23 August 1944, 61 years ago...

Lifes... considering what we have been through since comunism took over untill 1989 I would say we had no political advantage from that, however it was the only logical thing to do to spare the country unecesarry sufference and dammage.

Why do you think Finland also switched sides ?

This post has been edited by D13-th_Mytzu on August 30, 2005 09:12 am

Lifes...

Yes, I wonder what lives. The flower of the romanian intellectuality was certainly lost in the communist prisons.

Yes, it was not useless, they were fighting for the "final victory", right!

Well, if the children sent to perish may have believed in what they were told, I'm not so sure about the remaining veterans. Maybe they were tired of dying for the fatherland? Fed up with the lies? Trying to surrender to the Western Allies?

Well, the question was "why send,voluntarly,thousand of men to die after the defeat was a fact?". In 1944 the defeat was a fact.

Imperialist that would have happened no matter what we did... We did save lives by switching sides (we also lost but not as much as we saved) and also we saved a lot of dammage to our country that would have happened if fighting untill the end.
After the war we saved nothing.

It's your opinion, but I'm convinced it's easier to say it than to do it yourself.

No, they were fighting, for the first time in 6 years, for their actual fatherland, not for Hitler's plans in the East, South or West.

Yes, defeat is always a fact. In 1940 too the defeat was a fact, so why risk firing a shot? Lets save the country (well, whats left of it anyways).
Dragos, I agree that in 1944 the situation was twice as bad as in 1940, because Romania's forces were spent thousands of miles away in a foreign land. But I'm not sure if that makes 1940 look twice as bad, or 1944 just bad. I'm not sure if we are right to blame 23rd August 1944 exclusively when it was only a follow up of the disastrous 1940 decision.

take care

It's your opinion, but I'm convinced it's easier to say it than to do it yourself.

No, I would do it myself.

I perfectly understand that some of my affirmations stired the pot and I take the blame.If I offended anyone,then please accept my appologies.
But on the same time,please accept that everyone is entitled to an oppinion.Even if we quote the same sources we can reach totally different conclusions.That's about it.Contesting someone's oppinion is also part of the game as long as the dialog remains civilized.One of my affirmation ,wrong readed,probably wrong writen,was classified as outrageous.That's also allright,but isn't it against the forum rules?You know,that broad definition of name calling...

I hope it's not yet another case of persecutory complex. If I find your statement both nonsensical and outrageous, that does not mean I characterize you in any way, does it? Had I write "you always write nonsenses", you would have a valid point. Until then, I see no reason to make such a big fuss out of this.

I hope it's not yet another case of persecutory complex. If I find your statement both nonsensical and outrageous, that does not mean I characterize you in any way, does it? Had I write "you always write nonsenses", you would have a valid point. Until then, I see no reason to make such a big fuss out of this.

HIYW then.As the guys at Burger King say.So be it,you are always right.I don't make big fuss about it,it appears that you were somehow irritated by this.I do not have any persecutory complex as you ironicaly suggested.Besides,I thought that I was not clear.Seemed that it was not the case.Therefore,putting your words in my mouth,that yes, it is indeed outrageus and you should be ashamed.

Since I'm a bit puzzled, can you be more specific about which words did I put into your mouth?

Nevermind dragos.Is alright.I withdraw anything you don't like.Is cool.

Zayets, I most certainly did not twist your words. You yourself wrote that in the post you made on Aug 26 2005, 03:36 PM (GMT + 2). Because it contained false information regarding the difference between the terms offered to Antonescu and those that the post-23 August governments obtained, I felt it was necessary to contradict you and present the truth. Otherwise some might have remained with the idea that after 23 August the Soviets got "way" (your choice of words) more than they offered to Antonescu.

First you dismissed the book I mentioned, without any real explanation.
Secondly, you divert attention to Patrascanu and the Peace Conference, when it is clear that this wasn't the issue.
And now you accuse me of taking phrases out of the original context, getting personal in lack of real proof to back up the initial statement.

It would be much easier to try to prove me wrong with actual evidence, a painful article in the treaty that was not included in the terms offered in Stockholm.

I didn't compare you to the Legionnaires. I simply mentioned the fact that many pro-Antonescu (which btw aren't Legionnaires) and pro-Iron Guard Romanians living in the west came up the idea of King Mihai I making the coup to secure his personal glory and get a shiny medal for it. This idea unfortunately propagated.

You say that the King should have finished what he started that day. What exactly would you like him to have done?

