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



Pages: (13) 1 [2] 3 4 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Rejecting the Soviet Ultimatum in 1940, Implications
Imperialist
Posted: August 31, 2005 03:14 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

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



QUOTE (dragos @ Aug 31 2005, 12:30 AM)

Your hypothesis is unrealistic.

After signing the Tripartite Pact it is hard to believe that something like this would have happened. At least this is what Romania has gained after the territorial losses, guarantees of the territorial integrity, German missions to train Romanian troops, German AA batteries to protect Ploesti. It is the same Antonescu said about his coming to power: the last card to play for Romania.

You will always say these were the only things to be done and anything else was preposterous. Having the advantage of historical events already played out, you will always get on top. But thats easy.

Do you think Romania should have fought in 1940, or not?




--------------------
I
PM
Top
Zayets
Posted: August 31, 2005 05:33 am
Quote Post


Plutonier adjutant
*

Group: Members
Posts: 363
Member No.: 504
Joined: February 15, 2005



QUOTE (dragos @ Aug 30 2005, 09:06 PM)
QUOTE (Zayets @ Aug 30 2005, 11:40 PM)
I believe Imperialist meant that Poland fought her aggressor.The fact that outcome was an inexistent Polish state after the fights was an error suddenly repaired after 1945.They fought and they have gained respect.

The outcome was 5 years of brutal occupation, death of milions of people (including the Polish Jews), the destruction of 90% of Warsaw (after the uprising) etc.

You talk of all of these as an error suddenly repaired in 1945? huh.gif

QUOTE
They fought and they have gained respect.


They fought believing that Great Britain and France would come to their help. They didn't. Would they have fought knowing they are alone? I'm not so sure.

What I have said:
QUOTE
The fact that outcome was an inexistent Polish state after the fights was an error suddenly repaired after 1945.


What YOU say I have said
QUOTE
The outcome was 5 years of brutal occupation, death of milions of people (including the Polish Jews), the destruction of 90% of Warsaw (after the uprising) etc.

You talk of all of these as an error suddenly repaired in 1945?


Notice the the big difference.The rest is just speculation from you part.You have no way of knowing what would happen.

Pleasant dreams.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Iamandi
Posted: August 31, 2005 06:27 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1386
Member No.: 319
Joined: August 04, 2004



Is good or bad to fight against your enemys? Is better to let them take provinces of your land, then to fight with all price?

What we will find in history? What do we learn from history? We (romanians, and other minor countrys) fought in asymetric wars, and some time we obtain victory, or we obtain a partial victory enough to survive in peace for a while.

I'm not so proud about Romania in ww2. I have a question: those who fight, those who die and those who were wounded, or who were POWs in East... in the great picture of second world war... they were the bad guys?

Ok. When you ask a romanian, we know what type of answer will say. But, in the large context of ww2 is not like that. We were bad guys - we were the allies of the bad guys, we fought against Uk, US,etc... so, we fought in that context even against Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, our ex. friends, no?

Who cares about Bessarabia? Western powers don't gives a... for that. That was a problem of our own, made by our own leaders. What western can say? Simply: "why you let Russians to take your land? we fought against who tryed that with our lands - so, why you don't?" - because a world war represents interests of a team, a group of nations, the common interests... and not of one single country. And Romania is a single one country. Who cares about a single one? Allies win against Axis with a team concept, with small countrys fighting against big powers and loosing, just to permit in future (to give enough time) to big powers to win and to liberate them.

Idealistic concept. What happens after world war 2 was... was what we know and what we live even in present days.

Final of this post: i think our leaders made a mistake to not opose to Soviet Union in '40. I think our soldiers were disapointed about that, and was in shame against himselfs. An Army exist to protect borders, not to retreat in face of the enemy whitout fight.

Iama
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Zayets
Posted: August 31, 2005 06:37 am
Quote Post


Plutonier adjutant
*

Group: Members
Posts: 363
Member No.: 504
Joined: February 15, 2005



Yes,our leaders at that time they had a great Army.Too bad they didn't knew what is the purpose of an Army.
I am also saying that we should oppose Soviets in 1940. Afterall Fins did it with notable success.

