Was Romania right to join the Axis?

[Florin]

Hi,

The Soviets occupied a fifth of prewar Romania on June 26th, 1940. There was no warning or declaration of war on their behalf. The previous status of Russian-Romanian relations could be considered as peaceful. Thus Romania cannot be blamed for trying to recuperate a teritory belonging to her since the 14th century.

However, there are delicate matters. Without the German and Italian support, Hungary would never be able to obtain a half of Transilvania on August 30, 1940. So in theory we were equally justified to start a war with any of the parties already involved in WWII, to recuperate a part of the country.

Exactly the same story as in World War I. In the long run, in WWI we chose the winners, but in the beginning the Allies did not helped us in any way, and we had to face alone about 40 divisions of Germans, Austro-Hungarians, Bulgarians. In August 1916 the Romanian fronts were twice as long as the French front, but the Romanian forces defending the lines were 10 times smaller than those of the Western Allies.

In September 1940 the Axis still posed as the obvious winner. Maybe you forgot, but Stalin made teritorial claims even after he obtained Bassarabia in June 1940. He wanted to advance to reach Siret, or even the Oriental Carpathians. Germany did not like the idea to see the Russians too close to Ploesti, so Hitler supported us and the status quo of September 1940. Before June 1941 Soviet Union was by far closer politicaly and economicaly to the Axis, than to Great Britain and the United States. So it was out of question to get help from Russia to recuperate Transilvania from Hungary. But the help from the Axis to recuperate Bassarabia was a realistic matter.

Another delicate matter... Should we continue to advance after reaching Nistru and liberating the part of the country invaded by the Russians? From a military point of view, it was the logical thing to do. Politically, we plunged into a mess. The Finnish guys aproached the matter better. It seems Stalin never forgot that Finland never exceeded her initial border.

Something even more delicate... The German leadership was divided about requesting Romanian military involvement. The OKW considered the Romanian Army, overall, unfit for battle. For political reasons, Hitler, Goering and others wanted us involved. Most convenient for Hitler was a Romanian-self request for military involvement. He told to Antonescu: If Romania will allow the free movement of the German troops toward East, and if she will offer her wheat crop and petroleum production, that will be enough for Romania to get back Bassarabia. Hitler made a bet on the Romanian pride, and he won. Antonescu answered that the Romanian Army cannot simply stay and look how somebody else liberate for her the Fatherland. Well, the rest you know it very well.

Last but not least... The guys who blamed Romania for her treason forget that the first military actions were initiated by the Germans. I am talking about the diving attack of the Stukas, in the night between 23 and 24 of August, 1944. The Romanian Royal Palace was damaged, and the National Theatre was wiped out. Well, I guess you know the Germans had nothing against our National Theatre. They just confused the building with the building of the Romanian Ministry of War.
In the morning of August 24th the Romanians were everywhere defending themselves from German and Hungarian attacks, and not the opposite.
Well, enough for today.
Regards,
Florin

[dragos]

QUOTE

The previous status of Russian-Romanian relations could be considered as peaceful

That's not quite right. The interwar relations between Romania and Soviet Union were tense, the Russians even made incursions over the Dniester during '20s. USSR official never recognized the union of Bessarabia with the body of motherland in 1918.

[Florin]

QUOTE

That's not quite right. The interwar relations between Romania and Soviet Union were tense, the Russians even made incursions over the Dniester during '20s. USSR official never recognized the union of Bessarabia with the body of motherland in 1918.

Hi Dragos,

I knew about the Tatar-Butnar incident in 1924. That was 16 years before 1940.
Only 4 years earlier, Nicolae Titulescu tried a policy to get closer to the Soviets. It seems eventually the Russians rejected the negotiations, thus Titulescu got the royal disgrace in Romania.
In 1936 the Russians took part to an aerial show in Romania (I think in Bucharest). That show was by far more important because there was exposed the "stabiloplan", after an idea of Filip Mihail. That was a very interesting airplane, but let's not derail from subject.

