Was Romania right to join the Axis?

[PogRomus]

You should know something before you go and vote that "Romania should have stayed neutral from the beginning"

1) First of all you should know that the alliances (as to who would fight in the second world war on which side) were made way before the war begun. This was a War of Ideologies, it was Nationalism against Internationalism. France and Russia (both "socialist in nature") had made an alliance against Germany before the war errupted.
This was not simply a war of 'country against country', it was a war of Ideas. Countries with strong Nationalist sentiments like Germany, Romania, Japan would be pitted against countries of 'socialist nauture', like England, France USSR, America..and so on. It was as if a hidden hand had made all these alliances and had planned for a long time this destructive war in which Europe as a world power would be destroyed and replaced by America.

Romania and Germany have alot in common even though we don't look alike and don't speak the same language type.

Never forget that Germany and Romania were the best and fiercest Ennemies of Rome, the Dacians and the Germanics. The Romans fought with great difficulty these two Barbaric peoples and never truly conquered them. This alone is reason enough for me why the Germans and Romanians should stick together always and never make war, - even tough we may not always get along.

We are both very Nationalistic in Nature, countries with rich histories, with military traditions with ancient cultures can't help themselves to be Nationalist.
Romanians and Germans as peoples reject western liberalism, Parimentary democracy does not work for any of us, we like Strong rulers. Our entire history is full of powerfull rulers. "Democratic presidents" don't work for us, and "Democracy" itself has never inspired anyone to do great things.
Look at all the Great Men in Romanian history.... Eminescu...the national poet...was his a liberal? Was he a democrat? NO! he was a Nationalist.
Vlad Tepes "Dracula" like the west calls him - was he a Socialist? I don't think so!. He was very religious and very patriotic. He would have rejected all liberalistic and democratic ideas of today..
One should know that Romania is a very religious contry, predominently christian. Romanians have a very strong faith in God, there are tousands of Churches and Monasteries in Romania, build by it's great Nationalistic Rulers, not by democratic presidents!

As we see today Democracy is against Religion! Socialism and Communism are also against Religion and against God. Democracy stands for the same thing and also for the Separation of the Church from State. Do you really think the heart and admiration of the Romanian peoples in the 1920's and 1930's were for the USSR, for the Bolshewicks for the Revolution and for the Jews, who were always on the Communist side? No! Romania like Germany had the same ideas at the time and it was fate, it was pure fate that they would join hands together and fight WW2 on the same side against the common ennemy.

It was Codreanu, the leader of the Iron guard that said his wish was that "the countries of the National Revolutions" join hands and form an alliance. (by that he meant Germany, Italy and Romania).

You should know that "Bolschewism" (Russia before WW2) was system designed to take over the world, and enslave all peoples.The individual would become material waste, a human life meaning nothing, a bit like the Multicultural/Globalized "tolerant" world of today. Russia was a very agressive country in those days and she would not stop until this dream of World Domination was accomplished. Against this formaidable giant were the little countries of Europe who joined hands and under common interest and sympathy for one another would fight "the Barbarians in the east", and keep this dangerous ideology, Bolschewism as far away from the Borders of EUROPA as possible, ..- we failed but in the end Soviet Russia was changed too..

Soviet Russia became "Mother Russia". The war and the 20 million dead the russians lost made Russia a Nationalist country, even though the old symbols were kept.
If we had not acted, and if there was no Nationalist Germany on the other end to oppose Soviet Russia, Europe today might have been called "the Unites Soviet Socialist States of Europe". (a bit like the UN today )

I can't imagine Romania as I know it joining France or Russia and fighting Germany in 1940. (Unless the Romanian peoples were enslaved and acting against their free will).

*To you who voted that Romania should have stayed neutral I say this: You are very Naive, it is naive to think that our country would not be touched by war, by 6 years of war that devastated Europe and Russia and killed 60 million peoples. How long do you really think we would manage to stay Neutral ?? :roll: How long would we last?

[Der Maresal]

Hmm, there is some truth in this..

First of all to all those who say that the Germans treated the Romanians unfairly and with arrogance I think we got the same thing from the Russians plus alot of abuses, deportations, arrests, rape, torture and executions.

The second thing,.. the war was not against a particulary individual.
For example a German Resistance fighter (one that plotted against Hitler with other conspirators) wrote in a German Newspaper in 1975:

"During the war we truly tought that the war was being fought against Hitler, only after did we truly realize ..it was fought not against Hitler but against Germany Itself! "

So this means (the Allies in particular), their war effor was not directed against just one man (Hitler), - even tought the propaganda was mainly attacking him, but against Germany, the country itself.
Yes, I can truly see now that the reason America was fighting against Nazi Germany was not to overthrow Hitler and liberate Europe, but to Impose a New World Order! Precisely!

