Romania, at least until october 1940 (when the German Military Mission begun to arrive in Ro.), so that our country would be overwhelmed by the Red Army... Of course, if you remember, we were also accused of provocations and such in the days before 26.06.1940; you know the result! |
| Posted by: Victor October 17, 2011 01:56 pm | ||
And what could Germany have done, with the vast majority of its forces thousands of kilometres away from the Romanian border? |
| Posted by: dragos October 17, 2011 03:33 pm |
That can't be a serious poll. Look at number 2. I think everyone agrees that Romania is not Finland, but who could think at what has has happened as a "good" thing?  |
| Posted by: MMM October 17, 2011 04:07 pm |
| As polls go, of course it's not serious! The term "good" is used as an antonymic of "bad", not necessarily as desirable... IMO... I wonder what would be the results of such a poll in Finland now, given the fact that their resistance has prevented the Popular Republic of Finland to exist after 1940! Yes, Romania isn't wasn't, never will be Finland, but they also had a big cost to pay! |
| Posted by: contras October 24, 2011 09:59 pm |
| It is more about politics, but I think it is a interesting view http://cristiannegrea.blogspot.com/2011/10/apararea-lui-antonescu.html |