23 August 1944, 61 years ago...

Hi Victor,

No,I am not considering anything.I am merely quote Patrascanu's remark when he found out the conditions.As for how harsh were both condition (post and after August 23rd) we can only judge based only on the post 23rd.Right? Because this is what we have.The rest were carefully and convenient covered by various parties.That doesn't means that historians could not get their hands on such evidences.

Then why do it?The latest one ,I mean? Lets put the weapons down,no!,worse!,let's put the weapons down,face West and fight whoever we find in that direction.Eastbound fellows will catch up anyway. The worst part is that this was an order.What was in the soul of every soldier we can only imagine.Therefore afirmations like Denes one makes only unjustice to the ones fighting on the Eastern Front.And then compared with Hungary or Bulgaria it becomes defection.It is a very convenient way to see the things.Therefore,until I will have proofs that this was the best thing (please note that today I accept this term) I will consider King Mihai I the only and most noteworthy defector in the WW2 on Romanians side. In fact,laughing at him,Stalin handed him the Pobeda order. Stalin was definitely a cruel man but even him could not stand defectors and traitors.I am reffering to King's Mihai I attitude toward Germany if you ask what I mean.

The last sentence I have heard it many times.Told by people being there.However,even the facts you have exposed can't make justice to the people forced to leave their weapons and being sent to labour camps.They went toward East to fight for what they thought is their right.They have to let the weapons for what they thought is wrong.Neverthless,they did it because it was an order.That (and many other things) show that the Army (even in those bad times) was not a "sat fara caini" . Defecting Romania is a myth. Too many people except Romanians defected that day if you catch my drift.

This post has been edited by Zayets on August 29, 2005 06:52 am

The USSR also had a somewhat similar behavior towards the Japanese POWs:

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050826/41233488.html

As V.Molotov answered to Patrascanu's question why the conditions were so harsh when USSR already offeren Antonescu's regime way easier conditions in previous negociations : Antonescu represented Romanian people.You represent nobody here.
Kings proclamation was an unilateral act. There was no armistice signed in 23. The king refused to even warn the Army about these.Hence 130.000 romanian troops were made prisoners instantly since they received the order not to fight against the sovietics.Soviet soldiers were also puzzled.What to do now in front of teh Romanians.Since there was no armistice but just an order to cease fighting,Soviets took them prisoners.Armistice came in September 12 same year.

Last week i ask my friend - col. ® who was younger at that time, in Div. 1 Garda - about 23 August 1944. He knows with some time about this event. He, and others who make undercover missions. Was a known event, for some military, but was a secret action, so... Simply soldiers cannot be warned. Even much part of high ranks.

Iama

Ok Victor I will refrain from doing that (I agree it was wrong to generalize).
However I will have to ask you to refrain from twisting my words:

,it is not nice.

This post has been edited by D13-th_Mytzu on August 29, 2005 08:59 am

As always,August 23rd heated the discussion.I don't even find it a debate.What was wrong/good into it.What for facts do we know and speculate on "what if" scenarios.
What I find ironic in the whole thing is that the original poster launched the skunk ,leave the cave and now we throw on each other the smell of it.

Source: Revista de istorie militara, 5-6/1997, p22
Orignally posted here

Yes,this is just an "what if" scenario. Nobody's contesting author(s) merits.But , given the fact that nothing like these happened,what is writen in that scan is just a PURE SPECULATION (see my post above). Unless, I understood wrong what you meant by posting the scan,and you just offer another "what if".

What remains is the fact that the king ordered that Romanian soldiers should let down their weapons in front of the sovietics and not to shoot any bullet.Same Romanians that ,waiting for their "friends" , were shot around Ungheni and later taken prisoners.
You know what,the king judged himself afterall.Moraly he is destroyed even nowaday. He know that he was wrong then and no, being young (23 I guess) is no excuse. Younger people died in Tatra and in Budapest following his famous proclamation/order.
Want to continue?He went for personal glory,and gave no consideration for the people he sent along the Soviets .And that only for one Soviet and American medal. Heh!
This is what I am saying,I don't contest any "what if" , but too many came and say "that would happen if" , and "that would not happen if" . We really like to play games while we forget the facts.We were defeated.That simple.Why sacrifice another thousand of people when the outcome was the same?And no,you can't blame it on the fact that he didn't knew because he didn't even asked.As a proof,armistice was signed in 12 September fulfiling the whole treason.This is the only responsible (even if manipulated) for the disaster after August 23rd 1944.At least this is my oppinion and I stay behind it.

