Red Army in Romania - August 1944 |  |  |
| Romanian Army in the Second World War · Forum Guidelines |
 Help
 Search
 Members
 Calendar
|
| Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register ) | Resend Validation Email |
| Pages: (10) 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... Last » ( Go to first unread post ) |    |
Red Army in Romania - August 1944| Geto-Dacul |
Posted: July 13, 2003 10:13 pm
|
||
 Plutonier adjutant  Group: Members Posts: 383 Member No.: 9 Joined: June 18, 2003  |
C-2 wrote :
Good one! |
||
 
|
| Victor |
Posted: July 19, 2003 10:49 am
|
||||||||||||
 Admin  Group: Admin Posts: 4350 Member No.: 3 Joined: February 11, 2003 |
An investment in the future? Really? Do you have any idea of the current situation in Bessarabia? I still have a lot of relatives there. Please, get back to Earth.
It is called politics. We did the exact same thing in 1916, when we chose to fight the Central Powers for Transylvania and not Russia and the Entente for Bessarabia.
No, we did not pay the exact same price. If we resisted longer it would have been worse. We would still have lost and the Sovroms would have still been there.
Are you sure that is billion? That is much more than the US budget of the era, IIRC. There is a good book, which I missed buying, about the Red Army in Romania in 1944-47 and what they stole.
Yes, that is true, but Transylvania was the central point of the Union. Later it also received more attention than Bukovina or Bessarabia, unfortunately. Bessarabia was a kind of Alaska for Romanian officials, which led to some resentment from the local population.
Bessarabia, unlike Transylvania, was not part of the Roman Empire. The Romanization process started earlier there. It is also more favorable for a larger population, than Bessarabia was. In fact the southern part (the actual Bessarabia) was scarcely populated. |
||||||||||||
|
| Geto-Dacul |
Posted: July 21, 2003 02:45 am
|
||||||||||||
|
Plutonier adjutant Group: Members Posts: 383 Member No.: 9 Joined: June 18, 2003 |
Victor wrote :
I do not know everyone's personal case, but ceding stuff that you pretend to be your's without a fight is shameful! You feel LESS frustration if you loose with dignity.
Bessarabia - Transylvania... What's the difference? It's ROMANIAN land. Every inch of land was sacred for the Romanian soldier. Why did Romania go for Transylvania & Northern Moldavia (Bucovina) in WWI? Because Transylvania & Bucovina were geographically BIGGER than Bessarabia (Eastern Moldavia). Plus the Russians and the rest of the Entente guaranteed to Romania even more, with all of the Banat and parts of actual Hungary until the Tisa! So it's not only politics, but national interests too... We choosed what was bigger! Because we could go against Russia for Bessarabia!
Communism would have been installed earlier in Romania...But these are only suppositions... We can be sure of a thing : Morale and internal resistance would have been better... And why resist longer? There's a actually a thread on it : To conclude a better armistice. The official dialogue was with Antonescu, not with the king's camarila or the "historical" parties.
Yes, I'm sure... I'm not blind yet... The Soviets milked us pretty well... Petroleum, wood, weath, locomotives, BNR gold, military and commercial fleet, war material, cost of the Red Army in Romania, war effort etc. We are talking here of the whole period of occupation (1944-58).
Mda... That's generally the Anglo-American theory on Romanian administration of Bessarabia (Wolff - The Balkans, Le Monde Diplomatique etc)... Generally, the local minorities had resentments (Jews and Slavs). I wonder what kind resentments had the local population for the Soviet administration!!!
