Waffen-Grenadier Division der SS Rumanische Nr. 1, About these hero's nobody speaK

When someone attacks you, he becomes your enemy. It is that simple.

You are using double standards. Regarding the crossing of the eastern 1940 frontier you say that the war should be fought until the enemy is defeated, while for the western border you say that Romanian troops should have stopped there. Which one is it?

That is incorrect. Hitler asked Antonescu for the participation of Romanian troops beyond the Dnister.

Like in 1941, the reason was Transylvania. Hitler also used it to get more from Romania.

Do you have numbers for defections in all the war years? “I think” isn’t a really good argument.

I fail to see how the so-called "national honor" meant going against your country’s interests and dying for a criminal regime that broke many treaties it had signed (if you want to talk about "stabbing in the back" btw).

The coup had nothing to do with the destruction of the 6th Army in Moldavia, which was the consequence of the success of the Jassy-Kishinev Operation. I suggest you research the subject more, as you seem to have the wrong idea. The two German armies in Romania weren't defending Romania, but Germany's interest.

Regarding the "stabbing" thing. There was no military convention between Romania and Germany, only the common interest. Since Bessarabia was lost and Germany could no longer support the Romanian status-quo according to the guarantees it had offered in 1940, there was no longer any reason for Romania to continue the war on its side. It would have been utterly stupid to do so. This way, the country would have had even more to suffer from the war and probably no retaking of NW Transylvania. A Communist regime would have been installed earlier than it actually happened.

The article published by Florian Bichir in Adevarul doesn't mention any sources for its statements. Mr. Bichir is also a member of the forum, maybe he will shed more light on the sources. Until then, I can only add that the last resistances weren't in Berlin, but in the Czech Republic (the Vlasov Army). So technically the statement is wrong.

The Avramescu case is very debatable and I prefer to trust the judgment of military historians such as Alesandru Dutu and Florica Dobre, rather than a newspaper article. There is no solid proof that Avramescu planned this. Certainly his family doesn't think so and his actions until his arrest don't have anything suspicious. He was too good a soldier to know that such a plan is folly. My personal opinion is that it is just another Iron Guard myth.

The war was lost. It was time to admit the defeat and save what could be saved.

There were no principles involved in the fight on the eastern front. All that "crusade against Bolshevism" was propaganda. Crusade besides an atheist regime like that of Adolf Hitler, which persecuted Christians? It's absurd. Romanians fought for Bessarabia and NW Transylvania during WWII, not for ideologies. The principles and honor the Romanian officers and soldiers had to respect were related to the oath they took to serve their country. They did not take any oath to serve Hitler.

I see a few problems with your stance on this.

1. It is absurdly naive to assume that in the midst of a world war which was clearly bent on changing the balance of power in Europe and the world, a small power could choose and pick to fight only as long as and as far as its own territorial claims would go. It was naive to suggest in 1941 to stop after retaking Bessarabia. The same holds true later; it is naive to suggest that Romania could stop once Transylvania was taken.
2. The USSR was going to win, no matter what; the writing was on the wall. The choice was, therefore, to either make that victory harder, or not. Making the Soviets' victory harder meant letting the war to continue across and throughout the Romanian territory. Bucharest stood good chances to become like Warsaw; rebuilding Ploesti to pre-war output levels would have taken years and years; and as bad as the post-war treatment by the Soviets was, there is no limit to the worse. So the choice really was between ending the war with a country in ruins, or not. I do know what I'd choose. Maybe the King betrayed Sima's sad bunch of expatriates in Germany; but my view is that he did not betray each and any Romanian citizen that survived the war and that would have not, if the war had ravaged the country as it happened elsewhere. I do know what I'd prefer.
3. It's rather strange to judge the decisions taken 60 years ago in the light of current relationships between countries. I'll admit I don't know what the young Romanians think about WWII and of its effects on the German-Romanian relationships, but in my opinion, 99% of German youths don't know, don't care, and don't give a damn. Try to live today. Anyway, if your country's postwar standing in foreign relationships is the touchstone, look at the bright side: the Germans may have had reasons to think ill of the Romanians for the side they ended the war on, but the reverse is true for the Soviets - and they were the winners. Happy now?
4. As a matter of personal preference, I don't call serving the Nazis a "noble cause". Of course I realize you have an obvious sympathy for a criminal organization like the SS.

While I whole-heartedly agree with everything else you wrote, in all fairness I'm not so sure this can be sustained. Romania had become a member of the Tripartite Pact on November 23, 1940.

It can be sustained. Here is the excerpt from the treaty signed by Italy, Japan and Germany, to which Romania adhered. The parties had "to assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three contracting powers is attacked" by a country not already involved in the war, excluding the Soviet Union.

As I said, there was no military convention tying Romania to Germany in the war against the Soviet Union, as the Axis was the aggressor in this case. No other military convetion was signed by Romania and Germany.

And yet a great big deal of this crusade propaganda was done by Romania in 1941, 1942 and so on.. with words like "Bolshevismul Pagan si Barbar" and word Bolshevic was used on and on in the romanian propaganda..
Religious sentiments in Russia begun to appear only after 1943, when the Russians appeared to be winning and Stalin allowed Churches to be opened again.. but until then it was just as the Romanian statement said: Pagan, Barbarian Bolshevism..

Churches had become Vodka processing factories, storage houses, depots.. Communism was against religion.. (until stalin found a moral advantage with it).