This post has been edited by Zayets on August 31, 2005 06:37 am
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Iamandi
Posted: August 31, 2005 07:40 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1386
Member No.: 319
Joined: August 04, 2004



And like Fins, we don't have a coutry full of plain lands. We may use our relief in our advantage.

We can try to do a topic dedicated to what if with this subject. wink.gif I hope im not the only one interested in this ideea... So, let's or let's not start?

Iama
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
dragos
Posted: August 31, 2005 08:46 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE (Zayets @ Aug 31 2005, 08:33 AM)
What I have said:
QUOTE
The fact that outcome was an inexistent Polish state after the fights was an error suddenly repaired after 1945.


What YOU say I have said
QUOTE
The outcome was 5 years of brutal occupation, death of milions of people (including the Polish Jews), the destruction of 90% of Warsaw (after the uprising) etc.

You talk of all of these as an error suddenly repaired in 1945?


Notice the the big difference.The rest is just speculation from you part.You have no way of knowing what would happen.

Pleasant dreams.

What are you talking about? What did I write and is speculation? blink.gif

The difference between the two statements is that yours is an oversimplified version of the facts.
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Zayets
Posted: August 31, 2005 08:58 am
Quote Post


Plutonier adjutant
*

Group: Members
Posts: 363
Member No.: 504
Joined: February 15, 2005



QUOTE
What are you talking about? What did I write and is speculation?

Let me refresh your memory...
QUOTE
They fought believing that Great Britain and France would come to their help. They didn't. Would they have fought knowing they are alone? I'm not so sure.


QUOTE
The difference between the two statements is that yours is an oversimplified version of the facts.

I am glad that you see a difference.FYI I was only responding to your statement.Simple and to the object.The fact that you want to extend the context is another story.You can't blame me for your incomplete post.Here it is the phrase I was responding to:
QUOTE
The difference is that Poland ceased to exist as a state for the period of the Second World War.


This post has been edited by Zayets on August 31, 2005 08:59 am
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
sid guttridge
Posted: August 31, 2005 09:20 am
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 862
Member No.: 591
Joined: May 19, 2005



Hi Guys,

I don't think that Romania had much choice.

Romania's only contracted ally against the USSR, Poland, had been destroyed in September 1939.

Romania's main guarantor, France, had just been conquered and its other guarantor, Great Britain, had been chased from the continent at Dunkirk.

Germany had already agreed to the USSR having Basarabia in August 1939. When the USSR unexpectedly added Bucovina to the list the Germans, whose entire army was then in France, could only compromise and agree to Northern Bucovina.

When Romania approached Italy for support, Mussolini advised that the ballance of Europe required Romania to concede. The Little and Balkan Ententes had no relevance to a confrontation with the USSR.

This only leaves Romania versus the USSR, with Hungary (which mobilised when the USSR sent Romania its ultimatum) and Bulgaria hovering in the background. This was such a mismatch that defeat in Basarabia and Bucovina was inevitable and the whole country might well have gone down to catastrophe.

The condition of the Romanian Army was poor. Its mechanisation was very limited, many divisions contained large numbers of unreliable minorities and only a proportion of the armaments ordered in the late 1930s (particularly anti-tank guns) had so far been delivered. The narrow fronts and advantageous weather conditions that had helped the Finns for a few months in the winter of 1939-40 were also not available to Romania in Basarabia in high summer of 1940.

There is more to national consolidation than fighting at every available opportunity. Italy was united without winning a single major battle against foreigners in the 19th Century. The Czechs played little role over 1938-45, yet the Czech Republic was greatly consolidated as a result. In 1940 Romania decided to bide its time. It was not glorious, but it was the pragmatic, and therefore probably the right, decision.

