Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (6) [1] 2 3 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> No written agreement with Germany, No official papers
MMM
Posted: March 09, 2009 04:59 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



Why wasn't there any military treaty between Romania and the 3-rd Reich? Who didn't desire it, Antonescu or Hitler?


--------------------
M
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
bansaraba
Posted: March 09, 2009 09:21 pm
Quote Post


Sergent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 184
Member No.: 2196
Joined: July 20, 2008



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbJp6iYjliI

Or do you mean that Romania put no condition before signing the treaty?

This post has been edited by bansaraba on March 09, 2009 11:04 pm
PMEmail Poster
Top
MMM
Posted: March 10, 2009 06:04 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



No MILITARY ageement - that (tripartit) was political only!


--------------------
M
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Imperialist
Posted: March 11, 2009 08:12 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (MMM @ March 10, 2009 06:04 am)
No MILITARY ageement - that (tripartit) was political only!

What specifically do you mean by military agreement?

The Tripartite Pact was not political only:

They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means if one of the Contracting Powers is attacked by a Power at present not involved in the European War or in the Japanese-Chinese conflict.


--------------------
I
PM
Top
MMM
Posted: March 11, 2009 09:44 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



Indeed, but no specific details, no military alliance treaty - just some conventions made AFTER the German troops entered Romania; furthermore, many military agreements were made after june 22 and after liberating Bessarabia. Why then and not sooner?

This post has been edited by MMM on March 11, 2009 09:44 am


--------------------
M
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Dénes
Posted: March 11, 2009 01:25 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4368
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



If we don't know of a certain document, it doesn't necessarily mean that it does not/did not exist.
I can hardly imagine the German "instruction" troops simply walked in Rumania on a sunny day in the Autumn of 1940, without prior written agreement, or Gen. Antonescu was made head of a mixed Rumanian-German (!) group of armies only based on a handshake...

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on March 11, 2009 01:42 pm
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
MMM
Posted: March 11, 2009 01:36 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



Either I wasn't clear enough, or you mock me... mad.gif
There was no military agreement made prior to the entrance of the 1-st German troops in Ro., as there was no military agreement between the two countries regarding their contribution in the anti-Soviet war.
I can only suppose that Antonescu didn't want an agreement because:
a ) he didn't really believe Hitler would finally win
OR
b ) he realised he won't get Transylvania back so easy, so he didn't want any piece of treaty between Romania and Germany which wouldn't mention it
What else could be?
And, Denes, "we don't know", as in how many historians, writers, researchers and politicians are you talking about? Do you honestly believe there was such a thing which isn't (yet) discovered? rolleyes.gif

This post has been edited by MMM on March 11, 2009 01:46 pm


--------------------
M
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Victor
Posted: March 11, 2009 01:46 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4350
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE (Imperialist @ March 11, 2009 10:12 am)
QUOTE (MMM @ March 10, 2009 06:04 am)
No MILITARY ageement - that (tripartit) was political only!

What specifically do you mean by military agreement?

The Tripartite Pact was not political only:

They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means if one of the Contracting Powers is attacked by a Power at present not involved in the European War or in the Japanese-Chinese conflict.

MMM is probably refering to a military convention regulating the way Romanian and german troops cooperated in the field. And in this respect he is correct. There was nothing.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Dénes
Posted: March 11, 2009 01:55 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4368
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



QUOTE (MMM @ March 11, 2009 07:36 pm)
Either I wasn't clear enough, or you mock me...  mad.gif

It's not my intention to mock you. Why would I? sad.gif

QUOTE
There was no military agreement made prior to the entrance of the 1-st German troops in Ro., as there was no military agreement between the two countries regarding their contribution in the anti-Soviet war.


What makes you so sure about this? See first sentence in my previous post.

QUOTE
I can only suppose that Antonescu didn't want an agreement because:
a) he didn't really believe Hitler would finally win

I firmly believe in mid-1941 Antonescu was confident in a swift German victory.

QUOTE
cool.gif he realised he won't get Transylvania back so easy, so he didn't want any piece of treaty between Romania and Germany which wouldn't mention it

This is a reoccurring oversight: Rumania did keep the larger half of Transylvania following the Vienna Resolution of Aug. 1940.
Other than this, it's plausible that the Rumanian party wanted to recover the other half of Transylvania, and wanted this to somehow happen with Berlin's assistance.

QUOTE
And, Denes, "we don't know", as in how many historians, writers, researchers and politicians are you talking about?

It's a collective knowledge, there is no need to put numbers to it.

QUOTE
Do you honestly believe there was such a thing which isn't (yet) discovered?

