|Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
|WorldWar2.ro Forum > Western Front (1944-1945) > 23 August 1944|
|Posted by: Dénes August 24, 2005 03:06 am|
| The 61st anniversary of the royal coup d'état, when Rumania defected from the Axis camp and joined the Allies, was celebrated today in Bucharest by veterans and relatives.
|Posted by: Victor August 24, 2005 06:33 am|
|I passed yesterday by the Military Academy plateau where the ceremony was held. I saw 4 Mihai Viteazul Order cloaks, including Dicezare. There were around 50-60 veterans and probably a platoon of the 30th Guard Regiment. Couldn't stay though.|
|Posted by: Zayets August 24, 2005 07:02 am|
Where's the article?
|Posted by: Dénes August 24, 2005 11:48 am|
|Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu August 25, 2005 08:53 pm|
|How many veteran pilots besides Dicezare were there ? (I have a feeling Dan Stoian was not onoe of them )|
|Posted by: Zayets August 26, 2005 05:31 am|
|Wel,there's no article there anymore.Anyway,that's just details.|
|Posted by: Dénes August 26, 2005 11:25 am|
| Try to search the archives.
|Posted by: Zayets August 26, 2005 11:33 am|
| Here is the article : http://www.adevarulonline.ro/arhiva/2005/August/1189/148208/
|Posted by: sid guttridge August 26, 2005 11:56 am|
| Hi Denes,
I would suggest that Romania did not defect directly from the Axis camp to the Allied camp.
The "royal coup d'etat" resulted in Romania withdrawing from the Axis and the Germans being ordered out of Romania, not in a declaration of war.
The declaration of war followed the German refusal to evacuate the country and their attack by land and air on Bucharest the following day.
I would suggest that, although the "royal coup d'etat" and Romania's declaration of war on the Axis followed very closely upon one another, they were not one event.
|Posted by: Zayets August 26, 2005 12:05 pm|
| Well,apparently this is not such a big date of interest anymore for the masses.Even for the political class. At least the article suggested that way.
Denes,when Germans had big success in the Soviet Union they took hundreds of thousand of prisoners.They move many of them to the West,in factories,working for the German war machine. In 1945 when Russians entered Germany they met those poor guys,exhausted,yet alive and ahppy that finally Mother Russia won the war and now they are free. Mother Russia,or better put,Stalin throw them in gulag because they were considered defectors even if they fought Germany until they became POWs.Some of them were executed on the spot,yup, they defected according with Stalins idea.
Would you tell that to Di Cesare, Stoian, or whoever that they defected Axis in August 23rd? I wonder what they say.Especially given the fact that August 23rd is still a foggy period in Romanian's history.
I hope you will not take any offence by this.Is just a remark.
|Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu August 26, 2005 12:36 pm|
I heard some ww2 veterans saying something totally different to this, the act of 23rd August did not honor Romania by any means, we just did what we needed to do and that is all to it, I don't understand how someone can say it honored us (I am no nazi nor am I for germany winning the war - god forbid, but saying 23rd august honored us is wrong).
|Posted by: Zayets August 26, 2005 12:37 pm|
|Not our finest hour probably.But even if it was not honored us , definitely saved us.|
|Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu August 26, 2005 12:42 pm|
Yes I totaly agree, as I said in my previos post: "we just did what we needed to do" , it was in our interest to do it but not an honorable thing. Besides, it did not save us that much - probably the best thing that happend was that USSR gave back Transilvania to us thus punishing Hungary who continued to fight against them (remember what russian soldiers did to romanian civilian population after 23rd august 1944, how they acted like savage barbarians) but it is not sure we wouldn't have got it back anyway. But after the war ended we were treated just like Hungary or other eastern european countries, so what did it save exactly ?
|Posted by: Zayets August 26, 2005 12:54 pm|
Not quite exactly.Hungary was invaded immediately after Hitler found out that Horthy prepares to turn weapons against him. The same thing supposed to happen in Romania but Antonescu managed to convince Hitler that the situation was under control. Saying that Hungary continued to fight against USSR is like saying Austria and Czechoslovakia continued to fight against USSR.
What did it saved? Both parts. Romania would probably be reduced at what is today the regat and a small part of Dobrogea.Of course,this is pure speculation,but a very probable course of actions.
Of course the Russian soldiers behaved like savages.What would you expect? 12 milions deaths in your country , there's no more room for chivalry and fancy talks. I am not looking for any excuse ,especially for the Russian ones,but that what it was.My grandfather lived under the Germans and Russians alike and there's no doubt that he didn't felt comfortable under any of them.Or at last that was what he told me.Other grandfather was captured at Stalingrad.Came home early,1948 if I am not mistaken.Same for grandfather of my wife but he came in 50s I think.The other one died engaging the russians in Crimeea.The things are gone,live the day of today and remember the heroes.That was our cross to carry and we carried it proudly.
|Posted by: Dénes August 26, 2005 01:24 pm|
Defection doesn't necessarily imply declaration of war.
The act of defection from the Axis was contained in the royal proclamation, aired in the evening of August 23, 1944.
|Posted by: Dénes August 26, 2005 01:29 pm|
I wouldn't mix the act of voluntary defection of the state of Rumania with what Stalin had perceived of his former soldiers who involuntarily became POW.
They did not defect. The Rumanian Kingdom had defected. They just followed orders (and their King), as soldiers do.
The Rumanians who retraited with the German army, or flew out of the country, were the ones who actually defected.
|Posted by: Zayets August 26, 2005 01:36 pm|
As V.Molotov answered to Patrascanu's question why the conditions were so harsh when USSR already offeren Antonescu's regime way easier conditions in previous negociations : Antonescu represented Romanian people.You represent nobody here.
Kings proclamation was an unilateral act. There was no armistice signed in 23. The king refused to even warn the Army about these.Hence 130.000 romanian troops were made prisoners instantly since they received the order not to fight against the sovietics.Soviet soldiers were also puzzled.What to do now in front of teh Romanians.Since there was no armistice but just an order to cease fighting,Soviets took them prisoners.Armistice came in September 12 same year.
|Posted by: Dénes August 26, 2005 01:39 pm|
Hungary was already occupied militarily by the German since March 19, 1944. After October 15, the Germans replaced Horthy and his political entourage (along with many pro-Horthy, anti-German superior officers) with Szálasi and his henchmen, as well as pro-German officers, and introduced a strict military supervision of the Hungarian Army (Honvédség). However, the Honvédség did continue to fight against the Soviets as a separate entity until the bitter end; therefore, the comparison with the (non-existing) armies of Austria or Czechoslovakia (states which did not exist during WW2) is inappropriate.
|Posted by: Zayets August 26, 2005 01:51 pm|
Yup,Honvédség was just a puppet in that period under total German control.Should Germany took control of Romania above Antonescu's head same thing would happened in Romania.Fight untile the very end against the Sovietics.
|Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu August 26, 2005 02:25 pm|
Ohh.. but what about the other 18 milion USSR citizens killed by Stalin ?
My grandfather on my mother side was also captured at Stlaingrad, he later returned with TV
The point is: a decision was taken to reduce the dammage on our country, thus we got out of the Axis on 23rd August, but I again say - this is in no way an honorable thing, necesarry yes, but not honorable. My thoughts with all those who fought and died or suffered during ww2 (romanians, russians, germans, hungarians, americans, british), they were all human and all had feelings, I do agree that we should remember them no matter on what front and against whom they faught.
|Posted by: Zayets August 26, 2005 03:09 pm|
I am not counting here who killed more people.Is quite sick to do that actually. You release a whole pack of soldiers full of revenge feelings and you ask why did they rape,killed and destroyed? The winner takes it all.It was like that.Always.
|Posted by: mabadesc August 26, 2005 03:51 pm|
Yes, I think you do have to ask why, and not expect it to happen naturally. Armies have discipline that can and must be enforced with rules and punishment.
|Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu August 26, 2005 04:42 pm|
Did the british and french soldiers act the same against defeaetd germany ? Do you see any behaviour difference here ? Did romanians behave the same while advaning/retreating through russia ?
|Posted by: Imperialist August 26, 2005 04:44 pm|
Did the germans do to them what they did to the russians?
|Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu August 26, 2005 04:54 pm|
|You may like it or not, but the difference of mentality is clear. Russians knew very well that romanian troops behaved more then ok with local populations however they had orders after 23rd august to act like savage beasts and that's a fact.|
|Posted by: Imperialist August 26, 2005 05:03 pm|
Are you sure the romanians acted more than OK in Russia?
|Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu August 26, 2005 05:04 pm|
|What do you know about romanian military priests and doctors on the eastern front ?|
|Posted by: Zayets August 26, 2005 05:16 pm|
| Guys,chill down a bit.The difference between mentalities is more than obvious.We can discuss over and over about this and never reach any conclusion but the fact that the war of any kind sucks.One could not tell that Russian people are savages when their culture and achievements overhelms any culture in Central and Eastern Europe.You can't account them for being indoctrinated ore uneducated when this was the tactic from the very begining.
I am the last one to speak for the Russians.The ones knowing me in person have heard what I have to say about Soviet Union and their people.But lets not confuse tem with what Russia did on other grounds than war etc.
I am sure that British,German,you name it have had their worst hours in their history at a certain point and that can be proven but whats the point now? You can't bring back the dead from the tomb you know.
We are talking about August 23rd here,that simple.From Romanian perspective as much possible.
|Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu August 26, 2005 05:31 pm|
| Agree with this Zayets.
I already expressed my point of view that I see absolutelly no honor in switching sides at 23rd August '44 but I do agree it was something necesarry.
|Posted by: Victor August 29, 2005 06:15 am|
| Zayets, why do you consider the conditions offered to the pre-23 August government "way better" than those offered to the post-23 August government? As far as I can tell they were about the same.
As for the 130,000 POWs, there is no certainty that the Soviets would have respected any previously signed armistice. Stalin, when in a position of power, wouldn't hesitate to break any treaty to achieve his goal. One of them was to install Communism in Romania and the Royal Army had to be disbanded. The USSR also needed a lot of cheap labor force. Taking "POWs" (it is inappropriate IMO to describe them this way, as they weren't fighting anymore) was a way of solving some of these problems.
