Was Romania right to join the Axis?

[dragos]

Regarding the crossing of the official border with Hungary in November 1918, after the armistice with Germany and Hungary was signed, Romania respected the official border, the army stopping on the Mures line. The conflict was initiated by the Red Hungarian army, along the Mures and the Western Carpathians, concerted with a Soviet attack over Dniester.

About the situation on the Western front in 1940, at the begining of hostilities, the French army together with BEF (British Expeditionary Force) and the forces of Holland and Belgium, were supperior in manpower and equipment to Wehrmacht. The number of the Allied tanks was slightly higher and the French tanks were supperior to the German tanks of that time. Also the Allies had net suppremacy in artillery pieces. The airforces were equal in numbers, but indeed the French planes were obsolete. The French Navy was surpasing in all aspects the Kriegsmarine, but nobody expected to play a decisive role in the battle to follow. So it isn't obvious at all who would have won using that time at a reference point.

[Victor]

QUOTE

And what could France do to help us, if let's say, she was not attacked by Germany? (in the case that Romania received the ultimatums from SU, Hungary & Bulgaria)

First of all the SU, Hungary and Bulgaria did not issue an ultimatum until France fell and Britain was thrown out of the mainland. That should give you something to think about, doesn't it?

But for the sake of your what if argument, try to imagine what Germany could have done for us in June 1940, if we were allied with it. Absolutely nothing, because the majority of its forces were committed in the West.

[Geto-Dacul]

Geto-Dacul wrote :

QUOTE

Those were the \"famous\" parts of Hungary + the area around Satu Mare which wasn't part nor of Maramures, nor of Crisana.

Okay, I was wrong here. In the ATLAS GEOGRAFIC SI ISTORIC by General Teodorescu and Professor N.A.Constantinescu, Brasov, 1930 : At the pages 30-31, there's a map with the "historical regions" of Romania. In Crisana were included the counties of Salaj (Zalau), Bihor (Oradea) and Arad. In the Maramures region were included the counties of : Satu-Mare, and Maramures (Sighet).

Best regards,

Getu'

[Geto-Dacul]

Florin wrote :

QUOTE

In a situation like the one in May 1940, with the only exception that the German attack would fail for whatever reason (let say the success of the British counter-attack at Arras, combined with the success of the counter-attack of De Gaulle from the south), if Soviet Union or Hungary would dare to make ultimatums, I agree that France wouldn't do much, if anything.

Let's just say that Germany DO NOT ATTACKS France... (Because if Germany attacks France and looses the battle, than the Soviets would probably attack Germany and conquer Europe). And during the time that Germany does not attack France, our neighbours send us the ultimatums...! What would have happen with us? (Having our "strong" and "traditional" ally behind us)

QUOTE

If Germany would remain with the status she had during the Weimar republic, the alliances between Czechoslovakia-Yugoslavia-Romania, France-Czechoslovakia, France-Yugoslavia would still be in place. Poland and Finland would still be untouched independent states. In such a political situation, France may be we willing to do something - but I do not claim if she will do this in time, or with enough strength.

And the most dynamic country in the 30's, Bolshevik Russia? Don't you think that she could crush Central Europe?

QUOTE

And now about what you wrote in a message addressed to me. Yes, I believe you that United Kingdom and France were ready to betray us to Russia. But I will not believe you if you'll quote that was a long term situation, from 1920 to 1940. Maybe for a short moment - a conjunction. Many governments changed in United Kingdom and France in those years.

"In fact, Great-Britain was to consider, tipically, that Romania was virtually a political colony of France".

- David Britton Funderburk, Politica Marii Britanii fata de Romania (1938-1940), Ed. Stiintifica si Enciclopedica, Bucuresti, 1983, p. 45.

The guaranties of the Great Powers for the integrity of Greater Romania were conditionned by the obligation that Romania satisfy the strategic, politic and economic needs of the "Allies".

At the meeting of 17-21 June 1933 of the Hungarian prime-minister with Hitler, the fuhrer said that "the Hungarian revisionism could only count on German aid only against Czechoslovakia [...]"
See : - Ioan Chiper, Romania si Germania nazista, Ed. Elion, Bucuresti, 2000, p. 63.