Maybe it was the same with Romania.

As for German Romanian colaboration, I do have a german friend who'm I met on the Internet, and who's grandfather fought at Sevastopol, he being the only surviver along with 4 others out of the Entire batallion.
He speaks highly of Romanians and said "they were pretty brave". On the other hand he sais Italians were "scheisse" (no offence to anybody, those were his words :oops: )

Schobert and Mannstein did admire Romania. Erich von Mannstein was a real sympathiser and also good friend of Antonescu. He wrote after the war in a book that Romanians were the best allies of Germany.

They even exchanged medals... Mihai Viteazu order from Romania to Germany......

..and the Krimean schild awarded by Mannstein himself...to Antonescu in 1943...

:wink:

[Geto-Dacul]

PogRromus wrote :

QUOTE

1) First of all you should know that the alliances (as to who would fight in the second world war on which side) were made way before the war begun. This was a War of Ideologies, it was Nationalism against Internationalism. France and Russia (both \"socialist in nature\") had made an alliance against Germany before the war errupted.

And National-Socialist Germany? She was a bad guy too, an internationalist???????????? And capitalist-Republican America??????? She was on the good "right-wing" nationalists?????? Please, stop it! Socialism was not invented by Marx, Proudhon or Hegel! It is as old as the Human being.

QUOTE

This was not simply a war of 'country against country', it was a war of Ideas. Countries with strong Nationalist sentiments like Germany, Romania, Japan would be pitted against countries of 'socialist nauture', like England, France USSR, America..and so on. It was as if a hidden hand had made all these alliances and had planned for a long time this destructive war in which Europe as a world power would be destroyed and replaced by America.

And now the good old conspiracy theory... I would believe it if you couild explain me why England, France, USSR and America are totally on the "wrong" and "evil" socialist side? Weren't there any nationalists? Ever heard of Charles Maurras??? :shock:
Europe was not replaced by America, because Europe is not only the Western part of the continent!!! :x ... It was divided between USA and USSR.

QUOTE

Never forget that Germany and Romania were the best and fiercest Ennemies of Rome, the Dacians and the Germanics. The Romans fought with great difficulty these two Barbaric peoples and never truly conquered them. This alone is reason enough for me why the Germans and Romanians should stick together always and never make war, - even tough we may not always get along.

Yes, indeed, the Dacians and Germanics were fierce enemies of imperialist Rome, but you are exagerating because you forget to mention the Sassanians, the Parthians, the Picts, the Maurs, the Getuls (In Northern Africa) etc.
Barbaric people? Why??? Because the Romans and Greeks wrote this in their histories? :shock: :!:

QUOTE

Romanians and Germans as peoples reject western liberalism, Parimentary democracy does not work for any of us, we like Strong rulers. Our entire history is full of powerfull rulers.

Let's say that the Germans had assimilated Western liberalism since 1945. It is clear that democracy is not actually working in Romania... Strong rulers??? Entire history??? Do you know of what are you talking about? Romania had a great bunch of shitty "religious" rulers from the Phanariots to today (and before too).

QUOTE

Vlad Tepes \"Dracula\" like the west calls him - was he a Socialist? I don't think so!. He was very religious and very patriotic. He would have rejected all liberalistic and democratic ideas of today..

Political correctness for you is to be "religious" How religious and Christian Vlad was when he impaled his enemy, insteed of loving him???

QUOTE

One should know that Romania is a very religious contry, predominently christian. Romanians have a very strong faith in God, there are tousands of Churches and Monasteries in Romania, build by it's great Nationalistic Rulers, not by democratic presidents!

And if I say that you are generalizing? Many churches were built under the Phanariots too! And who said that the Romanian is pious??? A stranger visiting Romania said that Romanians are Christians only when talking of baptems, marriages etc. In an English encyclopedia of 1678 it was written black on white under the title "Of Wallachia" : They still believe in superstitions and swear by Jupiter and Venus!
Romania's progress does not depend of the number of monasteries and Churches.

QUOTE

As we see today Democracy is against Religion! Socialism and Communism are also against Religion and against God. Democracy stands for the same thing and also for the Separation of the Church from State. Do you really think the heart and admiration of the Romanian peoples in the 1920's and 1930's were for the USSR, for the Bolshewicks for the Revolution and for the Jews, who were always on the Communist side? No! Romania like Germany had the same ideas at the time and it was fate, it was pure fate that they would join hands together and fight WW2 on the same side against the common ennemy.