Immediately after 23 August 1944, there was a joint Romanian-Soviet commission for the release of POWs in Moldavia. Only the Romanian generals were released, while the rest of the men were quickly moved eastward that when the commission finally arrived in the places were the camps were supposed to be, there was no one there anymore and the Soviets claimed there were no POWs taken. Furthermore, it took many years for the Romanian POWs to be returned home even after Romania became a "brotherly" Communist republic.
D13-th_Mytzu, such generalizations (Russian soldiers=savage barbarians) aren't welcome on this forum, so refrain from making more of them in the future. While it is true that there were many illegalities committed by Soviet troops on Romanian soil, it doesn't mean that all Soviet soldiers behaved like this. Many of them were dying on the front in Transylvania while some were looting or raping. So putting all in the same bucket is insulting.
The idea that Romanians behaved like angels on USSR territory is just a myth. Romanian troops took part in anti-partisan fights (which I don't have to tell you what it meant), looted etc. Again, it doesn't mean that every single soldier did it, but they weren't all angels.
|Posted by: Zayets August 29, 2005 06:49 am|
| Hi Victor,
No,I am not considering anything.I am merely quote Patrascanu's remark when he found out the conditions.As for how harsh were both condition (post and after August 23rd) we can only judge based only on the post 23rd.Right? Because this is what we have.The rest were carefully and convenient covered by various parties.That doesn't means that historians could not get their hands on such evidences.
Then why do it?The latest one ,I mean? Lets put the weapons down,no!,worse!,let's put the weapons down,face West and fight whoever we find in that direction.Eastbound fellows will catch up anyway. The worst part is that this was an order.What was in the soul of every soldier we can only imagine.Therefore afirmations like Denes one makes only unjustice to the ones fighting on the Eastern Front.And then compared with Hungary or Bulgaria it becomes defection.It is a very convenient way to see the things.Therefore,until I will have proofs that this was the best thing (please note that today I accept this term) I will consider King Mihai I the only and most noteworthy defector in the WW2 on Romanians side. In fact,laughing at him,Stalin handed him the Pobeda order. Stalin was definitely a cruel man but even him could not stand defectors and traitors.I am reffering to King's Mihai I attitude toward Germany if you ask what I mean.
The last sentence I have heard it many times.Told by people being there.However,even the facts you have exposed can't make justice to the people forced to leave their weapons and being sent to labour camps.They went toward East to fight for what they thought is their right.They have to let the weapons for what they thought is wrong.Neverthless,they did it because it was an order.That (and many other things) show that the Army (even in those bad times) was not a "sat fara caini" . Defecting Romania is a myth. Too many people except Romanians defected that day if you catch my drift.
|Posted by: Imperialist August 29, 2005 08:13 am|
The USSR also had a somewhat similar behavior towards the Japanese POWs:
|Posted by: Iamandi August 29, 2005 08:25 am|
Last week i ask my friend - col. ® who was younger at that time, in Div. 1 Garda - about 23 August 1944. He knows with some time about this event. He, and others who make undercover missions. Was a known event, for some military, but was a secret action, so... Simply soldiers cannot be warned. Even much part of high ranks.
|Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu August 29, 2005 08:55 am|
| Ok Victor I will refrain from doing that (I agree it was wrong to generalize).
However I will have to ask you to refrain from twisting my words:
,it is not nice.
|Posted by: Zayets August 29, 2005 08:59 am|
| As always,August 23rd heated the discussion.I don't even find it a debate.What was wrong/good into it.What for facts do we know and speculate on "what if" scenarios.
What I find ironic in the whole thing is that the original poster launched the skunk ,leave the cave and now we throw on each other the smell of it.
|Posted by: dragos August 29, 2005 10:57 am|
Source: Revista de istorie militara, 5-6/1997, p22
Orignally posted http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=1007&st=15entry11674
|Posted by: Zayets August 29, 2005 11:22 am|
| Yes,this is just an "what if" scenario. Nobody's contesting author(s) merits.But , given the fact that nothing like these happened,what is writen in that scan is just a PURE SPECULATION (see my post above). Unless, I understood wrong what you meant by posting the scan,and you just offer another "what if".
What remains is the fact that the king ordered that Romanian soldiers should let down their weapons in front of the sovietics and not to shoot any bullet.Same Romanians that ,waiting for their "friends" , were shot around Ungheni and later taken prisoners.
You know what,the king judged himself afterall.Moraly he is destroyed even nowaday. He know that he was wrong then and no, being young (23 I guess) is no excuse. Younger people died in Tatra and in Budapest following his famous proclamation/order.
Want to continue?He went for personal glory,and gave no consideration for the people he sent along the Soviets .And that only for one Soviet and American medal. Heh!
This is what I am saying,I don't contest any "what if" , but too many came and say "that would happen if" , and "that would not happen if" . We really like to play games while we forget the facts.We were defeated.That simple.Why sacrifice another thousand of people when the outcome was the same?And no,you can't blame it on the fact that he didn't knew because he didn't even asked.As a proof,armistice was signed in 12 September fulfiling the whole treason.This is the only responsible (even if manipulated) for the disaster after August 23rd 1944.At least this is my oppinion and I stay behind it.
|Posted by: Imperialist August 29, 2005 11:34 am|
| The question about 23rd August is a question of image.
In June, the romanian leaders decide to avoid a confrontation with the USSR and cede Basarabia, in order to "save the romanian state".
At the end of August 1940 romanian leaders decide to cede Transylvania without a fight in order to maintain independence and avoid a war waged on Romanian soil. This disaster lead to Antonescu's coup.
Antonescu decides to join Hitler in the East in order to recover Basarabia. The war turns bad, the russians close in. In another attempt to "save the independence of the state" another coup, this time against Antonescu.
Romania was ready to "defend by attacking" when Germany launched the assault against the soviets, but when the defense of its own territory was at stake... well, "independence" had to be defended, at all costs of image, self-respect and morale. Both in June, August 1940, and 23rd August 1944.
Yes, this is just a short review, but IMO Romania's image in WWII is very bad. I dont think things could have turned out to be different or better, but when things will turn bad either way, principles have to be respected.
|Posted by: Zayets August 29, 2005 11:47 am|
So true,Carol II needed peace so he can care better of Lulu
Yes,this time Horthy was smarter and faster.He smells that Adolf would go East and embraced the nazi ideology.Now,who would you trust?Horthy or Antonescu (which was in deep doodoo with all Iron Guard all over the place). Hitler was by no mean idiot and definitely a better politician than Horthy and Antonescu.He knew that if he will give Norther Transylvania to Horthy , there will be no rise against Wermacht there since they were busy watching each other
So sad,but true! Without any treaty,but words (including a vague promise that Northern Transylvania will come back to Romania). At least one thing was sure,the teritories taken by Soviet Union were to be liberated.
Yup,like father ... same son. What would you expect?Wasn't Carol responsible for disolving the Parliament?Which led to Antonescu's coup?
What teritory?Where did Romanian Army had control when the famous proclamation came into action?They had to fight the Germans while being shot by the Russians.Cute!
As far as I know independece was gained in 1989,and even then,partialy.
|Posted by: Imperialist August 29, 2005 12:01 pm|
| Zayets, IMO Romania had a simple and principled way of behaving in WWII. The first power who wants to take a part of Romanian territory will be opposed with all of Romania's strength and will.
If it was Germany/Hungary, well, tough luck. Leave all considerations apart, Germany/Hungary acted aggressively - resist against it. If it was the USSR, same principle. If they were both, nothing to lose either, its complete war.
But, no. Our politicians/diplomats played 20 years between the wars, forging ententes, alliances, propping up leagues etc. It was a good diplomatic experience, no doubt. But when the moment of taking a hard, principled and clear decision came, the politicians ceded. Well, we cede this because that would make us join a stronger alliance (sounds very familiar even today).
edit -- a country that cedes territory that easy, makes territory a bargaining chip, not a matter of resolute principle
|Posted by: Dénes August 29, 2005 12:02 pm|
Since you apparently involved my name in this, let me ask you: which words of mine exactly do you think make injustice to the Rumanian soldiers fighting on the Eastern Front?
Bulgaria did defect the Axis camp on Sept. 10, 1944.
|Posted by: Zayets August 29, 2005 12:12 pm|
No,it was not "apparently". I did mention your name. Besides,I did not involved you,you involved yourself in this.
But to answer your question :
Note that you used "voluntary" word.Second part of your phrase is incoherent at best.
Hope this answer your question
PS : your quote
And Hungary,obviously didn't defected.Tough luck,Adolf found out that Horthy wanted to defect , lol!
PPS: why I did asked for the exact link of the article is because I wanted to see where it is writen the word "defected".Obviously,soldiers who fought there didn't thought that way.Neiter the article you quoted.
PPPS: August 23rd seen by a German soldier. So was the defection of the Romanian soldiers : http://www.punctecardinale.ro/aug_2004/aug_2004_7.html
|Posted by: Zayets August 29, 2005 12:19 pm|
Imperialist,I think it was the lack of principles that governed Romania's politics at that time.And I believe it was that what Mytzu tried to point out in "no honour" event. I can't say myself that because beside palace officers who never smelled the mud on the trenches,the rest of the Army acted in a more than honourable way.Instead of disbanding itself as the Russian Army in WW1,they followed the orders,as any disciplined Army in this world would do.
|Posted by: Dénes August 29, 2005 01:44 pm|
First , I suggest you to brush up your English before chastising others. FYI, in contrast to the Rumanian, in English 'apparently' is synonymous to 'obviously'.
From a neutral point of view, Rumania did defect the Axis camp on August 23, 1944. And it was a voluntary action, as opposite to involuntary. Of course, the circumstances in that particular period were quite difficult for Rumania, but the path chosen was done independently from the Germans (or Soviets).
No, it does not. But please don't bother attempting to further escalate this, as I won't be part of your game. So don't expect another exhaustive answer from me to any post that are not strictly related to the topic.
The fact is that Hungary did not defect the Axis camp. There is a historical explanation to this, available in any major history book on World War 2. Please feel free to check them out.
Expecting a historically accurate and unbiased approach to this controversial episode in 'Adevarul' daily is naïve, at best.
Instead of slinging mud, I suggest you to do some more reading, so next time you would not confuse Bulgaria with Croatia.
