No written agreement with Germany, No official papers

You seem to forget a very important detail: in that era the treaties were very frequent between almost all the countries. Also, they were usually regarded as a high accomplishment for the gov't implied in them. Even "Pravda" was allowed to praise the Molotov-Ribentropp treaty...
On the other hand, let's not compare those times with the today's diplomatic practice, shall we?

Ribentropp and Molotov were politicians who signed a political treaty. It mentions military assistance. This treaty is not different from the Tripartite Pact.

Who did Germany have a "military treaty" with?

Radu

The Steel Pact with Italy!

That is a two-part pact signed between politicians. One part is military and one part is economical/political.

Did Germany sign with anyone a pure "military" treaty? You clearly stated that you are looking for a "military teraty" with no political aspects.

Radu

Why not? Not much changed in international relations when it comes to treaties and alliances. Moreover, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed in 1949 ("those times") not today.

IMO you're looking for the wrong thing. You should be looking for staff documents, meeting minutes, correspondence between the leaders, orders/directives etc. Not for an extra treaty besides the Tripartite Pact. That's all.

1. Radub: even so, the military part of the Ro.-Ge. treaties was sublime (Caragiale: "sublimă, dar lipseşte cu desăvârşire"). I'm not sure if with Finland, Germany didn't sign some sort of purely miiltary understanding. I have to search more. I did not say "with any political aspects"; I just said the military part is lacking...
2. Imperialist: yes, the first NATO documents were signed 60 years ago, but they went through a number of changes; plus, 1949 is not 1940! There was a world war between them...

Article 3 of the Tripartite Treaty stipulated that the signatory parties should come to eachother's aid if they were attacked. It didn't mention anything about initiating the attack themselves. Technically, Romania wouldn't have been forced to declare war to the SU together with Germany under the provisions of the Axis Treaty.

Also, maybe I do not remember correctly, but Romania sent troops to Afghanistan and Irak before it became a NATO member. But are yolu positive nothing was signed?

What MMM I believe was trying to find out, before the "avalanche" came pouring down, is why there was nothing official, except the correspondance between the two dictators. My guess is that:

1. The Germans underestimated the Soviet response and constantly needed more troops, mainly for secondary duties, but also for specialized missions, troops which they didn't have at their disposal. Thus they used what they had around in the Southern sector: Romanians

2. Antonescu's lack of political expertise. Ionel Bratianu would have probably drove the Germans crazy while barganing for even one division going beyond the Dnestr. This is why Romania was the best ally Germany had on the Eastern front in 1941-43 (before a flame war starts, I am not talking about military performance): Antonescu put its forces at the total discretion of the Wehrmacht. None of the other Axis sattelites (Italy included) has done this.

Like I already said, from the point of view of Germany and of the common goal, this was probably the best solution. From the point of view of the Romanian soldiers, it probably wasn't.

While von Schobert acted as CO over the German 11th and Romanian 3rd Armies, the 4th Army and the 2nd Corps were unde the direct command of the Romanian General Staff throughout 1941, hence, under Antonescu's command.

Yep. However, the "GAGA" thing was brought back to life in 1942 at Stalingrad, but the Red Army felt differently about it It is true that the 4-th Army was under Romanian command, but it attacked "at german orders", so to say...

Technically yes, but if I'm not mistaken the Axis presented the attack as a response to provocations, crossborder incidents and as a preemptive action against a Russia increasingly leaning towards the British with which the Axis was at war. Since Romania did not dispute that presentation and did not raise that technicality to stay out of the war, then that technicality was practically non-existent (in the sense of completely overlooked).

Indeed, Romania sent troops to Afghanistan in 2002 (decision taken in late 2001). BTW, great memory, I admit I forgot that fact. But it did so as a contribution to the UN-sponsored ISAF. The initiative was taken by the President, approved by the CSAT and the Parliamentary commissions and then voted in Parliament. The details were then negotiated with ISAF, but I am not aware of a treaty being signed! The same goes after entering NATO. Romania changed its area of operations several times if I'm not mistaken. Kabul, Kandahar, Qalat. And the size of its forces. I doubt treaties were signed with NATO allies in order to arrange the details.

I am not disputing MMM's basic point (need for negotiated details, agreements), but his use of the terms (treaty, army-to-army treaty etc.). And I don't understand why he insists anything less than a military treaty wouldn't have been enough.

@MMM The N.A. Treaty was revised 2 times in order to change the names or locations included in one of the articles. It underwent no major changes that would support the claim that the international relations of today are significantly different than those of 70 years ago in terms of treaties and alliances.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on March 13, 2009 05:48 pm

How comes we don't have an agreement similar (or at least resemblant) to that from 1916? I understand - back then, Romania was "courted" to enter the war, but still there should have been something...
To make a long story short, we are in Afghanistan as members of UN (whose treaty we signed in the 1950's) and in Iraq as members of NATO and close allies/puppies of the master
Imperialist, 1949 is like a century far from 1940; at least an A-bomb and the beginning of a cold war (in which the former ally revealed to be not-so-different from the ex-enemy) - so things really changed very much in a short time! Basically, the diplomacy of the 1930's wasn't really different from that of the 19-th century, except the replacement of telegraph by telephone and sometimes radio!

Not quite. We are in Afghanistan as members of NATO and in Iraq as part of a US-led coalition, both missions being legitimized by the UN.

Things did change, but not the basics of international relations.

Hitler counted on Rumanian troops before the anti-Soviet offensive would start. See his Directive 21, quoted earlier.

I am also surprised no one picked up yet the text highlighted in bold in the second sentence of the said directive.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on March 13, 2009 09:14 pm

Hitler counted on Rumanian troops before the anti-Soviet offensive would start. See his Directive 21, quoted earlier.

I am also surprised no one picked up yet the text highlighted in bold in the second sentence of the said directive.

Gen. Dénes

I did notice it, but I was referring to the fact that a clear role was not defined for the Romanian troops and after 1-2 months of operations, everything was regulated by letters from Hitler to Antonescu requesting further Romanian participation in some geographic areas or even direct appeal for troops from German commanders, like Manstein. This was caused IMO by Germans under estimating Soviet ressources and potential and overestmating their own.

IIRC from Halder's memoirs, the initial role reserved for Romanian troops was limited and, on the other side, many Romanians didn't think of a strong commitment on the Eastern Front beyond the Dnestr. Every small step eastwards wasa further concesion. What is certain, is that there was a big unknown regarding the Romanian participation to the war in the East among Romanians themselves. There was nothing official.

Romania joined the attack wholeheartedly because of Bessarabia . However, in terms of international law, it was an attack, not an act of defense, no matter how it was portrayed by the Axis propaganda.

Off-topic: the 26th Infantry Battalion was deployed in Afghanistan in July 2002 and others followed every six months. It wasn't part of ISAF. The troops deployed with ISAF were a military police company and staff officers I think.