What were Romania's objectives in fighting Russia?

From Antonescu's trial:

"PRESIDENT: Since you didn't have any territorial aims in USSR, why did you fight as far as Stalingrad?
ION ANTONESCU: Sir, when a country is engaging in a war, the army of that country must go to the end of the earth in order to destroy the enemy forces and win the war. It is a basic principle of strategic leadership of the military operations, which was followed from the Roman times until today. Search the history, and you'll see that nobody stopped at the border, but went further, to destroy the [enemy] armies. When Hannibal was defeated in Italy, Scipio went after him in Africa, Spain; in Africa Zamma destroyed his armies and Cartagina. Napoleon went as far as Moscow. After this, Alexander I of Russia went to Paris. The Russians went so many times to... (interrupted)
PRESIDENT: So you're giving a military reason explanation.
ION ANTONESCU: Yes. Military reason and only military reason. And it can't stop. And the best answer I can give you is that in the second phase of the war, of regaining Northern Transylvania, the Romanian Army didn't stop at the border, but went as far as mid Europe, in Vienna, I think, and Budapest."

This post has been edited by bansaraba on March 18, 2010 07:31 pm

Thanks,

appreciate it

this is excellent

This post has been edited by Anton88 on March 18, 2010 09:15 pm

Usually when you go to war, you fight to gain something.
(Rommel said, don't fight if you will not achieve something, [or get something out of it])..

In fighting Russia and defeating her, Romania would gain certain advantages...


What did we gain in fighting Germany past our borders, in Slovakia in Hungary, all the way to Austria..?

More sympathy from the Russians?
Better postwar relations?
Less "Revenge" and pay for reparations?
"They suddenly liked us more now because we turned on our ally"?
I doubt that, because as Napoleon pointed out "I like Treason, but I hate the traitors"



in any case,..Romania did what it had to do
...

The nullification of the Vienna Diktat and reinstatement of the pre-1940 borders with Hungary.

The point was that once Romania went to war to retake Bessarabia it could not just stop at the Dnestr. It wasn't realistically possible.

Treason? What treason?

Like Lord Palmerston pointed out: "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

We had an alliance with Germany but we were not part of Germany. Hence no treason.

The Finns managed to stop in 1941, once they achieved their immediate goals.

Gen. Dénes

The Finns managed to stop in 1941, once they achieved their immediate goals.

Gen. Dénes

That's the example I was about to give - Finnland... (they just stopped and went no further)

But keep in mind that
(1)Finnland had a small army that never ever exceeded 200,000 - where should they have gone? They were not going to assault Leningrad anyways.

(2)The Northern sector of the Front... was mostly stationary.. Blockading leningrad, alot of fighting around the city and forests..alot of fighting in the air as well


Romania had to fight across the ukraine, the Crimea,..all the way to the Don & Volga...




PS: off topic comment:
I just read from a very credible source some of Hitler's own words..
He did not want to take leningrad, but starve it into submission.
(He would have to feed its poppulation if he did..and so his blockade he hoped would drive the civilians out..)
and after.. he planned to Raze Leningrad to the ground and hand the ruins over to Finland....

and Moscow would be leveled as well and a reservoir would be built in it place and its name erased from history...

Why on earth would he want to do that?
By doing that - he was fighting Russian people.. not communism as he claimed

This post has been edited by Anton88 on March 19, 2010 07:02 pm

Please state your credible sources, hopefully it's not that idiot David Irving history revisionist.

Kevin in Deva.

In another thread (already locked), you mentioned that you got into some kind of verbal argument on another forum with a group of people that you called "hotheads".
You opened four threads on this forum, and in all four your ended up being warned by the moderators (one thread was locked).
Hmmmmmm..., a picture is emerging...
Radu

It's just this forum and the somewhat strict and dictatorial moderators and the rules they made...

I have not encountered this anywhere else.

(And that German forum was a very right wing place where I was hoping people would not have such one-sided views about certain historical facts...

A picture is emerging here as well...
(I can tell by the diproportinately large amount of people who have been banned from the forum here at www.worldwar2.ro)
it must be the political atmosphere in Romania or something..

For the new kid on the block with at this point 27 posts, you are very quick to catagorise the moderators here at WW2.ro as being "strict and dictatorial" and you probably have very little exposure to many Forums, where by standard policy you do as the Administration rules and the moderators say.

If its a "very Right Wing" place, why would you expect it's memberts NOT to have such one-sided views

If I may ask dispropurtionatly to what?? There are more people who are active members on this Forum as oppossed to those who have been banned, those that have been banned, have been banned for good reason and for not following the basic Forum Rules and the advise given by the Administration and Moderators here, mainly for posting in a style of to use Forum venacular of "Flaming / Trolling or Revisionism."

If you cannot follow the simple guidlines or do not like the way the Forum is run then please do not post here, insinuating that it has something to do with "the political atmosphere in Romania or something is pretty childish and imature.

Kevin in Deva.

Maybe we will not have ever an "end" to this topic. But we have a few points who can offer some explanations:

- USSR was an aggressor in summer of 1940. They ask for Bassarabia and northern Bukovina (a province who was never conquered by Russia) an they receive them. They use the momentum when France was surprisingly defeated and they know that Romania had no chance against the soviet tank divissions massed to the border.

So at 22 June 1941 Romania strike back, considering what was happened in June 1940, in ww1, in 1877/1878 and during all around 12 Russian invasions.

Is very easy and fully justified to see Russia as a constant enemy starting with the end of XVIII century.

So the opportunity to see Russia defeated was exploited by Antonescu.

- Germany was the master of eastern Europe in that moment. By Germany s will, the NW of Romania become part of Hungary. So the Hungary feel herself as a debtor to the German war effort. Considering the important contribution of Romania to the eastern front also Hungary was in situation to send what was the best in Hungarian Army to the East.
Antonenescu was convinced that being an important ally of Germany the fate of lost Transylvania could be turned in favor of Romania. And this thing was also true for Hungarians objectives in fighting Russia.

I always wondered why Russia needed such small piece of land as Bessarabia when they had almost one continent under her rule and for them had no importance if the romanian border was on Dniestr or on Prut, but for Romania, a small country, does matter this land, romanian since forever??

Next week will be the aniversary of 92 years since Bessarabia united with Romania, in 1918...

I don't know how justified that vision is. As far as I know the boyars saw Russia as a protector of Orthodox people and a means of shaking off the Ottomans. Russia was also seen in messianic terms as the soon to be liberator of Constantinople. Not to mention our alliances with Russia in 1877/78 and WWI.

The therms of alliance signed in spring of 1877 was broken in 1878 when Russia choose to take the southern Bassarabia from his "ally" even the Romanian territorial integrity was guaranteed in the 3rd article of the Convention, signed by Russia in 4/16 April 1877.

Also, in 1916 the Russians did not t keep their promises you can find the story in any decent book about Romania in ww1.

Look, here we talk about international policy. Nothing is black or white. And any decision, for a country or for private individual, could be justified ....

Regaining stolen teritories and elimination of threat posed by eastern bolshevik barbarians to the european civilisation once and for all. For that, according to the clausewitzian principles, you must gain decisive victory, that is, crushing the enemy. That`s why, once you started fighting, you cannot stop until the end.

This post has been edited by Hadrian on March 21, 2010 11:33 pm