The Germans who waged war in Russia in 1942, were the same Germans who waged war in Russia in 1242. They had crosses on on their horses and armor, and again, 700 years later the same black crosses were on their tanks and planes.
Germans are very faithfull and religious - in 1242 they were there to expand their holy roman empire and christianize the 'eastern barbarian lands'

Why should they not use "that same language" again 700 years later when their descendants were fighting that same enemy? The nazi party was not against religion, just against "certain" aspects of it. peoples exagerate these days. The very fact that men of the Iron Guard were allowed within the ranks of the Waffen SS proves that. In Russia on the crontrary ( at least before the war) hanging an Icon on your wall was enough to be denounced by your children or neighbours to the NKVD, arrested, deported, and never seen again. People have forgotten these days.
(More Churches were built during the Nazi era then the allies managed to destroy in Dresden alone) that is fact.

I don't care if 99% if German youth today is dumb and brainwashed and dones't know History -
I care for for those who know, and I care for the damaged to my country because of that decision, and for those that maybe, had liked Romania, or had friends there and were 'stabbed in the back' on 23 August, chased after, arrested, deported, surrounded, anihillated...

Other Allies of Germany found other ways to 'quit from the war', but we,.. we had to fight agains them . We had to be the only ones, and in the process, after..do alot of propaganda that "we were liberated" from the fascist claws until 1989..
(And also that we loved Russians, and greately admire them) (And you know what the whole of the Romanian peoples really think of russians)

Anyways, I'm not the type of person that would do a favour in exchange for another favour, but If my country had done wrong, or ows somebody something, I must pay it back ~ and ask for nothing in return.

This post has been edited by Der Maresal on January 28, 2005 01:54 am

Well, ity was just as you stated: propaganda. Soldiers couldn't care less about the "Crusade against Bolshevism".

I didn't day Germans were atheist. I said the regime was and it is a big difference between the regime and the whole people. And Catholics were persecuted by the Nazis. It is a a very well known fact. Take Werner Moelders for example. The fact that a couple of hundread men from the Iron Guard ended up in the Waffen SS in the last days of the 3rd Reich doesn't say anything. They would have drafted the Pope into the Waffen SS if they could, because they needed the menpower badly.

You said that other allies of Germany found otherways to quit from the war. Please, give an example. I was unable to find one.

In other words, you aren't preoccupied with today's reputation and international standing of your country, as it seemed from your initial posts. You are preoccupied with a handful of German survivors, or their relatives, who had the bad luck of getting caught in Romania - and this minuscule minority of course has no impact whatsoever on what Germans think today about Romania.
While your sympathy for those few Germans is laudable, I am rather surprised that you fail to notice the point I made about Romania suffering less destruction and losses of its own, thanks to the course chosen in 1944. You are sorry for those few Germans who were killed or captured in Romania, but you wouldn't give a damn for the countless Romanians that would have died if Romania had not changed sides.
Weird.

As to former German allies. You are sorely misinformed. Romania wasn't the only one to fight against them. The same did Italy, the same did Finland; these are basic facts of WWII history. Hungary tried to switch sides, was trounced, but anyway at the end of the war was successful in the second attempt. Bulgaria and Slovakia did not engage in any serious fighting against the Germans, but more because of time/space constraints than anything else - they did switch sides at the right time. I don't know about fascist Croatia, which was anyway a tiny puppet state totally submitted to Germany, which couldn't exist without German backing. Maybe nobody was interested in having them switch sides.

As to crosses. Unfortunately, carrying a cross as your insignia doesn't make you a Christian. If I see a guy who wears a cross and goes around slaughtering anybody he dislikes, I'll judge him by his un-Christian behavior, not by his cross.

You are correct, and I was wrong. of course the spirit of the pact was an anti-Soviet alliance, but the letter of it can be read as you pointed out.

Curioso :

Quoting :"As to former German allies. You are sorely misinformed. Romania wasn't the only one to fight against them. The same did Italy, the same did Finland; these are basic facts of WWII history."

Scuse me ,but you are doing the apology of BETRAYAL and the glorification of TREASON .

(I am not rumanian ,so maybe my point of view is a bit more technical and less "emotionnal" .... anyway , I you are talking relaxed in your chair today .Maybe that in 1944 it was another feeling .For instance I doubt seriously if the rumanian women who were raped and torured by the invanding soviet troops in 1944 would agree with you !)

Good points, Maresal. Eventually romanians managed to become traitors (like so many times in their history) and even expected to gain something for this. Then, accepted the communist rule without question (with the exception of the mountain partisans, so ignored by our generation -> and no, writing books doesn't make you an anti-communist, mr. Intellectual), but eventually killed its leader, just because it needed to be "different" from the other neighbours.

You are not Romanian, but you surely aren't objective at all. Your pro-German (or better put: pro-Nazi) bias is well known and it seems to me you are getting pretty emotional, despite your claims. I would appreciate it if you would try to explain your statements with arguments.

In Moldavia, the percent of raped women is staggering. Most have relatives that were "blessed" by the russians. I have no "internet" arguments for this, btw.

I was referring to this statement:

The rapes and pillaging are known. There is a whole book on the subject. But if we are to use the "rape" argument, one has to wonder how many more women would have been raped in teh rest of the country when the front would have advanced.

Quoting Viktor :"Your pro-German (or better put: pro-Nazi) bias is well known"

I didn't knew I was so famous even in Rumania !

Seriously : do you mean that only the ones who believe in the official Politically Correct version of World History ,or the ones who follows the communist line (like in the good ol'days of your "securitate" ) are allowed to express themselves in this forum ?

And by the way :about the turning of alliances ,even Churchill in his memories referred to the switching of alliances by Italy as a "pork 's affair" and a "betrayal".

Maybe you gone tell us that Mr Churchill was well know for his pro-german and pro-Nazi bias ,right ?