Why Romania entered the war against the Soviets?

That's exactly what I wrote. However, let's not forget that Rumanian accepted to administer Trans-Dnestra, a region similar in size and population to Northern Transylvania, reincorporated into Hungary about a year earlier.

Here is a map of the region (from Wikipedia):


Gen. Dénes

Recovering Transylvania by advancing into the SU was a distant goal whose achievement was uncertain and its relation with the decision taken was very weak.

In my view it was only an argument to convince the patriotic public that the campaign into the SU was part of the same campaign to recover lost territory, and thus gain similar public support for it. And it was weaker than the ideological and/or military arguments.

Administration is one thing and annexation is another. The administration of Trans-Dnestra and reincorporation of NW Transylvania are different things.

Not exactly, because right from joining the Tripartite Pact Antonescu was lured into believing this goal. Hitler and Mussolini promised support in recovering the lost territories in exchange for adhering to the Tripartite Pact. As the war progressed, the issue of Transylvania was used as blackmail for Antonescu and, I think, Horthy as well.

I disagree wit that! There were no promises made - at least the writen history never recorded any.

From: Eliberarea Basarabiei si a nordului Bucovinei (22 iunie - 26 iulie 1941), Editura Fundatiei Culturale Romane, 1999.

That quote clearly refers to the possible recovery of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, not Northern Transylvania.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on January 15, 2009 06:45 pm

And what came out of the talks?

Ribbentrop told him that the decision was a done deal, with Germany and Italy focusing on settling the inter-ethnic relations between the Romanians and Hungarians left on one side or the other of the partition.

Hitler told him that he understands his pain, that the time hasn't come to reconsider the decisions history and that history won't stop in 1940.

Antonescu said that Romania will remain quiet for now and will reopen the issue when general peace is signed. He also hinted that a population change could be a possible solution.

No clear commitment.

I notice that in the map pictured above the Ardeal was not the Ardeal of 1914. When Romania gave Up the Ardeal in 1940, did that not include Brasov and Sibiu? They are both part of Romania in the map above! If so the what Hungary recouped in 1940 was NOT what she lost in 1918-9! This was not a real bad deal for Romania for it could have been way worse@!

Well, I only talked about Transylvania... which Hitler NEVER promissed or let even an illusion of returning it to Romania, until the spring of 1944, after the military occupation of Hungary. Even then, he talked to his generals about the intention of rather annexing Transylvania directly to the Reich - I repeat, in the spring of 1944, with the Russians on the Dniestr river! And if you want proof (or lack of proof), read the book of Andreas Hillgruber or the books of Gh. Buzatu with the edited minutes of Hitler-Antonescu meetings and their letters.

The map is correct (well, except for the status of the Trans-Dnestra region, which is still a bit unclear to me. I have seen maps where the region was shown as part of Rumania, like the one above, while other maps do not show it as such).

Indeed, what Hungary received back in Aug. 1940 was not what she lost in 1920 (officially). It was less than half of the original territory, but the population of Transylvania that was retained by Rumania was overwhelmingly Rumanian.

But you already knew this, didn't you?

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on January 16, 2009 09:57 am

Trans-Dnestra's status may be somewhat unclear, but what it is certain is that it was never annexed to the Romanian state during 1941-44. What would have happened in case of Axis victory is ofcourse not known, but during those years it was regarded as a territory under Romanian administration (with the Germans administering the railroad and the Odessa port), but not as Romanian territory.

Thus the map on Wikipedia is misleading as it shows Trans-Dnestra as par to Romania, which was not the case.

As I said before and I will almost surely say it again: NOT ALL the infos from the Net are real; some of them might be misleading due to poor kowledge, others by bad intentions. And Wikipedia is neither an encyclopaedia, nor a scientific enterprise... Not that I haven't found many - and I mean MANY - good informations in it.

Wikipedia is a "living project" and changes can be made by anyone. If you know something that is incorrect there, you are perfectly entitled (and encouraged) to set the record straight. To paraphrase an old saying, "all it takes for idiocy to prevail is for smart people to stay uninvolved".

Internet is a strange place. I had my share of "arguments" on the internet with people who take what is written on the internet as Gospel. But here is the crux: If you say something to them via the same medium of internet, it does not have the same strength as the other stuff that they read via the same medium. In other words, some stuff on the interent is more believable than other. What determins relevance? In the case of many Romanians, it is the good old "ce buey te crezi mai dashtept ca mine?" Personal response always stirs personal petty prides. The best thing to do is to create a faux website, place your opinions there and then insert a link to it in the discussion. Try it, you will be amazed at the difference.

Radu

I'll keep that in mind. However, one of the most used phrases by us, Roma's... oh, well, Romanians... is "Do you know who I am?" (If I remember correctly, even Cioran was tired of that one!) My usual response is "Nor do I care". OK, let's go back to the topic: Antonescu never said nor thought (methinks... ) that he would accept Transnistria as a compensation for the loss of Transylvania, regardless of what Hitler or his entourage promissed. As for the occupation of the territory, it was clear that the Germans were the "ultimate masters", in a manner of speaking.
And as for the wikipedia, I already made some changes on an article regerding the village where I live. It was really easy - too damn easy for someone to trust this data...

MMM,
Try to figure out why you distrust everyone (including yourself as it seems) and there may be the answer to your scepticism.

That map seems to match this map http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/kepek/netre/221.gif

A similar map (although partial, showing mostly the East) appears in "from Barbarossa to Odessa" by Denes Bernad.

A similar map appears in "Third Axis Fourth Ally" by Axworthy and Craciunoiu. Transdnestra is marked as "territory promissed by Germany".

A similar map appears in "Armata Romana in al doilea razboi mondial" by Rotaru et al

It may be on Wikipedia, but that does not necessarily make that map worthless - they just repeat what other wrote before.

Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on January 16, 2009 03:43 pm