Was Romania right to join the Axis?

[Geto-Dacul]

Florin wrote :

QUOTE

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.

Nobody cares about how Germany developped in the 30's to be a world power... It is actually off-topic... The point is what Romania should have done seing Germany as a powerful state in the region? Remaining with the anemic "traditional" allies? I don't think so. From this point of vue, the policy of the "carlist" governments was irresponsible and anti-national.

QUOTE

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...

Do not worry, it isn't hurting me! Indeed, communist Russia was very dynamic but a clear enemy state, always wanting to take us territories. So it couldn't be an ally!!! The only power who had no territorial claims on Romania was Germany (if we exclude the anemic France & G-.

I will still mention the peasant starving, with the territorial claims of SU. The early labor camps of Germany CANNOT be compared! They were reserved for communists and other anti-German minorities. Hitler was the product of democracy, unlike Lenin or Stalin!

Regards,

G-D

[Geto-Dacul]

dragos wrote :

QUOTE

After Ribbentrop - Molotov pact was signed, the intentions of both Germany and USSR were clear: geopolitical conquest of Europe.

I do not think that Hitler wanted any Soviet presence in Europe! Even if Hitler had a communist past!
The Ribbentrop-Molotov pact would have been fiction if Romania would have been allies with Germany in 1939! Maybe that only for Poland...

QUOTE

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.

I agree!

QUOTE

That's two hazardous to say.

So why is it hazardous?

Best regards,

Getu'

[Geto-Dacul]

I'm not yet finished with you! :wink:

Florin wrote :

QUOTE

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.

Dictatorship in the negative sense?! Only because Hungary taked us N.Transylvania for a while? The Hungarians could say the same about Antonescu's rule, and we will never finish it... I agree that Horthy was a great Hungarian patriot, and he did the Hungarian bussiness correctly for a good time. He was our enemy, but that does not mean that every dictator is an enemy! Democracies can be 100 times more perfidious and dangerous! :wink:

QUOTE

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.

It is not true that our frontiers were guaranteed... Actual investigations show us that France and England were ready to sacrifice Romania if the interests of those nations were endangered. France was ready to recognize Bessarabia as Soviet territory, and that in the 30's! I'll bring you sources if you are sceptic! Check Alex Mihai Stoenescu's "ISTORIA LOVITURILOR DE STAT VOLUMURILE 2-3". The author bullshits pretty much but has very interesting sources from the archives.

QUOTE

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.

So I was right when saying that Romania payed for her stupid, corrupted and irresponsible politicians of the 30's.

QUOTE

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.

Even if Titulescu was a good friend of the Soviet Jew Litvinov, that did not change Soviet policies!

QUOTE

To save Transilvania from what happened in 1940, Romania would have to follow a pro-German policy much closer than that of Hungary.

Romania had the oil & good wheat.

QUOTE

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?\"

Maybe that France & England would have lost a war against the Reich, having Romania earlier allied with it! The first thing that Hitler should have done was to attack USSR with all powers. And then attack the Western democracies.

Regards,

Getu'

[Florin]

Hi,

First of all, it is not fair that the Geto-Dac picked the first sentence of Dragos: "That's two hazardous to say", which actually targeted the quote of the Geto-Dac, and added it after the bulk of Dragos comment, to look as Dragos contradicts himself.

Now, this being said, I see I got some comments... Maybe I'll answer to them - who knows?

But before that, Mr. Denes and Mr. Geto-Dac should reach some agreement in between. Otherwise it is a big danger - to crush them one by one! :twisted:

Mr. Denes mentioned: "Hungary was definitely not a dictatorship...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."

Mr. Geto-Dac wrote: "Dictatorship in the negative sense?...Democracies can be 100 times more perfidious and dangerous!"

So, come on, gentlemen! First reach an agreement, sign a Steel Pact, establish an Axis, and then I'll see.
Regards,
Florin

[Geto-Dacul]

Florin wrote :

QUOTE

First of all, it is not fair that the Geto-Dac picked the first sentence of Dragos: \"That's two hazardous to say\", which actually targeted the quote of the Geto-Dac, and added it after the bulk of Dragos comment, to look as Dragos contradicts himself.