While in Romanian Army, I heard at a history lesson (by the way, Victor, my last rank in the Romanian Army was Junior Lieutenant - Reserve) that Take Ionescu rejected in 1918 a proposal of Lenin to recognize Bessarabia as Romanian province in exchange of a written promise that Romania will not attack the Soviets. At the advise of the Western Powers, we did not signed any agreement with Lenin. However, we did not attack USSR, exactly as required by Lenin. But we did not get his signature for the recognition of Bessarabia. It seems Finland (former Russian Imperial province, since 1812, when was taken from Sweden) got such a signature.

It would be interesting to see what economical exchanges were between Russia and Romania in those years... if any. In the 30's the Soviets were eager to gain technological know-how and manufacturing equipment, and they had no reasons to look toward Romania for that matter.
Regards,
Florin
:?

[mars]

Florin: the different fate of Romania and Finland in WWII was not just caused by Romania's more actively participant into German's cause, the more important reason for that was that Finland did not produce any oil and the romania's much more stragic important geographic location, I believe even Romania army did not participant any further battle at East Front after librate the Bessarabia, Romania still would not be allowed to withdraw from the war so easily as Finland

[Dénes]

QUOTE

Last but not least... The guys who blamed Romania for her treason forget  that the first military actions were initiated by the Germans. I am talking about the diving attack of the Stukas, in the night between 23 and 24 of August, 1944

That's not correct. The first German bombing attacks against key strategical points in Bucharest (by Ju 87Ds from I./SG 2 & Gr. 6 picaj and He 111Hs from I./KG4) happened on August 25, not 23, following Hitler's direct orders, thus two days after the Rumanians' unilateral defection from the Axis camp.

QUOTE

In the morning of August 24th the Romanians were everywhere defending themselves from German and Hungarian attacks, and not the opposite.

That's also not entirely correct. In the morning following the royal proclamation, nobody on the field knew exactly what to do. Clear orders did not arrive from Bucharest and there were incidents from both the Rumanian and German sides. Moreover, the Soviets continued with their rapid advance through Moldavia, making large number of Rumanian and German prisoners. Finally, the Hungarian Army did not attack Rumania on the 24th, although there were skirmishes on the Transylvanian border, "as usual"...

Dénes

[Geto-Dacul]

Florin wrote :

QUOTE

However, there are delicate matters. Without the German and Italian support, Hungary would never be able to obtain a half of Transilvania on August 30, 1940. So in theory we were equally justified to start a war with any of the parties already involved in WWII, to recuperate a part of the country.

The Vienna Diktat was a punishment against Romania, for the past errors of her irresponsible leaders, who didn't want to ally themselves with the most dynamic European nation in the 30's, who was Nazi Germany. If Romania would have got closer to Germany in the 30's, there would have not been any loss of Transylvania, or even of other territories.

QUOTE

Before June 1941 Soviet Union was by far closer politicaly and economicaly to the Axis, than to Great Britain and the United States.

That was maybe one of Germany's biggest errors... Ally temporarely with Russia to have peace in the East, in order to defeat the anemic Western powers... Hitler was even thinking to include USSR in the Tripartite Pact, just to have peace... A big error...

QUOTE

Politically, we plunged into a mess. The Finnish guys aproached the matter better. It seems Stalin never forgot that Finland never exceeded her initial border.

The only advantage of Finland was that she wasn't occupied by the Red Army. And Finland did occupy the Soviet part of Karelia in 1941, like we have done with Transnistria. But at the end of the war, Finland lost a lot of territories too, some of them additional to those included in the armistice (see the Petsamo débouché on the Arctic Ocean, which was taked by USSR in 1946, and some other strategic islands in the Finnish gulf). Why Finland finally got out of the war in a better situation than us??? Because she was not included in the Churchill-Roosevelt-Stalin affairs... The Western powers had interests there, like the other Scandinavian states.

QUOTE

Last but not least... The guys who blamed Romania for her treason forget that the first military actions were initiated by the Germans. I am talking about the diving attack of the Stukas, in the night between 23 and 24 of August, 1944. The Romanian Royal Palace was damaged, and the National Theatre was wiped out. Well, I guess you know the Germans had nothing against our National Theatre. They just confused the building with the building of the Romanian Ministry of War.