The question about 23rd August is a question of image.

In June, the romanian leaders decide to avoid a confrontation with the USSR and cede Basarabia, in order to "save the romanian state".
At the end of August 1940 romanian leaders decide to cede Transylvania without a fight in order to maintain independence and avoid a war waged on Romanian soil. This disaster lead to Antonescu's coup.
Antonescu decides to join Hitler in the East in order to recover Basarabia. The war turns bad, the russians close in. In another attempt to "save the independence of the state" another coup, this time against Antonescu.
Romania was ready to "defend by attacking" when Germany launched the assault against the soviets, but when the defense of its own territory was at stake... well, "independence" had to be defended, at all costs of image, self-respect and morale. Both in June, August 1940, and 23rd August 1944.

Yes, this is just a short review, but IMO Romania's image in WWII is very bad. I dont think things could have turned out to be different or better, but when things will turn bad either way, principles have to be respected.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on August 29, 2005 11:37 am

So true,Carol II needed peace so he can care better of Lulu

Yes,this time Horthy was smarter and faster.He smells that Adolf would go East and embraced the nazi ideology.Now,who would you trust?Horthy or Antonescu (which was in deep doodoo with all Iron Guard all over the place). Hitler was by no mean idiot and definitely a better politician than Horthy and Antonescu.He knew that if he will give Norther Transylvania to Horthy , there will be no rise against Wermacht there since they were busy watching each other

So sad,but true! Without any treaty,but words (including a vague promise that Northern Transylvania will come back to Romania). At least one thing was sure,the teritories taken by Soviet Union were to be liberated.

Yup,like father ... same son. What would you expect?Wasn't Carol responsible for disolving the Parliament?Which led to Antonescu's coup?

What teritory?Where did Romanian Army had control when the famous proclamation came into action?They had to fight the Germans while being shot by the Russians.Cute!

As far as I know independece was gained in 1989,and even then,partialy.

Zayets, IMO Romania had a simple and principled way of behaving in WWII. The first power who wants to take a part of Romanian territory will be opposed with all of Romania's strength and will.
If it was Germany/Hungary, well, tough luck. Leave all considerations apart, Germany/Hungary acted aggressively - resist against it. If it was the USSR, same principle. If they were both, nothing to lose either, its complete war.
But, no. Our politicians/diplomats played 20 years between the wars, forging ententes, alliances, propping up leagues etc. It was a good diplomatic experience, no doubt. But when the moment of taking a hard, principled and clear decision came, the politicians ceded. Well, we cede this because that would make us join a stronger alliance (sounds very familiar even today).

edit -- a country that cedes territory that easy, makes territory a bargaining chip, not a matter of resolute principle

This post has been edited by Imperialist on August 29, 2005 12:02 pm

Since you apparently involved my name in this, let me ask you: which words of mine exactly do you think make injustice to the Rumanian soldiers fighting on the Eastern Front?

Bulgaria did defect the Axis camp on Sept. 10, 1944.

Gen. Dénes

Since you apparently involved my name in this, let me ask you: which words of mine exactly do you think make injustice to the Rumanian soldiers fighting on the Eastern Front?

Bulgaria did defect the Axis camp on Sept. 10, 1944.

Gen. Dénes

Hi Denes,
No,it was not "apparently". I did mention your name. Besides,I did not involved you,you involved yourself in this.
But to answer your question :

and later

Note that you used "voluntary" word.Second part of your phrase is incoherent at best.
And later

Hope this answer your question


PS : your quote

And Hungary,obviously didn't defected.Tough luck,Adolf found out that Horthy wanted to defect , lol!