Christian religion in politics? You must be joking. The main Christian philosophy is based on socialist ideas. Jesus himself was a revolutionnary Jew and said to his men : "DO NOT GO TO THE PAGANS... IT IS ONLY TO THE LOST SHEEPS OF ISRAEL THAT I WAS SEND" (Mat. ch.15 v.24) Now what you are writing is pure propaganda, with a lot of half-truths. We should go and see further, and not only by propaganda, who is reserved to ignorant people.

QUOTE

You should know that \"Bolschewism\" (Russia before WW2) was system designed to take over the world, and enslave all peoples.

And what was Russia after WW2?

QUOTE

Russia was a very agressive country in those days and she would not stop until this dream of World Domination was accomplished.

Russia was agressive especially during the last 300 years.

QUOTE

..- we failed but in the end Soviet Russia was changed too..

Why Soviet Russia was changed? And in what? :?

QUOTE

The war and the 20 million dead the russians lost made Russia a Nationalist country, even though the old symbols were kept.

Nationalism? Stalin compared it with canibalism, and that was during the 50's! Nationalism was part of the culture of the capitalist warmongers. :wink:

You are lucky that I answered your message. When I'm reading it again, I remember myself at 15 years old! Sorry for my sarcasm!

[Geto-Dacul]

Der Maresal wrote :

QUOTE

So this means (the Allies in particular), their war effor was not directed against just one man (Hitler), - even tought the propaganda was mainly attacking him, but against Germany, the country itself.   Yes, I can truly see now that the reason America was fighting against Nazi Germany was not to overthrow Hitler and liberate Europe, but to Impose a New World Order! Precisely!

Great to realize it now, than ever. That's why we must look at propaganda with a critical eye.

QUOTE

Maybe it was the same with Romania.

Maybe? :shock: :!: Of course!

QUOTE

..and the Krimean schild awarded by Mannstein himself...to Antonescu in 1943...

Antonescu's Crimeea Shield was gold plated.

[mars]

Geto-Dacul, could you find a copy of David Glanz's "From the Dnepr to the Vistula", then you would find out, the Germany-Romanian front at Yassy-Kishinev was broken on Aug 22, and on Aug 23, the Germany-Romanian army began collaps, then at night of Aug23-24, the coup began.
Otherewise, Romanian king would not order the coup if he saw any hope to check Soviet at the border, he was not a "communist agent" , do you agree ?

[Geto-Dacul]

mars wrote :

QUOTE

Geto-Dacul, could you find a copy of David Glanz's \"From the Dnepr to the Vistula\", then you would find out, the Germany-Romanian front at Yassy-Kishinev was broken on Aug 22, and on Aug 23, the Germany-Romanian army began collaps, then at night of Aug23-24, the coup began.

I am actually reading a more interesting book... Sublieutnant Ion.S.Dumitru's "Tancuri in Flacari" (tanks in flames). The author is a veteran from WWII, who participated in those battles part of 1st Armored Division "Greater Romania". The 3rd and 4th Romanian Armies were retreating south on 23 August, but the German 6th Army was trapped and was risking to be encircled like at Stalingrad. Antonescu was arrested at 17:00PM on 23 August.

QUOTE

Otherewise, Romanian king would not order the coup if he saw any hope to check Soviet at the border, he was not a \"communist agent\" , do you agree ?

The king had no idea of the true military situation or of the possibilities of the Romanian Army. Same thing for his "advisors". The coup was organized from pure opportunism, masked behind "national salvation". Moscony-Styrcea (one of the authors) was hating Antonescu. General Aldea too, and Sanatescu betrayed an old friend. The king was not a communist agent, but he collaborated with communist and Soviet spies and agents. He did not receive the Soviet "Pobeda" for nothing! :wink:

[mars]

I still suggest you to find a copy David Glantz's book, you can totally skip his text comments, just read the day-by-day operational map, human had bias, but map always tells the truth, then you would have a clear picture what REALLY happened at front between Aug 22-23. and by the way, please correct me if I am wrong, both Russian and German source suggested the 1st Armored Division "Greater Romania" barely fired a shot.

[Geto-Dacul]

mars wrote :

QUOTE

still suggest you to find a copy David Glantz's book, you can totally skip his text comments, just read the day-by-day operational map, human had bias, but map always tells the truth, then you would have a clear picture what REALLY happened at front between Aug 22-23.

Please, mars! You want to justify the king's action? I have tens of Romanian books, and I know what happened. Dumitru has a lot of great maps with all his operations and adventures. His book is very detailed, remembering events and places extremely accuretly. In that way, you can see what was the opinion of a lower rank officer. Dumitru was awarded the Order of Michael the Brave IIIrd Class with swords.

QUOTE

and by the way, please correct me if I am wrong, both Russian and German source suggested the 1st Armored Division \"Greater Romania\" barely fired a shot.