P.S. As for not replying to every post made, unfortunately I don't have the luxury of abundant free time as a few others here apparently do. However, I can assure you that I do visit this forum daily.
|Posted by: Zayets August 29, 2005 01:56 pm|
I could use some polishing to any language I speak,that is so true.Same can be said about your English.However , this is yet another detail which only contribute to drift the whole discussion.
May I kindly point to you that you came in and quote an article about Romania's defection in August 23rd 1944.Is for that I have asked you to point us to the right article.Now you blame Adevarul for your obvious subjective remarks.Which is ,once again, a very convenient way of exiting the discussion.
As for answering your fine remark that some have "abundant free time" you should not worry.In case you reffered to me,well,sadly,my vacation will be over soon.
Finally,I could also use some more reading,that is also true.But is obvious you need that too.
Have a good day.
|Posted by: Victor August 29, 2005 08:37 pm|
| Zayets, the terms offered by the Soviet Union at Stockholm to the Antonescu regime are well known today (see Romania in al doilea razboi mondial by Dinu Giurescu, ALL Istoric, 1999 for example). They aren't "covered up" by certain parties. Patrascanu on the other hand was not part of the pre-23 August diplomacy and wasn't exactly in a position to cast such judgments. You will find that they are equally unfortunate.
Regarding King Mihai I and your obvious bad opinion on him. You are definitely nor the first, nor the last one to bring up this line of thinking in a discussion on 23 August 1944. You claim King Mihai I was a traitor to Germany, yet it was Antonescu who brought Romania into the Tripartite Pact and who took the decision to attack the Soviet Union alongside Germany. How could King Mihai "betray" Germany when he had nothing to do with it? Furthermore, why is it a betrayal since Romania wasn't actually tied to Germany in the war against the SU by a signed treaty, only by Antonescu's word? One could very well bring up the argument that since Germany was unable to guarantee the Romanian frontiers (as it had agreed after the 2nd Vienna Award) Romania didn't owe allegiance to Germany anymore. Inter-state relations aren't modeled after personal relations, but according to interest. Romanian interests could no longer be secured by Nazi Germany.
You ask why did the King dismiss Antonescu and ordered the Romanian Army to cease fighting against the Allies and to fall back to Wallachia. The answer is more than obvious: on 23 August, Army Group South Ukraine was practically defeated by the offensive of the 2nd and 3rd Ukrainian Fronts.
You also seem to make a common confusion. The Romanian soldiers weren't ordered right away to engage German forces. They were given a chance to evacuate Romania. The declaration of war against the Axis came after the first Luftwaffe raid in Bucharest.
Your claims that the King went for "personal glory" are nothing more than "PURE SPECULATION" (using your own logic). I am curious as to how you will back this up with facts, not your obviously biased personal opinions. You have no way of knowing what the King felt, except if you or someone in your family was close to the royal family. You are also mistaken when implying that it was he who sent younger Romanians that himself to die off in the Tatra Mountains. Romania was compelled to take part in the fighting against the Axis by the Armistice treaty itself. Even if Antonescu would have signed the armistice, it would still have been part of it, because it was a sine qua non condition imposed by Stalin.
Another claim of yours, that the King is the "only responsible (even if manipulated) for the disaster after August 23rd 1944" is simply stunning. Even if simplifying facts to the extreme, I fail to see how someone with a good knowledge of the events and conditions of 1944 can come up with such a conclusion. Somehow the simple fact that Romania was defeated militarily on the Eastern Front is still unknown. The same the fact that Romania was already in the Soviet sphere of influence and that Stalin reserved a new Communist regime for it. This is not my opinion. These are well-documented facts. History usually make use of them, when available, not personal opinions.
|Posted by: Victor August 29, 2005 08:41 pm|
I am sorry if I misunderstood what you said, but the following:
(in reply to Imperialist)
led me to think that you considered Romanian soldiers to behaved "more than ok", which was not always the case. I may have misuderstood.
|Posted by: mabadesc August 29, 2005 09:11 pm|
| With regards to the 130.000 soldiers captured shortly after 23 August (mentioned in this thread a few times), the following letter posted below makes reference to them at least twice. It is the scan of a letter sent by General Mihail to Marshall Malinovsky, dated October 3, 1944.
Surprisingly, it results from this letter that those Romanian soldiers were not quickly transported to the Soviet Union, but, rather, as of October 3, 1944, they were still held in internment camps in Moldavia. It results that this was a well-known fact, at least to the Romanian General Headquarters, who protested about this as well as about the confiscation of Romanian artillery pieces.
Letters along the same lines were also written by General Avramescu and General Radescu on repeated occasions.
Source: National Archives, MAPN.
|Posted by: Zayets August 29, 2005 10:11 pm|
There are a lot of papers,books and documents covering this event. I have the greatest respect for Mr. Giurescu but I will not take everything on what he wrote in the book you mentioned.
You are ,by mistake , reffer to events on August 23rd when indeed , Patrascanu had nothing to negotiate.What to negotiate? Even the Russians had no idea what it will happen.But anyway,I was speaking about the terms established in Paris.
About King Mihai I. I do not have the worst oppinon on him.My grandfather really loved the guy and he would go anywhere if he was told to.But when always came the fact what was after 45 he stops speaking about him.I guess he was utterly dissapointed.I pointed out that if there is a defector,then this one must be the king and his henchmen,counselors etc.
Secondly,I didn't brought up the subject of a signed treaty with Germany because some will treat Antonescu's decision to fight along the Axis powers the equivalent of such a treaty.Which,by the way,is at least insane.Anyway,you are right,how would be a treason without a treaty? Tell that to Denes which considers that in fact that was happened back then.
As you see,I speak less about Antonescu,wether he was a traitor or not.Fact remains that he was the only one to pay in the aftermath of August 23rd "defection".Why,when the Eastern Front was going well for the Axis and Romania had back the Eastern territories,the king didn't stopped Antonescu as he did in 1944? I tell you why,because then he was not yet the Soviet puppet and because he had enough personal glory gave by Germans.Sold for a medal,Pobeda Order,that was the one,isn't it?
You said that Romanian interests could no longer be secured by Germany.That's true,but I ask you,wasn't the same case in 1940?Forget for a moment that Soviet Union and Germany signed the Ribentropp-Molotov treaty.Who secured Romania's interest then?Certainly not Germany.Yet,we gave Bassarabia,Herta,Bucovina,then Northern Transylvania and to complete the chaos,why not a big chunck from Dobrogea?Well,I had to admit,the last one was a bad idea from start but it added to the sentiments people had when all this news fell on them.
Yes, Army Group South Ukraine was defeated,hence my question,why not surrender?You said Germany could not secure our interests?Why not either surrender or fight to the bitter end?Why send,voluntarly,thousand of men to die after the defeat was a fact?Was that a crime?What did we gained?Northern Transylvania?That was already (vague) promised by Hitler when he found out Horthy prepares to defect (see ,they had a treaty,that's treason).What else?Social system?Bah,no question.Romania was already 100% under SU sphere of influence and everybody knew it.
Furthermore,that's what I am saying: Romanian soldiers heard the proclamation on the radio and they wondered: now what? The order is to cease fire against the Russians,but not to fight along the Germans.About the presumed chance to leave Romania that's simply ridiculous.You don't expect that the whole German machine would get out of country by night.As far as I know the raid against Bucharest came the next day.And what raid was that? A Stuka squadron bombarding most of the Royal Palace,wrongly identified Psot Palace and so on.
Victor,like you,I am biased toward my own logic if I can use such a term.I just enumerated some events and shown why I think that way. You are most probably right,king was not the only responsible but definitely the most responsible one.That sounds stunning for you,is alright,is just my oppinion and you are not forced to share it.When I said (if I said) the fact that he sent the younger people to die in the Tatra you know very well what I meant.Otherwise,next time I will write precisely what I want to say.I was,obviously(at least for me) ,saying that the youngs "sent"(a direct consequence of August 23rd) to die in Tatra.. Romania was compelled to take part in the fighting against Axis based on September 12th treaty,and NOT immediately after August 23rd.Probably Antonescu wouldn't sign that treaty preffering to shot himself.At least that's what historians say: he was not a bright mind in politics but definitely a man of honour.
Yes,usually history make use of well documented facts as you said.When available.So true.Our history is rewriten once again.Until everybody reach a common conclusion regarding this event,allow me to make use of my personal oppinion.One avantage you have is that you can freely dismiss it as it is a non historical document.
Have a good day
|Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu August 29, 2005 10:37 pm|
I do consider that romanian troops behaved more then ok, this does not BY ANY MEANS make them angels, I am sorry if it wasn't clear but I thought it is common sence. They "behaved more then ok" means: "given the situation (everything related to ww2, atrocities on eastern front, romania/basarabia) and the fact that romanian units WERE NOT ordered to pillage/kill/rape local population (if there was anything to pillage which I highly doubt) also given the fact that military priests and doctors WERE ordered to take care of the local population, I consider that romanians behaved more then ok."
So basicaly you can read what I said like: "given the conditions ... our troops behaved more then ok", which does not mean "our troops behaved like angels".
|Posted by: Dénes August 30, 2005 12:07 am|
Again, since you've referred to my name, I will answer this single point, leaving to the others to enlighten you on the other matters.
FYI, Rumania was part of the Axis Alliance. The treaty was signed on November 23, 1940. This was unilaterally disavowed with the royal proclamation of Aug. 23, 1944.
I never said the royal coup of August 23, 1944 was a treason, which is a rather biased term. It was perceived as such by most German soldiers, incl. the commanding officers, as well as Hitler (who, by the way, directly ordered the Luftwaffe to teach a lesson to the Rumanian King by bombing the Royal palace among other targets - the mentioned Stuka attack of August 24, 1944).
What I wrote was that Rumania defected the Axis camp, which is a neutral term.
As for the article published in the 'Adevarul' daily, which started this very thread, I did not translate it or quote it, as you insinuated.
I simply drew the forumites' attention to it, adding a short introduction for the non-initiated.
That was all.
|Posted by: Zayets August 30, 2005 05:36 am|
| Hi Denes,
That is very well known.
If you have the text of the treaty I would be most happy.And also it will be interesting which authority signed it.
