| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| WorldWar2.ro Forum > Eastern Front (1941-1944) > Reasons for Romanian Participation in Barbarossa |
| Posted by: mroyer October 28, 2012 08:40 pm |
| Hi, I have a fairly straight forward question for which I'm struggling finding satisfactory answers on the net. I understand the basic timeline of events from the 2nd Vienna Award through to the attack on the Soviet Union, but what were the politics that went on between Germany and Antonescu's Romania that convinced Antonescu to work so tightly with Berlin and join the invasion. Leading up to Barbarossa, why were German forces allowed into Romania in the first place? Why would Romania allow Germany to launch attacks into Yugoslavia from Romanian territory near Timisoara? I realize that the early Operation Munchen was designed to reclaim lost Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina - but how did the Axis convince Romania to continue the aggression beyond that deep into the Soviet Union. Was there a quid-pro-quo exchange of value; did the Berlin offer something in exchange for Romanian participation at such a deep level? Thanks for any thoughts and information on this topic. -Mark R. |
| Posted by: MMM October 29, 2012 08:14 am |
| It is a very complex question, but a simple answer would be like that: 1. Romania received the German / Axis guarantees for the rest of its territory, as well as the guarantee for independence from further Soviet interferences. 2. Romania has participated voluntarily at Barabrossa, for thwo main reasons: to get Bessarabia back and to recover the lost honour of the Romanian Army. (will continue) |
| Posted by: Radub October 29, 2012 09:04 am |
| You must go back to around 1939 to understand the reasons. Romania always needed an allied foreign power to guarantee its "neutrality" and "safety". Before WW2, the main ally of Romania was France. As soon as Germany began its Blitzkrieg, Europe changed radically with a great number of countries falling under German occupation. Russia was doing the same, moving into Poland and the Baltic states. At exactly the same time Romania was going through a very convolute period of significant upheavals including territorial losses, repeated changes of government, royal dictatorship, right-wing extremism, assassination, etc. Then France fell. Romania's main ally and guarantor was gone and a couple of days later Russia annexed Bessarabia. It is almost impossible to find any comparisons with today to understand how the world was then, but there was a lot of anger and fear, prevailing despair. Romania needed a powerful friend and guarantor (still does today). "Neutrality" had not worked well for Romania, every edge was "nibbled' or "gnawed" by a "neighbour". Unless Romania found a strong protector quickly, it would have shared the fate of Poland, Norway, Holland, Belgium, France, etc. and disappear as a state altogether. Realistically, there were only two choices of "powerful allies": Russia or Germany. Russia was not popular anyway, irrespective of their rapt of Bessarabia, because communism was regarded with fear. Either way, it would have meant war. So Romania joined the Axis. Germany planned to expand East anyway, so German army was going to clash with the Russian army in some place and it was quite possible that Barbarossa would have started on the Romanian side of Prut. So by joining the Axis, Romania effectively moved the Barbarossa frontline on the "Russian" (formerly Romanian) side of Prut. For a while, the alliance with Germany seemed like a good choice. They supplied equipment and infrastructure and they helped Romania regain control of Bessarabia. Did not last though... So, in brief, there was no single reason why Romania joined Barbarossa. It was a convoluted melange of reasons, circumstances and "no-alternative" choices. Radu |
| Posted by: mroyer October 29, 2012 10:02 am |
| Thanks for answers; very interesting. So, to continue the thought... Once Romania was embroiled in the conflict, how did Germany maintain Romanian involvement and convince them to drive deeper into the Soviet Union? What was the chain of command? Did orders flow from German operational command directly to the Romanian forces, or did each operation deeper into the Soviet Union need approval in Bucharest? Were there constant negotiations between Berlin and Bucharest to approve further military actions, or once hooked in did the Romanian Army simply "go along". I find the later hard to believe. It seems a stretch that participating in the attack on Stalingrad, for example, had much to do with reclaiming Bessarabia, and Bukovina. Thanks again for your responses. -Mark R. |
| Posted by: Radub October 29, 2012 10:37 am | ||
After the Antonescu III government came to power, Romania was effectively a dictatorship in which Antonescu was the Prime Minister, Minister of War (and a few other posts) and all political parties were outlawed. There was no parliament, there were no debates. There was no "legislative", only "executive". The King's powers were limited by Constitution (very much like the British system) and he could not legally interfere in the work of the executive. So, all the power was concentrated in the hands of Antonescu. He made all the choices and decisions and he was at the other end of the phone line with Hitler. The interesting thing is that for a period of a few months in 1943 Antonescu simply disappeared "due to medical problems" (some say he had a nervous breakdown after Stalingrad and worsened by Tidal Wave, some say siphilis) and there was no one in charge. At that stage, the country really "went along with the flow". Also due to Antonescu's "orchestra man" style of leadership, the economy (which was nationalised) started to falter, inflatioin was rampant, everything was going pearshaped. In reality, after the fall of Stalingrad, the Axis was on the retreat and it made little difference who was in charge anyway, the end was inevitable. Radu |
| Posted by: dragos October 29, 2012 12:07 pm | ||
One of the most important things that made Antonescu go along with Hitler in the campaign in the East far beyond the initial scope was the issue of Transylvania. Hitler used this issue as a leverage in negociations with both Antonescu and Horthy. In the view of Antonescu, proving to Hitler he was an worthy ally, Hitler would cancel the Vienna Diktat and return N-W Transylvania to Romania. Whenever Antonescu raised the issue during their meetings, Hitler avoided to offer a clear response for the future position of Germany regarding this.
