Romanian Army in the Second World War · Forum Guidelines | Help Search Members Calendar |
Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register ) | Resend Validation Email |
Pages: (13) 1 [2] 3 4 ... Last » ( Go to first unread post ) |
Imperialist |
Posted: August 31, 2005 03:14 am
|
||
General de armata Group: Members Posts: 2399 Member No.: 499 Joined: February 09, 2005 |
You will always say these were the only things to be done and anything else was preposterous. Having the advantage of historical events already played out, you will always get on top. But thats easy. Do you think Romania should have fought in 1940, or not? -------------------- I
|
||
Zayets |
Posted: August 31, 2005 05:33 am
|
||||||||||
Plutonier adjutant Group: Members Posts: 363 Member No.: 504 Joined: February 15, 2005 |
What I have said:
What YOU say I have said
Notice the the big difference.The rest is just speculation from you part.You have no way of knowing what would happen. Pleasant dreams. |
||||||||||
Iamandi |
Posted: August 31, 2005 06:27 am
|
General de divizie Group: Members Posts: 1386 Member No.: 319 Joined: August 04, 2004 |
Is good or bad to fight against your enemys? Is better to let them take provinces of your land, then to fight with all price?
What we will find in history? What do we learn from history? We (romanians, and other minor countrys) fought in asymetric wars, and some time we obtain victory, or we obtain a partial victory enough to survive in peace for a while. I'm not so proud about Romania in ww2. I have a question: those who fight, those who die and those who were wounded, or who were POWs in East... in the great picture of second world war... they were the bad guys? Ok. When you ask a romanian, we know what type of answer will say. But, in the large context of ww2 is not like that. We were bad guys - we were the allies of the bad guys, we fought against Uk, US,etc... so, we fought in that context even against Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, our ex. friends, no? Who cares about Bessarabia? Western powers don't gives a... for that. That was a problem of our own, made by our own leaders. What western can say? Simply: "why you let Russians to take your land? we fought against who tryed that with our lands - so, why you don't?" - because a world war represents interests of a team, a group of nations, the common interests... and not of one single country. And Romania is a single one country. Who cares about a single one? Allies win against Axis with a team concept, with small countrys fighting against big powers and loosing, just to permit in future (to give enough time) to big powers to win and to liberate them. Idealistic concept. What happens after world war 2 was... was what we know and what we live even in present days. Final of this post: i think our leaders made a mistake to not opose to Soviet Union in '40. I think our soldiers were disapointed about that, and was in shame against himselfs. An Army exist to protect borders, not to retreat in face of the enemy whitout fight. Iama |
Zayets |
Posted: August 31, 2005 06:37 am
|
Plutonier adjutant Group: Members Posts: 363 Member No.: 504 Joined: February 15, 2005 |
Yes,our leaders at that time they had a great Army.Too bad they didn't knew what is the purpose of an Army.
I am also saying that we should oppose Soviets in 1940. Afterall Fins did it with notable success. This post has been edited by Zayets on August 31, 2005 06:37 am |
Iamandi |
Posted: August 31, 2005 07:40 am
|
General de divizie Group: Members Posts: 1386 Member No.: 319 Joined: August 04, 2004 |
And like Fins, we don't have a coutry full of plain lands. We may use our relief in our advantage.
We can try to do a topic dedicated to what if with this subject. I hope im not the only one interested in this ideea... So, let's or let's not start? Iama |
dragos |
Posted: August 31, 2005 08:46 am
|
||||||
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 2397 Member No.: 2 Joined: February 11, 2003 |
What are you talking about? What did I write and is speculation? The difference between the two statements is that yours is an oversimplified version of the facts. |
||||||
Zayets |
Posted: August 31, 2005 08:58 am
|
||||||||
Plutonier adjutant Group: Members Posts: 363 Member No.: 504 Joined: February 15, 2005 |
Let me refresh your memory...
