Was Romania right to join the Axis?

[Geto-Dacul]

Victor wrote :

QUOTE

This letter was sent by marshal Antonescu on 9 December 1942 to marshal Erich von Manstein, but obviously it was addressed more to Hitler.

Very interesting letter... Thanks for posting it. It becomes more and more a reality that in some cases, the Romanians were "disciplined" by their fellow "brother in arms". But Antonescu warned up Hitler with some minor but very cruel cases who could lead to a generalization of the behavior of the German troop, and will bring nothing good in the future, as Antonescu wrote. Here, the Germans were most responsible for the disaster.
Another question : Are there any other cases (appart from Stalingrad) of German soldiers behaving badly with Romanian troops?

Thanks again for the quote, I'll remember it.

Getu'

[Geto-Dacul]

Chandernagore wrote :

QUOTE

CQFD my dear Geto. Need I say more ? At this stage you dropped your pants pretty shamelessly.

You didn't say nothing, so calm down. You only attack with posts loaded with half-truths and sarcasm.

QUOTE

You just can't hide where your preferences go. Your historical education is essentially made of shit assembled on various neo nazi web sites. You can't give a serious historical study reference.

Appart from a Bolshevik movie and some "Jewish" quotes, you did not present any web site or valuable source.

QUOTE

You only admire brute force. You choose dictatorship and ethnic cleansing over democracy and peace any time.

You're just pathetic. "Democracy" and peace my a*s. As I told you before (but for nothing), "democracy" strikes hypocritically when her interests are endangered. But you cannot understand this, because you are a product of it. You should be tolerant and comprehensive toward others, as "democracy" teached you, but you aren't. You are a hypocrite.

QUOTE

Your dream is apparently a greater Rumania encompassing every terrritory where a Rumanian put his foot any one time in history. If the cost is war and massacres it's 100% ok because the law is the strong.

What's your opinion on Israel's policy?

QUOTE

In fact you are a fossile, a relic we don't need anymore in Europe. You're a shame for Rumania which deserves better..

Who are you to dare to speak in the name of "Europe"?

I'm finishing it with you right now. But before, I'll translate my Romanian quote :

"Our soul, which remained attached to another world, is wandering today in a life that isn't ours. Vis-a-vis the world of today, we feel foreign, in him we do not find another goal than to put an end to it".

-Ion I. Mota, Wooden skulls.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

You didn't say nothing, so calm down. You only attack with posts loaded with half-truths and sarcasm.

I just love it when you say, keep down, calm down, tone down... While you're the only one agitating histerically in the background.

QUOTE

Appart from a Bolshevik movie and some \"Jewish\" quotes, you did not present any web site or valuable source.

You didn't ask for any. My knowledge is not generally speaking based on unverified website stuff. I have access to much. Much more than I can read in fact, and I read a lot.

Actually reading "Righteous victims" A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict 1881-1999 by Benny Morris.

QUOTE

You're just pathetic. \"Democracy\" and peace my a*s. As I told you before (but for nothing), \"democracy\" strikes hypocritically when her interests are endangered. But you cannot understand this, because you are a product of it. You should be tolerant and comprehensive toward others, as \"democracy\" teached you, but you aren't. You are a hypocrite.

What the hell did you smoke Geto ? Democracy tolerant vs fascism/nazism ? Never. We stomped the snake into the ground in 40-45 and we're ready to start again as soon as it shows it's f.....g head again. There's no more Chamberlain/Daladier appeasement policy. We grew up.

QUOTE

What's your opinion on Israel's policy?

First answer my previous question about the Jews. Don't dance around the question.

The nazis exterminated about 6.000.000 Jews during WWII. True/false ?
No need to elaborate. Just true/false. Answer.

QUOTE

Who are you to dare to speak in the name of \"Europe\"?

I'm making it happen, day after day.

QUOTE

\"Our soul, which remained attached to another world, is wandering today in a life that isn't ours. Vis-a-vis the world of today, we feel foreign, in him we do not find another goal than to put an end to it\".\"

Very nice, moving. Ion Mota knows how to use words, how to summon remembrance. Thank you for the translation.

But I doubt very much that his meaning is that which you attribute to him.

[Geto-Dacul]

Listen Chandy, this discussion is leading nowhere. For me, it is case closed.

QUOTE

You didn't ask for any. My knowledge is not generally speaking based on unverified website stuff. I have access to much. Much more than I can read in fact, and I read a lot.   Actually reading \"Righteous victims\" A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict 1881-1999 by Benny Morris.