That was Dragos's conclusion! And he did not give an explanation, only a description of the major actions of the 1939-40 period in Europe...

QUOTE

Now, this being said, I see I got some comments... Maybe I'll answer to them - who knows?

Give the answer when you're ready, dear!

QUOTE

But before that, Mr. Denes and Mr. Geto-Dac should reach some agreement in between. Otherwise it is a big danger - to crush them one by one!

Hope you're only jocking!

Regards,

Getu'

[Florin]

Dear Mr. Denes,

Your answer to my post was a serious one, and you deserve the same.

QUOTE

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).

In my geographical Atlas printed in 1935 Hungary is stated as "Constitutional Kingdom. Kingdom with a Regent as head of state".
I believed you all the time. I was just curious to take a look in my Atlas.


As we know, a Parliament is not enough to make a democracy. But you mentioned: "a vivid Parliament, who exercised actual power". Well, I trust you... Why not? There is only one thing missing to convince me that Hungary was democratic between 1920 and 1940. How often the main figures in the government were changed? Like Mr. Chaki and Mr. Teleki?
If again I wrote wrong their name, like to Béla Kun before, it is because I am not going to spend hours for such checking unless what I am writing is for a newspaper or a printable book. But your phonetic corrections are always welcome.

QUOTE

and anything wrong there is blamed on the same reason - the loosing of Transilvania after W.W. 1 - statement made by Florin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 - statement made by Denes

I know we are just human beings, and myself I was not accurate and I was subjective, not only once. But Denes, you have to accept that Transilvania and her recuperation was the central obsession of the Hungarian leadership in those days. When my grandfather was in Zalau with his military unit, in 1938 or 1939, the Hungarians tried a deep intrusion in Transilvania. The situation was stabilized with the available Romanian troops on the border, before his battalion could arrive to help them.

QUOTE

Despite some disappointments in the relations with the Western Allies ( the border along Tisa river was not granted)-statement made by Florin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 - statement made by Denes

I do not attack the matter with the borders on paper, before WWI started for Romania. As far as I know, it seems the Romanian delegation at least tried to ask that during the negotiations after WWI.
Why? I don't know. Maybe because Hungary in that moment was de facto under Romanian occupation, with Budapest filled with Romanian soldiers? Well, I know this is not a justifiable reason.
Maybe because in the Middle Ages the North-Western border of Transilvania was on Tisza? This at least sound a little bit more justifiable.

QUOTE

they asked Romania to stop her counterattack against Bella Kuhn in 1919 at the border with Hungary - statement made by Florin -------------------------------------------------------------------------   Again, what border? Rumanian troops crossed the actual Rumanian-Hungarian border in late November 1918 - statement made by Denes

So, Denes, I can understand that for you the border between Romania and Hungary as part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, 1867-1916, reimposed in worse terms for Romania in May 1918 is the good one?
Well, Hungary ended alongside the losers in both world wars. This did not help her too much in imposing her case.
But here is by far a more important question: Do you consider that in the Middle Ages Transilvania was an indivisible part of Hungary, a simple province of her? You have my word that I'll not make any joke this time, and I'll answer seriously.
Regards,
Florin

[dragos]

QUOTE

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. ... So why is it hazardous?

Becuase I believe none can foresee such events unless he is a kind of Nostradamus. Do you have any proofs that support your idea? I believe in that context, no. I give you a counter-argument: what if Hiler did not express in the favour of an approach between Germany and Romania in orther to "play the game" for USSR, while he was betting on other hands.

[Geto-Dacul]

dragos wrote :

QUOTE

Becuase I believe none can foresee such events unless he is a kind of Nostradamus. Do you have any proofs that support your idea? I believe in that context, no. I give you a counter-argument: what if Hiler did not express in the favour of an approach between Germany and Romania in orther to \"play the game\" for USSR, while he was betting on other hands.

If? We're not talking of "if" here, but of the crude reality! Nobody had to be a Nostradamus to predict the disaster of 1940. And even more : There were a lot of realistic people in the Romanian society of the epoch who saw the danger and proposed an alliance with Germany... The best examples could be that of rightist leaders like Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, A.C.Cuza, Mihail Manoilescu, Octavian Goga or even Ion Antonescu. It was clear that Germany had a superior warfare by 1938.
Hitler hated USSR, but maybe prefered it to the Western Democracies (maybe because of his communist past).

