Was Romania right to join the Axis?

[Geto-Dacul]

mars wrote :

QUOTE

and on Aug 23, Russian almost finished ENCIRCLING the Germany-Romanian force, so please read the map, and then give any counter-opnion.

As I said before, 3rd Army and 4th Army managed to retreat without being encircled. The situation was less favorable for the German 6th and 8th Armies who were nearly encircled (at the end, all of the 6th Army was destroyed).

QUOTE

Otherwise, do you think the Romania king was kind of \"Moscow agent\", don't you think he knew the consequence to allow Russian enter his country ?

If he knew the consequences, than he should have acted more prudently and wisely without giving the chief of the state in enemy hands...

[C-2]

QUOTE

C-2 wrote : QUOTE The vets I talked with,and they are many, said the situation was hopless and total chaos.   Depends when... After 23 August, it is for sure that the Eastern Front's situation was chaotic since everybody was trying desperatly to escape Russian gulag...

I was talking about a few weeks before 23 August....
Even the ARR was hopless those days!

[Geto-Dacul]

C-2 wrote :

QUOTE

I was talking about a few weeks before 23 August....   Even the ARR was hopless those days!

I understand that the ARR was in bad shape, because of the frequent and violent clashes with superior Anglo-American planes...

But for the refielded army, I cannot understand it because she was made mainly from new recruits, with new weapons. And the army was fighting at home, and not on the Don...

[dragos]

QUOTE

You (and others too) reproach to Antonescu that he finnally fought an ideological war, because he crossed the Nistru on \"foreign territory\". Some people say that our scope was not the \"crusade against communism\" but national interest... Yes, indeed, very nice.

No, I don't reproach Antonescu he fought an ideological war, because, in my opinion, he did not carried that kind of war. He crossed the Dniester to defeat the Red Army along with the Germans for military reasons, not for ideological reasons.

QUOTE

But why did we die like dogs in 1944-45 in Hungary, Czechoslovakia or Austria? For what interests??? Did we won something, a territory? Nope! If you say that this war was fought with the \"great\" and \"invincible\" Red Army to defeat the \"fascist beast\" than :  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :P  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:.

Answering in your manner, one could say that we have lost half of the army in the campaign in the east, without achieving something.

[dragos]

QUOTE

The reality is that there are no \"eternal\" or \"traditional\" allies, but only INTERESTS.

This is true indeed. The same is for the Romanian - German alliance.

[dragos]

QUOTE

First of all to all those who say that the Germans treated the Romanians unfairly and with arrogance I think we got the same thing from the Russians plus alot of abuses, deportations, arrests, rape, torture and executions.

If the Russians behaved extremely bad, why should we ignore the bad actions of the Germans ? I have pointed this in the context of the image of the Romanian - German "brotherhood of arms".

QUOTE

The second thing,.. the war was not against a particulary individual. For example a German Resistance fighter (one that plotted against Hitler with other conspirators) wrote in a German Newspaper in 1975: \"During the war we truly tought that the war was being fought against Hitler, only after did we truly realize ..it was fought not against Hitler but against Germany Itself! \" So this means (the Allies in particular), their war effor was not directed against just one man (Hitler), - even tought the propaganda was mainly attacking him, but against Germany, the country itself.

This is because the image of the Germany of that time became the image of Hitler. The German resistance movement was not strong enough and did not affirm on the external plan. To blame for this are also some high ranking German generals, that even if they did not share the views of Hitler, they prefered to obey in the so-called "prussian spirit".

QUOTE

As for German Romanian colaboration, I do have a german friend who'm I met on the Internet, and who's grandfather fought at Sevastopol, he being the only surviver along with 4 others out of the Entire batallion. He speaks highly of Romanians and said \"they were pretty brave\". On the other hand he sais Italians were \"scheisse\" (no offence to anybody, those were his words  :oops: )

After the Romanian front collapsed at Stalingrad, German military shot several Romanian soldiers and disarmed Romanian officers. Now this is a true humiliation from an ally, especially that the commitment of the Romanian army over the Dniester was not based on any signed contract between the two countries.

[Geto-Dacul]

dragos wrote :

QUOTE

Answering in your manner, one could say that we have lost half of the army in the campaign in the east, without achieving something.

Yes marshal Dragos! But I think incorrect and abusive is to criticise Antonescu for the crossing of the Nistru, and to ignore that the guys who arrested him and gave him to USSR did the same in 1944; they crossed the 1938 boundary, and continued an anti-national war, if we use the words and expressions of the "opposition" after our armies crossed the Nistru, in the East. What I want to say here is that the debate on crossing the Nistru or no is useless, because those who sustain it (or most of them) don't say a word about our crossing of the 1938 boundary with Hungary, after reconquering Transylvania! :wink:

Best regards,

Getu'

[Geto-Dacul]

dragos wrote :

QUOTE

This is true indeed. The same is for the Romanian - German alliance.

