We should be proud of Eastern Front victories?, about the romanian victories 1941/42

Yes, I am proud and we all must be proud for that.

I am sure that the russians were very proud when they occupy the romanian territory in 1940.

Not only that, but they were even talking about the next phase, meeting in Dobrudja with the Bulgarians (or occupying the rest of Moldavia and Bukovina) or occupying the "oil region".

I would have been prouder had Romania fought in 1940.

Giving up in 1940, then going all the way to Stalingrad with the stronger side in 1941 (the one which was behind the 1940 losses too), then ditching it in 1944 when it was no longer the stronger side and joining our former enemies going into Central Europe.... It's politics and can be understood, no problem there, but if the question is put in terms of pride (emotional terms) then I don't think there's much to be proud about this.

A dignified behavior (to use the emotional approach) would have been to fight in 1940 or, if that didn't happen, to at least continue fighting in 1944. A politically cautious behavior (to use the political/rational approach) would have been to limit our involvement in Barbarossa to our own territorial issue with the USSR, just like Finland did.

(BTW, strangely enough, on foreign forums I keep reading opinions on how Finland was the best German ally in Barbarossa, had the best soldiers among Germany's allies, etc.)

We have to suvive, and I am proud that we make it.

Swich side in 1944? Yes. In 1940 the germans have made a aliance with the soviet and sold romanian teritory to hungarians (north Transilvania) and to the soviets (north Bucovina and Basarabia). At that time nobodies sad nothing about that. We are victims like polish or czeh or austrians. But nobody sey nothings about that injustice.

Pentru poporul roman se punea problema supravietuirii. Asa a fost din totdeauna. Si sunt mandru de inaintasii mei pentru ca au reusit si datorita lor si noi am reusit.

Suntem acuzati pentru ca am intors armele la 23 august 1944. Dar cand germanii au facut pact cu sovieticii si au dat nordul Ardealului la unguri si teritorii romanesti la sovietici, asta nu a mai vazut-o nimeni. De masacrul de la Fantana Alba, din Bucovina, vorbeste cineva?
Da, sunt mandru de faptele de arme ale Armatei Romane in ww2.


For Romanian people is to survive. That has always been. And I am proud of my ancestors because they succeeded and because of them and we did.

We got back charged for weapons on 23 august 1944. But when the Germans made ​​a pact with the Soviets and gave North Transylvania to Hungarian and Romanian territories to the Soviets that never saw anyone. About The massacre at Fantana Alba, Bukovina, someone speaks?
Yes, I am proud to deeds of arms of the Romanian Army in WW2.

A question of survival of the people is a bit exaggerated. Poland and Hungary fought (1939 & 1944) and they didn't become extinct as a people.

We were victims, but ended up fighting on the side of both of the powers that were behind our chopping up in 1940. So we made a bad image of ourselves both in the East and in the West. Moreover, Italy, which also switched sides but committed far less troops on the Allied side afterwards, obtained the status of "co-belligerent" at the Peace Conference. We didn't. And our involvement in the Holocaust was like the cherry on top.

Now we easily get flak from all sides, from whoever wants to put the issue in emotional or moral terms or wants to insult us.

Fighting in 1941 was a must, but our military commitment beyond Bessarabia should have been on a low scale. But Antonescu was not listening to anyone.

So do you think if Antonescu was a listening guy and would involv in low scale our army beyond Bessarabia we could have different future with soviets. And I would not compare with Italy ( US were there first not the soviets) but rather let say with Czechoslovakia

Don't talk about holocaust in Romania. In Romania, holocaust made th hungarian troops in north Transilvania. Romanian army kild jews in Basarabia and Moldova because they atack romanian army in retreat.

So do you think if Antonescu was a listening guy and would involv in low scale our army beyond Bessarabia we could have different future with soviets. And I would not compare with Italy ( US were there first not the soviets) but rather let say with Czechoslovakia

We're using hindsight, but if our future with the Soviets would have been the same anyway then why go to the lengths Antonescu went? The theory about impressing the Germans in order to get back Transylvania was just an idea, Antonescu never obtained any clear verbal promise from Hitler, let alone something in writing.

It would have been better to conserve our forces, to fight for Bessarabia again when the Soviet forces approached in 1944 (we would have lost it again), then to switch sides and, if possible, to stop on the border with Hungary.

