Support for August, 1944?

Greetings.
How much support was there behind the August, 1944, side swapping? Most parties seem to have been in it. The army? The people?
Thanks for any replies.

The term of "side-swapping" is not exactly very accurate. Initially there was no state of conflict between German and Romanian forces. The Germans were given two weeks to evacuate their forces. Of course it was a little childish to believe that Hitler would just take his toys and leave. War was declared to the Axis after Bucharest was bombed on 24 August by the Luftwaffe. I think, at least technically, it is a difference.

Almost everybody was behind the idea of an armistice. There were no cases of Romanian units fighting Romanian units (pro-Axis vs pro-Allied). Every unit respected the orders it had received from the higher echelon. The desire to retake NW Transylvania was high among both the army and the people.

In another words, the Germans asked for it :lol
I wonder how many Romanians perished because of the Germans (as enemies) compared to those killed by the Russians while they were "the mighty ally from the East" in the months following the treason.

You make it sound like the Romanians accepted enthusiastically the new Alliance with the Russians and the fight against the Germans :mad: Sounds like cheap propaganda pal.

I had a chat with a friend of mine whose grandpa was a machine-gunner in the Romanian Army. He fought from Stalingrad 'till Tatra and had many interesting story to tell. One of them was about the fights around 23 August in Moldova when he recalls that on several occassions German-Romanian units fired at Soviet-Romanian units. However, it is true, the reason was the widespread confussion and not the 'loyalty' of the Romanian units subordonated to the Germans. HOWEVER, in my oppinion, if the Romanian soldiers (and their leaders) back then could have forseen the future most likely that would had fought to the last man.

There is no part in my text, which states such a thing. All I did was state historical facts. The rest is your subjective interpretation.

Until 23 August 1944 some 71,585 men were listed as killed. From then on, until the end of the war, 21,035 were listed as killed.

The using of word treason is inappropriate IMO, because, as far as I know, Romania did not owe anything to Hitler and Nazi Germany, as long as he couldn't anymore guarantee its status-quo. And this was clearly the case in August 1944.

The words "Russian/Soviet alliance" are not even mentioned in my post, so I find it pretty difficult to see how you came to such a conclusion. I believe what I meant is expressed bluntly.

Victor, you "made it sound like" so you're so obviously guilty that only the penal battalion can possibly redeem you. Please, ban yourself for a few days

You think so? As far as I can tell, it sounded like he said that the Romanians wanted an armistice and wanted Transylvania back. Neither could be accomplished without fighting alongside their new allies.

As to Romania not owing anything to Germany, however, there was the Tripartite Pact, which Romania had joined.

Anyway, have you got any info to add about the topic, i.e., what kind of popular support was behind the course of events of August, 1944? There are those who claim that the King and the politicians and generals involved weren't representative of the country. On the other hand, it seems that virtually all political parties were involved (save the Legion, of course), and Victor, in his post, says no army units chose to ignore the new orders. Have you got any other insights?
Thank you in advance.

Romania in World War II, ISOSIM, Bucharest 1997, pp 205-206

Romania in World War II, ISOSIM, Bucharest 1997, pp 211-212

Again (I have to repeat myself). How many Romanians died following the Alliance with Soviet Union because of the Soviets? (I am talking about those that "vanished", died in the "re-education" camps and so on).
I was reffering to what the Romanians have been going through as German's Allies as compared to when they were Soviet's Allies. Further, I dared to insinuate that there were less Romanians killed by the Germans (as enemies) than there were killed by the Soviets (as allies). And I did this because you put so much emphasis on the Bucharest bombing by the Germans.

I have flash backs. I have seen that before in Romania and it is called "denial".
It was treason, maybe not "technically" as you like to insinuate. IMO about it is inappropriate to discuss about treason the way you do, its one of those things...
And we as Romanians should start accepting that. And everyone should agree on that. Everyone meaning those that say that it would had been better (long-term) to keep fighting against the Soviets, on the German side (I am one of those) and those that say that it was better to submitt to the Soviets and save as much as possible from the Romanian teritory and avoid the chance of becomming another Soviet Republic. I would agree to disagree with the later ones but those usually scream loud that there was "no treason" intead of saying that it was a "justified treason".
One more thing, probably you know that quote:
"Treason is justified and there is no shame in doing it when you WIN". WE LOST for God's sake!!!. That makes even more shameful!