It seems that the illness was malaria and the calumnious assumption that he had siphilis is because both afflicitions were treated with the same medication back then. I'll check the diary of Ion Antonescu for more details about this period. |
| Posted by: Radub October 29, 2012 12:27 pm | ||
Quite possible. I am only "quoting from memory". What matters for the purposes of this topic is that there was a brief period when no one was "in charge".  Radu |
| Posted by: Florin October 29, 2012 05:24 pm |
| The way I know it, on September 5, 1940 King Caroll II abdicated and fled the country. Is the date correct? Backed by strong German support, Bulgaria obtained from Romania the Cadrilater territory on September 7, 1940. General Ion Victor Antonescu was appointed as chief of state in the day before September 7, or after that? Officially, he was appointed chief of state by King Michael I. Was Michael king since September 5, or since September 6? Thank you for any comments. |
| Posted by: Radub October 29, 2012 05:46 pm | ||
Things are not as simple as that and the King Carol II's abdication MUST NOT be taken as some sort of "blip" or "sideshow" - it was a palpable symptom of the crisis that Romania was in. Here are some significant events: 10 February 1938 - King Carol II of Romania, in a bid to stem the rising popularity of the right-wing Legion of Archangel Michael, dissolves the Parliament, dismisses the Government led by Prime-Minster Octavian Goga (National Christian Party), bans all political parties and instates the “Royal Dictatorship”. Patriarch Miron Cristea (no political affiliation) is appointed Prime-Minister 7 March 1939 - A new Romanian Parliament is elected. The Royal Dictatorship ends. Armand Călinescu (National Renaissance Front) is appointed Prime-Minister 21 September 1939 - Prime-Minister of Romania Armand Călinescu, a strong opponent of extreme right-wing movements, is assassinated in Bucharest by members of the Legion of Archangel Michael. George Argeșanu (National Renaissance Front) is appointed interim Prime-Minister. 28 September 1939 - Constantin Argetoianu (National Renaissance Front) is appointed Prime-Minister. 24 November 1939 - Gheorghe Tătărescu (National Renaissance Front) is appointed Prime-Minister. 28 June 1940 - U.S.S.R. invades the Romanian territories of Bessarabia (44.000 sq. Km) and Northern Bukovina (6000. sq. Km.) 4 July 1940 - Ion Giurtu (National Renaissance Front) is appointed Prime-Minister 30 August 1940 - The Romanian territory of Northern Transylvania (43.104 sq. Km) is awarded to Hungary as part of the “Second Vienna Award”. 4 September 1940 - General Ion Antonescu forms his first Government 5 September 1940 - King Carol II suspends the 1938 Romanian Constitution and cedes his Royal Prerogatives to General Ion Antonescu 6 September 1940 - King Carol II of Romania is forced to abdicate and King Mihai I of Romania accedes to the throne for his second reign. Romania is declared a “National Legionary State” as the Iron Guard (another name of Legion of Archangel Michael) becomes the only recognised political party 7 September 1940 - The Romanian territory of Southern Dobruja (Cadrilater) is awarded to Bulgaria by the Treaty of Craiova 14 September 1940 - General Ion Antonescu and the right wing organisation Iron Guard both Pro-German, form the second Ion Antonescu Government. Ion Antonescu becomes the Prime-Minister and takes the title of Conducǎtor [Leader]. The 1938 Romanian Constitution is cancelled 23 November - Romania’s neutrality ends when it signs the Tripartite Pact and joins the Axis 24 January 1941 - General Ion Antonescu suppresses the “Legionary Rebellion of the Iron Guard” and ends the “National Legionary State” 27 January 1941 - General Ion Antonescu forms the third Ion Antonescu Government with military and specialist members that have no political affiliations. 18 February 1941 - Ion Antonescu issues a decree by which all important institutions and companies, whether private or state-owned, are militarised So, things must have been pretty insane in that period of three years, with multiple governments ending in Antonescu's dictatorship. Radu |
| Posted by: MMM October 29, 2012 06:06 pm | ||
