Romanian contribution to the shortening of the war

[inahurry]

Yes, some are quite 'shy' in Romania, when it comes to Hungarians. They prefer to hide behind sweet politically correct (and relatively historically incorrect) constructs, like horthysts. But there is some sense in using that moniker. While neither German troops nor Russian ones were comprised of only nazis and bolsheviks(not by far), the regime in Germany was nazi and the Russian one was bolshevik. The regime in Hungary was long associated with Horthy's blend of totalitarianism and the Szalazsy puppets were insignificant as "trade mark". Some words have a greater impact with the public. Imagine how "pilsduskism" would sound. :roll:

[Dénes]

Following your (muddled) logic, inahurry, what would then be the similarly proper moniker valid for the Rumanian Army and administration (if you wish, separately prior to and post 23 Aug. 1944)?

Dénes

[inahurry]

whatever moniker you wish, denes, why don't you pick it then? You seem to have an obsession with mud, do you find yourself often in trenches when the heavy rain starts to fall ? Why do you think all the time I am addressing to you ? When I do you'll surely notice. I found the idea interesting (yours and getu's) but I had no intention to enter direct exchange with you, I don't think there's a burning love between us so I try to avoid direct addressing. But you seem you can't take it but personally and you are so quick to find some adjective to "describe" my posts, like I need your re-interpretations.

[Dénes]

[quote]whatever moniker you wish, denes, why don't you pick it then? (...)Why do you think all the time I am addressing to you ? [/quote]
This is a prime example of what I was referring to in my previous post.
It was your idea to insist on various labels - like "horthyst" - labels you call 'monikers'. Since it's your brainchild, I've addressed directly and openly to you, instead of just slyly hinting, hoping that you will catch the bait (as you did it earlier by mentioning the Hungarian csárdás dance and the amount of psyhical as well as figurative "spinning" involved, hint obviously addressed to me).

You threw the ball up in the air, inahurry, it's your task to hit it.
So, what's the moniker(s) I was asking about?

Dénes

P.S. Although you apparently prefer your nick-name to start with a small letter - and I respect that - I prefer my name to start with a capital one, a 'D'. You know, it's basic courtesy...

[dragos]

The firepower of infantry increased significantly from 1941 to 1944. Combine this with the blunt Soviet tactics imposed by force (frontal attacks) and the losses in Transylvania are justified. At Oarba de Mures it was not even necessary to attack the hills. A simple outflanking manneuver would have left Hungarian troops surrounded and starving to surrender. Instead, the Russian command turned this into one of the bloodiest battles of the war. This is the difference between Bessarabia 41 and Transylvania 44. (However, in 1941 campaign we are almost totally responsible for our defeats and losses).

[inahurry]

[quote]
P.S. Although you apparently prefer your nick-name to start with a small letter - and I respect that - I prefer my name to start with a capital one, a 'D'. You know, it's basic courtesy...[/quote]

It never occured to you that it might be a typo ? As it happens, Getu also was typed with a small cap and as a matter of fact I see the first sentence of the same post starts with a small cap. Typos do happen, even with your name, surprising as it may be.

The labels, as I think you meant the word, imply a groundless, false characterization. To "label" Hungary horthyst is not exactly false. Horthy marked its existence until 1944, when you rule a country for long is almost inevitable to be associated with it. Romania ceausista is both used pejoratively and propagandistic but it also has some truth in it. If it's truth (a lot of propaganda exagerations also, true) in labeling Germany, Russia, Italy's troops with various non-flattering (today more than yesterday)names I think Hungary isn't in a too bad company. Where Germany and Italy could be more easily "identified" with their official regimes (national-socialism, fascism) for Hungary the leader's name - Horthy - came more handy. And, again, some words/names are more suited than others, they sound "right". Szalazsyists is very hard to pronounce, not to mention it would be far more gratuituos than horthyst. To name general Franco's troops franchist was more accurate than to name the other side communist but none was devoid of truth.