Now, for the Romanian reader :

Negasind intelegere la Hitler, Ungaria a accelerat legaturile sale cu Italia, speculind interesul acesteia pentru Austria. Ungaria oferea Italiei sprijinul pentru dominatia acesteia asupra Austriei, sub formula refacerii Austro-Ungariei. Impotriva acestei actiuni, Hitler a ales Anschluss-ul, anexarea Austriei de catre Germania, fapt care impiedica pentru totdeauna refacerea pe vechile baze imperiale a dualismului austro-ungar. Lucrul asta nu s-a vazut la Bucuresti si nici nu avea cum sa fie vazut, deoarce ministrul de externe roman, Nicolae Titulescu, nu transmitea in tara toate informatiile pe care le obtinea, nu informa asupra tuturor intilnirilor diplomatice avute, uneori falsifica notele de convorbiri si comunica in Romania numai opiniile, viziunile si interpretarile sale personale. In plus, Romania avea in acea perioada un ministru de externe, acelasi Nicolae Titulescu, care traia in strainatate. Toate comunicatiile sale secrete cu Ministerul, Guvernul si regele sau treceau prin Viena si Budapesta, find interceptate de serviciile de informatii ungar si german chiar in clipa cind erau transmise. Si pentru ca dezastrul politicii externe romanesti, care ne-a dus la prabusirea teritoriala din 1940, sa primeasca o imagine mai clara, vom arata ca la 18 martie 1933, Titulescu i-a cerut lui Hitler o intrevedere secreta, ca Adolf Hitler i-a acordat-o imediat, deplasindu-se pentru asta la Munchen, dar Nicolae Titulescu nu s-a mai dus, punindu-l pe liderul Germaniei in cea mai penibila situatie. Cu toate acestea, si Hitler, si Goring au declarat din timp si de o maniera transanta lui Gheorghe Bratianu, ministrului de externe Comnen si lui Carol II personal ca Germania este pregatita sa garanteze frontierele Romaniei Mari in schimbul avantajelor economice. In plus, Germania se oferea sa participe masiv la inarmarea Romaniei cu echipament militar modern, astfel incit amenintarea ungara si chiar cea sovietica sa fie anulate sau serios diminuate, cel putin prin descurajare. Romania a raspuns public ca ramine fidela aliantei sale cu Franta. In aceste conditii, Berlinul a atras atentia Romaniei, inca din 1935, prin varul regelui Carol, printul Friedrich V. Von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen ca "Romania va pierde toate simpatiile in Germania; relatiile romano-polone vor primi o grea lovitura; in consecinta, Romania va deveni complet dependenta de Uniunea Sovietica, si ar fi o iluzie sa se creada in garantiile rusesti pentru granitele Romaniei; pentru nici o tara comunismul nu ar prezenta o mai mare amenintare decit pentru Romania invecinata cu Rusia Sovietica". Tot atunci, din motive pe care acum inca nu ni le putem explica, Nicolae Titulescu era denuntat ca agent de influenta sovietic. Faptul cel mai important este ca previziunea Germaniei din 1935 se va dovedi precisa in 1940.

STOENESCU, Alex-Mihai, ISTORIA LOVITURILOR DE STAT IN ROMANIA - Cele trei dictaturi (Vol. III), RAO, Bucuresti, 2002, p. 74-76.

The relation France - Romania was based after 1920 exclusively on the political factor, with absolutely nothing economic : France, the big friend and ally, didn't import or bough nothing from Romania. In those conditions, what were France's interests in Romania? In a telegram send at the end of the year 1930 by France's ambassador at Bucharest, Gabriel Puaux, to the permanent secretary of the Foreign Minister, Philippe Berthelot, the following program was proposed : "A unique ocasion is presenting to us, now when Romania passes by big financial crisis and has to borrow money. There are big capitals on the French market , from the entire world, who found there refuge because of the international crisis and do not find a placement. Romania, being in a hard situation, will not refuse any guarantee demanded by us for the money. We will be able to control the country's finances and block king Carol II, marching on the paths of Carol I, enroll Romania in the German economic system [...]"