Yes, but not leaving Germany by treacherous acts. Germany was not Soviet Union or the Ottoman Empire! Let's be rational! They gave us equipment (even if some times too late), when they did not have the equipment, they gave us gold... They defended us on our own territory against the Soviets, and most important, they died with us in the reconquest of Basarabia and Northern Bucovina. If there wpuld have never been any WWI resentiments, I'm sure that the Germans could have been our best allies.

[inahurry]

Romania was robbed of its territory : 1. by the Russians 2. By Hungary backed by Germany.

The ruling political class was overwhelmingly pro-France or pro-UK, some to a point they put foreign interests before national interests.

Once Romania was reduced to post-1940 borders any of the choices - ally with the Germans (and Hungary) or with the Allies (and Russia) implied abandoning part of its territory to the new found "allies". Not to mention the "love" toward the respective "ally".

Since there was a pro-German political force (though less important than the traditional french-english sympathizers) while the anti-communist, anti-Russian sentiment was very present, regardles of other strategic considerations, it's hard to conceive how Romania could fight along the Russians in 1941.

Neutrality was not an option. Exactly because of the territorial cessions Carol II was ousted. Any political force that would have tried to ignore the ongoing war and keep Romania neutral, regardless of other strategic considerations, would have been very short lived.

Romania didn't betray anyone in 1944, especially NOT Germany and Hungary, let's be serious. In fact, the position Mihai and co. took, while utopian, was elegant - take your baggages and leave. Antonescu had the same intentions, to withdraw from an alliance that served its purpose and now became dangerous and also wanted to allow the Germans a reasonable way out.

Irresponsible from the part of the authors of the August 1944 coup was to trigger it before the Russian offensive was stoped.

Romania fought beyond its borders in the west for the same reasons it did so in the east - once the music starts it's hard to stop the dance.

Romanian soldiers and command corps are and were disciplined and they obey the commander in chief. Mihai was considered as such once Antonescu was removed. Antonescu was the commander of the Romanian state's army not his own private army, he didn't encourage any pro-Antonescu factions inside the military organization and for sure had no intention to trigger a civil war to remain in power. He had no loyalty toward Germany, only to his own country, like any other general and (hopefully) politician. So, even more so considering why Romania entered the war, the "betrayal" of Germany would be an amusing theory in less tragic circumstances.

[Geto-Dacul]

inahurry wrote :

I essentially agree with you, but...

QUOTE

Once Romania was reduced to post-1940 borders any of the choices - ally with the Germans (and Hungary) or with the Allies (and Russia) implied abandoning part of its territory to the new found \"allies\".

An entire nation payed for the political errors of the ruling class (mainly of old phanariot origin). If Romania would have allied herself with Germany earlier, than probabilities for territorial cessions would have been extremely reduced. In the Romano-Hungarian question, Hitler was more favorable to Romania, but he had no choice :

1. Punish Romania for her past attitude of expectation.

2. Calm Hungary, to avoid a Hungaro-Romanian war, and inevitably a Soviet invasion of Romania, which could periclitate Germany's oil interests.

QUOTE

Romania didn't betray anyone in 1944, especially NOT Germany and Hungary, let's be serious. In fact, the position Mihai and co. took, while utopian, was elegant - take your baggages and leave. Antonescu had the same intentions, to withdraw from an alliance that served its purpose and now became dangerous and also wanted to allow the Germans a reasonable way out.

I think that Antonescu's idea to announce Germany before leaving, was the best. This action could only be executed by the chief of the state, which was Antonescu.

[dragos]

QUOTE

What I want to say here is that the debate on crossing the Nistru or no is useless, because those who sustain it (or most of them) don't say a word about our crossing of the 1938 boundary with Hungary, after reconquering Transylvania!

The campaign beyond the western border was imposed by all the circumstances following the coup d'etat.

The 1st article of the Truce Convention, concluded on 13 September 1944, stipulated: "Since August 24, 1944, 04.00 p.m., Romania has entirely ceased the military operations against the U.S.S.R., on all the theatres of war, going out of the war against the United States, has broken off its relations with Germany, has entered the war and now is fighting together with the Allied Powers against Germany and Hungary, with the view to reestablish the independence and the sovereignity of the Romanian State, in which purpose it will put at disposal no less than 12 infantry divisions, with all the supplementary means."

The decision of crossing the Dniester was taken by the free will of Marshal Antonescu - the sole sovereign of the Romanian Army. It is important to know that neither the Romanian affiliation to the Tripartite Pact in 1940, and the Anti-Kommintern Pact in 1941, were not meaning military obligations between Germany and Romania. A treaty of alliance between Germany and Romania did not exist !

QUOTE

I think that Antonescu's idea to announce Germany before leaving, was the best. This action could only be executed by the chief of the state, which was Antonescu.