Let's see... antonescian troops ? Not bad, imo. If it serves your imagological war you can use it freely, I need no royalties. After august 23 is harder to "baptize" them, but I'm sure we could find something.

[Bernard Miclescu]

A "moniker" for the Romanian Army could be "cascatzii olandezi" (The Romanian Army didn't have helmets type Holland (casti tip olandez)??????)

Someone said "cimitirele-s pline de oameni ce se credeau indispensabili" (in English I don't know how to write it) So let the anger away, or discuss it in private.

Yours,
BM

[Dénes]

QUOTE

A \"moniker\" for the Romanian Army could be \"cascatzii olandezi\"  :lol:

Not good, as it has double meaning, i.e. "cel cu casca", or "om cascat"...

Anyhow, the whole earlier exercise from my side was to show how ridiculous and historically amateurish is to use various "monikers" when describing certain armies or administration, i.e. fascist, nazi, communist, horthyst, sexist, etc.

The proper way is, IMHO, to simply use the country name. In case of Hungary: in short Hungarian Army, or the full title: Royal Hungarian Home Defense Force, or the Honvédség, if one really wants to be accurate. It's similarly unprofessional to the 'nazi' soldier (unless you actually know that he was a member of the NSDAP), or 'nazi' airplane, etc.
End of discussion (from my part).

Dénes

[Florin]

QUOTE

However, it's interesting to read that current Rumanian historiography continues to use such labels (horthyst, or fascist), used extensively during Communism (Remember Gen. dr. Ilie Ceausescu's \"history\" books?) Dénes

Hi Denes,

The same Communist historians used "antonescian" and "burghezo-mosieresc" in a derogatory way. Well, we lived with that, and for the common folk it turned out it time that not everything related to Antonescu or to the capitalist regime was bad.

The fact that "...current Rumanian historiography continues to use such labels..." is arguable.
Following your logic, somebody may say that the Magyar historians continue to publish books and articles stating that Transylvania should belong to Hungary. Which they also did during the Hungarian communist regime. Which they also did before it...

Best regards from the South,
Florin

[Dénes]

QUOTE

The fact that \"...current Rumanian historiography continues to use such labels...\" is arguable.   Following your logic, somebody may say that the Magyar historians continue to publish books and articles stating that Transylvania should belong to Hungary. Which they also did during the Hungarian communist regime. Which they also did before it...

This is yet another topic that probably leads to nowhere, except maybe to a closed topic.
Anyhow, here it comes:
1, by definition, a historian researches the past and not the future. Politicians usually do the latter.
2, under Communism, in Hungary it was strictly forbidden to talk about Transylvania and generally the Hungarian ethnics abroad. Let alone revisionist attitude. Something similar to Communist Rumania and the "hot" topic of Bessarabia.
3, in Hungary, currently there is no significant political party that advocates revisionism.

Dénes

[Florin]

QUOTE

If Romanian army fought bravely some months more (suppose January 1945) I think the Reds Wouldn't have advanced more than southern part of Romania and would have taken serious losses.

Something interesting, forgotten by many people...
Germany, Japan and Hungary had no war on their own territory during the World War I.
Countries like Romania, Russia, France, Italy had.
For countries like Germany or Hungary, fighting on their own territory was an abstract notion, until really happened.
For Romania, were in the World War I the front lines rolled over from East to West, from South to North, most of the people thought in 1944, from the uppermost command to the common folk: "No, not again!"

Regards,
Florin

[dead-cat]

QUOTE

Something interesting, forgotten by many people...   Germany, Japan and Hungary had no war on their own territory during the World War I.   Countries like Romania, Russia, France, Italy had.

that is not 100% true. in aug. 1914 2 russian armies invaded Eastern Prussia and advanced until the Allenstein area. Japans contribution to WW1 was minor at best. Hungary as such had no territory invaded but Austria-Hungary had. the damage done to the industrial base by these invasions is neglectable, but this is compensated by the reparation payments in the 20ies. also, the italian terrirory occupied was pretty small.