Moldavia too was not part of the Roman Empire... Northern Western and Eastern Transylvania too... The major part of Muntenia... Transnistria too... Only a little part of Dacia was kept under Roman occupation (essentially the ancient Dacian political center of the Orastie Mountains, roughly all of Wallachia West of the river Olt, and of course the gold mines of the Apuseni). I don't see how these Dacians, who were largely peasants, with a leading élite exterminated, could have been romanized so fast (in 167 years!!!), when the Russians, Magyars and Turks didn't assimilated us in 1000 years and with more modern methods... To assimilate a people, you need to build a propaganda network, much schools and other special education centers etc. There was no such thing in occupied Dacia. Maybe some small schools in the major towns, for the new Roman administrators and their families... I'll open a thread on this subject in "general discussions"... Regards, Getu' |
||||||||||||
|
|
| johnny_bi |
Posted: July 21, 2003 03:44 am
|
||
 Sergent major  Group: Members Posts: 214 Member No.: 6 Joined: June 18, 2003 |
Geto-dacul said:
Unfortunatelly, we were not "too" romanized ... |
||
|
|
| johnny_bi |
Posted: July 21, 2003 03:48 am
|
||
|
Sergent major Group: Members Posts: 214 Member No.: 6 Joined: June 18, 2003 |
Geto-dacul said:
Unfortunatelly, we were not "too" romanized ... As character, we have nothing in common with the old Romans... Perseverence (Perseverare diabolicum est), pragmatism...hmmm... you can not build an empire only with the worst men on the earth...... hmmm... |
||
|
|
| Geto-Dacul |
Posted: July 21, 2003 04:24 am
|
||||
|
Plutonier adjutant Group: Members Posts: 383 Member No.: 9 Joined: June 18, 2003 |
johnny_bi wrote :
Why "unfortunately"? Is their so much proud to be "romanized"? Historically, empires did only harm us. The empires are like giant cyclones, destroying and absorbing nations and cultures. Empires rape, only for economical interests.
I don't understand this... Could you developp? :shock: Best regards, G-D |
||||
|
|
| Victor |
Posted: July 21, 2003 08:01 am
|
||||||||
|
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 4350 Member No.: 3 Joined: February 11, 2003 |
IMO we did loose with dignity, because at that stage the war was already lost. We just had to get out of it one way or the other, without turning into a second Hungary.
Actually it was more of a Transylvania vs. Bessarabia, since Austria-Hungary was offering Bukovina as a bonus. But that is only a side note. I hope you realize you just supported my argument, probably unwillingly. :wink: We also followed our national interest in 1944,since economically northern Transylvania was superior to Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. Plus, We had absolutely NO chance to keep the latter.
A better armistice could not be concluded, simply because there was nothing to negotiate. The Soviets stated their demands and that was it. They were unwilling to cede anything.
1944-58, that explains it. I thought you meant 1944-47. |
||||||||
|
|
| Geto-Dacul |
Posted: July 21, 2003 05:11 pm
|
||||||||
|
Plutonier adjutant Group: Members Posts: 383 Member No.: 9 Joined: June 18, 2003 |
Victor wrote :
That was Antonescu's plans too. But we couldn't get out of the war well by a coup d'état and by the sacrifice of 130-160.000 soldiers just stopped in face of an enemy that did not actually recognize the "new" government.
Yes, you are right. But Bucovina + Transylvania until the Tisa was territorially and economically more important than Basarabia.
:wink: Maybe superior, but in what way, economically? From what I know, Bessarabia was a great and fertile land... (Most of the actual Bessarabia - the Bugeac) Northern Transylvania was more hills... Do not interpretated this as if I was thinking that we could have left Transylvania for Bessarabia! But, If I remember well, the gold mines were in the Romanian sector, Resita as well. In the interior Transylvanian plain (who was ceded to Hungary), there was natural gas... :?: Yes... National interest... But the harsh armistice and the abusive capture of Romanian soldiers was not national interest.
That was the initial plan : Force USSR again to negotiations. For this, a major Soviet attack should have been stopped. In a few days, a better armistice could have been concluded... Who knows? And with a professional soldier as Antonescu controling the situation, we could have saved much more... |
||||||||
|
|
| Victor |
Posted: July 22, 2003 06:17 am
|
||||||
|
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 4350 Member No.: 3 Joined: February 11, 2003 |
The plan Antonescu had was unrealistic. He did not want to accept the immediate annexation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina by the SU, but wanted the problem solved after the war. The Soviets did not even want to hear about it. So he kept on fighting, prolonging the tragedy.
It was not be the first time the Russian Empire behaved like that. Just look at WWI or the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78.