- Gheorghe Sbarna, Parlamentul si politica externa a Romaniei (1919-1940), Ed. Sylvi, Bucuresti, 2000, p. 181.

QUOTE

But also before... Did you forget about the German colonial empire? And how Bismark unified Germany starting from Prussia?

This cannot be quoted as imperialism! Wake up! Mihai Viteazul did the same with Wallachia-Moldavia-Transylvania!!!!!!!!!! :roll:

QUOTE

So, about \"France had been a lot more imperialist than Germany\"... I am not convinced at all. But it is unbelievable how many of the Napoleon mistakes were repeated by Adolph in the next century. Bad point for Adolph: his armies never reached so far as the \"little Boney\" (Napoleon in the British comics), both in North Africa/Middle East and in the northern half of Russia.

Germany had very few colonies, and that for a very short time... Something in Tanzania, something in Papuasia, and a town in China... It was very symbolic... So I don't understand your point. I don't about Napoleon and Adolph, it is off-topic. France and England are for me more imperialist than Germany. Germany tried something in Europe and failed.

Regards,

Getu'

[Dénes]

QUOTE

Geto-Dacul wrote : QUOTE Those were the \"famous\" parts of Hungary + the area around Satu Mare which wasn't part nor of Maramures, nor of Crisana. Okay, I was wrong here.

As conclusion to this long running discussion (which should deserve a separate topic), I am glad we could settle several sensible issues with several forum members, related to the Rumanian Army's 1918-1919 campaign.

I am also satisfied that the discussion did not degenerate into name callings, etc., and meaningful information were exchanged to everyone's benefit.

Hopefully, the answers and solutions reached will now show up in our understanding of history, as well as any future writings.

Dénes

[Bernard Miclescu]

[quote="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[/quote]
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.

Mr Bernad,

from thel memoirs of RICA Georgescu Bucharest was bombed on 24th of august in the morning. I found the quote in the book of Nicollette Franck "La Roumanie dans l'engrenage" .

[Chandernagore]

[quote="Geto-Dacul"]

[quote]France and England are for me more imperialist than Germany. Germany tried something in Europe and failed.[/quote]

Wow , quite a loaded statement. Hey, Geto, care to elaborate on what was that "something" that Germany tried to achieve in Europe ?

I'm busy reading "Mein Kampf" (God, what a lousy, hard to read book) and I'm getting a good, first hand account of what the author was planning to "achieve".

We will have the utmost pleasure of comparing our respective views. I'm sure it could be very interesting.

[Bernard Miclescu]

[quote="Chandernagore"]

[quote]I'm busy reading "Mein Kampf" (God, what a lousy, hard to read book) and I'm getting a good, first hand account of what the author was planning to "achieve".[/quote]

Unfortunatly at that time no one took serios the "Mein Kampf". I found in France an edition of this book from 1934. In the "avant-propos" the editor advised the readers about the danger of the fresh "Fuhrer". Why so few saw the upgrowing danger?

Yours,
BM

[Chandernagore]

[quote="Bernard Miclescu] Why so few saw the upgrowing danger?[/quote]

Well the few that really counted where sick at the idea of going to war again. Daladier & Chamberlain where not completely blind but it was "appeasement" time. They knew about "mein kampf" and choosed to look in another direction. You can explain their attitude but you cannot excuse it. Shame on the western powers.

On the other hand I see that even today there are enough people around playing apologists for Nazi Germany. They have even less excuse than Daladier & Chamberlain.

Regards

[Geto-Dacul]

Chandernagore wrote :

QUOTE

Wow , quite a loaded statement. Hey, Geto, care to elaborate on what was that \"something\" that Germany tried to achieve in Europe ?