Actually, Antonescu was invited by Carol II to become PM on September 4 and after "consuting" with the leaders of the so-called "Historical Parties" (National Liberal and, respectively, National Peasants' Party), he decided he could ask Carol II "absolute powers", on 5-th he got them (Antonescu, that is...) and in the 5/6 night he asked Carol II to step down as a king, this being the only possibility to save the country from collapsing (after the Viena Diktat). Carol II, as usual,vacillated, but on the 6-th of September agreed and signed the abdication decree. So Michael was king from 6-th of September 1940, but Antonescu was PM from 4-th! Clear now? PS: this is the "Short Crash Course" of the so-called "Coup d'Etat" of September 1940. Anyway, Carol II abdicated, left the country, was "replaced" by his son, Michael, but the country was ruled de facto by general Antonescu. Did he fail his oath as an officer when asking his king to step down? Who knows... Was it too late? Who knows... Later Edit (after Radub's answer): quite complete, but there is one more thing to say: gen. Antonescu has guaranteed to the Germans that he shall evacuate Transylvania in good order. The evacuation begun on 05.09 and ended on 13.09, without incidents. |
| Posted by: Florin October 29, 2012 10:07 pm |
| Thank you for the time you spent to write the long answer, "Radub". It is useful to me, and I guess not only to me. * * * My thanks to "MMM" as well. P.S. In regard to the end of "MMM"'s message: The oath of an officer includes his country as well. Romania was in dire straits in that moment... Carol II did enough in his life to have him questioned if he cared more about Romania or about him. Now, seing things 72 years later, I think we would lose Bessarabia and Bucovina in any of the "what if" scenarios in a world where Germany lost and the Allies won. But in some alternate scenarios, it could be much worse for Romania in 1940-1945. |
| Posted by: Imperialist October 29, 2012 11:37 pm | ||
Some corrections to what you wrote. Carol II was the one who appointed Ion Antonescu Prime Minister (president of the council of ministers) on September 4. Antonescu did not form a new government, the ministers of the old government remaining in office until the new one was to be formed. Carol II did not cede his prerogatives to Antonescu, he ceded them to his son Mihai by signing the act of abdication on September 6. Mihai then appointed Antonescu Prime Minister and gave him "extra powers". Ion Antonescu's first government was formed on September 14. |
| Posted by: Radub October 30, 2012 09:03 am | ||||
No, no corrections are needed. No need to confuse isues and divert the thread (again). Please do your "research" properly. For the king's abdication, google: "Legea numărul 510 din 5 septembrie 1940 publicată în Monitorul Oficial cu nr.205 prin care se suspenda Constituţia din 27 Februarie 1938 iar regele Carol al II-lea cedează generalului Ion Antonescu principalele prerogative regale." There were 3 Antonescu governments: http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guvernul_Ion_Antonescu_(1) http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guvernul_Ion_Antonescu_(2) http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guvernul_Ion_Antonescu_(3) Radu |
| Posted by: Imperialist October 30, 2012 09:44 am |
| Radub, the ministers listed in the first wikipedia link you posted are the ministers that were part of the previous government and that remained in charge of their ministerial portfolios until Antonescu formed his own government on September 14. Basically they were "caretaker" ministers that Antonescu did not appoint. So Antonescu did not form his first government on September 4. Yes, I think you're right about Carol II ceding prerogatives to Antonescu. But Mihai I did the same on September 6. "Decret regal privind investirea gen. Ion Antonescu cu puteri depline pentru conducerea statului roman" was Mihai's first royal decree. |
| Posted by: Radub October 30, 2012 10:21 am | ||
I said that there were 3 Antonescu governments. That is a fact and there is absolutely no more need to argue. Whether Antonescu "formed" or "led" his first Government makes no single difference to the purposes of this topic, it is still an "Antonescu government". Read these lines again: "Regele Carol al II-lea cedează generalului Ion Antonescu principalele prerogative regale" "Decret regal privind investirea gen. Ion Antonescu cu puteri depline pentru conducerea statului roman" They are not the same thing. In one, the King cedes his royal prerogatives, in the other the King appoints the head of the executive. Radu |