Well, do not exagerate! The Atheneum was damamed but not wiped out!!!!!! :shock:
The Germans goal was not to attack the Romanian Army, but to "impressionate" the treacherous camarila of the Royal Palace, with some 4 Stukas!!!

QUOTE

In the morning of August 24th the Romanians were everywhere defending themselves from German and Hungarian attacks, and not the opposite.

Everywhere??? Maybe in the Otopeni region, but only defending the newly instaured government in place... On the Eastern Front, there was no such thing... Both Germans and Romanians were dying or taken prisoners by the Soviet liberators. On 25th August, the king declared war on Germany.

[Geto-Dacul]

Florin wrote :

QUOTE

While in Romanian Army, I heard at a history lesson (by the way, Victor, my last rank in the Romanian Army was Junior Lieutenant - Reserve) that Take Ionescu rejected in 1918 a proposal of Lenin to recognize Bessarabia as Romanian province in exchange of a written promise that Romania will not attack the Soviets. At the advise of the Western Powers, we did not signed any agreement with Lenin. However, we did not attack USSR, exactly as required by Lenin.

Maybe that Take Ionescu didn't signed the paper because it was recognizing us Bessarabia against our national treasure which was held in Russia.

[Bernard Miclescu]

Romania and Finland. Both countries had quite the same problem with theit neighbor USSR. You already wrote about the way of continuing the war of those two countreis after regain of their teritory. Romanian army cross the "natural" border: Nistru (Dniestr river);

Regarding the eastern campaign, the Axis armies concentrated their strength mostly on the southern area of the front, entering thousands(?) Km in USSR.

My question is, do you think that if the strength of the axis attack was into the nothern area Finland wasn't obliged to pursue it's ally? May be not. Or maybe yes.

regards,
BM

[Florin]

Hi Fruntas,

About resources... The biggest nickel ore deposits and nickel mines of Europe were in Finland. Nickel is one of the basic ingredients of high quality steel, and nickel plating a way to protect steel from corrosion.

Alongside the Romanian output, the other much minor sources of oil for Germany were:
1. Natural petroleum (Hungary, Austria, Albania)
2. Synthetic petroleum, obtained in Germany since 1935

Before June 1941, Germany also enjoyed petroleum form Soviet Union.

Funny to observe: Germany lost both nickel from Finland and oil from Romania in August /early September 1944, but the German industry managed to supply the Wehrmacht for another 8 months.
Regards,
Florin

[Florin]

Mr Geto-Dacul inserted in his answer to me:
Well, do not exagerate! The Atheneum was damaged but not wiped out!!!!!! :shock:


Dear Geto-Dac,

I am talking about the building of the Romanian National Theatre, not the building of Atheneum.
But thank you for adding the damaging of Atheneum, which I forgot.

Did you live in Bucharest before leaving Romania? I did.
Regards,
Florin :!:

[Florin]

QUOTE

The Vienna Diktat was a punishment against Romania, for the past errors of her irresponsible leaders, who didn't want to ally themselves with the most dynamic European nation in the 30's, who was Nazi Germany. If Romania would have got closer to Germany in the 30's, there would have not been any loss of Transylvania, or even of other territories.

Hi,

I see nobody challenged the statement made by the Geto-Dac. So I have to do it myself... Why always me? With what should I start?
With: "the most dynamic European nation in the 30's, who was Nazi Germany".
Yes, the overall progress of Germany in only 6 years was very impressive, but you forget that:
1. Germany paid her World War I reparation during the Weimar Republic.
Hitler did not inherit any financial burden.
2. The economic crisis ended in 1933 for all countries, not only for Germany.
3. In many cases, people now employed got less income as wages than their previous unemployment help of the Weimar Republic (Like the workers who built the highways/autobahn.)
4. The Germany's teritorial expansion was a big "bluff" who worked because of the inept attitude of the French and British governments. The secret orders given to the German troops who invaded Rhenania in 1936 were to live the area at the slightest sign of any French military reaction. Which, as all of you know very well, did not happen.