I am glad that you see a difference.FYI I was only responding to your statement.Simple and to the object.The fact that you want to extend the context is another story.You can't blame me for your incomplete post.Here it is the phrase I was responding to:
This post has been edited by Zayets on August 31, 2005 08:59 am |
||||||||
sid guttridge |
Posted: August 31, 2005 09:20 am
|
Locotenent colonel Group: Members Posts: 862 Member No.: 591 Joined: May 19, 2005 |
Hi Guys,
I don't think that Romania had much choice. Romania's only contracted ally against the USSR, Poland, had been destroyed in September 1939. Romania's main guarantor, France, had just been conquered and its other guarantor, Great Britain, had been chased from the continent at Dunkirk. Germany had already agreed to the USSR having Basarabia in August 1939. When the USSR unexpectedly added Bucovina to the list the Germans, whose entire army was then in France, could only compromise and agree to Northern Bucovina. When Romania approached Italy for support, Mussolini advised that the ballance of Europe required Romania to concede. The Little and Balkan Ententes had no relevance to a confrontation with the USSR. This only leaves Romania versus the USSR, with Hungary (which mobilised when the USSR sent Romania its ultimatum) and Bulgaria hovering in the background. This was such a mismatch that defeat in Basarabia and Bucovina was inevitable and the whole country might well have gone down to catastrophe. The condition of the Romanian Army was poor. Its mechanisation was very limited, many divisions contained large numbers of unreliable minorities and only a proportion of the armaments ordered in the late 1930s (particularly anti-tank guns) had so far been delivered. The narrow fronts and advantageous weather conditions that had helped the Finns for a few months in the winter of 1939-40 were also not available to Romania in Basarabia in high summer of 1940. There is more to national consolidation than fighting at every available opportunity. Italy was united without winning a single major battle against foreigners in the 19th Century. The Czechs played little role over 1938-45, yet the Czech Republic was greatly consolidated as a result. In 1940 Romania decided to bide its time. It was not glorious, but it was the pragmatic, and therefore probably the right, decision. Cheers, Sid. |
Imperialist |
Posted: August 31, 2005 10:43 am
|
||
General de armata Group: Members Posts: 2399 Member No.: 499 Joined: February 09, 2005 |
4 million romanians were given up in 1940. No shots fired. Basarabia is still lost, 65 years after the event. Romanians suffered a process of russification in Basarabia, russian colonists were brought. Even last year, in the region of Transdniester romanian schools were forcibly closed. What did the State bid time for? 65 years. Still bidding time. Lets be real about this, the losses in 1940 had no expire date on them. The New Order in Europe could have lasted decades. The territories were lost. By the course of events, we luckily got back Transylvania. A state that gives up that easily parts of its territory and large numbers of its people has something rotten in it. edit -- another source says 6,8 million This post has been edited by Imperialist on August 31, 2005 11:28 am -------------------- I
|
||
Zayets |
Posted: August 31, 2005 10:51 am
|
||
Plutonier adjutant Group: Members Posts: 363 Member No.: 504 Joined: February 15, 2005 |
Neville Chamberlain called this appeasement.It failed,eventually. 60 years later we learned the lesson.You do not negociate with [put your word here *)] *) Hint : agressor,terorist,invader |
||
Imperialist |
Posted: August 31, 2005 10:56 am
|
||||
General de armata Group: Members Posts: 2399 Member No.: 499 Joined: February 09, 2005 |
Well, in mid 1990s Romania signed a treaty with Ukraine, giving up any claims on disputed territories. The aim of the romanian "pragmatists" was to enter NATO, a stronger alliance. So, like in the good old times, they had to give up something. 8-9 years later, Ukraine starts building the Bastroe Canal. -------------------- I
|
||||
Zayets |
Posted: August 31, 2005 10:59 am
|
Plutonier adjutant Group: Members Posts: 363 Member No.: 504 Joined: February 15, 2005 |
Yah,we are in NATO.What this will mean for us,we'll just have to wait and see.NATO seems to be US & UK nowadays.
This post has been edited by Zayets on August 31, 2005 10:59 am |
Victor |
Posted: August 31, 2005 11:09 am
|
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 4350 Member No.: 3 Joined: February 11, 2003 |
Stick to the inter-war period. You want to discuss the treaty with Ukraine, you can do it in another topic.
|
Imperialist |
Posted: August 31, 2005 11:27 am
|
||
General de armata Group: Members Posts: 2399 Member No.: 499 Joined: February 09, 2005 |
On April 19th King Carol II, in a meeting with PM Tatarescu, Gafencu and Urdareanu, decided to resist militarily to whoever attacks, be it Germany or USSR. On May 29th, after a similar meeting Carol decided to rely exclusively on Germany as an ally in Europe. As a consequence, in August, the Romanian army had 24 divisions facing the USSR and only 10 facing Hungary, the latter having to face 23 hungarian divisions on the other side of the border. At the time of the Vienna diktat/arbitration/etc. Carol accepted the arbitration mostly because of the German guarantees for the rest of the romanian borders. Giving this, I dont see why I was wrong saying that Romania ceded Transylvania in order to gain Germany as an ally. -------------------- I
|
||
dragos |
Posted: August 31, 2005 11:39 am
|
||
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 2397 Member No.: 2 Joined: February 11, 2003 |
The total population lost in 1940 is 6,829,238, of which 3,421,000 Romanians. |
||
Pages: (13) 1 [2] 3 4 ... Last » |