No written agreement with Germany, No official papers

Oh, really? And why weren't they put into a nice treaty, tied with a ribbon? So, after all, everybody could see the difference between Germany, the victorious (then) power and a mere satellite country, such as Romania. Could it be possible that the Wehrmacht wouldn't have lowered itself so much to sign a treaty with ARR? (Let me be more specific army-to-army, not gov't-to-gov't treaty!) Denes, was there a treaty of that sort for Hungarian Armed forces or how did the "cooperation" occur?

Oh, really? And why weren't they put into a nice treaty, tied with a ribbon? So, after all, everybody could see the difference between Germany, the victorious (then) power and a mere satellite country, such as Romania. Could it be possible that the Wehrmacht wouldn't have lowered itself so much to sign a treaty with ARR? (Let me be more specific army-to-army, not gov't-to-gov't treaty!) Denes, was there a treaty of that sort for Hungarian Armed forces or how did the "cooperation" occur?

I never heard of an army-to-army treaty. Or an army signing treaties with other armies. Could you please tell me what treaty did the Romanian army sign with the other NATO armies in order to deploy its forces in Qalat?

The kind of cooperation details you refer to are established in meetings or consultations between the allied countries' political and military leaders. Those details don't need the signing of new treaties. They are passed as laws and/or they become orders in the army.

OK! I see we speak two different languages here, but at least Victor understood my point. No use continuing this argument w/ u. Bye!

We talk the same language but you used some terms and concepts that are pretty clumsy.

At least you're not pretending such a document exist; you're "only" pretending it wasn't needed...

There are documents.

The basis of the cooperation was established by Hitler and Antonescu through the letters of June 18 and June 23, 1941. Hitler expressed the need for a unified commandment and sketched the relationship at the military leadership level and Antonescu replied by saying "Ne vom conforma intocmai directivelor operative ale Excelentei Voastre".

The tripartite pact was signed on 23 November 1940. By that stage, the war was already raging in Europe. Poland, France, Netherlands, Belgium, had already fallen, the Dunkirk evacuation had taken place, etc. Everyone was aware that war was on. When Romania signed the treaty, which aimed "to assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three contracting powers is attacked", when the treaty said "ALL MEANS", in the context of the war that was alreday on, it was clearly undrestood what they were talking about.

According to "Third Axis Fourth Ally", on 11-12 June in Munich Antonescu offered Romania's military support to Hitler. Antonescu was appointed head of Army Group Antonescu comprising of Romanian 3rd and 4th Armies and German 11th Army. Considering the German penchant for documents signed and rubber-stamped in triplicate, there is no doubt that there is/was a document that contained the purposes of the appointment and what that entailed.

Radu

So, Imperialist, you're talking about a pact/agreement made on 23-rd June - a day after the beginning... not very early, is it? And not very "comprising", in a manner of speaking.
Radub, the "GAGA" (Grupul de Armate General Antonescu) was a mere makeshift, aimed to appease the Romanian suspicion that their troops would be under German command (as if things were different on the higher level ); it never existed in fact! The Southern Army Group was led by Rundstedt and the 11-th Army by general Schobert (at the beginning). Antonescu never led any troops directly - he held no command in ww2, except the "Conducător" title, as supreme leader. Wil be back w/ more details if needed.

This post has been edited by MMM on March 13, 2009 10:52 am

I am still confused about what you are looking for. In as far as I can see, you seek a specific treaty that specifies specific words in a specific order... Maybe such a specific treaty that specifies specific words in a specific order never existed. Maybe there were other documents that covered the same bases, but not by specifying the specific words in the specific order that you are specifically looking for.
Maybe you should specify the specific words in the specific order you seek, so that we can save time looking through the actual relevant documents and point out the one you want.

As Homer Simpson once said, I'm no supervising technician, I'm a technical supervisor.

Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on March 13, 2009 11:27 am

I am talking about written correspondence between the two dictators. Maybe they talked about the cooperation details earlier, but from what I have at my disposal and for the time being those letters are the closest thing I found. The point is not so much the date (June 18 actually - that's when Hitler informed Antonescu about how he sees the cooperation) but the manner of settling the details.

Believe me, I've read and re-read the letters changed by the "dictators" and there are no such details. Only general stuff - and that's why I insisted on the fact there should have been some sort of army-to-army cooperation prior to the beginning of the conflict.
Radu, here we go again...
I'm not seeking the "Grail", because there isn't any - as there is NO MILITARY TREATY between Ro and Ge! I was just wondering WHY there isn't!

Let us take this forensically.
1. What is a "military treaty"?
2. What was its purpose?
3. What is its contents?
4. Why is it needed?
5. Who did Germany have a "military treaty" with? Was this "military treaty" between Germany and another nation signed before, after or in lieu of signing the Tripartite Pact? Depending on the timeline in comparison with the signing of the Tripartite Pact, did the Tripartite Pact uphold or annul the "military treaty"?

It is very likely that such a "military treaty" was not needed because the main tenet of "we will defend ech other in case of war" was clearly specified in the Tripartite Pact. All other stuff such as strength of troops and specifitc operations could not be specified in the Tripartite Pact simply because no one knew who would be attacked by whom with what kind of force.
When such a need arose to specify the strength of reaction and the specific foe, it was mentioned in the documents imperialist and I mentioned when Barbarossa was planned. Barbarossa was well planned and there is a lot of documentation that specifies what kind of military strength Romania contributed with.

Radu

But the Tripartite Pact was a treaty that established a military alliance. There was no need to sign another military treaty.

To give you an example, NATO is a military alliance based on the North Atlantic Treaty. What extra military treaty with its allies did Romania have to sign in order to deploy troops to Afghanistan within the framework of the already signed North Atlantic Treaty? There was no need for another military treaty and I am not aware of any. Read the North Atlantic Treaty. It lacks the details you want. Those details are established at intra-alliance and inter-military level. Political leaders, ministers, chiefs of staff, etc.

The same goes for the 1940s, with the observation that Hitler and Antonescu were supreme leaders and the decision-making in their alliance was way less complex than it is in NATO.

Here is another example of political and military treaty:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/brsov42.asp

[Source: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/F%C3%BChrer_Directive_21]

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on March 13, 2009 01:13 pm