Interesting german report from nov. 1940, how was Romania seen by the Germans...

http://www.historia.ro/exclusiv_web/actual...-ani?nocache=1#
Please feel free to express your opinions!

It's sounds like Schimbarea la fata a Romaniei by Cioran, aniway in my opinion these are just halfs of truth combined with nazi doctrine

Most of it sounds spot on. Nevertheless, the "report" is clearly one-sided, focusing only on the "minuses".

Those were a different Germany and a different Romania.
What would such a report say if it was written today?
Radu

Check the Wikileaks cables.

Gen. Dénes

Check the Wikileaks cables.

Gen. Dénes

Those leaks hold no water !
Radu

I express, with your permission, my opinion on the German report from November 1940. I say without hesitation that there are enough elements of truth, some of them caught by great writers of the early twentieth century f.i. Dumitru Draghicescu ("Din psihologia poporului roman") and surely others (I quoted only one that come in my mind right now), but the report mistaken however by generalization of negative aspects from Romanian society on the one hand, and by presenting the positive aspects (who are there) as nonexistent (they are simply ignored in the report). At least from consideration for the personality and the work of modernization of the Romanian society from the German prince (Romanian King) Carol I of Hohenzollern, should have been used terms more moderate and less categorical affirmations, but I think the political and military context in which it was drafted, should not be overlooked. One of the claims that catches my smile is the one according tho which the calling of the German troops by General Antonescu in Romania was a result of his need for an ally against his own army and the old Carlist administration and not a result of German interests in the area! An aspect which I deplore in particular: the militarization of the German community from Transylvania (I am not sure whether it was imposed by the IIIrd Reich or voluntarily consented) had a tragic consequence both for her and for the ethnic and cultural diversity of Transylvania!

This post has been edited by ANDREAS on March 25, 2012 04:19 pm

It is written in "limba de lemn". It says what is "allowed" by the prevailing mentality in the language "expected". Both the writer and the reader knew "the game" and read the report accordingly. Think "politics" rather than "truth", what is the "game" here?
It is in the same vein as those reports that said that "we are winning and all is well" as they were getting whooped.
All dictatorships do the same. Read any report written during Ceausescu's time. Their "truth" rarely matched reality.
Radu

It's not about dictatorships. Read today's reports on unemployment.

It's not about dictatorships. Read today's reports on unemployment.

Ok, autocracies too!;)
Radu

Check the Wikileaks cables.

Gen. Dénes

Those leaks hold no water !
Radu

I tried to access Wikileaks when the matter popped up into my universe (and that means already too late), and of course the game was over. Freedom of speech at its best.

Few opinions now – I may return into it few days later, as right now my time is scarce.

The people having political and economic control in Romania after 1848 succeeded quite well to modernize the new kingdom, starting from the Middle Ages / Asian flavor noted in the report. They did that by trying to copy everything worth copying from France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, and to lesser extent from Great Britain. The result were cities and towns and communications in between comparable with the rest of Europe. The villages and peasants living in countryside were a different story, and they were about 80 percent of the total population. Many of them were at the edge of illiteracy, meaning barely able to read and write. Agricultural tractors were a very rare seen.
Even so, I think the overall labeling of the Romanian population is tributary to the German doctrine of the moment, regarding the total German superiority over the rest of world.

The report is mentioning that because of German superiority, their crops are double compared with Romanian agriculture, even though the Romanian soil is better. While of course the Romanian peasants used obsolete tools, I think the report disregards the fact that the main crop of Germany was potatoes (number two in the world in early 1930’s, after Poland), while Romania mostly produced wheat for export and corn for consumption.
I am not an agricultural expert, but back in those days potatoes offered bigger crops per area than corn, and definitely than wheat. In Romania practically there was no irrigation – I don’t know how extended was in Germany. But when irrigation does not exist, the German weather is better to crops (certain crops), while the Romanian weather is dry, with prolonged drought periods.

The fate of Romania was to be quite dire, based on this report. Fortunately Germany did not have the strength to fight alone with Soviet Union, and as situation went from optimistic to not that good, then to disaster, she depended more and more on her allies. Whatever is said about the Romanian Army, it did better than predicted by all German generals and commanders before the start of the war, and by sheer numbers became the real "Axis number two" on the Eastern Front.
I am wondering what would be the fate of Romania in the scenario of German victory. In other words, when we were not needed any more.

This post has been edited by Florin on March 28, 2012 07:19 am

I would be really curious to read the English translation of the original "Informationscheft G.B." (Information about Great Britain) written by Walter Schellenberg.
Comments about this report target mostly the list of 2,820 people, British subjects and European exiles, to be immediately arrested if the German invasion of Britain succeeded. My curiosity is fueled by the fact that in addition to this list, the study contained remarks about the British society and system who were quite smart (well, the British may not like them).
I am aware of them from British documentaries.

This post has been edited by Florin on March 28, 2012 07:12 am

That is "the elephant in the room". By the time the report was written Germany occupied a large part of Europe and defeated armies that were better equipped and larger than anything a weakened Romania could muster. If they wanted, they could take Romania as well. But they did not. Why? Respect? Friendliness? Could not be bothered?
Radu

Florin,
I subscribe to what you said and I must also say that your question is interesting! I remember reading an article in "Magazin Istoric" (I don't remember too many details) but the theme was Romania in Germany's postwar plans! Is well known that Alfred Rosenberg was appointed Chief of the Reich Ministry for Occupied Eastern Territories and according to his plans, Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina (taken by USSR in july 1940) and Transnistria would be part of a german administrated Reichskommissariat Ukraine (on internet I found nowhere that information!) which would have meant the loss again of the territories of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina in favour of Germany!
I remember it was also mentioned the economic destination of the occupied territories of the USSR -Bessarabia, Transnistria and large part of Ukraine would have become the granary of the Reich! I'm sorry that I did not remember the magazine number in which the article has appeared, so as not having to speak by the ear!

This post has been edited by ANDREAS on March 28, 2012 07:17 pm