Now, I know this hurts the Geto-Dac... But I consider Soviet Union the most dynamic state of the 30's. (Don't mention the peasants starving in Ukraine, or the millions in the Gulag, because I'll answer with the concentration camps functioning in Germany since 1933. I am not touching these matters.) Now I owe explanations...

Germany and United States had already a deep technological background in the beginning of the 30's. I am talking about scientists, engineers, manufacturing know-how, patents etc. Thus the technological background of the United States and Germany in 1940 it is not spectacular compared with 1930. Russia learnt in those years from the previous two. United States and Germany built whole manufacturing plants and sent their engineers to teach the Russians the technical know-how. Both United States and Germany gave equipment to the Russians. Some of these vehicles/things became the backbone in the development of future Soviet products. Russia made a technological leap equivalent of 50 years in 8...9 calendar years. They built factories, dams, electric power generating plants and whole cities with a speed not equaling with any other nation of the 30's.

If nobody else here pick up the sword to challenge the following, extracted from the paragraph I quote:
"The Vienna Diktat was a punishment against Romania, for the past errors of her irresponsible leaders, who didn't want to ally themselves with ........." , I'll do it myself next time.


Yes, I know I cut it, but "..........." I just finished to comment above.
Regards,
Florin



:!: :? :idea:

[Florin]

Please read "...to leave the area at the slightest sign..."

in stead of "...to live the area at the slightest sign..."

Florin

[dragos]

QUOTE

The Vienna Diktat was a punishment against Romania, for the past errors of her irresponsible leaders, who didn't want to ally themselves with the most dynamic European nation in the 30's, who was Nazi Germany. If Romania would have got closer to Germany in the 30's, there would have not been any loss of Transylvania, or even of other territories.

That's two hazardous to say. IMHO, the loss of Transylvania was a result of the dynamic of the European status at that very time. After Ribbentrop - Molotov pact was signed, the intentions of both Germany and USSR were clear: geopolitical conquest of Europe. After WW2 started, Stalin surveilled the evolution of the war in the West, and the "phony" war between Germany and France give him conviction that will follow a WW1 type of war in which Germany's and Allies' armies will be grinded, leaving USSR in advantage, and eventually ready to pick up the pray. However, the quick defeat of France in spring 1940 shattered his illusions. Then Stalin made first the move of intimidation, taking Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, the Viena Dictate being the Axis' response in this business.

[Florin]

QUOTE

The Vienna Diktat was a punishment against Romania, for the past errors of her irresponsible leaders, who didn't want to ally themselves with the most dynamic European nation in the 30's, who was Nazi Germany. If Romania would have got closer to Germany in the 30's, there would have not been any loss of Transylvania, or even of other territories.

Hi,

Dragos made some good points about the European situation as it was in 1940.
I have to make some additions.

I agree that the Vienna Diktat was a punishment against Romania. Hungary had a constant closer and friendlier pro-German policy in the years preceding the invasion of France in June 1940. When a country is a dictatorship with the same leader since 1920, and anything wrong there is blamed on the same reason - the loosing of Transilvania, it is not difficult to have a constant policy. When you are a democracy, as Romania was before 1938, and the only target you have is keeping the status-quo, it is much more confusing about what is the best to do.

I do not agree with what Geto-Dacul mentioned about the Romanian political class: "...for the past errors of her irresponsible leaders, who didn't want to ally themselves with the most dynamic European nation in the 30's, who was Nazi Germany. If Romania would have got closer to Germany in the 30's..."

Despite some disappointments in the relations with the Western Allies ( the border along Tisa river was not granted; they asked Romania to pay a part of the war debt of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, on the reason that Romania now has a part of it - Transilvania; they asked Romania to stop her counterattack against Bella Kuhn in 1919 at the border with Hungary - this last request, as you know, not obeyed), the set of treaties signed after WWI (Versailles, Trianon etc) established a Europe where the borders of states as Romania, Poland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia were guaranteed as they were on map.

