No written agreement with Germany, No official papers

A written military convention between Germany and Romania before Barbarossa could be seen as impediment by Hitler, who wanted to keep secrecy on his plans and delayed informing Antonescu about his plans of invasion of USSR as long as possible. A written military convention without Antonescu knowing about Barbarossa would obviously mean difficulties in the future unfolding of operations.

Yup, those took part in the US-led "Enduring Freedom" coalition. Still, that was a Gov-to-Gov decision and Romanian officers were then sent to the US Central Command to negotiate the details. An agreement was then probably signed.

Romania also signed an agreement with the Afghan Government before it first sent troops there. (Just as Germany signed with Romania before sending its military mission in WWII).

@dragos: you want to say that it wasn't enough time... but Antonescu expressed his wish to collaborate with the Germans against USSR from november, when he signed the Tripartite Pact. So in the ten days remaining (12/22 june), it was time enough to also sign a secret treaty along the military papers that were agreed upon. I can find but one valid explanation, due to the fact that Germany was also reluctant to sign any military agreement with any ally - the assumed superiority of the Wehrmacht over the allied armies.
@Imperialist: nice parralel

Did you think much at it?

This post has been edited by MMM on March 14, 2009 05:13 pm

No, I want to say it was not in Hitler's favor to seek a written convention. Even if Antonescu was committed against Soviet Union, Hitler did not put his true intentions on table from day one. Even the military mission sent to Romania had a second secret goal than the one known by Romanian side. By June 1941 both sides were going along without a written military convention and there was only time for establishing the cooperation at Army High Command level (as pointed by Denes).

But the big and most burning issue here (the elphant in the room ) is the fact that when Romania signed the Tripartite Pact, Germany was already at war. The treaty clearly specifies that the states will "assist one another with all political, economic and military means".
Romania must have been aware that signing a treaty that clearly specifies "assistance" and "all military means" with a country that was at war at that time also meant military involvement in the war.
Radu

Being aware of war (which was NOT with SU at that time - mind that!) and quantifying in writing the contribution and relations are two different things!

Germany, Italy and Japan were the main players in the war - these were the three parties that the "Tripartite" thing is referring to. All three were heavily involved in operations in Asia, Africa and Europe at the time when Romania signed the Tripartite Treaty. Romania allied itself with the main perpetrators of the war and, somehow, expected to stay out of the war? How does that make sense? The treaty mentioned"assistance" as well as "all military means" and there was a war going on. What part of QED is so hard to accept here?

What you are saying is that your house is on fire, your neighbour has a hose that can be connected to the hydrant but you say to him, "No thanks, I do not want your water or hose to fight the fire, I just want you to sign this paper that says that you will help me only with political or economical aspects if I need them... Firefighting is not really needed now"

MMM, It is impossible for me to figure out why you want to separate the "Economical" and "Political" aspects from the "Military" in that treaty. No army can function without an "economy" that creates its weapons and generates the funds that the "political" "power that be" assigns to it in the budget. War is never purely "military". War has massive economic and political implications. Therefore, the purely "military" treaty that you seek may not exist.

The Tripartite Pact is possibly the strongest instrument that drew Romania into war. Saying that the Tripartite Pact is not a military treaty is impossible to understand.

Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on March 15, 2009 03:26 pm

Let me be clear (or die trying): never I've said or implied the Tripartite Pact wasn't comprising military aspects as well! I just complained about the lack of a document which could state he military relations existing between Romania and Germany, as well as quantifying the contributions needed on the military plan, as on the economic plan there were many "papers" signed throughout the four years of "partnership". Am I clear enough now?

The "document which could state the military relations existing between Romania and Germany" IS the Tripartite Pact. As you already agreed, the Tripartite Pact has a military aspect to it. When Romania signed it, it became allied with Germany, ERGO "the military relation between Romania and Germany", is that they were ALLIES!

"Quantifying the contributions needed on the military plan" IS NOT the subject of treaties, which tend to be mostly political instruments. Military strength is what quartermasters and chiefs of staff decide and it all depends on needs and abilities. Equipment was supplied by Germany to Romania based on contracts (which were paid for in full, with a receipt) or lease documentation that is available and often quoted in books. Troops were requested and assigned based on documents that are known and quoted in books. Joint operation plans existed, are known and were quoted in books. Denes pointed one out above in relation to Barbarossa. Germany is well known for their bureaucratic approach to everything. Such documents in relation to assignment of troops and operational matters exist, are known and are quoted in books. There is no single document that contains all the military exchanges between Romania and Germany because such exchanges were the subject of thousands if not tens of thousand of documents at all levels, including military, political and economical and kept changing as the demands placed on the respective armies changed.

Who else did Germany sign such a treaty with? Which treaty that Germany signed with any other nation describes, in the lavish and specific detail that you demand, the strength of the forces and the quantities/types of equipments?