That and "defection" led to my interpretation of "dezertare".Or it was not what you meant?Because if it was not,then please accept my appologies.See below that I am not talking out my ***. This is the dictionary I have:
I did not insinuated absolutely nothing.If that was your impression then I am terribly sorry.
|Posted by: Victor August 30, 2005 06:42 am|
| Zayets, it is your choice to believe whatever you want. It's a free country. But when you engage it a discussion on historical events, you need to take the facts into consideration, not your own opinions. We aren't talking about football. History isn't mythology (well, only if you don't approve with Lucian Boia's questionable theories).
The use of written sources is IMO indispensable to a serious discussion on history. There has been enough amateurism on the subject of 23 August and it's time to stop judging the events with the soul instead of the head. I am very curious as to why you choose to ignore the terms offered to Romania in Stockholm by Mrs. Kollontay, which are published in the book I mentioned (for example). Basically every information in that book is sourced, which is not something that can be said about your claims.
I did not misunderstand you. You yourself wrote:
This clearly refers to the conditions offered by the Soviet government in Stockholm in April 1944.
I know you didn't bring up the treaty with Germany. I was just explaining why I don't think of Mihai I as a traitor.
You ask rhetorically why King Mihai I didn't dismiss Antonescu in 1941-42, when things were going relatively well, probably in order to try to justify your opinion that he "was not a Soviet puppet and he had enough personal glory". I personally find it very hard to understand this logic. I also don't see any facts that you brought up to back this claim. The King stepped in when the situation was lost and Antonescu didn't seem to keen on requesting an armistice. Romania needed for a new government was clear as daylight in August 1944, which was not the case in 1941-42. Did it ever occur to you that he did what he thought was necessary for Romania?
You continuously bring up the tasteless cliché regarding the Pobeda Order. I wonder why those pseudo-historians (usually pro-Antonescu or pro-Iron Guard characters that fled to the West) don't also think that he did it for the US Legion of Merit. I think that I have to point out how insulting is to insinuate that a person with the wealth and education of a King can be motivated in his actions by such "shiny trinkets". Obviously you are welcome to back up this claim also.
The "Soviet puppets" you are searching for are called Petru Groza, Ana Pauker, Vasile Luca etc. These people have well documented ties with the Soviet Union, having spent quite a while there (some of them) during the war. They acted according to Moscow's wishes and steered Romania towards Communism. The King didn't appoint a Communist government on 23 August 1944. He appointed gen. Sanatescu and then gen. Radescu, none of which were "Soviet puppets".
You also ask why Romania didn't just surrender and why did it "voluntarily" send troops all the way to the Czech Republic. Here you are grossly twisting the facts or simply you don't know what happened. Romania did surrender (it sued for peace). After Antonescu was arrested, gen. Hansen and gen. Gerstenberg were announced that German forces are allowed to evacuate Wallachia unharmed. It was gen. Gerstenberg that afterwards talked on the phone with Hitler and said that he could take Bucharest and overthrow the government. What followed it is well known. Gerstenberg's small force ran into more numerous Romanian defenses and failed in its mission. Luftwaffe bombers attacked Bucharest. This obviously attracted the Romanian declaration of war. Obviously the Romanian General Staff also considered a German counter-coup and was prepare for it, but Romanian troops did not start to attack the Wehrmacht after it heard the radio announcement. In some places German forces retreated, in others they fought with the former Allies. Surely Romania didn't intend to leave the Soviets do all the fighting in Transylvania, just like it didn't want the Germans to do the same in Bessarabia in 1941, but the idea was to at least do the honorable thing and allow the Germans to leave the country if they could escape the Soviets. It wasn't "ridiculous" as you describe it. IIRC the time interval allowed for the Germans was 15 days, more than enough to evacuate the second line troops in Wallachia. I believe this explains why the fighting started on 24 August and not on 12 September.
Getting back to the "voluntarily" part, I see that I have to repeat myself. The participation alongside the Allies in the war against the Axis was included in the Armistice Treaty. It was an obligation imposed by the Soviet side and they made sure it was fulfilled. Gen. Mihail, the chief of the General Staff, didn't want to continue the war beyond the 1940 frontier and that is why he resigned after this frontier was surpassed. Romania eventually gained Northwestern Transylvania, which, btw, even if Hitler promised it to Antonescu during their last meeting (although I doubt there is a written record of this statement), he wasn't around in 1947 to actually do it. The frontiers were going to be decided by the Allies, not by Hitler.
Your claim that everybody knew we were 100% in the Soviet sphere of influence is false. Don't bring up the benefits of hindsight. We may know today what was already established in early 1944, but the people living then didn't. The general feeling was that the Western Allies wouldn't abandon Eastern Europe to Stalin. Even after Communism was firmly installed in Romania, the "Americans will come" myth survived. There are many protests forwarded by Romanian authorities to the Allied representatives (including Soviets) in 1944 aren't a sign of people who knew that they were already been assigned to the Soviet sphere of influence. The same are the [real] results of the elections, the resistance in the mountains. You, obviously, can bring up any proof that everybody knew.
There will never be a common consensus on all historical events. The idea is to get as much as the facts right and draw the conclusions as objectively as possible. A personal opinion, especially when it comes in contradiction with facts or omits some of them, is without value.
|Posted by: Victor August 30, 2005 06:43 am|
|Mabadesc, thank you for posting the documents. I do not have within my reach at this moment all of my bibliography due to the strengthening work on my house, so I was talking mostly from memory.|
|Posted by: Victor August 30, 2005 06:45 am|
The Treaty was a defensive Alliance. Romania and Germany were supposed to act together in case one of tehm were attacked. It did not mention the case in which Germany and Romania were aggressors themselves. You can find the text of the treaty in an older topic on the forum, posted by Curioso.
|Posted by: Zayets August 30, 2005 07:20 am|
| Hi Victor,
I see that you like to take out phrases out of their original context and use them as base for your oppinions.I talk about this:
My question to you is : when did Molotov negociate with Patrascanu,Groza and the like? Please don't twist my words. There's only one answer at this question: Paris treaty.And this is waaaaaay later than August 23rd.
I am no regalist yet you compare me (even if vaguely) with the legionars.That's ok.Is the first time I heard that about me.I guess I should hear them all.And you are right,I forgot about US Medal of Merit (which I believe I writen about it in one of my early post).I , sometimes, spare some time to write related to the subject.I am not judging the event with the soul.I can't have favorites.I was not born then,I have no friends in the royalist club,I have no friends in the Iron Guard group . The last thing I'd do is to judge with soul. I have exposed a succesion of facts here,so simple was that.
You said puppets were only Groza,Pauker etc.Then why the US said that Romanians have chosen for communism by themselves since they formed a communist government under the rule of king? And probably you will reply that he was influenced that way. I tell you what,was enough for the king to say,this is what happens and he will imediately gain popular support.No,he didn't.The fact is that August 23rd is just the begining.Things could be done totaly different immediately after that date.There is a word : never start something you can't finish.And usualy it is used when somebody screws up pretty bad the things.
About king's education neverthless,one can say many things.He had received lot of teachers.Whether he learned anything from them,is another story.I don't have to prove the fact that the king went for personal glory.What happened after is more than any proof.You say it is insulting,I say these are facts: he was the king of all Romanians.Where was he,what actions did he took when ,for example , Romanian officers who fought on the Eastern Front went to gulag or judged and shoot and their families forbidden to have a minimum pension.This is just a tiny example.I can give you thousands.
And I ask you again,because you said I am insulting the king: if he was not supposed to take care of these things then why interfere in the first place?As I said:never start ...
Yes , we should at least surrender and stop there.Was enough bad that we passed our borders leaded by Antonescu.
About the voluntarly act of troop supplying,yes,it was part of the Armistice,then again,who was there when the Armistice (September 12) was signed?Yep,same people the king brought to power.
You are telling me that Romanians (both camps) were not aware that they will not fall in Soviet sphere of influence?Then I pitty both and they deserve what they endured after.
However,there is this thing which bothers me.If they didn't knew that Romania will fall into Soviets hands,why signing the armistice?You know what happened.Russians were so surprised that they were whithin days in Bulgaria,ready to cross into Greece whenever they wanted because the biggest ally on the Eastern Front was ordered not to fight anymore.That shifted the whole balance of power toward Stalin.
Sorry for the long post again.I am enjoying my coffee and since the laptop was open ...
|Posted by: Zayets August 30, 2005 07:22 am|
Yes,I remember the thread.Romania was not mentioned in that treaty.Actually was a bit earlier for that to happen.
|Posted by: dragos August 30, 2005 08:26 am|
First, how an uncoditional surrender could have been better than the armistice with the Soviet Union?
"Why not ... fight to the bitter end? Why send,voluntarly,thousand of men to die after the defeat was a fact?". Fighting to the bitter end was not the same thing with sending men to die after defeat was a fact? And most probably with worse consequences. Are you promoting the useless slaughter commanded by the Nazis in the last days of the Third Reich, in the name of honor?
This is absolutely nonsense, and outrageous too.
|Posted by: Zayets August 30, 2005 08:38 am|
I am talking,obviously, about the negociators (before 23 and after) ,but you choose what you wanted , of course. Thanks for warning me for weighing with dual standards.
Now that I find outrageous.I see no point in bothering your quotes.
Yes,somebody mentioned earlier "honor". I can see that this is not top priority for you.We are different person,we don't have to agree one with each other.
|Posted by: Imperialist August 30, 2005 08:51 am|
First, how can you talk about the "useless slaughter" "commanded" by the Nazis in the last days of the war? Why useless, and why commanded by the Nazis? When the russians entered Germany proper can you even differentiate between germans fighting for their country and those fighting for the regime? How?
As for the first question, since when did the preoccupation with men's lives became such a political fetish during WWII? Werent men sent to die way beyond Basarabia's border, way towards Stalingrad? So sending men to fight and die outside the country's borders is acceptable, but for them to die in defense of the country itself is an unacceptable cost, with unacceptable consequences? So better change sides and fight over the borders in the opposite direction, while the country is garrisoned by yet another "ally"?
Sorry, this logic is detrimental to both honor, self-respect and morale of a nation, IMO. Sometimes a fight to the end is needed. The nation will not perish out of it.
Also the question today in 2005 AD, looking back at both WWII, 50 years of communism and the post-89 situation, one would ask -- so what exactly did 23rd August save?
|Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu August 30, 2005 09:11 am|
Lifes... considering what we have been through since comunism took over untill 1989 I would say we had no political advantage from that, however it was the only logical thing to do to spare the country unecesarry sufference and dammage.