For many people, different legal matters signed in the same place and period, as the guarantee of post WWI borders, paying financial war reparations by Germany, Austria, Hungary, imposing limits in the size of German army or completely forbid whole industries, like the military aeronautics, were considered altogether under the same name, as "Versailles Treaty" etc.

Generally speaking, Germany paid her debts, sometimes using tricks like deflating the Deuche Mark, and sometimes with industrial products, like the zeppelins for the US Army.
Before 1933, the rebuild of the German army followed
1. A legal way - in accordance with the treaties: "pocket battleships", the research for long range rockets, started in 1930, and so on.
2. A non-legal way, like the proving facilities built in Soviet Union to test airplanes and tanks - German stuff forbidden by the Allies after 1918

And here he comes... Hitler claims the Treaty of Versailles, and after WWI treaties in general, non legal pieces of paper.
Of course that was wonderful for Hungary. It didn't sound bad neither for Soviet Union, who by the way was a reliable friend of Germany since the 20's, and not August 1939 as many people know.
All Hungarian neighbours but one (Austria) had the borders guaranteed by treaties enforced by the Allies. Hungary claimed territories from all these neighbours - Romania, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia. The Hungarian option was simple and clear.

For Romania was obvious that the balance of power in the world is shifting. Her leaders, changed periodically before 1938 because of elections, tried to please everybody... just in case.
The negotiations for closer relations with USSR, in 1936, targeted the recognition of the Romanian possession of Bessarabia. The big bear did not take the bait.
Then Romania accepted in 1938 that her all export of petroleum to be directed toward Germany. But whatever German benevolence she may get this way, if any, it was blown-up when the same Romania allowed the traffic of the Polish gold, soldiers, airplanes and civilians through her territory.

To save Transilvania from what happened in 1940, Romania would have to follow a pro-German policy much closer than that of Hungary. Considering how close Hungary was to Germany, including her participation in the invading/partitioning of Czechoslovakia in the spring of 1939, something worse than that could only transform Romania into a international paria.
And France and Great Britain would have reasons to say: "Why we should continue to guarantee the Hungarian-Romanian border under a WWI agreement, when Romania is so close to Hitler, who does not accept now any WWI agreement?"

So I do not regard the inter-wars policy of Romania as "irresponsible". It is just same old problem with all people: they forget what you did for them, but they never forgive what you did against them.
Regards,
Florin

[Dénes]

QUOTE

Hungary had a constant closer and friendlier pro-German policy in the years preceding the invasion of France in June 1940. When a country is a dictatorship with the same leader since 1920(...)

Your statement is wrong. Hungary was definitely not a dictatorship. Vice-Admiral Horthy was Regent, i.e. appointed in lieu of the King. Moreover, Hungary had a vivid Parliament, who exercised actual power.
In the inter-war period Hungary and Rumania were thus in a similar position: both were democracies, while Hungary had a 'Regent', Rumania had a 'Rege' (King). :wink:

QUOTE

and anything wrong there is blamed on the same reason - the loosing of Transilvania after W.W. 1

Again, inaccurate. The Hungarian inter-war policy blamed the Treaty of Trianon as a whole, including huge territorial losses (Transylvania being just one sour point) as well as the crippling financial burden placed on the country by the Allies, lead by France.

QUOTE

Despite some disappointments in the relations with the Western Allies ( the border along Tisa river was not granted)

Why should that particular line be granted? In the secret trials prior to Rumania entering W.W. 1 by attacking Austro-Hungary (its de jure ally), there were 4 possible borderlines traced, that would represent the would-be 'Greater Rumania's Western borders. None of these 4 versions was even close to River Tisza.

QUOTE

they asked Romania to stop her counterattack against Bella Kuhn in 1919 at the border with Hungary

Again, what border? Rumanian troops crossed the actual Rumanian-Hungarian border in late November 1918.
By the way, the Hungarian Communist leader's name ws Béla Kun (born Kohn).

Dénes