Red Army in Romania - August 1944

[allanteo667]

I don't know about Bucarest, but I know that in North Eastern Romania, in Moldavia, some isolated units continued the combat to the las man! The soviet army wasn't greeted as in Bucarest, where propaganda images show their T 34 as liberators in the capitals streets. Everybody was scared in Moldavia when they heard of the desastrous front switch on 23th of August! **** deleted by admin ****

Maybe you were expecting another message about the "liberators", but the truth is that everyone regretted the german presence of 1941!

un moldovean

[dragos]

allanteo667, you get a warning. Please read the Forum rules

[allanteo667]

I don't see why my message was deleted, although I read the rules! What I said is historically true!

But if this is a propaganda group, and if you really think that Romania was "liberated" by the Red Army, I feel mercy for your ignorance!

Regards,

Allan

[dragos]

Your statement may be based on a truth, but the way you put it you call barbaric an entire people. There is no need for more explanations.

[Victor]

I do not know where you got your ideas. Nobody said that the Red Army "liberated" Romania, but this kind of attitude is counter-productive. Try behaving civilized.

[Geto-Dacul]

allanteo667 just said that most Romanian-Moldavian peasants naturally hated the Soviets (Russians) for their historical behavior in that region... He didn't generalize by qualifying all Russians as monsters; he said that a certain Soviet institution (The Red Army) generally behaved very harshly on foreign territory (and even on her own soil). I don't see the false statement here(:? The Russian armies (and Soviet) did occupy our country 12 times in history! The Romanian-Moldavians were the most unfortunate because the Russian juggernauth always hit them first. And if we add Bessarabia and Bucovina to all this mess, then hate towards historical enemies is a natural human emotion that cannot be hidden just for the interests of some foreign powers or organizations. National interests FIRST! Not all Russians were(are) barbarians, but these who invaded us behaved like real barbarians.

[allanteo667]

I didn't say that all russians were barbarians, but my own grandparents felt the difference between german (highly diciplinated) forces and the cossack units occupation!

As an example, when german forces were in romania, before operation Barbarossa started, some german officers wanted to adopt my mother. If a soldier made trouble in a village, you could complain about him to the Kommandantur and he would go in jail for a few days!

When the soviets arrived, all young girls had to put ashes on their faces and wear rags so they wouldn't be raiped by the soviets! The red army took every single living animal in the village and the cossacks didn't even coocked sheep before they ate them! So don't wonder that you see them as barbarians when they drink all the acohool they find at your house until they die of an ethilical coma!

sorry, but if you look further back in history, Stefan the Great of Moldavia who fought against the ottomans all his life (47 years), adviced his ministers to get an alliance with the turks than with the russians before he died! So you should understand that the average moldavian peasant saw the russian occupation of 1944 as one of the greatest catastrophies in the country's history!

But why did Kind Mihai the First had the "brilliant" dea of detroning the experienced Marechal Antonescu and delivering the country to the russians??!!

Allan

[MaxFax]

Hey guys, we are getting quite off topic here :!: For hystorical accuracy, remember please how barbarian did the Germans treated the russian population too, in some situations. There are no "good guys" and "bad guys" in a war. Anyway my father as a teenager was very near to be killed by a drunk russian soldier in 1944, who "collected watches" I will tell you the entire story maybe in a separate topic 8)

[Ahmed]

That would be interesting to hear, Cristian.

[Victor]

QUOTE

sorry, but if you look further back in history, Stefan the Great of Moldavia who fought against the ottomans all his life (47 years), adviced his ministers to get an alliance with the turks than with the russians before he died!   Allan

Strange, since Russia was far, far away then from Moldavia. They did not have common borders.