Why do you think Finland also switched sides ?
|Posted by: Imperialist August 30, 2005 09:19 am|
Yes, I wonder what lives. The flower of the romanian intellectuality was certainly lost in the communist prisons.
|Posted by: dragos August 30, 2005 09:20 am|
Yes, it was not useless, they were fighting for the "final victory", right!
Well, if the children sent to perish may have believed in what they were told, I'm not so sure about the remaining veterans. Maybe they were tired of dying for the fatherland? Fed up with the lies? Trying to surrender to the Western Allies?
Well, the question was "why send,voluntarly,thousand of men to die after the defeat was a fact?". In 1944 the defeat was a fact.
|Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu August 30, 2005 09:24 am|
Imperialist that would have happened no matter what we did... We did save lives by switching sides (we also lost but not as much as we saved) and also we saved a lot of dammage to our country that would have happened if fighting untill the end.
After the war we saved nothing.
|Posted by: dragos August 30, 2005 09:31 am|
It's your opinion, but I'm convinced it's easier to say it than to do it yourself.
|Posted by: Imperialist August 30, 2005 09:37 am|
No, they were fighting, for the first time in 6 years, for their actual fatherland, not for Hitler's plans in the East, South or West.
Yes, defeat is always a fact. In 1940 too the defeat was a fact, so why risk firing a shot? Lets save the country (well, whats left of it anyways).
Dragos, I agree that in 1944 the situation was twice as bad as in 1940, because Romania's forces were spent thousands of miles away in a foreign land. But I'm not sure if that makes 1940 look twice as bad, or 1944 just bad. I'm not sure if we are right to blame 23rd August 1944 exclusively when it was only a follow up of the disastrous 1940 decision.
|Posted by: Imperialist August 30, 2005 09:42 am|
No, I would do it myself.
|Posted by: Zayets August 30, 2005 09:43 am|
| I perfectly understand that some of my affirmations stired the pot and I take the blame.If I offended anyone,then please accept my appologies.
But on the same time,please accept that everyone is entitled to an oppinion.Even if we quote the same sources we can reach totally different conclusions.That's about it.Contesting someone's oppinion is also part of the game as long as the dialog remains civilized.One of my affirmation ,wrong readed,probably wrong writen,was classified as outrageous.That's also allright,but isn't it against the forum rules?You know,that broad definition of name calling...
|Posted by: dragos August 30, 2005 10:19 am|
I hope it's not yet another case of persecutory complex. If I find your statement both nonsensical and outrageous, that does not mean I characterize you in any way, does it? Had I write "you always write nonsenses", you would have a valid point. Until then, I see no reason to make such a big fuss out of this.
|Posted by: Zayets August 30, 2005 10:33 am|
HIYW then.As the guys at Burger King say.So be it,you are always right.I don't make big fuss about it,it appears that you were somehow irritated by this.I do not have any persecutory complex as you ironicaly suggested.Besides,I thought that I was not clear.Seemed that it was not the case.Therefore,putting your words in my mouth,that yes, it is indeed outrageus and you should be ashamed.
|Posted by: dragos August 30, 2005 11:10 am|
Since I'm a bit puzzled, can you be more specific about which words did I put into your mouth?
|Posted by: Zayets August 30, 2005 11:17 am|
|Nevermind dragos.Is alright.I withdraw anything you don't like.Is cool.|
|Posted by: Victor August 30, 2005 05:37 pm|
| Zayets, I most certainly did not twist your words. You yourself wrote that in the post you made on Aug 26 2005, 03:36 PM (GMT + 2). Because it contained false information regarding the difference between the terms offered to Antonescu and those that the post-23 August governments obtained, I felt it was necessary to contradict you and present the truth. Otherwise some might have remained with the idea that after 23 August the Soviets got "way" (your choice of words) more than they offered to Antonescu.
First you dismissed the book I mentioned, without any real explanation.
Secondly, you divert attention to Patrascanu and the Peace Conference, when it is clear that this wasn't the issue.
And now you accuse me of taking phrases out of the original context, getting personal in lack of real proof to back up the initial statement.
It would be much easier to try to prove me wrong with actual evidence, a painful article in the treaty that was not included in the terms offered in Stockholm.
I didn't compare you to the Legionnaires. I simply mentioned the fact that many pro-Antonescu (which btw aren't Legionnaires) and pro-Iron Guard Romanians living in the west came up the idea of King Mihai I making the coup to secure his personal glory and get a shiny medal for it. This idea unfortunately propagated.
You say that the King should have finished what he started that day. What exactly would you like him to have done?
On 24 August, Romania returned to the status of a Constitutional Monarchy. The King wasn't an absolute monarch like Carol II was between 1938-40. He had certain attributes of power, but like in any supposed democratic state, the power was divided. He appointed two non-Communist prime ministers, which both were uncomfortable for the Soviets. Gen. Nicolae Radescu became so uncomfortable that the Romanian Communists needed to stage a "popular revolt" in February 1945 with the complicity of the Soviet Commission and Vishinsky had to come to Bucharest in person and force Radescu to step down. He then went along and forced King Mihai I to accept a new government led by Petru Groza. The King resisted initially and, according, to the diary of Constantin Radulescu-Motru, even intended to abdicate. Then came the incident in August 1945, when Mihai I asked Groza to resign, following the refusal of the Western Allies to recognize his government. The King entered the so-called Royal Strike on 21 August 1945 and it lasted until December 1945. Basically he refused to cooperate with Groza and his government and to sign and promulgate the laws. Obviously the government continued to function illegally, having the support of the Soviet Union. The strike ended in January 1946, after the US and British ambassadors said to the King that they would recognize the new government after two ministers from PNL and PNT will be named. Practically the Western Allies made it clear that they recognize the Soviet hold on Romania. Mihai I had lost his battle with the Groza government and the Soviet Union. Should I mention the massive rally on St. Michael's Day in 1945, which ended up with many arrests, beatings and even killings? It seems the people then had more respect for the King and didn't think he was seeking personal glory and the Pobeda Order. Should I also mention memos forwarded to Roosevelt by the King depicting the Soviet abuses taking place in the country? In 1946 most of the political opponents were eliminated and the Communists could rig the elections to win. The King was practically alone in 1947 and he was forced to abdicate. It should be noted that he stayed on until it was impossible to remain here. Even in December 1947, when many thought he would remain in Europe, he returned. He could have fled much earlier.
King Mihai I obviously tried to do more than search for glory. Ţhese are the facts.
Romania could not just surrender and stop there. It was under attack by its former Allies, which understandably didn't approve with the decision of the new government. What did you want Romanians to do? Just sit around and let the Germans get a hold on Bucharest and other strategic locations? Do you think that Romanians should have just let the Hungarian-German offensive take hold of Southern Transylvania? I fail to see how what you proposed could have been achieved in the given conditions.
Furthermore the desire to take back Northern Transylvania was pretty high among the troops and it had been this way since 1941. There weren't many people that disapproved with the fighting in Transylvania. Beyond the 1940 frontier is another thing, but at the time it was reached, there was already a signed Armistice. The fighting against the Axis was one of the not-negotionable conditions the Soviets proposed to Antonescu in early 1944, so blaming the post-23 August government for it is unfair. Finland got the same treatment in this respect. One could also argue that if we crossed the Dnister in 1941, we shouldn't complain if having to cross the western border in 1944.
I fail to see any logical connection between the two sentences of this if clause. The Armistice was signed with the Allies, because Romania was defeated. This is what happens when you lose a war and surrender. The fact that many didn't think that the Soviets will be allowed to impose their system in Romania or that they knew it was all doomed has no relevance to the signing of the Armistice. It was agreed upon and signed with all the Allied Powers, not the SU, although the Soviets were clearly in charge of the Allied Control Commission.
Of course Russians were surprised, because they didn't think that such an attempt would succeed. The coup didn't bring them only advantages, but also problems. Without it they could have "liberated" Romania and install directly a puppet-government like they did in Hungary or Poland. Even in case Antonescu would have sued for peace, he would have been much more easily to topple. Because of 23 August 1944, it took two years to create the Romanian Popular Republic.
Btw, I wouldn't go as far as to say that Romania's quitting changed the balance of power. The balance of power on the Eastern Front was already lost. See, for example, Operation Bagration in June-July 1944. It was just a matter of time.
|Posted by: dragos August 30, 2005 08:20 pm|
| A discussion on the implications of rejecting the Soviet ultimatum of 1940 has been moved here:
|Posted by: Zayets August 30, 2005 08:46 pm|
| Hi Victor,
Is late and I am not in the mood to answer your post.I will probably come tomorrow with an answer.Obviously,I do not share your oppinion and that's one thing you can't take from me.
As a side note,I did not dismissed the book you quoted. I am just saying that Mr. Giurescu is one of many having opinions about August 23rd.And other also wrote books. There is no consensus among those people,then is still foggy.You took one side,I took the other,what's so difficult in accepting that?Do you want me to quote any source I have?You know very well how many can we find,in the libraries and online.A lot of books appeared after 89 treating this subject.You make your oppinion,I'll make mine.
|Posted by: Victor August 31, 2005 06:51 am|
| The mentioned the Romania in al doilea razboi mondial by D. Giurescu as source for the conditions the Soviets offered in early 1944, so that you can compare them to the conditions of the Peace Treaty. These aren't the author's opinions, they are documented facts. There is a big difference.
You are free to believe whatever you want, if it makes you feel better, but the purpose of this forum is to exchange information, not to act as a sort of Hyde Park, where everybody can come and say what they want. We want a higher level of historical discussion than on other Romanian boards. So, when making a claim in here, you need to back it up with some published facts. Otherwise, expect to be contradicted if what you state is false.
|Posted by: Zayets August 31, 2005 07:55 am|
| Hi Victor,
I will read the WHOLE book now,just to have a base of further discussion.
|Posted by: mabadesc August 31, 2005 03:53 pm|
| Hi Victor,
I agree with most of your previous message - the long answer to Zayets, with one notable exception:
I don't believe the desire to take back N. Transylvania was high among the troops.