Cheers,

Sid.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Imperialist
Posted: August 31, 2005 10:43 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

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



QUOTE (sid guttridge @ Aug 31 2005, 09:20 AM)


There is more to national consolidation than fighting at every available opportunity. Italy was united without winning a single major battle against foreigners in the 19th Century. The Czechs played little role over 1938-45, yet  the Czech Republic was greatly consolidated as a result. In 1940 Romania decided to bide its time. It was not glorious, but it was the pragmatic, and therefore probably the right, decision.


4 million romanians were given up in 1940. No shots fired. Basarabia is still lost, 65 years after the event. Romanians suffered a process of russification in Basarabia, russian colonists were brought. Even last year, in the region of Transdniester romanian schools were forcibly closed.
What did the State bid time for? 65 years. Still bidding time. Lets be real about this, the losses in 1940 had no expire date on them. The New Order in Europe could have lasted decades. The territories were lost. By the course of events, we luckily got back Transylvania.
A state that gives up that easily parts of its territory and large numbers of its people has something rotten in it.

edit -- another source says 6,8 million

This post has been edited by Imperialist on August 31, 2005 11:28 am


--------------------
I
PM
Top
Zayets
Posted: August 31, 2005 10:51 am
Quote Post


Plutonier adjutant
*

Group: Members
Posts: 363
Member No.: 504
Joined: February 15, 2005



QUOTE (Imperialist @ Aug 31 2005, 10:43 AM)
4 million romanians were given up in 1940. No shots fired.

Neville Chamberlain called this appeasement.It failed,eventually. 60 years later we learned the lesson.You do not negociate with [put your word here *)]

*) Hint : agressor,terorist,invader
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted: August 31, 2005 10:56 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

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



QUOTE (Zayets @ Aug 31 2005, 10:51 AM)
QUOTE (Imperialist @ Aug 31 2005, 10:43 AM)
4 million romanians were given up in 1940. No shots fired.

Neville Chamberlain called this appeasement.It failed,eventually. 60 years later we learned the lesson.You do not negociate with [put your word here *)]

*) Hint : agressor,terorist,invader

Well, in mid 1990s Romania signed a treaty with Ukraine, giving up any claims on disputed territories. The aim of the romanian "pragmatists" was to enter NATO, a stronger alliance. So, like in the good old times, they had to give up something.
8-9 years later, Ukraine starts building the Bastroe Canal.


--------------------
I
PM
Top
Zayets
Posted: August 31, 2005 10:59 am
Quote Post


Plutonier adjutant
*

Group: Members
Posts: 363
Member No.: 504
Joined: February 15, 2005



Yah,we are in NATO.What this will mean for us,we'll just have to wait and see.NATO seems to be US & UK nowadays.

This post has been edited by Zayets on August 31, 2005 10:59 am
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Victor
Posted: August 31, 2005 11:09 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

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



Stick to the inter-war period. You want to discuss the treaty with Ukraine, you can do it in another topic.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted: August 31, 2005 11:27 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

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



QUOTE (dragos @ Aug 30 2005, 11:44 PM)

To settle the things straight, Romania did not cede Transylvania in order to gain Germany as ally, but because she was threatened with an all-out attack if she did not give in to the demands.

On April 19th King Carol II, in a meeting with PM Tatarescu, Gafencu and Urdareanu, decided to resist militarily to whoever attacks, be it Germany or USSR.
On May 29th, after a similar meeting Carol decided to rely exclusively on Germany as an ally in Europe.
As a consequence, in August,
the Romanian army had 24 divisions facing the USSR and only 10 facing Hungary, the latter having to face 23 hungarian divisions on the other side of the border.
At the time of the Vienna diktat/arbitration/etc. Carol accepted the arbitration mostly because of the German guarantees for the rest of the romanian borders.
Giving this, I dont see why I was wrong saying that Romania ceded Transylvania in order to gain Germany as an ally.


--------------------
I
PM
Top
dragos
Posted: August 31, 2005 11:39 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE (Imperialist @ Aug 31 2005, 01:43 PM)
4 million romanians were given up in 1940.
edit -- another source says 6,8 million

The total population lost in 1940 is 6,829,238, of which 3,421,000 Romanians.
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (13) 1 [2] 3 4 ... Last » Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0120 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]