Germany tried to create a zone of influence in Europe... We all blame Germany to death for this, saying that the Germans extermined this one, and that one and blah blah blah...
In exchange, few people are protesting against old imperialist powers like G-B, who conquered and milked India and other colonies so much that the British Museum has better historical data and objects than any Indian museum.
Or look at France and her colonial empire, who employed blacks, Arabs and other mercenaries in her armies during WWI & WWII. In comparison with those guys, Germany is an angel. Germany never achieved ant real domination and never had any serious colonies. That's what I think of it. You can blame me of "Hitler lover" but that's not the case. I only search for the truth.

QUOTE

I'm busy reading \"Mein Kampf\" (God, what a lousy, hard to read book) and I'm getting a good, first hand account of what the author was planning to \"achieve\".

Mein Kampf is not hard to read for the guy who has a minimum of culture, just annoying in some chapters.

What do you think about those Allied statements?

"If we fight Germany again, give it the blow it deserves; wipe German manhood out and divide Germany between Britain and its allies. Let German women marry men of various nationalities and thus hinder pure Germans from growing up in the future."
"News Review" of 6 April 1939

"However this war ends, let us be sure that there is no longer a German nation."
Duff Cooper, speech in London, cited by the "Daily Mail," 8 March 1943.

"Germany is a nation of the insane. Were one to read one day in the paper that a natural catastrophe had destroyed the Germans, turning Germany into a Libyan desert, there would be a smile on every English and American face. After the war is over, one must cut the German claws, take away all their industry, establish a quarantine around Germany, and let the Germans stew for a generation in their own juices. No one in Britain or America needs to concern himself if they perish as a result. Whole nations have been exterminated in the past. What remains of the Aztecs, for example?"
William Barkley, parliamentary correspondent of the "Daily Express" on 9 February 1943 in the "Daily Express".

Need more?

Getu'

[Dénes]

QUOTE

What do you think about those Allied statements? (...)

You forgot the leading Soviet (thus Allied) propagandist of the Second World War, Ilya Ehrenburg's pamphlet, titled simply "Kill":
The Germans are not human beings. From now on the word German means to use the most terrible oath. From now on the word German strikes us to the quick. We shall not speak any more. We shall not get excited. We shall kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day ... If you cannot kill your German with a bullet, kill him with your bayonet. If there is calm on your part of the front, or if you are waiting for the fighting, kill a German in the meantime. If you leave a German alive, the German will hang a Russian and rape a Russian woman. If you kill one German, kill another -- there is nothing more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses. Do not count days, do not count kilometers. Count only the number of Germans killed by you. Kill the German -- that is your grandmother's request. Kill the German -- that is your child's prayer. Kill the German -- that is your motherland's loud request. Do not miss. Do not let through. Kill.

Dénes

[Geto-Dacul]

Yes, Dénes... Good job but I was only focusing on Western propaganda...

Thanks again,

G-D

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

Germany tried to create a zone of influence in Europe... We all blame Germany to death for this, saying that the Germans extermined this one, and that one and blah blah blah...

A "zone of influence" ? What a nice sanitized slang. Well, ask the Polish what they think of the German "zone of influence" or the Bielorussians for example. A society buid on f...g (and laughable if it was not dramatic) racial theories. I doubt that in case of success the zone of influence would have remained limited to Europe very long.

QUOTE

In exchange, few people are protesting against old imperialist powers like G-B, who conquered and milked India and other colonies so much that the British Museum has better historical data and objects than any Indian museum. Or look at France and her colonial empire, who employed blacks, Arabs and other mercenaries in her armies during WWI & WWII. In comparison with those guys, Germany is an angel.

I think you have two problems here. First everyone in GB/France recognizes today the colonial era for what it was. I don't know where you get the idea that "no one is protesting". The second is a problem of scale and means. You don't seem to get the big picture of Nazi global domination goals and what it entailed for "racially inferior" peoples and in the long term, for just about everybody (including Rumanians).

QUOTE

Germany never achieved ant real domination and never had any serious colonies.

Oh I see. The Nazi are ok because they failed. I'm not even sure that colonies have any sense in the Nazi terminology of geopolitics.

QUOTE

That's what I think of it. You can blame me of \"Hitler lover\" but that's not the case. I only search for the truth.