This does not impact your overall argument, but I think it should be noted.
|Posted by: Imperialist August 31, 2005 06:34 pm|
Wow, major statement. Whats the basis for this belief?
|Posted by: mabadesc August 31, 2005 07:10 pm|
At least initially – from August 23 to the end of September – Romanian soldiers were still clinging on to the “armistice” notion announced and were unenthusiastic, if not unwilling, to fight. Furthermore, they still regarded Soviets as a natural enemy and were concerned that they had to fight while their families had to endure Soviet troops passing through their villages. Finally, Romanian troops were left to fight without air support and anti-tank artillery while equal or larger Soviet Corps received both.
As a result, during that period, the number of self-inflicted wounds grew among Romanian soldiers. During assaults, battle groups would often start running away as soon as the enemy artillery began and sometimes could not be controlled by their superiors. Soldiers also developed the tendency not to use their infantry weapons and rely instead on their own artillery to inflict all the damage, until the enemy retreated. The rate of rifle and sub-machine gun losses was a major concern, as a result of them being thrown away by their owners.
Severe measures had to be taken, such as urgently revising military law to allow Martial Court procedures to be held just behind the front lines, as well as to allow Regimental Commanders or higher officers to order the execution of deserters, soldiers with self-inflicted wounds, and other such extreme offences.
This does not detract from the courage and ability of the Romanian Army, but rather underlines the desperate situation most people were in during those difficult times. Shortage of men and materiel, three years of constant fighting, the confusion of August 23rd with its false hopes of peace, unfair missions in comparison with the army’s potential, and the feeling that families left at home were unsafe with Soviet troops roaming through the country, all these facts contributed to a temporary but severe drop in the troops’ morale, which took a while to correct.
|Posted by: sid guttridge September 01, 2005 10:29 am|
| Hi Mabadesc,
Have you a source for those interesting propositions? Was it in RIM?
As I understand it, the Romanian divisions that fought in August-September were mostly training divisions, their field formations having largely been lost at Iasi-Chisinau. As a result their manpower was for the most part not fully trained and their equipment obsolescent and short. This would reasonably explain their limitations.
However, if their casualties are anything to go by, they were prepared to pay a high price during the fighting in Northern Transilvania. I don't detect any lack of motivation, just lack of experience, training and equipment. Mind you, I wouldn't be surprised if even motivation declined later in Hungary and Slovakia.
|Posted by: mabadesc September 01, 2005 02:36 pm|
You make an excellent point, Sid. Unfortunately, the lack of enthusiasm, so to speak, extended not only to training divisions but also to experienced divisions, such as the 9th Inf. Division.
With regards to my source, I am guiding myself by an exchange of official reports between Gen. Avramescu (CO, 4th Army), and Gen. Mihail (Chief of General Staff).
As I said, as a result of this initial lack of performance, a couple of decisions were made, such as:
1. All experienced officers left within the country without active responsibilities were sent to the front as an emergency measure.
2. Martial Court laws were changed to allow the expeditious judging and execution of desertors and self-mutilators just behind the front line.
3. Urgent need for transmission equipment, as commanders were much more prone to losing control of troops due to lack of communication devices.
I also underline that the situation was solved and the troops ended up fighting bravely, but as of October 1, 1944, the situation had not yet been solved.
|Posted by: sid guttridge September 02, 2005 12:51 pm|
| Hi Mabadesc,
Are you sure that 9th Infantry Division wasn't actually just 9th Training Infantry Division renamed?
|Posted by: mabadesc September 02, 2005 02:19 pm|
As far as I know, the 9th Inf. Division had been in charge of protecting the Black Sea Coast, south of the Danube. It was based in Constanta, and did not see combat during the August 20 - 23 Offensive. As a result, in September 1944 it was one of the very few remaining intact "regular" divisions.
I don't know whether it had been destroyed some years earlier during the war and replaced by its training division, but as of September it was certainly not considered a training division. It was also thought of as first rate in terms of instruction, experience, materiel, and troop composition.
|Posted by: Victor September 02, 2005 03:16 pm|
No, it was the regular unit, not its training shadow. That one had been disbanded at the beginning of September. Maj. gen. Costin Ionascu had under his command, during the clashes with the German garrisons in Dobruja, both the regular division and the training one.
|Posted by: sid guttridge September 02, 2005 04:35 pm|
| Hi Guys,
Yes, I checked as well.
If I am not mistaken, 9th infantry Division had been effectively annihilated at Stalingrad and rebuilt since, so I presume its condition was similar to that of the infantry divisions engaged at Iasi-Chisinau.
|Posted by: Zayets September 08, 2005 08:18 am|
| Victor,I have sent word home to bring my book (Giurescu) for a good read.However,reading this article today in Jurnalul National,I am ready to accept that was not only the king fault at what happened after August 23rd.Therefore I will accept your conclusion/interpretation for the time being.Seems that - was not that obvious for me - things were much more complicated/overloaded/fuzzier than I have thought.
Here's the link to the article,unfortunately for the non Romanian readers is only in Romanian : http://www.jurnalul.ro/articol_36041/discordiile_interne_ale_opozitiei_dupa_23_august_1944.html
I have to say that this is one of the best articles I have ever read.It exposed something I would never thought to investigate.I don't know who is the author but I would like to know what other things he have wrote before.
|Posted by: sid guttridge September 08, 2005 10:18 am|
| Hi Victor,
Is the Giurescu book the same as the one published in English by a US university in the East European Monographs series?
If so, I have never seen a worse edited book in my life. The English was poor, and the page numbers in the index didn't match the text. This seriously undermined the value of the work.
Also, there was a strange moment when the author seemed to intrude into the wider text with elements of his personal biography. Was Giurescu around in the war?
|Posted by: Victor September 08, 2005 10:42 am|
| I haven't seen the English version of the book, but I know that in 2000 it was indeed published in the US. Poor English is unfortunately very common in books translated by Romanians. The Romanian version is however very well edited and has many notes at the end of each chapter, indicating sources for most of the statements.
The only times I remember the author introduces his recollections about the war (he was a teenager then) is the 4 April 1944 aerial bombardment of Bucharest by the US 15th Air Force and an episode about Soviet POWs working on his parents estate as agricultural workers.
|Posted by: sid guttridge September 08, 2005 11:04 am|
| Hi Victor,
Given that it was published by a US university, the poor translation and editing must be put down wholly to the Americans.
I found it very strange that personal anecdote intruded into an otherwise academic work.
I would still recommend the book to English speakers because there is little else to compare with it in English, but the poor editing makes it unecessarily hard work.
|Posted by: Taz1 September 11, 2009 02:48 pm|
| Hy, can somebody teel me what was the quanity of material camptured by romanians from the german army, during the 23.08.44 events ? How many, trucks, canons,motorcycles etc ? Does anybody has some pictures whith material, vehicles captured or destroed during those fights ?
|Posted by: Taz1 January 07, 2013 11:55 am|
| In this articles it sed that element of the Vlasov army were in Ploiesti area after 23.08.1944 : http://www.art-emis.ro/istorie/1139-luptele-de-la-lipanesti-25-29-august-1944.html
Did somebody nows something about that ? I now that elements of the vlasov army were in Yugoslavia in the summer of 1944. Could be that this troops were transported by air from Belgrad alongside the brandemburg paratroopers in order to suport germans after 23.08.44 ?
|Posted by: guina January 07, 2013 01:23 pm|
| Well, russian forces in Yugoslavia were thouse of XV SS Cossack Cavalery Corps ,under Kononov,and they were not part of Vlasovs ROA,but Waffen SS.
The russians/ukraineans the author mentioned, could be HIWIs,which were present in many german units ( over 2 million of them ).
|Posted by: Petre July 18, 2014 07:00 pm|
| Sovinformbiuro (Soviet Bureau of public Informations)
20 - 31 august 1944, the troops of 2. and 3. Ukrainean Fronts took as prisoniers 208.600 enemyes, of wich 97.100 germans.
Among them were :
CO of 7.Corps - artil.gen. Hell,
CO of 30. Corps - lt.gen. Postel,
CO of 79. inf.Div. - lt.gen. Weinknecht,
CO of 9. inf.Div. - major.gen. Gebb,
CO of 302. inf.Div. - major.gen. von Bogen,
CO of 282. inf.Div. - major.gen. Frenking,
CO of 62. inf.Div. - major.gen. Тronnier,
Commander of Iaşi city - major.gen. Stingel,
CO of 106. inf.Div. - col. Rintenberg,
CO of 258. inf.Div - col. Hielscher,
CO of 76. inf.Div. - col. von Bissing,
CO of 1. Flak Div. - col. Simon,
CO of 1.Corps - corps gen. Radu Gheorghe,
Chief of staff 1.Corps - gen.brig. Dimitrescu,
Chief of artilery 7.Corps - brig.gen. Cozma Gheorghe,
Chief Supply 5.Corps - brig.gen. Borună(?) Gheorghe,
CO of 1. inf.Div. rom. brig.gen. Saidac Alexandru,
CO of 14. inf.Div. - brig.gen. Voicu,
CO of 13. inf.Div. - div.gen. Dimitriu,
CO of 1. Guard Div. - brig.gen. Opriş Ştefan,
CO of 110. inf.Div.(?) - div.gen. Stănescu Traian(?),
Deputy CO of 110. inf.Div.(?) - brig.gen. Spirea,
CO of 20.inf.Div. - brig.gen. Теоdorescu.
They were found killed in actions:
CO of 4.Corps – inf.gen. Мieth,
CO of 15. inf.Div. - major.gen. Sperl,
CO of 294. inf.Div. - major.gen. von Eichstädt,
CO of 384. inf.Div. - lt.gen. de Salengre-Drabbe,
CO of 306. inf.Div. - col. Blümke,
CO of 20. inf.Div. - col. Schell.
|Posted by: Dénes July 19, 2014 06:57 am|
| Petre, can you find from the Soviet side the details surrounding the death of Gen. Artur Phleps in Simand village, near Arad, on 21 Sept. 1944?
|Posted by: Taz1 August 10, 2014 07:05 pm|
| Some interesting phacts regarding the soviet advanse in Romania after 20.08.1944 and the problems encouter in the memoirs of a sovit sherman tank comander. The were may be some oportunits to couse serious losses to the soviet tank forces.
the chapters: A "Cocktail" for the Shermans
The Yakushkin Method
|Posted by: Petre October 08, 2016 12:48 pm|
|War diary, Maritime Warfare Command, Kriegsmarine.