[dragos]

QUOTE

Hey guys, we are getting quite off topic here  :!:  For hystorical accuracy, remember please how barbarian did the Germans treated the russian population too, in some situations. There are no \"good guys\" and \"bad guys\" in a war. Anyway my father as a teenager was very near to be killed by a drunk russian soldier in 1944, who \"collected watches\"  :lol: I will tell you the entire story maybe in a separate topic  8)

I agree. I don't think the Germans behaved in Romania because they considered we deserve a better treatment than other european nations (Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia), but because they needed the advantages of such an alliance (manpower, oil, geographical position). The insurgency of 23 August 1944 is arguably a mistake, the way it was made, as well as a mistake can be considered the crossing of the Dniester and invading the Soviet territory, but we must be careful when we discuss such kind of decisions now, out of the pressure of the events.

[Geto-Dacul]

Victor wrote :

QUOTE

Strange, since Russia was far, far away then from Moldavia. They did not have common borders.

Yes indeed, they had no common boundaries. But at that time, the Grand Duke of Moscow was Ivan III the Great (1440 - 1505).

Here's a little bit of history about his reign :

QUOTE

In 1480 Ivan, the Grand Duke of Moscow (1462--1505), renounced his allegiance to the Golden Horde who had ruled over most of Russia for several hundred years.   Ivan III united the Russian nation and strengthened the authority of the monarchy. His reign marks the beginning of Muscovite Russia. He assumed the title of 'Sovereign of all Russia', and adopted the emblem of the two-headed eagle of the Byzantine Empire.   Note : After the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453, the Russians came to regard their branch of the Orthodox Church as the last stronghold of true Christianity. The myth of Moscow as the 'third Rome' established a sense of mission for the Russian people and their ruler, who was welcomed by the Orthodox Church, as God's deputy.

http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/peop...n2/ivaniii.html

It was Moscow's first steps as European power. The Russians proposed to Stephen the Great an alliance based on the "common" faith against the Muslim Turko-Tatars. Stephen refued it because he was a visionary.

Excuse me for being off-topic! :oops:

Best regards,

Getu'

[allanteo667]

Thanks Geto-Dacu for the historical details !

I didn' get off-topic! I only extended it, as you asked about the reaction in Bucarest, I told you about the reaction in other sides of the country! And I started going off-topic because you said I was a liar!

As for german behavior, I don't think that the average german soldier thought about the advantages of Romania's alliance with Germany when he behaved! It was the same thing in France before the allied operation overlord! But if you take it this way, the soviets also got a lot of advantages in the county's side switching. Even the local Pravda wrote a few days after thet "The entire german defensive system in the Balkans collapsed!" And they never behaved like civilised people! Look further back when they occupied Poland: they executed thousands of polish officers at Katyn! And I don't mention the massacres in the catholic Baltic states!

The carpathians would have been a strong german and romanian resistance line! And did king Michael make a mistake by switching fronts? Well if you consider the fact that he wasn't yet 20 years old, and that he didn't speak correctly before an advanced age, you will admit that he wasn't qulified to make such a decision! What did it bring to the country, than 50 years of communist occupation? The average romanians had a true will of resisting the soviets! "Codru-i frate cu romanul" = "The forest is the romanian's brother (interpretation : protector)" Even in the late 1950's some isolated "terrorist" groups fought the communist occupation since the carpathians! Some isolated combat units continued fighting (to the last man) even after the armistice order, not to mention the legionnaire resistance at Oravitza. If the soviets wouldn't have passed the carpathian line so easily and attacked the Reich itself (Austria), the germans wouldn't have retired so many units from the Ardennes offensive to stop the soviet winter offensive! So Romania was a major allie for the russians!

And I you think that the romanian reoccupation of Bessarabia and Bukovina and their return to the fatherland was a mistake, you can't be a true romanian!

If you find out more about the soviet terror, read authors like Virgil Gheorghiu (who is still banned in romania today!) and you will maybe understand!

Allan

P.S: I admire the finnish who resisted against the soviet assault and never got an "alliance" with them!