But what we did was fight all the way to Stalingrad (spent a lot, obtained nothing and p**** off the Russians for generations to come), then switch sides and fight all the way into Czechoslovakia (again spent a lot, obtained nothing and p**** off the Germans).

[QUOTE]We're using hindsight, but if our future with the Soviets would have been the same anyway then why go to the lengths Antonescu went?

So Antonescu in 1942 should guess that Germany will loose the war with soviets before starting ? Who believed that when Germany starting with 1939 was conquering Europe step by step. It's easy to judge people after, when you know how the war ended.

This post has been edited by Cantacuzino on February 01, 2013 02:45 pm

I agrew with your point, but your question was based on hindsight so my answer had to use hindsight too. You asked me if doing something different in 1941 would have changed our future with the Soviets. A future we know now.

Antonescu didn't have to guess the future, he had to avoid betting everything on one side (Germany) and keep our involvement in the war based on our territorial issue with the USSR, not on Hitler's crusade/war of conquest.

Agree with you until one point. We could not defeat Soviets alone ( to solve the teritorial issue) Helping Germany to won was the only chance to solve the teritorial issue with USSR for long term. Of course doing that we could not be sure that the other territorial issue (Transilvania) could be solved and I am agree with you that Antonescu could not guarantee that either.

Ok, but we were not in the position to help Germany win. We were a small agrarian country whose army was not well equipped by industrial standards. Embarking on such a distant and long campaign was beyond our capabilities and it eventually showed. We could have limited our involvement beyond Bessarabia to some mountain troops and the air force for example. We were helping Germany with resources anyway.

Ofcourse that argument could be a good reason not to continuu the war but don't forget that Hitler promised to Antonescu to upgrade romanian army to german standards, Hitler didn't keep his promise . What turning point could be at Stalingrad if romanian received 150 modern tanks ( instead of only 22) ? Comander Lt Velican claimed 5 russian tanks destroyed using a modern Panzer Pz 4.

„Razboiul este un act de violenta si in folosirea acesteia nu exista limite, astfel fiecare parte ii impune celeilalte legea sa, rezultand o actiune reciproca, care conform definitiei trebuie sa ajunga la extrem. Aceasta este primas actiune reciproca si primul fenemen extrem pe care il intalnim.”(Clausewitz, 1982, 55)
„Razboiul nu este actiunea unei forte vii asupra unei mase inerte, ci pentru ca pasivitatea absoluta, ar insemna negarea razboiului, este intotdeauna ciocnirea a doua forte vii iar ceea ce am spus despre obiectivul final al actiunii militare trebuie gandit de ambele parti. Asadar si aici este actiunea reciproca . Cata vreme nu lam infrant pe adversar trebuie sa mah tem k mah va infrange el pe mine, deci nu mai sunt propriul meu stãpân, ci el imi impune legea , dupa cum eu i-o impun. aceasta este a doua acţiune reciprocã, ce duce la al doilea fenomen extrem.” (Clausewitz, 1982, 56)

„Mãrimea fortelor disponibile s-ar putea determina deoarece se întemeiaza( deşi nu in întregime) pe cifre. Puterea vointei înbnsa se poate determina mult mai greu, si poate fi doar evaluata cumva dupa forta motivatiei. Presupunânâd ca am obtine astfel o evaluare acceptabila a capacitatii de rezistenta a adversarului ne putem potrivi, dupã aceasta eforturile noastre şi fie le sporim întratat încât sã ne asigurãm superioritatea fie daca mijloacele noastre nu sunt suficiente sa le sporim la mazximum posibil. Dar adversarul face acelasi lucru, deci o noua supralicitare reciproca, ea implica in pura teorie tendinta de a ajunge la extrem. Aceasta este a treia acţiune reciprocã si al treilea fenomen extrem.”(idem)

sorry but i dont have the text in english
my ideea is it only matters if a war starts as a legitimate one or not in rest it will continue like a war until one side is defeated
in 41 romania started a legitimate war against USSr to recover its territories after it only romania did what it should be done from all germany's allies it continued the war at all cost and using all his military potentially to win it
be broud of it, Hungary Finland Croatia never did it