(Selections from Kriegstagebuch (KTB) der Seekriegsleitung)
Volume : August 1944
23 Aug. 1944
… A manifesto of the romanian King was published by the radio station Bukarest at 22.30 with following contents:
"The Romanian Government accepted the armistice offered by Russia and the Allied Nations. A new government was formed which received instructions to cease at once war-acts with Russia and to end the state of war with the Allied Nations. Romania, received with confidence the armies of the Allied Nations. The Allied Nations guranteed the independency of Romania and the non-intervention in interior affairs of Romania. They further acknowledged the injustice of the Vienna umpire's decision.
Romanians will cross the frontier at the side of the Allied Nations and will free Northern Transylvania. Dictatorship is over. Everybody who resists the free resolutions of the Romanian Government is an enemy of Romania and must be annihilated."
According to a British broadcast a new Government of the national union was formed under gen. Sanatescu. The leader of the peasants Maniu is believed to be a member of the new cabinet.
To inquiry the Naval Liaison Staff Bukarest reports by telephone that Romanian troops received order not to attack Ge. units stationed in Romania.
This treason of the Romanian ally is the obvious result of the collapse of the northern Romanian front. Our total war situation received through this a new heavy load. The step of Romania will presumably influence also the attitude of Bulgaria. It is obvious what the loss of the oil supplies from Romania means. About 27% of the total german consumption was procured from this country according to the latest report on the situation.
24 Aug. 1944
Army Group Southern Ukraine (Heeresgruppe Süd-Ukraine) :
The enemy advanced from the area of Tiraspol to the south up to the Cunduc Lake and thereby surrounded the III. Romanian Corps (?). Further to the west he is advancing in direction to Galatz and to the lower Pruth. Also from the area of Jassy he advanced far to the south and arrived with tank spearheads near Barlad.
The northern wing of 6th Ge. Army received orders to break through to the southwest.
The Ge. Forces near Roman were engaged in heavy defense fighting and were withdrawn to the western bank of the Moldova.
Special Items :
1. In the fore-ground is placed the situation caused by the desertion of Romania.
Also the late liberal leader Bratianu is a member of the new formed cabinet in Bukarest according to foreign reports. Members of four parties formed the cabinet and that by national-liberals, members of the peasant party, communists and social-democrats.
02.15 Operations Staff, OKW Quartermaster Division issued the following directions :
"The Fuhrer issued orders to Heeresgruppe Süd-Ukraine owing to the development of situation in Romania. It will be the obtrusive task of the Ge. Forces to protect the oil production and transportation via pipelines and rail to Giurgiu with a further protection for a transport on Danube as well as the mineral oil cartage by rail via Kronstadt. Prepare the taking over of management by Ge. Forces."
02.30 The Naval Liaison Staff Romania reports:
"New Romanian Government was formed under the leadership of Maniu holding mutual confidence. The cabinet is directed to the left. The Marshal resigned. Peace negotiations were started with Russia and Anglo-America. The enemy guaranteed the existence of Romania and in addition Northern Transylvania. The manifest of the King further stated to abstain from hostile actions against Germans. Facts contradict this latest promise through the attempted arresting of a civil servant holding officers rank.”
03.00 Operations Staff, OKW transmits:
"To suppress the attempted insurrection in Romania Fuhrer ordered for the present:
1. All forces in Romania belonging to Luftwaffe were placed under the command of the Commander in Chief, Heeresgruppe Süd-Ukraine.
2. The German General attached to the Romanian Armed Forces High Command received order to suppress the revolt in Bukarest. To accomplish this, 5th Anti-aircraft Division (5. Flak-Division) should occupy Bukarest.
3. Admiral Brinkmann, the Commanding Admiral, Black Sea received orders to occupy Constanta.
4. … "
Concerning arrangement of command in Romania Fuhrer issued at 03.00 the following orders :
"The Commander in Chief Heeresgruppe Süd-Ukraine received the authority to employ all combat forces and combat means of the armed forces and Waffen SS as well as available forces of the Ge. organisations and formations outside of the Armed Forces, of the party and civil administration and of other Reich and ethnic germans, to maintain peace, safety and order in Romania and to repulse the Soviet Russian large scale attack."
According to information from the side of Admiral, Fuhrer Headquarters, the Commanding General of Luftwaffe in Romania reported by telephone at 04.15 in agreement with the German ambassador to the Fuhrer Headquarters :
"This is not the revolt of a court-camarilla, but a well prepared coup d'etat from above in complete agreement with army and total nation. The people and troops were informed by radio. The step received remotest consent. No general can be found to form a counter-government against the King and new government as all of them were up to the last faithful to their King. Extensive measures of precaution were adopted against all Ge. authorities and troops in Bukarest. A transmitting of orders was rendered impossible. No expectations of military and political successes on account of strength proportion at present."
04.30 Admiral, Fuhrer Headquarters transmits to … :
"1. The reports from the Naval Intelligence, Kriegsmarine, concerning proceeding in Romania were confirmed.
2. Ge. office of administration Bukarest is at present cut-off. 5. Flak-Division received orders to free the Ge. office of administration.
3. Fuhrer issued orders to the Commanding Admiral, Black Sea:
"Occupy the harbor of Constanta and surroundings at once.
4. General Friessner was appointed Chief of Armed Forces, High Command South-East (?). Task : Concentration of forces of all three branches of the armed forces with the task of liquidating Romania.
5. Fuhrer ordered the Reich Foreign Minister to issue a proclamation to the Romanian people in our favor. Intercalate the romanian Iron Front."
12.25 Admiral, Fuhrer Headquarters reported by telephone that the Commanding General of Luftwaffe in Romania reported at 03.30: "Succeeded in forcing our way through and took over command in Ploiesti together with SS-Brigadefuhrer Hoffmeyer. "
General Friessner was appointed Chief of the Armed Forces (?). Range - existing area of Heeresgruppe Süd-Ukraine inclusively Romania.
13.00 The Military Attache reported the following facts issued by the Operations Staff, OKW concerning the formulation of the comentary on the situation in Romania:
"Developments still proceeding and not yet recognisable at a glance. It is obvious that a Romanian clique in cooperation with the King had intercourse with the enemy as his proclamation proved and formed a new government. In the meantime a national counter-government has been formed. Further counter-measures of military nature were started."
17.20 Admiral, Fuhrer Headquarters transmits situation report :
"Group Gerstenberg (5. Flak-Division and provided forces) is in front of Bukarest. Radio station Bukarest is in our hands. Penetration of the town was rendered more difficult by the mining of all gateway roads and the presence or heavy weapons in the hands of the romanians. Three german air raids with good results were made on the town till noon. The situation censure from General Hansen transmitted by telephone is not shared. Hungary is marching against Romania near Klausenburg. Relationship between Germany and Hungary is apparently easing."
"Fuhrer draws the attention to the importance of fact to man the romanian naval vessels especially those of the Danube monitors.
Kriegsmarine, Operations Division transmitted the last indication as most urgent radio message to the Naval Group South (Marinegruppenkommando Süd) and Commanding Admiral Black Sea as well as to the special plenipotentiary Danube with the appendix : "Secure operation with all means."
23.15 Marinegruppenkommando Süd received orders to cancel all planned deliveries to the Romanian navy as PT-boats, motor minesweepers, naval landing craft etc.
Naval Liaison Staff Bukarest switched off the radio station.
No reports were received from Bukarest itself. Our troops met mining and heavy Romanian weapons on the gate-way roads leading out of Bukarest.
The oil area of Ploiesti was occupied by our own troops.
25 Aug. 1944
According to an official statement issued by the Russian Foreign Commissary, the Soviet Government does not believe it superfluous in connection with the events in Romania to confirm their declaration made in April of the previous year whereupon the USSR does not claim romanian territory. The Red Army of course could not cancel war actions inside of Romanian territory as long as Ge. troops were within.
The Southern Ukraine :
The bulk of the Romanian formations were abandoning their positions
and marching to the south partly in regular order and partly strongly disbanded.
III. Romanian Corps(?) is crossing the Danube near Kilia. Persuing Russian tank formations captured this place and also Ismail. Nothing is known about the whereabouts of 9th German Infantry Corps(?).
The four German corps between Tiraspol and Pruth were fighting their way back to the southeast. The enemy is trying to intercept this movement at the Pruth by blocking the crossings near Falciu Tg, Leova and northeasterly of Husi.
Corps-Group Mieth is fighting westerly of Husi. The enemy pushed through to Barlad. Advancing from Roman the Russians captured the territory near Bacau and crossed there the golden Bistritz. Ge. troops were fighting their way back to the south west from the area of Roman to the Carpathian Mts. Hostilities were started by the Romanians against 3. Gebirgs-Division southerly of Radautz.
From Romania, RSHA transmits most secret report from the communication area there concerning the set up of the new cabinet, which seems to be in power in Bukarest. The Armed Forces were supporting the new government in Transylvania. The situation is coming to a head at different places between german and romanian Armed Forces based on the ultimatum, demanding Ge. troops to leave the country. Communications with Ge. authorities in Bukarest were not possible as well as a break-through in direction to Kronstadt - Bukarest or Kronstadt - Hungary - Moldova as the frontiers were occupied by Romanian military and armed civilians.
00.43 Marinegruppenkommando Süd transmits…
2. Bukarest was today attacked by German bombers according to different reports. Heavy damage and fire in government buildings were caused. Among them is the King’s palace.
3. Here the army issued orders to prepare evacuation but this order was only carried out in single cases to a limited extent. It is not known here if evacuation was carried out in favor of the Gerstenberg action or if only a smaller remaining formation was concerned.
Naval Staff, Operations Division transmitted the summary to Marinegruppenkommando Süd as follows:
"1. Proceedings in Bukarest proved that Ge. authorities were not able to cope with the situation…”
12.20 Admiral, Fuhrer Headquarters transmitted by telephone situation report from General Gerstenberg to the OKW :
"Situation in Bukarest serious. Our own forces were at the northern brim of Bukarest. Attack and occupation of Bukarest is not possible without the supply of heavy weapons. During day and night our air force attacked with good results the ministerial presidency and the palace of the King. The oil area of Ploiesti is surrounded by romanians, hostilities have not yet started.
Transportation of production has ceased."