Yes, I do. However, don't ask me to produce it, as I am not really interested in diplomacy.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on March 11, 2009 01:58 pm
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
MMM
Posted: March 11, 2009 02:01 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



I thought you accidentally or intentionally misquoted me; now I see you really think it is such a document - of whose existence nobody ever heard! Suppose there was one and it got lost/stolen/destroyed/whatever. How comes there is no refference to it? More exactly, I've never read a document which would say something on the likes of "as previously stated in our agreement nr. XX from YY.ZZ.1940" or "in conformity with the clause 1.6, paragraph A) from our treaty signed in WW city at DD.MM.1940" I don't believe in myths!


--------------------
M
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Imperialist
Posted: March 11, 2009 06:49 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (MMM @ March 11, 2009 01:36 pm)
Either I wasn't clear enough, or you mock me... mad.gif
There was no military agreement made prior to the entrance of the 1-st German troops in Ro., as there was no military agreement between the two countries regarding their contribution in the anti-Soviet war.

There was an agreement made prior to the entrance of the German military mission to Romania.

I am not sure what you mean by military agreement regarding their contribution in the war. The countries were allied. Their military roles within that alliance were established at inter-military level, I don't think they needed any separate agreement for that. unsure.gif


--------------------
I
PM
Top
MMM
Posted: March 11, 2009 08:04 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



QUOTE (Imperialist @ March 11, 2009 06:49 pm)
I don't think they needed any separate agreement for that. 


Really? Ain't that cute? But it's WRONG! I am beginning to think you don't know about all the alliances and treaties signed in Europe before the war (during it and after it, as well). They wre extremly precise, accurate and detailed. We had no such thing from a military point of view, unlike the economic one. And on the military side, there were (later on) a number of agreements which were really too "thin" for a live conflict. Especially one with the "monster" ohmy.gif

This post has been edited by MMM on March 11, 2009 08:04 pm


--------------------
M
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Imperialist
Posted: March 11, 2009 10:26 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (MMM @ March 11, 2009 08:04 pm)
QUOTE (Imperialist @ March 11, 2009 06:49 pm)
I don't think they needed any separate agreement for that. 


Really? Ain't that cute? But it's WRONG! I am beginning to think you don't know about all the alliances and treaties signed in Europe before the war (during it and after it, as well). They wre extremly precise, accurate and detailed. We had no such thing from a military point of view, unlike the economic one. And on the military side, there were (later on) a number of agreements which were really too "thin" for a live conflict. Especially one with the "monster" ohmy.gif

Alliances are not extremely precise, accurate and detailed from a military point of view. They are political in nature and set only the general lines of the relationship. They would certainly not spell out the detailed military contribution of each signatory in case of war against country X. The allies can set those roles by holding inter-military meetings/consultations. The decisions taken there don't necessarily need the signing of extra military agreements, especially if they are within the general framework of cooperation set by the alliance.

Romania was already part of an alliance with Germany. What military agreement would you have liked to see? Saying what and what would have been its purpose?

BTW, several messages into this thread, you said:

QUOTE
Indeed, but no specific details, no military alliance treaty


What was the Tripartite Pact then?

This post has been edited by Imperialist on March 11, 2009 10:33 pm


--------------------
I
PM
Top
Victor
Posted: March 12, 2009 07:04 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4350
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE (Imperialist @ March 12, 2009 12:26 am)
What was the Tripartite Pact then?

The Tripartite Pact did not specify the way the two armkies would colaborate, what were their obligations towards eachother in terms of subordination, command, supply & logistics, military justice etc.

You don't go to war just knowing that I am your ally. You also have to regulate who will be in charge and what would be his responsabilities and powers, what would be the rights of teh subordinate troops, how the supply routes will be used, who will discipline the troops when this is neccesary and so on.

Lacking such a convention, the Romanian troops were often at the complete disposal of the German commanders, who usually broke up large units, reorganized them as they pleased, used Romanian trucks to transport and supply German units, Romanian motorized artillery to support German units, Romanian battalions were "corsetted" between German ones and so on. There were instances when Romanian infantry was left behind to delay Soviet advance, while German motorized units retreated etc. This was ofcourse the best thing for the alliance, but a bad tghing for the Romanian troops.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted: March 12, 2009 08:32 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (Victor @ March 12, 2009 07:04 am)
QUOTE (Imperialist @ March 12, 2009 12:26 am)
What was the Tripartite Pact then?

The Tripartite Pact did not specify the way the two armkies would colaborate, what were their obligations towards eachother in terms of subordination, command, supply & logistics, military justice etc.

You don't go to war just knowing that I am your ally. You also have to regulate who will be in charge and what would be his responsabilities and powers, what would be the rights of teh subordinate troops, how the supply routes will be used, who will discipline the troops when this is neccesary and so on.

The Pact was not supposed to provide those kind of details because it was an alliance treaty.

I don't dispute the point about the need to regulate those things. What I don't understand is why a military agreement would have to be signed when those details can be arranged at inter-alliance and inter-military level. Then each side issues its own orders based on those arrangements.


--------------------
I
PM
Top
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (6) [1] 2 3 ... Last » Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0093 ]   [ 15 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]