I thought that one of the condition (as imposed by the Russians) for the secretly negociated arminstice (you mentioned the arminstice, right?) was to fight against the former allies (the Germans) on the Soviet side. I cannot understand why you insist of separating those two issues. You cannot have one without the other.

Have you ever thought about becoming a lawyer?

I wonder if those soldiers, were aware that they were about to submit to the Soviets and start fighting against the Germans not only to free Transylvania (indeed a good reason to fight) but also to "free", Hungary, be used as cannon meat and so on... I wonder if they would had been that happy it they knew what was about to come upon Romania for the next 50 years (or should we say 60?).

Anyway, the text is very poeticall with the singing birds and the monologues and all that

I have to agree this sounds very nice (for a non-Romanian). It doesn't sound like propaganda. Oh no, not at all
I wonder if those political leaders would had been so enthusiastic if they knew what will happen to them later on :guns: . I wonder to which extent was influenced their decision by the desire (and hope) to save their own skin. When it comes to the Red Plague and those that had to do with it (politicians), I respect only the Martyrs.

I also wonder what the reaction of the average Romanian would had been if they knew what that Soviet General said (I am sure you remember his name better)
"After we (the Russians) finish with the Romanians all they will have left is the eyes so that they can weep..." And that was (as far as I know) after the arminstice

By the way, I remember reading a while ago from the memoirs of one of the politicians who participated at the Russian-Romanian negociations for the arminstice. He didn't sound enthusiastic at all, especially after the Britts and US witnesses had turned their back (literally). Maybe you could refresh my memory and share with the others if you have some more information about that...

You think so? As far as I can tell, it sounded like he said that the Romanians wanted an armistice and wanted Transylvania back. Neither could be accomplished without fighting alongside their new allies.

Thats what I said too, but he (Victor) says that he did not mention about the alliance. He mentioned only the arminstice
What I criticized was the fact that it is not stated clearly if and When the Romanian troops notified about the continuation of war up to Tatra Mtns.

And if you scroll a bit further you will see that the average soldiers (and probably citizens too) were enthusiastic because they thought the war will be over soon and that the 'shift' will run smooth. The officers were happy only for a moment, after that, they realised (given their experience) that the future doesn't look good under Soviet command and they weren't so happy anymore. This makes me think that the soldiers were not briefed clearly on purpose, and it also make me think that the back then politicians were aware of the fate of Romania but made their decision mainly because they wanted to save their very skin. But they have forgotten they had to do with the Russians NOT with the Allies.

Cheers big-ears!

Sorry, I did not read too carefully. Unfortunately there is no complete statistic of those who returned to Romania from the Soviet Union's POW camps. Also there is no statistic about how many of those roughly 130,000 taken POWs after 24 August 1944 by the Soviets came back. Until September 1947 only 89,696 (including the men in the two volunteer divisions) of the 309,533 MIAs in the war in the East had returned. To the same date, 4,603 men from the 58,43 MIAs in the war with the Axis had returned. 642 of 975 Romanian soldiers who were in different schools in Germany on 23 August returned.

But I do not see what is the relevance of this, when related with the support for the act on 23 August 1944. This happened after that. If you want to discuss if it was the right/wrong decision there are, IIRC, already several threads about it.

I do not insinuate it. I stated my opinion clearly and I will stand by it with arguments. There is no "hidden" meaning to my posts. Nor do I have a secret agenda or something like that, as a former member of this forum "insinuated" time after time.

Treason is not justified by anything.

And the Romanian side insisted that the German be given 15 days to evacuate their forces from inside Romania, to which the Soviets agreed, not without mentioning their doubt that the Germans would do such a thing. From my point of view this condition, which was initially respected by the Romanian troops, who did not engage in fighting with their former allies, exonerates the treason accusations. This is why I separate the two issues. Of course Romania would have eventually declared war to Germany too, after it would have declared war to Hungary. But it did not do it from the first moment.

The Romanian troops actually went further than the Tatra Mountains. But Curioso's inquiry was related to 23 August, not the aftermath.

Germany offered guarantees to preserve the Romanian status quo in September 1940. It was clearly in August 1944 that it was in no position to fulfill its promises. Since Romanian interests could not be satisfied by Hitler and Germany anymore, it was normal IMO to seek another way to try to solve the difficult situation.

I am curious, however, to see a summary of the Tripartite Pact and what were the obligations of the signing parties.