This was the mistake of Antonescu: he thought that Hitler was a reasonable person. Of course it was not the case. Such an announcement would have triggered a classical reaction like in Budapest or Warsaw. Actually, Antonescu would have had a chance if he didn't include Hitler in making a decision. Antonescu had also great trust in Churchill. He mentioned that if at least three British divisions would be deployed on the Danube, he could think about turning arms against Germans.

[Geto-Dacul]

dragos wrote :

QUOTE

The campaign beyond the western border was imposed by all the circumstances following the coup d'etat.

QUOTE

The 1st article of the Truce Convention, concluded on 13 September 1944, stipulated: \"Since August 24, 1944, 04.00 p.m., Romania has entirely ceased the military operations against the U.S.S.R., on all the theatres of war, going out of the war against the United States, has broken off its relations with Germany, has entered the war and now is fighting together with the Allied Powers against Germany and Hungary, with the view to reestablish the independence and the sovereignity of the Romanian State, in which purpose it will put at disposal no less than 12 infantry divisions, with all the supplementary means.\"

This article was pure bullshit, because the Romanian state could not be sovereign when it was occupied by massive Soviet troops totally useless for the defense of Romania. And how could we "reestablish the independence"? By fighting in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Austria? Theoretically, our war against Germany and Hungary should have been limited to Northern Transylvania. And Romania engaged more than 12 divisions in all this affair.
This "armistice" was a pure moscovite dictate.

QUOTE

A treaty of alliance between Germany and Romania did not exist !

The Tripartite Pact was a treaty of alliance with Germany & Axis. Romania entered in the "New European Order".

QUOTE

This was the mistake of Antonescu: he thought that Hitler was a reasonable person.

This is a very controversial subject... Some say that Hitler was a lunatic, and that mainly after the 20th July... Others say that he always was a lunatic.

QUOTE

Actually, Antonescu would have had a chance if he didn't include Hitler in making a decision.

That was Antonescu's idea, initially ; After his talks with Clodius... Friessner was also aware.

QUOTE

Antonescu had also great trust in Churchill. He mentioned that if at least three British divisions would be deployed on the Danube, he could think about turning arms against Germans.

Antonescu knew very well that the Brits & Yanks could not do anything at that time. The Soviets had the initiative.

[inahurry]

Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Roosvelt weren't madmen. (so they could not escape execution on grounds of insanity )

Romania, in summer 1944, even without a Russian offensive or with an offensive that was stopped couldn't be invaded by Germany in order to change the regime like they did with Hungary. Many differences.

Once a proper armistice could be reached (and not the post-factum useless piece of paper from september 44) Germany would have found itself in no position to change much.

The question is not if it was to be Antonescu or anyone else to make Germany an offer to withdraw without fight. The question is if in the place of Hitler another German leader, committed to end the war only through a peace agreement and not unconditional surrender, could accept the military setback in Romania without attempting (even if a desperate attempt) to hit back.

Obviously, Antonescu had no intention to offer the Germans a peaceful way out without being prepared in case of a refusal.

Antonescu's armistice with the Russians would probably have excluded any obligation from the part of Romania to fight against Germany but since an armistice only between Romania and Russia was impossible a very probable request from the western allies to join them against Germany couldn't be rejected. Also, Antonescu wanted back the territory Hungary took in 1940. It is extremely hard to believe he thought Hungary would accept to give it back without a fight.

So, maybe Antonescu could offer Germany a peaceful withdrawal but in practice the implementation of the offer would have been almost impossible. I'm sure Antonescu knew such a chivalrous outcome is just a dream and the offer was purely formal.

[dragos]

QUOTE

The Tripartite Pact was a treaty of alliance with Germany & Axis. Romania entered in the \"New European Order\".

I repeat, the affiliation to Tripartite Pact did not stipulate military obligations between Romania and Germany, so this is not an alliance like it was the Allied Powers fighting against the Axis. The Romanian involvement in the anti-soviet war was by self decision.

QUOTE

Antonescu knew very well that the Brits & Yanks could not do anything at that time. The Soviets had the initiative.

In fact, Antonescu's erroneous opinion was that the Allied leaders wanted the Soviet to be slowed in their advance toward west. He was regarding an implication of allied troops in Balkans as a possibility.

QUOTE

The question is not if it was to be Antonescu or anyone else to make Germany an offer to withdraw without fight. The question is if in the place of Hitler another German leader, committed to end the war only through a peace agreement and not unconditional surrender, could accept the military setback in Romania without attempting (even if a desperate attempt) to hit back.

This is completely different story, but as I said before, the German resistance was too weak and the Generals too obedient for something like this to happen. Only if the bomb attempt on July 20 succeeded ? :roll:

[Reazzurro90]

Hello everyone! I am new, and I live in Ravenna, Italy.

To be honest, it is easy to see that Romania had no choice. And, it was a wise choice. Because if they would have stayed neutral, Romania might have been eventually annexed by Russia at the end of the war.