As I already told you there was nothing to negotiate. There were only Soviet demands. This is why the talks at Stockholm failed, because Antonescu did not want to accept this. But think at it another way. With the remains of the 2 German armies behind the AFNG line, would it be as easier to change sides? It is a two-edged sword. |
||||||
|
|
| dragos |
Posted: July 22, 2003 08:42 am
|
||||
 Admin Group: Admin Posts: 2397 Member No.: 2 Joined: February 11, 2003 |
Do you think a several days resistance would have impress the Soviets, after the massive operations of 1941-1943, when the russians became used to lose hundred of thousands of men with little or no gains? And their determination to fight against the Axis was never higher than in that moment.
This statement just can't stand. You could not play with the fate of an entire nation for the sake of dignity or honor. Especially when the result of such an action is obvious (oposing the Soviet ultimatum). We must look into these matters also from a humanitarian point of view. And this can be a characteristic that differs our nation from the others, and it is nothing to be shame of. |
||||
|
| mabadesc |
Posted: July 23, 2003 01:18 am
|
 Locotenent colonel  Group: Members Posts: 803 Member No.: 40 Joined: July 11, 2003 |
I've been following the discussion and I think everyone has brought some valid points, but I think the whole issue is a two-edge sword.
Anyway, let me throw my 2-cents in. Antonescu was definitely STUBBORN, but even more so during the Soviet Offensive of '44. Understandably, there was a LOT riding on his shoulders, and I think his nerves may have started to slowly give up on him. There is testimonial evidence from several generals who said that, while you could have a rational discussion with him in previous years, towards the end he just wouldn't even listen to your opinion. He wouldn't even consider it. I don't have the knowledge to second-guess him, but I have the common sense to realize that he should have listened to his field commanders in the month of August '44, and especially on 19-20 August when all of them were saying that without the Panzer division that Hitler had promised them (but didn't deliver), the Romanian troops couldn't hold in front of the hundreds and hundreds of Soviet tanks. They repeatedly asked him for permission for an orderly retreat to the Carpathians-FNB line earlier in August, when they still had the force and morale to resist -some say indefinitely - from that position. I think Antonescu took "honor" and "dignity" too personally. I think he meant "honor" for himself more than for the country. I'm saying this because he kept refusing to retreat because he had told Hitler he wouldn't. As for what would have happened if the troops retreated to the fortified line when their CO's wanted to, I really can't say. The Soviets would definitely have taken Romania somehow, but I don't know when or at what cost to the country. However, there is a valid theory to say that maybe we wouldn't have lost so much: 130000 prisoners right from the beginning (August 23-27), plus all the dead soldiers forced to fight in Hungary, Slovakia, and Austria. In addition to that, the Soviets ended up controlling the country 100% for the next 15 years, and had strong influence for the next 45 years. All these dead soldiers, the war debt, the Stalinization of Romania, these are all facts because they happened. The alternative, we'll never know. But we have to admit that it couldn't have been much worse. And who knows, by some stroke of luck, it could've ended up better. Behind a fortified line, we would have had less casualties, the troops and officers' morale would have been higher, and if May '45 would have caught us in this stalemate defense, maybe the Soviets, having already finished the German war, would have agreed to more acceptable terms - after all, we were not threatening them and they were tired of fighting too. True, in Stalingrad they fought like crazy when they were tired, but they were defending their own country. With the war finished, why would they have bothered to continue dying just to invade us? I don't know...regardless, I just wish Antonescu would have listened to his field commanders in July-August. They knew the military situation much better than he did at Predeal and Bucuresti. Actually, that was one of the mistakes Hitler made too - giving out orders overriding his field officers (like Rommel, Runstedt, etc), or letting a "paper-pusher" like Jodl and his OKW/OKH override Rommel's suggestions. As I said in the beginning, it's a two-edge sword. 23 August is far from being a success considering what happened to us: hundreds of thousands of prisoners, hundreds of thousands of deaths on the Western front, Stalinism with its purges, etc... But I can't say for sure that the alternative would have had better results. All I'm saying is, it's hard to imagine that it could have been worse. |