Look, I told you before, I have a sneaking suspicion that this is what is usually referred to as "trolling" on other forums. So far, no answer satisfied you, even the answers the contradicted the previous ones. Please tell us what are you looking for:

- please define "treaty"
- please define "military treaty"
- please point out similar "military treaties" so that we can have a "yardstick" (etalon)

Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on March 15, 2009 04:18 pm

Antonescu and Hitler quantified the contribution and decided the relationship.

Their interaction was recorded (meeting minutes, memos, letters), their directives to their subordinates were recorded and the actions of their subordinates were also recorded. There is a paper trail.

If your theory is that the signing of extra agreements between allies for every military detail decided within the alliance is a must, then at least give some examples of that being the norm.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on March 15, 2009 05:33 pm

Before accusing me of trolling and other crap, read more carefully what I've written; then, try to look at the treaties and agreements signed by Romania beginning from 1916. AFTERWARDS, tell me why didn't we have something alike in 1940 or 1941!

Before you keep going in the same aimless direction, PLEASE answer the questions asked!

Did Germany sign a military treaty (in your understanding of the term) with anyone else? If so, with whom?

In as far as anyone with a modicum of sense is concerned, the document that gave Romania the status of military ally of the Third Axis was the Tripartite Pact. If that is "not what you are looking for", then at least do everyone a favour and explain what exactly you are looking for. Show us an example of a similar document (which you "define" so frustratingly vaguely and confusingly) signed by Germany with another nation.

Task for you: 1) Define "military treaty"! 2) Illustrate with an example!

Stop befuddling and confounding everyone with your cockamamey clueless flip floppery! What in the name of all is decent and fair are you talking about? In as far as I can see, in this case there is no such thing as a rubbish answer, just a rubbish question!

Radu

Radu and MMM,

You can disagree in a much less aggressive manner. This is not the first time you two are picking a fight. Let's try and make this the last time. I suppose you both are adults and can carry out a discussion in a calm an d civilzied manner. A web forum is a slighlty impersonal way of communication and it allows people to get more aggressive than they would in a normal face to face stiuation. In the past 7-8 or moderating (on a couple of forums) I have seen many people growing more and more aggressive in their arguments and eventually comming back to the forum only to fight or quitting. It's a path I wish none of our members should walk on, so let's try to keep our calm and discuss in a civilized manner. It's healthier, trust me. Thank you.

Regarding MMM's question, you should keep in mind that this idea is not his, but has surfaced in the post-1990 Romanian historiography and I think it even made its way into some alternative school books (to be verified).

The Tripartite Pact wasn't the "Holy Grail" of military treaties and by signing it Romania was trying to get some protection from the Soviet Union, not to join Germany and Italy's war against the UK. Romania, although a member of the Axis, did not join in the attack on Yugoslavia and only declared war to the UK by refusing the British ultimatum in late 1941. Japan and Bulgaria didn't fight against the Soviet Union until the Red Army attacked them, although both were part of the Tripartite Pact and Finland fought against the Soviet Union, with German troops on its territory without being a member of the Axis. The situation was much more complex.

Another question not asked yet (or maybe I have missed it) would be if Antonescu could have bagained for a military convetion in the style Ionel Bratianu did in 1916. Romania wasn't anymore in the situation of teh bride being courted by both sides, but in the situation of chosing from two evils threatening its existence and which were known to usually disregard treaties they signed.

This is entirely exact, Victor! I doubt that any schoolbook (manual şcolar?) would have such detailed references, but I'll try to ask around (after all, I'm a teacher of English ) about it.
The fact that both SU and Germany disregarded the treaties they signed does not mean that no country wanted to sign with them - and that was one of the things that many Romanian politicians blamed Antonescu (beginning with 1941 and ending with his execution in 1946).
The Tripartite Pact was (purposefully?) imprecise and left some maneuver room - as any other treaty closed by politicians, I presume - so that's why many historians (including my PHD attendant, prof. Ioan Ciupercă, Iaşi) still consider that Romania didn't have a signed agreement with Germany.
To end with a question: when did Romania signed the pact and whendid the first German soldier put his foot on Romanian soil? How about that?

The treaty is pretty precise.

ARTICLE 3. Japan, Germany, and Italy agree to cooperate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means if one of the Contracting Powers is attacked by a Power at present not involved in the European War or in the Japanese-Chinese conflict.

ARTICLE 4. With a view to implementing the present pact, joint technical commissions, to be appointed by the respective Governments of Japan, Germany and Italy, will meet without delay.

The existence of no extra military agreements may be correct. So what? That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. Your claim was that it's wrong, so you have to show that the signing of extra military agreements (you even said treaties) is a must when allies coordinate their actions or settle the details of their intra-alliance cooperation.