QUOTE

For countries like Germany or Hungary, fighting on their own territory was an abstract notion, until really happened.

except for the franctireur obsession in belgium, atrocities against civilians were rare and on a small scale during WW1. for most poeple who didn't live directly on the front, the invasion experience was limited to watching the invader passing through (ex. Bruxelles). the hardships of war were much more present in form of supply shortages for the populations. but so was the case in Germany. there were no large population dislocations like it happened in WW2.

i'd say, unless you lived next to the front your WW1 experience (as a civilian) wouldn't be much diffrent from the experience of a central powers citizen. it was nothing even remotly comparable to WW2, not even taking all the retaliatory executions in belgium into account, if you compare it to say, yugoslavia.

[Florin]

QUOTE

QUOTE Something interesting, forgotten by many people...   Germany, Japan and Hungary had no war on their own territory during the World War I.   Countries like Romania, Russia, France, Italy had.   that is not 100% true. in aug. 1914 2 russian armies invaded Eastern Prussia and advanced until the Allenstein area.

Oh, yes, I knew that, but I did not specify it. Sometimes I am thinking that my text is too long, and my sentences too complicated.
But I did not mentioned it because it was a matter of weeks, and roughly speaking, at the border. By the way, that part of Eastern Prussia was not a part of Germany, as it was after WWI, but before September 1939.

QUOTE

Japans contribution to WW1 was minor at best.

You are missing my point. I was talking about the general will of the common folk to see an extended war waged on his homeland. It is different when it is approached as a theoretical matter, and different when it was something real, which you don't want repeated.

QUOTE

Hungary as such had no territory invaded but Austria-Hungary had.

The area you are mentioning (Galitia, for example) became a part of Poland after WWI.
Austria and Hungary, as they were after WWI, were untouched by "the Great War".

QUOTE

except for the franctireur obsession in belgium, atrocities against civilians were rare and on a small scale during WW1.

What about the 1.5 million Armenians (men, women, children) killed in the Ottoman Empire?
What about the Serbians killed in the occupied Serbia?

QUOTE

for most poeple who didn't live directly on the front, the invasion experience was limited to watching the invader passing through (ex. Bruxelles). the hardships of war were much more present in form of supply shortages for the populations.

REALLY?... You should try to explain this to my grandmother. At age 5, she saw her brother, 4 years old, dying, and her baby-sister dying.
They were forced to leave her native village in the middle of winter, during freezing temperatures, because the Germans transformed that village into a prisoner camp.
Almost everything hidden in the ground by the villagers was discovered and looted by the POW's.

QUOTE

i'd say, unless you lived next to the front your WW1 experience (as a civilian) wouldn't be much diffrent from the experience of a central powers citizen.

Please read again what I mentioned about my grandmother, to fix it.
In addition... Front lines in World War I rolled over 3 quarters (75%) of the Romanian territory, as it was after 1913 and before 1916.
So 3 quarters of the Romanian territory, as it was before August 1916, "enjoyed" the "next to the front" status.

Florin

[Florin]

QUOTE

2, under Communism, in Hungary it was strictly forbidden to talk about Transylvania and generally the Hungarian ethnics abroad. Let alone revisionist attitude. Something similar to Communist Rumania and the \"hot\" topic of Bessarabia.

Well, a book as "History of Transylvania", also translated in English and distributed in West, was published in the 80's.

QUOTE

3, in Hungary, currently there is no significant political party that advocates revisionism.

In this moment this is true, as far as I know.
By the way, that's why I really wish to see Romania in NATO: it will cool down the spirits in the region, on both sides of the border.

Florin

[Dénes]

QUOTE

QUOTE 2, under Communism, in Hungary it was strictly forbidden to talk about Transylvania and generally the Hungarian ethnics abroad. Let alone revisionist attitude. Something similar to Communist Rumania and the \"hot\" topic of Bessarabia. Well, a book as "History of Transylvania", also translated in English and distributed in West, was published in the 80's.

Yes, indeed. But what makes you think that series of books advocates current revisionism? The book is dealing with the history of Transylvania.

Dénes