| Posted by: Imperialist October 30, 2012 05:59 pm |
| Nobody is arguing. I corrected your statement about Antonescu forming his first government on September 4 and you corrected my statement that Carol II did not cede prerogatives to Antonescu. The decree that Mihai I signed ceded to Antonescu the same royal prerogatives that Carol II ceded to Antonescu before abdicating. |
| Posted by: Radub October 31, 2012 09:18 am | ||
Antonescu was at the head of three governments, that is ALL that matters for the purposes of this thread. Radu [edited by admin] |
| Posted by: MMM October 31, 2012 07:17 pm |
| Really now, Antonescu had to act very quick and did NOT have the time to negotiate with the historical parties; he neither wanted to let the Guard (well, its remains) to have the control. [edited by admin] |
| Posted by: Radub October 31, 2012 07:59 pm |
| So, Imperialist, tell us: how many times was Ion Antonescu Prime Minister? Two times or three times? Radu [edited by admin] |
| Posted by: Imperialist October 31, 2012 08:20 pm |
| I'll simply let a book speak: http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/6398/antonescu.jpg [edited by admin] |
| Posted by: Radub October 31, 2012 08:38 pm |
| Why do you refuse to answer a simple question? You "corrected" me when I said that Ion Antonescu was Prime Minister three times. If that is "wrong", please tell us what is right! It is as simple as that! Radu |
| Posted by: Victor November 01, 2012 08:31 am |
| Please stick to the topic and stop this nonsense. |
| Posted by: Florin November 03, 2012 03:32 am |
| "mroyer", these other topics in this forum have subjects related to the topic started by you: http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=4588 Last message in April 2009 http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=36 Last message in May 2006 http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=3878 Last message in Oct 2011 |
| Posted by: Florin November 04, 2012 06:13 am |
| Romania as it was in 1939: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFKcAhZVvZI&feature=relmfu Bessarabia and Bukovina - 1939: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI2GB5dFwWA&feature=relmfu ...and their loss to Soviet Union in 1940 - the main reason by far for Romanian involvement in Barbarossa: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2i9bZ6VMtE By the way, in what year the Roman salute became offical in Romania? (Better known as the Nazi salute...) |
| Posted by: ANDREAS November 04, 2012 04:14 pm |
| Florin, to your last question I know that this salute was also used in King Carol II time, and it was used at the ceremonies of his party, I know this form a neighbour, war veteran, who lived that times. I asked him if this salute was used after september 1940 (I was thinking that after Antonescu and the Iron Guard take power they introduced that salute!) and he answered me that it was used before by King Carol II party members... If he is wrong or didn't remember well, I'm sorry... |
| Posted by: MMM November 04, 2012 04:46 pm |
| Indeed, the salute became "mandatory" in 1938, after Carol II assumed his so-called "dictatorial powers", replaced the 1923 Constitution and "forced" the people into his party, the "National Renaissance Front" (FRN, Frontul Renaşterii Naţionale). Carol II was a "fan" of Mussolini and fascism and tried to emulate that as much as he could, sometimes with ridiculous results. |
| Posted by: Florin November 04, 2012 05:35 pm |
| Thanks for answers, Andreas and "MMM". What you confirmed I had noticed in those documentaries from the links of my previous message: everybody using the Roman/Nazi salute during parades with or without King Carol II as guest. I agree that King Carol II was ridiculous in trying to copy Mussolini and fascism. He was not the only one... Ioannis Metaxas tried the same thing in Greece, and for good reason he sincerely felt betrayed when Italy attacked Greece in 1940. By the way, I consider the first link of those 3 as the best... |
| Posted by: MMM November 04, 2012 06:14 pm |
| My best guess is that Carol II tried to "emulate" Mussolini also as a way to fend off the possibility of having Hitler as a model. I wonder whether the Iron Guard (or whatever it was called along the years) would have preffered NSDAP to Italian Fascists... sure, they were "original" and "made in Romania", but given a choice - what then? |