PPS: why I did asked for the exact link of the article is because I wanted to see where it is writen the word "defected".Obviously,soldiers who fought there didn't thought that way.Neiter the article you quoted.

PPPS: August 23rd seen by a German soldier. So was the defection of the Romanian soldiers : http://www.punctecardinale.ro/aug_2004/aug_2004_7.html

This post has been edited by Zayets on August 29, 2005 01:25 pm

Imperialist,I think it was the lack of principles that governed Romania's politics at that time.And I believe it was that what Mytzu tried to point out in "no honour" event. I can't say myself that because beside palace officers who never smelled the mud on the trenches,the rest of the Army acted in a more than honourable way.Instead of disbanding itself as the Russian Army in WW1,they followed the orders,as any disciplined Army in this world would do.

This post has been edited by Zayets on August 29, 2005 12:20 pm

First , I suggest you to brush up your English before chastising others. FYI, in contrast to the Rumanian, in English 'apparently' is synonymous to 'obviously'.

and later

Note that you used "voluntary" word.Second part of your phrase is incoherent at best.

From a neutral point of view, Rumania did defect the Axis camp on August 23, 1944. And it was a voluntary action, as opposite to involuntary. Of course, the circumstances in that particular period were quite difficult for Rumania, but the path chosen was done independently from the Germans (or Soviets).

Hope this answer your question

No, it does not. But please don't bother attempting to further escalate this, as I won't be part of your game. So don't expect another exhaustive answer from me to any post that are not strictly related to the topic.

And Hungary,obviously didn't defected.

The fact is that Hungary did not defect the Axis camp. There is a historical explanation to this, available in any major history book on World War 2. Please feel free to check them out.

Expecting a historically accurate and unbiased approach to this controversial episode in 'Adevarul' daily is naïve, at best.

Instead of slinging mud, I suggest you to do some more reading, so next time you would not confuse Bulgaria with Croatia.

Gen. Dénes

P.S. As for not replying to every post made, unfortunately I don't have the luxury of abundant free time as a few others here apparently do. However, I can assure you that I do visit this forum daily.

First , I suggest you to brush up your English before chastising others. FYI, in contrast to the Rumanian, in English 'apparently' is synonymous to 'obviously'.

and later

Note that you used "voluntary" word.Second part of your phrase is incoherent at best.

From a neutral point of view, Rumania did defect the Axis camp on August 23, 1944. And it was a voluntary action, as opposite to involuntary. Of course, the circumstances in that particular period were quite difficult for Rumania, but the path chosen was done independently from the Germans (or Soviets).

Hope this answer your question

No, it does not. But please don't bother attempting to further escalate this, as I won't be part of your game. So don't expect another exhaustive answer from me to any post that are not strictly related to the topic.

And Hungary,obviously didn't defected.

The fact is that Hungary did not defect the Axis camp. There is a historical explanation to this, available in any major history book on World War 2. Please feel free to check them out.

Expecting a historically accurate and unbiased approach to this controversial episode in 'Adevarul' daily is naïve, at best.

Instead of slinging mud, I suggest you to do some more reading, so next time you would not confuse Bulgaria with Croatia.

Gen. Dénes

P.S. As for not replying to every post made, unfortunately I don't have the luxury of abundant free time as a few others here apparently do. However, I can assure you that I do visit this forum daily.

I could use some polishing to any language I speak,that is so true.Same can be said about your English.However , this is yet another detail which only contribute to drift the whole discussion.
May I kindly point to you that you came in and quote an article about Romania's defection in August 23rd 1944.Is for that I have asked you to point us to the right article.Now you blame Adevarul for your obvious subjective remarks.Which is ,once again, a very convenient way of exiting the discussion.
As for answering your fine remark that some have "abundant free time" you should not worry.In case you reffered to me,well,sadly,my vacation will be over soon.
Finally,I could also use some more reading,that is also true.But is obvious you need that too.

Have a good day.