|
|
| Geto-Dacul |
Posted: July 23, 2003 02:40 am
|
||||||
|
Plutonier adjutant Group: Members Posts: 383 Member No.: 9 Joined: June 18, 2003 |
Victor wrote :
Antonescu motivated his campaign on the liberation of these territories, and also for a better security on the Eastern border. It's normal that he could not accept an immediat cession of them in the armistice. Antonescu refused the first offer because he considered it as a capitulation. And he could not get out of the war when he were still fighting in Ukraine and Crimea. The first major Soviet offensive in Romania was repulsed with the big help of the Germans at Targu-Frumos... Why accept the armistice then? The second Soviet offensive was the Iasi-Chisinau. This offensive had two main objectives : 1. Capture the Ploiesti oilfields, vital for the German war machine. 2. Force Romania out of the war. Those 2 objectives were well accomplished indirectly by USSR... The first one was did by the Romanian Army, turned against her ally, and the second one was done by a disastrous coup d'état, in which were implicated people that had no idea about the situation on the front; like Michael or Mocsony. Antonescu knew very well that the Soviets did not want any negotiations, because they were in a better position. The idea was to bring the Red Army in a difficult situation, and the FNB line was suited for this... General Friessner, in a letter sent to his superiors on 23 August, considered that on this position he could resist until the Spring of 1945, if he received reinforcements (See Josif Constantin Dragan, ISTORIA ROMANILOR, Editura Europa Nova, Bucharest 1999, page 253).
And this was when they were "allies"...
The eventuality that the Romanians could have resisted on the Focsani Line, and would have retarded the progress of the Red Army towards Berlin, could have made Stalin to accept an armistice with the modifications proposed by the Romanian government. The ambassador of USSR at Stockholm, Mrs. Kollontay, had communicated to the Romanian ambassador Frederic Nanu, that decision. The telegram sent from Stockholm to Bucharest, who should have been transmited to Marshal Ion Antonescu, who was the chief statesman, was handed by Niculescu-Buzesti, who was working at the foreign minister, to King Michael. Michael, with some men of his entourage, were conspirating against the Marshal. The king, who should have encouraged the government's efforts to conclude an honorable armistice, sabotated these tratatives, with the scope to take the power personally. (Josif Constantin Dragan, ISTORIA ROMANILOR, Editura Europa Nova, Bucharest 1999, page 253) |
||||||
|
|
| Geto-Dacul |
Posted: July 23, 2003 02:50 am
|
||||
|
Plutonier adjutant Group: Members Posts: 383 Member No.: 9 Joined: June 18, 2003 |
dragos wrote :
No, let yourself in the arms of the Russian bear! Nu'l lasa sa intre pe Ivan, ca se suie pe divan! (something like this)
Maybe not days, but weeks... And even months... The Red Army was not defending her own territory, she was on foreign one. The determination was ours... Defend our country.
If it's like this, than politica e o curva! The idea was not to resist until we die, NO! It was to conclude a better armistice, with less losses... (which various sources indicate that it was possible. It was not the Romanian nation, who turned on 23 August against Germany, and allied itself with the Soviets. A minority of conspirators did it, and nobody knew it then. |
||||
|
|
| johnny_bi |
Posted: July 23, 2003 03:59 am
|
|
Sergent major Group: Members Posts: 214 Member No.: 6 Joined: June 18, 2003 |
... double post ... sorry
|
|
|
| johnny_bi |
Posted: July 23, 2003 04:00 am
|
||
|
Sergent major Group: Members Posts: 214 Member No.: 6 Joined: June 18, 2003 |
Geto-dacul said :
No... We have to feel nothing ... This is not a world of justice, goodwilling and so on...
Proud? Don't we admire, "sometimes", the Germans or maybe the Japanese or I do not know... You have to make a diference between the ordinary people and the men who got the power. Cruelty, rape, loot and so one are not "belonging" only to those on power and to empires... |
||
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
Pages: (10) 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... Last » |
|
[ Script Execution time: 0.0089 ] [ 14 queries used ] [ GZIP Enabled ]
Powered by Invision Power Board(U) v1.3.1 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.