Geto, tss. Did I say that ? No, you're just the guy who tell us Nazi Germany was boldly up to building a enlightened sphere of influence in Europe not in any way worse than what France did.

QUOTE

Mein Kampf is not hard to read for the guy who has a minimum of culture, just annoying in some chapters.

Blimey. You don't need much culture to understand Mein Kampf. Remember that nazi thug, let me quote him : "When I hear the word 'culture' I'm drawing my revolver ?" B. von Schira

No, the difficulty (& annoyance) come from the lack of structure.

QUOTE

What do you think about those Allied statements? ... Need more?

You realize do you that all those statements where made during war time ? Come back with some western contemporary historian statement of the same kind. Spare us the on-spot emotive reactions of men engulfed into the hell of a world war. They have no weight and didn't have any when deciding post WWII Germany's fate.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

You forgot the leading Soviet (thus Allied) propagandist of the Second World War, Ilya Ehrenburg's pamphlet, titled simply \"Kill\":Dénes

Pretty disgusting but given what the Germans did in Russia you cannot expect anything better as morale boosting pep talk. Viszlát.

[Geto-Dacul]

Chandernagore wrote :

QUOTE

A \"zone of influence\" ? What a nice sanitized slang. Well, ask the Polish what they think of the German \"zone of influence\" or the Bielorussians for example. A society buid on f...g (and laughable if it was not dramatic) racial theories. I doubt that in case of success the zone of influence would have remained limited to Europe very long.

The Poles remained on the Allied side, and I don't know their history. I only know that what the Germans annexed Pomerania from Poland, and that territory was a mix of Germans and Poles. As for the Bielorussians, the Germans had no interests to exterminate them, when some of them enrolled in the SS. With your logic, every people non-German would have been exterminated during WW2. The Latvians were "Balto-Slavs" but they were not exterminated ; they fought along with the Germans against the Reds, and that in 1944. If the Nazis would have been so racist, why did the SS had battalions with blacks? Even Jews served in the Wehrmacht, so keep it down.

QUOTE

I think you have two problems here. First everyone in GB/France recognizes today the colonial era for what it was. I don't know where you get the idea that \"no one is protesting\".

Everyone? Everyone says that it's past and that's all. That doesn't mean that those countries do not purchase imperialist policies. Times have changed, and methods too.

QUOTE

You don't seem to get the big picture of Nazi global domination goals and what it entailed for \"racially inferior\" peoples and in the long term, for just about everybody (including Rumanians).

This is ridiculous. Please stop reading the war-time Pravda or New York Times and get back on Earth! Romanians were never saw as "racially inferior" by the Germans. In fact, Romania enjoyed very much independence via Germany during WW2.
In fact, any Great Power dreams of Global domination... I don't understand why do you point Germany exclusively, when even today wolrd powers such as the US have troops stationed in more than 100 countries.

QUOTE

Oh I see. The Nazi are ok because they failed. I'm not even sure that colonies have any sense in the Nazi terminology of geopolitics.

Some others hadn't failed so much and are not failing today.

QUOTE

Geto, tss. Did I say that ? No, you're just the guy who tell us Nazi Germany was boldly up to building a enlightened sphere of influence in Europe not in any way worse than what France did.

You said it indirectly in another post :

QUOTE

On the other hand I see that even today there are enough people around playing apologists for Nazi Germany. They have even less excuse than Daladier & Chamberlain.

QUOTE

No, the difficulty (& annoyance) come from the lack of structure.

Maybe, but I didn't read it all.

QUOTE

You realize do you that all those statements where made during war time ? Come back with some western contemporary historian statement of the same kind. Spare us the on-spot emotive reactions of men engulfed into the hell of a world war. They have no weight and didn't have any when deciding post WWII Germany's fate.

Those men were saying that stuff from behind desks in Parliaments. They should have been responsible for their words. Again, you try to show me that the Brits were good and the Germans were devils.
Germany's post-WWII fate was "saved" by the Soviet menace, who demanded that the Allies re-organize Western Germany...

It is already off-topic.