The Germans were not their country's enemies.
The war after 23 August was waged primarily against the Hungarian troops because there was a desire in the Romanian army to free the lost Territories that the Hungarians occupied. The Germans did not want any Romanian land or territories and so there was no reason to cross the Romanian border then (as we did with Russia in 1941).
Also in 1941 the decision to cross into Russia was a primarily Romanian decision.
The Germans did not ask for it at all.
In 1944, it was the Soviets that pressured the Romanians into fighting the evil fasists. [Our naive government believed all the cheap promisses, and went along[
There was also no reason to pursue the Germans and fight them in Czechoslovakia and there was also no reason for doing a Victory Parade in Vienna.


"Their country's enemy can be interpreted in many ways"
Romania after 23 August became an occupied country. period.

If you're not sure who the true enemy of Romania was, look at the number of defections between 1940-1944, and again between 23 August 1944 and after...
I don't think that many peoples flead to the USSR or to England, USA while we were with the Germans, then the many people including soldiers, generals, pilots that defected and flead the country after the Russians came in.
That should speak for itself about which Romania the people would have rather lived in.

And I still think the romanian ss volunteers who stayed with Germans till the end, managed to save national honour. You don't turn your arms against your former ally. I certainly don't want to have the name "Traitor" stamped to my forehead for generations to come.... and when I think that this coup is responsible for the deaths and capture of many soldiers that were actually defending romania, I feel even more guilty. The wounded luftwaffe airmen that were dragged out of their hospital beds and handed over to the russians, the half a million german troops that were defending the country's borders, many of them being cought by surprise after 23 August, sourrounded and anihilated by the soviets....
This was a stab in the back.

I'm surprised the Germans even wanted to look at us after what happened and after what we did to them. In the Battle for Breslau in 1945, so I read..there were volunteers from Holland, France, Belgium, Romanians, and Ukranian soldiers who fought along side the 12 and 15 yeard olds of the hitleryouth against the red army that was raping it's way to Berlin. Maybe in the process they managed to save some civilians who had time to flee to the west.

"...and as Veterans that live in Vienna confirm it - our military contribution was not particularly great in those cloasing months of ww2, - but what the national army did accomplish was that it saved our country's national honour."

As for the rest you can read right http://www.evz.ro/investigatii/?news_id=154180&PHPSESSID=7b1c299422d3e70e6db7e906b54049f3, but I tought you aleady knew this article...
As this article states,..and a few other sources tell it too..Romanians fought willfully against the red army and fired some of the last shots of the war -

Read for yourself:

http://www.evz.ro/investigatii/?news_id=154180&PHPSESSID=7b1c299422d3e70e6db7e906b54049f3

Finally I don't think they betrayed their country, more like..their country betrayed them..and quickly went on the winner's side when the war appeared lost...

It takes guts to stand by your principles and beliefs in times like that, (and I admire that),..even if they are communist or not...but I don't like those that change as the wind turns....such as our Royal government did..


There is nothing to be ashamed of regarding them, all countries in Europe had SS volunteers at some point or another, on the countrary we should take pride...

When someone attacks you, he becomes your enemy. It is that simple.

You are using double standards. Regarding the crossing of the eastern 1940 frontier you say that the war should be fought until the enemy is defeated, while for the western border you say that Romanian troops should have stopped there. Which one is it?

That is incorrect. Hitler asked Antonescu for the participation of Romanian troops beyond the Dnister.

Like in 1941, the reason was Transylvania. Hitler also used it to get more from Romania.

Do you have numbers for defections in all the war years? “I think” isn’t a really good argument.

I fail to see how the so-called "national honor" meant going against your country’s interests and dying for a criminal regime that broke many treaties it had signed (if you want to talk about "stabbing in the back" btw).

The coup had nothing to do with the destruction of the 6th Army in Moldavia, which was the consequence of the success of the Jassy-Kishinev Operation. I suggest you research the subject more, as you seem to have the wrong idea. The two German armies in Romania weren't defending Romania, but Germany's interest.