Regards,

Getu'

[Victor]

QUOTE

If? We're not talking of \"if\" here, but of the crude reality! Nobody had to be a Nostradamus to predict the disaster of 1940.

Really? How many of the German generals expected to crush France in two months? I am not sure that even Manstein believed it. Much less the rest of the world.

[Geto-Dacul]

Maybe not in two months, but they espected to crush her pretty fast. Everything was even easier... France's tactics and much equipment were outdated, and moral was low. The German secret services worked hard to inform on the real situation of France. And they did their job...

[Bernard Miclescu]

Victor I think that G-D was talking abaut the "Romanian disaster of 1940"
The first blame of that "disaster" was the romanian policy. Strange but nothing changed since then in our "beloved" Romania.

BM

[inahurry]

Funny, for me Romania is still beloved (no "") even if I find most of its politicians, past or present, at least dubious, if not worse. "My country, right or wrong" applies in my case, though I hope the situation never gets so dire the end would justify the means. What I found most striking, but very impressive, is most of the public figures who went to prison (those I know something about) didn't hold grudge to the country itself and didn't use any chance they got to flee a country where years of their lives were stolen. While people who benefited a lot defected and spat on the country that assured them nice and cozy lives. A bit off the thread's initial topic, sorry.

[Victor]

QUOTE

Victor I think that G-D was talking abaut the \"Romanian disaster of 1940\" The first blame of that \"disaster\" was the romanian policy. Strange but nothing changed since then in our \"beloved\" Romania. BM

The Romanian disaster of 1940 is linked to the fall of France. No France, Romania is isolated and disaster strikes. But in April 1940, few in Romania believed that France will be beaten. Do not use hindsight, they did not have the benefit of knowing what will happen.

[dragos]

QUOTE

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.

The Allies granted the actual configuration of frontier in the convention signed on 4/17 august 1916 with Romania. However, the Treaty of Versailles estabilshed a different frontier, inconvenient to Romania and not in concordance with the Allied Convention of 1916. This happened because the Allied considered that Romania broke the Convention terms by her capitulation in face of Germany and the Treaty of Bucharest of 24 April/7 May 1918. It is important to know that King Ferdinand never promulgated this treaty and at the armistice at Compeigne on 11 November 1918, Germany itself renounced to this treaty. Even on these circumstances, in November 1918 Romanian Army stopped on the line of the Mures River, as the armistice with Hungary stipulated. Following the peoples' proclamation of Alba-Iulia, requesting the unification of Transylvanian territories inhabited by Romanians with Romania, and the armed conflict between Romanian and Hungarians armies at the borders (concomitantly with a Soviet attack over Dniester River), Romanian Army advanced in Transylvania and in May 1919 stopped on the Tisa River. Facing a dangerous situation, Bela Kun declared officially on 30 April 1919 that he recognize the pretentions of Romania, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. A new peace conference on 11 June 1919, in the absence of Romanian legation, communicated the new frontier, still inconvenient for Romania because it was leaving outside her territory localities with a majority of Romanians, summing about 200,000 ethnics. This was the frontier that was sealed by the Treaty of Trianon, on 4 June 1920.

[Geto-Dacul]

Victor wrote :

QUOTE

The Romanian disaster of 1940 is linked to the fall of France. No France, Romania is isolated and disaster strikes. But in April 1940, few in Romania believed that France will be beaten. Do not use hindsight, they did not have the benefit of knowing what will happen.

All my thesis here is build on the argument that Romania payed for the irresponsible and corrupt politicians. Why? Because they were irrealistic, and based the future of an entire country on the success of others. That shows how much independence we had in that period. And I cannot understand how others say worse about our alliance with Germany.

In 1940, when attacked, France had only one tank division... And the Germans had 10! The French aviation was eliminated in the first days of the war, because she was of poor quality and lower in number than the German one. Remember that George Bibescu, in a letter addressed (memoir) to the French government, he noted that there was a big gap between the airforce of France and that of the Reich.

The Romanian SSI was well aware of this, and Moruzov had contacts with the Germans.