Present your sources then. I see that you interpretate facts as you want to... The French site was just a chronology of US interventions in the World. Those dates and events are facts. WW1 ended in 1918, it's a fact. WTC was hit by the 2 planes on 11 September 2001... It's a fact.

QUOTE

The nazis exterminated about 6.000.000 Jews during WWII. True/false ?   No need to elaborate. Just true/false. Answer.

It is impossible to not elaborate that kind of question. And this forum is not really the place to discuss that kind of subject... See the rules.

QUOTE

Very nice, moving. Ion Mota knows how to use words, how to summon remembrance. Thank you for the translation.   But I doubt very much that his meaning is that which you attribute to him.

Why are you judging before knowing something? First of all, you should know who was Ionel Moţa...

Getu'

[Victor]

This is the final warning. Stop fighting and get back to the main topic. And no, I do not see how discussing Nazism and what horrors it brought to the world has anything to do with wether Romania was right/wrong to join the Axis.
Btw, Holocaust denial is not allowed here and could result to the banning of the respective member.

[inahurry]

Victor,

I do believe you refer to holocaust denial when Nazi Germany is concerned and I suppose you don't allow it on your site becaue in some countries this could cause judicial problems. Of course, those kind of laws that are of a typically stalinist flavor are preventing honest research while preserving the status of well-known liars as "historians" or "witnesses". But it is your choice and I respect that.
However, because I don't believe Romania was involved in the holocaust I would very much like to see, if possible, you warn anyone who engages, from now on, in accusations of that kind against Romania suffer the same treatment from you as a moderator, regardless of your personal views on the matter.
If denial is not allowed then don't allow the topic of holocaust, full stop, because a forum with one side foaming at the mouth while the other is gagged would be a joke. Either is off-topic for anyone or, as Caragiale put it : "treason, treason but let us be informed of it".

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

First of all, you should know who was Ionel Mota...

Mota was the right-hand man of Corneliu Codreanu, founder and leader of the Romanian Legion. An antisemit nationalist. Satisfied ?

QUOTE

I do not see how discussing Nazism and what horrors it brought to the world has anything to do with wether Romania was right/wrong to join the Axis.

All other factors being equal, you're more likely, from a morale point of vue (if it has any impact), to ally yourself with an angel than a monster. Of course, if you are in a state of denial your judgement is warped.

[inahurry]

By the way, Victor. I don't see why Jews or Jews sympathizers can call anyone, sometimes rightfully, sometimes wrongly, anti-Semite and always get away with it. Ariel Sharon is by that standard a nationalist anti-Semite which would be an accurate description of his policy toward the Palestinians. Would be even more accurate to call him a nationalist anti-Palestinian but since the Jews use anti-Semite as anti-Jew I suppose Palestinians could use anti-Semite as anti-Palestinian. Any way you look at it is still labeling and I don't have anything against it as long everyone can label everyone. If not, than no one should label no one.

[Victor]

inahurry,
I cannot stop discussions on the Holocaust here, simply because parts of the Romanian army were involved in it. I can stop people from denying it because it is both immorally and illegal. The issue of how some choose to use the words anti-Semite is not weather Ariel Sharon is one or not (he is not a member of this forum), but weather the respective member had shown such opinions. And my impression is that Geto-Dacul had strayed into that position from time to time (this is why I voted no for him as a moderator)

Chandernagore,
The factors were not equal. On one side the Soviet Union had just annexed Romanian territories and was clearly eager to get more. It created a lot of armed incidents and provocations on the new border. It also threatened the existing society with its new system. Romania had experienced another 2 "alliances" with Russia before as well as several Russian occupations and sentiments towards it were really bitter. On the other hand, Germany, even if it supported Hungarian and Bulgarian territorial claims, was ready to guarantee the present status-quo and there was the prospect of getting back some territories lost during the summer. It also did not attempt to change the Romanian society and, even though we had been enemies and experienced one occupation, the Germans were regarded with more respect than the Russians were. These were the two options. The English were too far away and too weak to be counted on, otherwise Antonescu would had chosen them in an eye-blink (he was a well-known Anglophile).
Alliances are not made from a morale point of view, but because of common interests. Not even the most liberal democracies in the world are an exception to the rule. The world is unfortunately not as good as it should be.

Btw, I fail to see the angel in the Soviet Union and it is not because of a state of denial.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

The factors were not equal

.