Foreigners are generalizing pretty much. The Romanian 4th Army abadonned much of its positions on 20-21 August because of the heavy Soviet bombardment. During that time, the 1st Armored Division (leaded by General Korne) was engaged in a counter-strike in the northern sector of the front, having to fight against medium and heavy Soviet tanks. They even encountered IS-2s. The Romanians lost 20 tanks, but caused to the Soviets three times more losses. But the division was on the point to be encircled, so it reatreated on 21 August, continuing to fight.

[mars]

please, Geto-Dacul, just like I said, just try to find a copy of Glantz's book, and read the day-by-day operation map, which marked the daily position of soviet, Germany and Romanian unit, detailed to division. after you read these map, if you still insist the front situation on August 23 was not a hopless disaster.
Yes, I was kind of justify Romanian king's decision, and I insist that he would never order this coup if he had not received the bad news from front, and if there was any hope to check russian at border, this coup would never happen.

[C-2]

Guys ,if you want answers to your qustions ,try to ask some veterans who fought those days.
There are still a lot of them(but not for long,since they are not getting free drugs for quiet a time).
Their evidens is better than all the books you read.
The vets I talked with,and they are many, said the situation was hopless and total chaos.
I'ts possible you'll find other opinions ....

[Geto-Dacul]

mars wrote :

QUOTE

after you read these map, if you still insist the front situation on August 23 was not a hopless disaster.

Of course that the Soviets managed to break the front... In the night of 22-23 August, marshal Antonescu said : "The front's situation is not catastrophic, but it can be."

As we discussed in other topics, the Romanian Army of 1944 was not that of 1941, or that of Stalingrad. Moral was higher because it was defending the country itself.
http://worldwar2.ro/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1171#1171
http://worldwar2.ro/forum/viewtopic.php?t=96

The 23 August coup precipitated everything, because the Army was ordered to stop hostilities, which was meaning to surrender, to capitulate in face of a merciless enemy. After 23 August, the disaster was imminent because everyone was searching to go as fast as possible to the south, because they had no more the right to fight the Soviets.

QUOTE

Yes, I was kind of justify Romanian king's decision, and I insist that he would never order this coup if he had not received the bad news from front, and if there was any hope to check russian at border, this coup would never happen.

Of course that the king hadn't the courage to do it when Romania and Germany were on strong positions... But that's not diminishing his engagement and faults in opening the doors to the invader, without conditions. Even if there was hope to "check" the Russians, the king would have done it, because the moment was favorable since nearly the entire army was on the front, and the Germans were too "assured" with Antonescu. The king simply did it to take personally the power, as Gheorghe Bratianu suggested in his memories (BTW, I'll cited if necessary).

[Geto-Dacul]

C-2 wrote :

QUOTE

The vets I talked with,and they are many, said the situation was hopless and total chaos.

Depends when... After 23 August, it is for sure that the Eastern Front's situation was chaotic since everybody was trying desperatly to escape Russian gulag...

[mars]

Geto-Dacul, if you read the day-by-day operation map, you would find out the Soviet broke the front on Aug 21, the next Aug 22, the whole Germany-Romanian force started COLLAPS, and on Aug 23, Russian almost finished ENCIRCLING the Germany-Romanian force, so please read the map, and then give any counter-opnion.
Otherwise, do you think the Romania king was kind of "Moscow agent", don't you think he knew the consequence to allow Russian enter his country ? Again my humble opnion is that he would not order the coup if he had any other choice,

[mars]

"Of course that the king hadn't the courage to do it when Romania and Germany were on strong positions... But that's not diminishing his engagement and faults in opening the doors to the invader, without conditions. Even if there was hope to "check" the Russians, the king would have done it, because the moment was favorable since nearly the entire army was on the front, and the Germans were too "assured" with Antonescu. The king simply did it to take personally the power, as Gheorghe Bratianu suggested in his memories (BTW, I'll cited if necessary)."

come on, the best option for Romanian in 1944 was to check Russian at east long enough until western ally arrive from the west, and I am pretty sure that Romanian king knew this option, unlese he worked for Moscow, I can see any reason he wanted stab on his own back by inviting Russian enter Romania.

[Geto-Dacul]

mars wrote :

QUOTE

come on, the best option for Romanian in 1944 was to check Russian at east long enough until western ally arrive from the west, and I am pretty sure that Romanian king knew this option, unlese he worked for Moscow, I can see any reason he wanted stab on his own back by inviting Russian enter Romania.

So the conclusion is that the king worked for Moscow! :wink:

BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ARMISTICE CONCLUDED BY THE KING OF 23 AUGUST! THE REAL "ARMISTICE" WAS SIGNED ON SEPTEMBER 12, 1944 AT MOSCOW!