Regarding the "stabbing" thing. There was no military convention between Romania and Germany, only the common interest. Since Bessarabia was lost and Germany could no longer support the Romanian status-quo according to the guarantees it had offered in 1940, there was no longer any reason for Romania to continue the war on its side. It would have been utterly stupid to do so. This way, the country would have had even more to suffer from the war and probably no retaking of NW Transylvania. A Communist regime would have been installed earlier than it actually happened.

The article published by Florian Bichir in Adevarul doesn't mention any sources for its statements. Mr. Bichir is also a member of the forum, maybe he will shed more light on the sources. Until then, I can only add that the last resistances weren't in Berlin, but in the Czech Republic (the Vlasov Army). So technically the statement is wrong.

The Avramescu case is very debatable and I prefer to trust the judgment of military historians such as Alesandru Dutu and Florica Dobre, rather than a newspaper article. There is no solid proof that Avramescu planned this. Certainly his family doesn't think so and his actions until his arrest don't have anything suspicious. He was too good a soldier to know that such a plan is folly. My personal opinion is that it is just another Iron Guard myth.

And yet a great big deal of this crusade propaganda was done by Romania in 1941, 1942 and so on.. with words like "Bolshevismul Pagan si Barbar" and word Bolshevic was used on and on in the romanian propaganda..
Religious sentiments in Russia begun to appear only after 1943, when the Russians appeared to be winning and Stalin allowed Churches to be opened again.. but until then it was just as the Romanian statement said: Pagan, Barbarian Bolshevism..

Churches had become Vodka processing factories, storage houses, depots.. Communism was against religion.. (until stalin found a moral advantage with it).

The Germans who waged war in Russia in 1942, were the same Germans who waged war in Russia in 1242. They had crosses on on their horses and armor, and again, 700 years later the same black crosses were on their tanks and planes.
Germans are very faithfull and religious - in 1242 they were there to expand their holy roman empire and christianize the 'eastern barbarian lands'

Why should they not use "that same language" again 700 years later when their descendants were fighting that same enemy? The nazi party was not against religion, just against "certain" aspects of it. peoples exagerate these days. The very fact that men of the Iron Guard were allowed within the ranks of the Waffen SS proves that. In Russia on the crontrary ( at least before the war) hanging an Icon on your wall was enough to be denounced by your children or neighbours to the NKVD, arrested, deported, and never seen again. People have forgotten these days.
(More Churches were built during the Nazi era then the allies managed to destroy in Dresden alone) that is fact.

Here is a link to the http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?act=boardrules. I suggest you read them.

Okay, what about reports from the Kommando Roehwel (the Luftwaffe air-intelligence unit) on the Russians massing Red Army divisions from eastern demarcartion line at Poland to Bessarabia? Isn't this known as the famous " Russikaya provokatsiya"? Is this being agressive? How about Pearl Harbor? It was well known in establishment history books that the Japanese treacherously and cowardly launched a sucessfull attack without declaring war against the American Pacific Fleet and cost approximately 2,000 American casualties and several capital ships. But what made them do so? ISn't Roosevelt cleverly manouevered and provoked the Japanese into launching a first strike so that he wouldn't be seen as an agressor in the eyes of the world...Same thing with Dzugashvilli.

Read Viktor Suvorov's The Icebreaker and Joachim Hoffmann's Dzugashvilli's War of Extermination

Which means Romanians themselves had no right to decide for what is the best for Romania? So much for democracy...

I think Maresal had right to be proud that some Romanians, who are idealistic and brave enough to defend Romania's honor in order to continue the holy war against Bolshevik hordes despite things aren't looking bright during the Russian invasion. Like Italy, numerous fascists and idealistic socialists continue to defend the honor of Italy despite the treachery of the King of Italy and Marshal Badoglio because ordinary Italians knew what is honor and would take up arms just to die for it. Most of the fascist commanders and men, bravely goes to their execution with right hand salute and the final shout of "Viva La Italia". Same case with Finland. Even Finland, looking for an armistice with the Bolsheviks, did not betray the German who were formerly their allies by secretly advising them the situation of the armistice and to retreat

Are you not taking the words out of context? Can you provide with the full text, because you quote only words in your own statement.