No written agreement with Germany, No official papers

Hey, what do you know!?!? Dennis Deletant, on which we agreed he's not biased and has a good knowledge of the period: http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?sh...t=0&#entry70524
wrote in his book (p. 75) that "In spite all this, the Pact (Tripartite Pact, signed by Antonescu on 23.11.1940) did not affect the relation of the parties signing it with the SU, nor did it refer to the state of war existing between Germany and Great Britain. [...]In this sense, it must be underlined there was no treaty to link Germany and Romania in respect to a war with SU of the two countries above."
How about that?

[edited by admin]

This post has been edited by Victor on March 25, 2009 04:53 pm

... and also in the conclusinos' side of his book, Deletant states that (p. 292) "when
Romania went to war against USSR the next year, it did this as an ally of Germany and thus attracted Great Britain's hostility. Its alliance with Germany was not incorporated in any treaty, being shown only by the adhesion to the Tri-partite Pact."
So I'm not the only one saying that!

[edited by admin]

MMM,

Plwease do not abuse of capital letters and increased sizes. Bold should be enough to emphasize something.

MMM, you have to consider that when the Tripartite Pact was signed it was impossible to openly admit it was directed at Russia. But if you think about it, at that time Russia was the only significant power that was not involved in the European war and that could have gotten involved.

However clear that would have been, not only it wasn't stated (as in the Anti-Comintern Pact, for instance, where it was clear from the very name whose enemy was ), but no specific documents were signed as well. I just wanted to show you that a foreign author, a respected and documented one, has the same oppinion as me (and many other historians)!

MMM, your opinion was that:

Why wasn't there any military treaty between Romania and the 3-rd Reich?

While Deletant's opinion is that:

In this sense, it must be underlined there was no treaty to link Germany and Romania in respect to a war with SU of the two countries above.

The Little Entente was not an anti-Soviet alliance. As of 27 September 1938, according to the Romanian government it was only operable in the event of one of the signatories being attacked by Hungary. In addition, however, Romania had a bi-lateral treaty with Poland that was aimed at the Soviet Union. Both countries refused to let Soviet troops cross their territory in the midst of the Sudentenland crisis. Before the crisis the Polish Foreign Minister had encouraged Romania to have closer diplomatic ties with Germany. Because of the lack of firmness shown by Britain and France towards the German demands on Czechoslovakia and because of fears of the Soviet Union signing an agreement with Hitler, fears that eventually turned out to be justified, the Romanian government moved towards neutrality. This undermined the Little Entente (at a meeting of Romania and Yugoslavia governments on 5 May 1938 they refused to give guarantees to the Czech government) while Romania had already signed the Balkan Pact that was originally aimed against Bulgaria, that had claims on the territories of the signatories, but in fact aimed at establishing neutrality in the Balkans, by extending it to other Balkan states, thereby providing no excuse for any of the major powers to intervene there. The Understanding had therefore already been undermined by the attitude of King Carol (who removed Titulescu who was a believer in the French guarantee to Romania), believing that his government had sway with the German government, offering an inducement to Hungary, as a way of influencing the Germans, an attempt that was totally counter-productive after Hitler washed his hands of the Transylvanian question and refused to intervene to sustain the status quo, and by the reluctance of the Turks and Bulgarians to be drawn into committing themselves (Bulgaria having a claim on Yugoslavia for Macedonia) and by Poland's action in Teschen.

I see no relevance of that, Cantemir! It is clear that "Mica Înţelegere" was an instrument to deter Hungary's claims or aggressive attitude, as well as the fact that "Înţelegerea Balcanică" was directed against Bulgaria. What's that to do with the (lack of) military treaties between Romania and Germany?
I must point out that the above alliances functioned very well as long as they weren't needed (or should I say "challenged"?) - in the moment the states should have "acted like one", nothing happened and Czechoslovakia was dismembered, then Poland, then Romania and finally Yugoslavia. How's that for a succesful system of alliances in the region?
Still, they had negotiated to the last letter and the last centimeter every position and every attitude and every little (no)thing between them.
To finish, the Polish gov't was the victim of the "divide et impera" succesful policy of Hitler - the first thing Germany did was to close a treaty of non-agression w/ Poland in 1934 (IIRC, at least), making them to disengage from the "western system"; Teschen was only a late reward for that attitude, as they surely didn't believe they're "on the menu of" instead of "at the table with" Germany. Romania was first on the menu (1940), then at the table (until 23.08.1944)...

This post has been edited by MMM on August 12, 2010 01:13 pm