On 24 August, Romania returned to the status of a Constitutional Monarchy. The King wasn't an absolute monarch like Carol II was between 1938-40. He had certain attributes of power, but like in any supposed democratic state, the power was divided. He appointed two non-Communist prime ministers, which both were uncomfortable for the Soviets. Gen. Nicolae Radescu became so uncomfortable that the Romanian Communists needed to stage a "popular revolt" in February 1945 with the complicity of the Soviet Commission and Vishinsky had to come to Bucharest in person and force Radescu to step down. He then went along and forced King Mihai I to accept a new government led by Petru Groza. The King resisted initially and, according, to the diary of Constantin Radulescu-Motru, even intended to abdicate. Then came the incident in August 1945, when Mihai I asked Groza to resign, following the refusal of the Western Allies to recognize his government. The King entered the so-called Royal Strike on 21 August 1945 and it lasted until December 1945. Basically he refused to cooperate with Groza and his government and to sign and promulgate the laws. Obviously the government continued to function illegally, having the support of the Soviet Union. The strike ended in January 1946, after the US and British ambassadors said to the King that they would recognize the new government after two ministers from PNL and PNT will be named. Practically the Western Allies made it clear that they recognize the Soviet hold on Romania. Mihai I had lost his battle with the Groza government and the Soviet Union. Should I mention the massive rally on St. Michael's Day in 1945, which ended up with many arrests, beatings and even killings? It seems the people then had more respect for the King and didn't think he was seeking personal glory and the Pobeda Order. Should I also mention memos forwarded to Roosevelt by the King depicting the Soviet abuses taking place in the country? In 1946 most of the political opponents were eliminated and the Communists could rig the elections to win. The King was practically alone in 1947 and he was forced to abdicate. It should be noted that he stayed on until it was impossible to remain here. Even in December 1947, when many thought he would remain in Europe, he returned. He could have fled much earlier.

King Mihai I obviously tried to do more than search for glory. Ţhese are the facts.

Romania could not just surrender and stop there. It was under attack by its former Allies, which understandably didn't approve with the decision of the new government. What did you want Romanians to do? Just sit around and let the Germans get a hold on Bucharest and other strategic locations? Do you think that Romanians should have just let the Hungarian-German offensive take hold of Southern Transylvania? I fail to see how what you proposed could have been achieved in the given conditions.

Furthermore the desire to take back Northern Transylvania was pretty high among the troops and it had been this way since 1941. There weren't many people that disapproved with the fighting in Transylvania. Beyond the 1940 frontier is another thing, but at the time it was reached, there was already a signed Armistice. The fighting against the Axis was one of the not-negotionable conditions the Soviets proposed to Antonescu in early 1944, so blaming the post-23 August government for it is unfair. Finland got the same treatment in this respect. One could also argue that if we crossed the Dnister in 1941, we shouldn't complain if having to cross the western border in 1944.

You ask:

I fail to see any logical connection between the two sentences of this if clause. The Armistice was signed with the Allies, because Romania was defeated. This is what happens when you lose a war and surrender. The fact that many didn't think that the Soviets will be allowed to impose their system in Romania or that they knew it was all doomed has no relevance to the signing of the Armistice. It was agreed upon and signed with all the Allied Powers, not the SU, although the Soviets were clearly in charge of the Allied Control Commission.

Of course Russians were surprised, because they didn't think that such an attempt would succeed. The coup didn't bring them only advantages, but also problems. Without it they could have "liberated" Romania and install directly a puppet-government like they did in Hungary or Poland. Even in case Antonescu would have sued for peace, he would have been much more easily to topple. Because of 23 August 1944, it took two years to create the Romanian Popular Republic.

Btw, I wouldn't go as far as to say that Romania's quitting changed the balance of power. The balance of power on the Eastern Front was already lost. See, for example, Operation Bagration in June-July 1944. It was just a matter of time.

A discussion on the implications of rejecting the Soviet ultimatum of 1940 has been moved here:
http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=2415

Hi Victor,
Is late and I am not in the mood to answer your post.I will probably come tomorrow with an answer.Obviously,I do not share your oppinion and that's one thing you can't take from me.
As a side note,I did not dismissed the book you quoted. I am just saying that Mr. Giurescu is one of many having opinions about August 23rd.And other also wrote books. There is no consensus among those people,then is still foggy.You took one side,I took the other,what's so difficult in accepting that?Do you want me to quote any source I have?You know very well how many can we find,in the libraries and online.A lot of books appeared after 89 treating this subject.You make your oppinion,I'll make mine.

Good night