Of course you're 100% right. I never said they were. I just introduced the argument.

QUOTE

the Germans were regarded with more respect than the Russians were.

This is part of the problem. There was much respect for the martial qualities and power of the German state. Was there as much respect for the nazi steering wheel which has shown repeatedly before 41 that their foreign policy declarations where a pack of lies ? How much trust could you put in the nazi junta ?

QUOTE

Alliances are not made from a morale point of view, but because of common interests.

Agree. Still, the morale point of vue really kicks in in two circumstances :

1. When you have to gauge the trustworthiness of the new ally.
2. When payday has arrived

Both factors are worth considering before kissing the bride.

QUOTE

Btw, I fail to see the angel in the Soviet Union and it is not because of a state of denial.

I fail to see it too.

The third option you don't mention was that taken by the Yugoslavs : fight, even when alone.

[Victor]

The Yugoslavs were not exactly alone. They had a relatively easier way to receive help from the UK and Greece was close by. On the other hand, Romania was practically isolated.

The enemies were also less powerful. The Italians had received a bloody nose and were licking their wounds in Albania. The Germans had amassed their forces (at least in Hungary) hastily and without many preparations (it was practically an improvisation). The fact that the Wehrmacht won so quickly is explained by its high professionalism and superiority in 1941. On the other hand, the Romanians had to face Red Army forces, which had prepared for the attack for some time and were already deployed. The Hungarians and Bulgarians were a common enemy for both Yugoslavia and Romania. Worse, in the Romanian case, Yugoslavia could also have become a potential aggressor.

I would say the Yugoslavs were in a better situation, or at least it looked better on paper in March 1941.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

I would say the Yugoslavs were in a better situation, or at least it looked better on paper in March 1941.   ...   The Yugoslavs were not exactly alone. They had a relatively easier way to receive help from the UK and Greece was close by.

On the paper. In practice they received none. UK had it's hand full on several theatres and could barely hope to stabilize her own situation.

QUOTE

On the other hand, Romania was practically isolated. The Hungarians and Bulgarians were a common enemy for both Yugoslavia and Romania. Worse, in the Romanian case, Yugoslavia could also have become a potential aggressor.

Which brings one to reflect on the reasons for the bad diplomatic relations with every single direct neighbor.

[Dénes]

QUOTE

On the other hand, Romania was practically isolated.

That depends of the year we are talking about.

Until 1938, there were 6 states neighbouring Rumania. Three were hostile, or unfriendly: USSR, Hungary and Bulgaria, and the other three friendly: Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia (Little Entente) and Poland. So in that time period - contrary to what it's vehiculated - Rumania was not isolated at all by her neighbours.

In 1938, Czechoslovakia was briefly replaced by Slovakia, then by Hungary. In Sept. 1939, Poland was replaced by the USSR. In April 1941, Yugoslavia was defeated by Germany - a country Rumania was allied to.
Therefore there was no time period when Rumania was completely isolated by her neighbours.

Dénes

[Führerul]

QUOTE

inahurry, I cannot stop discussions on the Holocaust here, simply because parts of the Romanian army were involved in it.

Victor, I think the word Holocaust means in their language "Death by Fire", and I don't think the Romanian Army used fire in dealing with Jewish Terrorist Partisans at Odessa or anywhere else. 8)

QUOTE

I can stop people from denying it because it is both immorally and illegal.

8)

Let's not start by denying enything, rather let's start to debate what the Word Holocaust really means. Holocaust does not mean ordinary crimes against Jews- No, these things happened all the time especially in medieval Europe and then - "HOLOCAUST" - the word was not used.
So what does Holocaust mean?

The JEWISH VERSION is that 6 000 000 (:shock: ) were ("GASSED") :shock: their bodies used to make SOAP (:shock: ), their skin to make LAMPSHADES (:shock: ), their Hair to make PILLOWS (:shock: ) -and finally all were BURNED in the little 1-person ovens at Dachau( :shock: ) TO GET RID OF THE EVIDENCE! Ohhh- And the ROMANIAN ARMY TOO~ contributed to this HOLOCAUST!!! :shock: really? I did not know!!! :

I think the REAL version has never been told because the germans are not allowed to tell it. Until the story is brought to light and we know the Truth - not the Jewish Truth , until then we too will have to put ash on our heads and admit that we also made Soap out of them. :idea:

[Victor]

QUOTE

That depends of the year we are talking about.

We are talking about 1940.