[dragos]

QUOTE

As for german behavior, I don't think that the average german soldier thought about the advantages of Romania's alliance with Germany when he behaved! It was the same thing in France before the allied operation overlord!(1) ....... The average romanians had a true will of resisting the soviets! \"Codru-i frate cu romanul\" = \"The forest is the romanian's brother (interpretation : protector)\" Even in the late 1950's some isolated \"terrorist\" groups fought the communist occupation since the carpathians! Some isolated combat units continued fighting (to the last man) even after the armistice order, not to mention the legionnaire resistance at Oravitza. If the soviets wouldn't have passed the carpathian line so easily and attacked the Reich itself (Austria), the germans wouldn't have retired so many units from the Ardennes offensive to stop the soviet winter offensive!  (2) ........ And I you think that the romanian reoccupation of Bessarabia and Bukovina and their return to the fatherland was a mistake, you can't be a true romanian! (3) ......... P.S: I admire the finnish who resisted against the soviet assault and never got an \"alliance\" with them! (4)

1. What do you mean by the "average german soldier"? How would an average german soldier behave in different countries? I don't think the French were happy with their German "guests".

2. You can't be serious saying that Romanian Army of that time would have a chance stopping the Soviet steamroller. You mention about some "legionnaire" resistance. IMHO the legionnaires have nothing to do with the development or outcome of any military operation. About the Ardennes offensive, the failure of the "Wacht am Rhein" operation has nothing to do with the Soviet winter offensive.

3. If you had read carefully, you would see that I said the crossing of Dniester (Nistru), not Prut. That is the advance into Soviet Union after the liberation of Bessarabia and Bucovina.

4. The Finns, unlike us, stopped after regaining their territories, and didn't joined the German's advance into the Soviet Union. This fact put them in a different position when negotiating the peace treaty.

[Geto-Dacul]

Even if I'm not allanteo667, I would like to comment the following statements :

dragos wrote :

QUOTE

1. What do you mean by the \"average german soldier\"? How would an average german soldier behave in different countries? I don't think the French were happy with their German \"guests\".

The German Army, being more disciplined, was tending to behave better on European soil than the Soviet one. The "good" and "bad" behavior can also be associated with military operations... If the Germans are retreating, burning or taking everything valuable with them, they'll be judged differently than in the posture of advancing through offensive action. An invader HAS NO INTERESTS to burn or destroy what he captures, everyone must agree with this.
And of course that every nation dreams of freedom, without foreign troops on its territory. I'm sure that the French would have been 100 times happier without the Germans. Nobody is really happy when having uninvited foreign "guests". But let's say that France would have had to choose : Germans or Soviets!?

QUOTE

2. You can't be serious saying that Romanian Army of that time would have a chance stopping the Soviet steamroller. You mention about some \"legionnaire\" resistance. IMHO the legionnaires have nothing to do with the development or outcome of any military operation. About the Ardennes offensive, the failure of the \"Wacht am Rhein\" operation has nothing to do with the Soviet winter offensive.

Why the Romanian Army would not have any chance to stop the Red Army??? Not even for some 2 weeks? Not even for 2 days? Do not forget that 2 german armies were also there, and not just as spectators. The Focsani-Namoloasa-Braila fortified line was considered the strongest defensive (fixed) dispositiv in Central and Eastern Europe. That line could have held the Reds just the time to fix and arrange a REAL armistice, and not an unconditional capitulation with the capture of 150.000 Romanian troops by the "liberators". What Romania had to loose? Moldavia was already a battlefield. The "insurgency" (it was NOT an armed revolt as the communists teached us) had shortened the war, it's true, but not in favor of Romania's and Eastern Europe's interests.

QUOTE

4. The Finns, unlike us, stopped after regaining their territories, and didn't joined the German's advance into the Soviet Union. This fact put them in a different position when negotiating the peace treaty.

Finns did finnaly loose the recaptured territories of 1941. But what's really important, is that their country was not occupied by the Red Army. And this is not really because they did not invade "Soviet territory" (BTW, the Soviets considered "Soviet" territory everything captured until June 22 1941), but because Finland was not included in the Churchill-Roosevelt-Stalin gambling of Moscow, Teheran, Casablanca, Yalta or Postdam.

This is what I think. I am wayting the invectives !

Regards,

Getu'