… radio messages from the Commanding Admiral, Black Sea stated that the enemy spearhead arrived southerly of Babadag and is advancing to the south without meeting any resistance of the romanians. In radio message at 10.46 the Commanding Admiral, Black Sea asked for instructions concerning attitude of naval and army forces.
Four Russian gun boats were sighted near Kilia sailing against the stream, according to an intercepted teletype from Heeresgruppe of 10.48.
Heeresgruppe asked the Commanding Admiral, Black Sea respectively Marinegruppenkommando Süd for counter-measures.
16.32 … broadcasting by the radio station Bukarest :
"The German Air Force raided at the same time the capital of Romania and other towns of the country violently and destroyed non-military objects in which the palace of the King was the main target. Numerous casualties were suffered by the civilian population. With these aggressive operations which took place at the same time in different parts of the country, Germany entered a state of war with Romania.
Therefore the government issued orders to the Romanian Army to start at once operations against all Ge. Forces inside of Romanian territory delivering the country from the german occupation.
The government is assured that the army will fight with all gallantry adequate to our glorious history and that the romanian civilian population will support the army.”
Official communique from the Government.
18.15 Operations Staff, OKW, Group Foreign Countries, transmitted the following report from radio station Bukarest:
"Luftwaffe raided Bukarest and other romanian towns. Therefore Romania considered itself at war with Germany and issued orders, that Romanian troops should attack Ge. troops."
26 Aug. 1944
Chief of the Ge.Mil.Mission in Romania will be placed in every connection under the High Command, Heeresgruppe Süd-Ukraine.
Heeresgruppe Süd-Ukraine :
Southerly of Sea-Danube it is said that the enemy is advancing from Tulcea to Babadag.
6th German Army is fighting its way further back to the lower Pruth. Contact was made with Corps-Group Mieth westerly of the Pruth in the area of Husi. The bridge-place Leova was captured by the enemy through an attack of armoured forces from the east and west. Parts of a tank infantry division were in action protecting the bridgehead Falciu Tg. Westerly of the Seret, the Ge. Forces were thrown back in direction of the Carpathian Mts. in heavy fighting, causing many casualties. The enemy captured Bacau and Onesti.
No clear reports were received concerning the fighting in Bukarest.
There the romanian resistance seems to be incensed. After all no further combat actions were reported up to now between german and romanian troops since the declaration of war on Germany.
27 Aug. 1944
Heeresgruppe Süd-Ukraine :
The position of 6th Army aggravated essentially also in the area of Focsani as also in the area of the surrounded divisions at both sides of Husi. The divisions were surrounded in narrowest area and were fighting furiously against an enemy, strong in tanks. The romanians prevented any kind of supplying.
Ge. Forces were defending crossings westerly of Braila Seret. The enemy broke through the prepared positions easterly of Focsani and is advancing to the south. Own forces were engaged in heavy defense fighting near Targul Ocna having the Carpathian Mts. in their rear. Northerly of them the Russians reached the Romanian-Hungarian frontier and advanced into the Hungarian territory to Uzul. The Predeal pass was occupied by the Romanian troops southerly of Kronstadt. Ge. troops at Ploiesti and near Bukarest were surrounded by Romanian troops.
28 Aug. 1944
Heeresgruppe Süd-Ukraine :
The remnants of 6th Army received order to fight their way back from the area of Husi to the Carpathian Mts.
The Ge. Forces stationed westerly of Galatz should withdraw to the southeastern Carpathian Mts. and should block the border of the Carpathian Mts. from Ploiesti to the western Foksani.
On a broad front the Russians broke through the straits between Galatz and Carpathian Mts. and reached with advanced guards Buzau. Enemy pressure increased against the Carpathian Mts. passes along the frontier of Transylvania. The enemy established successes.
Obviously Sea-Danube is now Russian area. Therefore operations of our naval forces there would not be franglet with meaning. The question is if a battering-through to the west is still possible respectively how the reported plans mentioned and concerning the holding of our own position in the Bulgarian area should be valued.
Chief, Kriegsmarine clarified this question with the Commander in Chief, Marinegruppenkommando Süd by telephone. According to telephone conversation, Kriegsmarine, Operations Division confirmed by teletype as follows :
"1. Present existing orders for the Naval Forces of the Commanding Admiral Black Sea. Supporting of our crossing movements at Sea-Danube were abundant as no own movements existed more.
2. A further aim of the operating naval forces on the Danube was to reach the middle Danube for operations protecting our river shipping which cannot be accomplished now on account of further strengthening of the enemy in the Dobrogea and his advance against the stream by which the possibility of refuelling is impaired.
3. Therefore only thrusts should be made by the naval forces to Sea-Danube to harass Russian movements.
From the position-survey of Kriegsmarine, on the evening :
1. Romania. No clear situation as reports partly contradict themselves. Situation apparently aggravated. Ge. troops were surrounded near Bukarest and Ploiesti by romanians. New own forces were brought up. (…)
Sea-Danube near Galatz is occupied by Russians. Russian impediment must be expected above this town. According to British broadcast Sulina and Tulcea were occupied by vessels of the Russian Black Sea Fleet.
The command of the complete Danube was handed over by Marinegruppenkommando Süd to the Inspector of Minesweeping Service, Danube (Inspekteur Minenräumdienst Donau) who alone is in the position to create presentive measures for the river.
29 Aug. 1944
Hull declared at a press conference on 28 Aug that the Armistice with Romania was in first line a Russian affair as Romania was inside of the Russian military sphere. Negotiations with Romania started through Russian initiative.
Heeresgruppe Süd-Ukraine :
Reports were not received from 6th Army.
Based on Russian report heavy casualties must be expected. The enemy captured Buzau between Danube and Carpathian Mts. and advanced from here in direction to Ploiesti and Bukarest. No reports were received from the German battle groups of this area.
A few pass roads were lost along the Transylvanian frontier westerly
of Targul Ocna. Counter measures were started.
After receiving instructions from Kriegsmarine from todays conference on the situation with Commander in Chief, Kriegsmarine, Marinegruppenkommando Süd countermanded at 21.20 its last order concerning naval tasks. The CO of 3rd Minesweeper Flotilla (3. Räumbootsflottille), the U-boats U19, U20 and U23 received instructions:
"a) Shelling of Constanta should not take place, only torpedo attacks by submarines after return of 3.Räumbootsflottille.
B) After completing present operations, Räumbootsflottille will return to Varna, scuttle vessels and personnel will be picked up by Group Remmler."
According to British broadcast, Russians occupied the harbor of Constanta.
30 Aug. 1944
Heeresgruppe Süd-Ukraine :
Still no news from 6th Army.
The Ge. Forces southerly of Buzau were not yet able to establish a break-through in direction to the Carpathian Mts.
The enemy captured Constanta and arrived with tank spearheads in the area of Ploiesti where heavy fighting was taking place with Ge. troops.
The enemy advanced in Transylvania up to the railway track Kronstadt - Cikszereda. Heavy fighting is under way for the possession of this town.
31 Aug. 1944
Heeresgruppe Süd-Ukraine :
The enemy captured the oil area of Ploiesti and arrived in the area 30 km northeasterly of Bukarest. Nothing is known from the strong Ge. Forces at last situated southerly of Buzau. Annihilation is possible.
We were successful in establishing a blocking in the mountains northerly of Ploiesti. Enemy attacks were repulsed northerly of Kronstadt. Fighting was going on in Transylvania, especially in the (?) Oituzpass. Our mountaineer troops were only successful in occupying little ground in heavy fighting.
|Posted by: Petre December 01, 2016 06:36 am|
| Book (rus) Oleg Hlobustov :
Grandmasters of the secret war. Pyotr Ivashutin, a life dedicated to intelligence. Moskow, 2016
During the offensive started on 20 аugust by the soviet troops, at 22 august was completed the tactical encirclement (?) of the main german-romanian forces.
Pyotr Ivashutin (major-general, Chief counter-intelligence „Smersh”, 3rd.Ukr.Front) reported to the Mil. Council of the Front that the antifascists forces reached an agreement with the nominal leader of Romania, the king Mihai I (23 years) on dismissal of the actual dictator Ion Antonescu and readiness to surrender to the Soviet troops.
However, Soviet Marshal Zhukov, coming from Moscow as a representative of the Stavka, demanded to continue the offensive on the encircled enemy units who were desperately resisting. The situation was saved by Chief USSR Mil. counter-intelligence "Smersh", gen. V.S. Abakumov, who reported the information received from P.I. Ivashutin about Romania's readiness to exit from the war. Stalin sent a telegram to I.F.Tolbukhin "to proceed according to the situation".
The senseless offensive on the encircled enemy units was not started, that saved dozens, if not hundreds or thousands of lives of soldiers and commanders of the Red Army and, as subsequent events showed, it was absolutely justified.
On 23 аugust in Bukarest «conducătorul» Ion Antonescu was arrested in the royal palace and on 24 august Romania declared war on Germany, the romanian units ceased the resistence on all the front line.
The german Army Group „South-Ukraine” ceased to exist.
|Posted by: Petre January 11, 2017 08:20 am|
| Source, Net (rus)
The interogatory protocol of generalleutnant R. Stahel
25 аug. 1945, Moscow
Generalleutnant Stahel Reiner, n.1892, Bielefeld, din familie de ofiţer, în armată din 1911, fără partid. Decorat cu Crucea Cavalerilor cu spade şi frunze de stejar.
- De ce a trebuit să plecaţi de la Warşovia ?
- La 25 аug. 1944, conform ordinului OKW am plecat imediat în România pentru a da ajutor trupelor germane, aflate în încercuire în raionul Otopeni. În sarcina mea intra scoaterea trupelor din încercuire, după care acţiuni conform indicaţiilor comandamentului Heeresgruppe Sud.
- Aţi reuşit să scoateţi trupele germane din încercuire ?
- Am reuşit să scot trupele germane din prima încercuire. Însă în scurt timp unităţile conduse de mine au nimerit într-o nouă încercuire, mai puternică, formată din trupe sovietice şi române. Din a doua încercuire trupele germane n-au reuşit să iasă, iar eu am fost arestat de autorităţile militare române pe 2 sept.1944.
The interogatory protocol of generalleutnant R. Stahel
15 dec. 1947, Моscow
- … l-aţi numit printre cunoscuţi pe gen. Gerstenberg. Precizaţi unde aţi făcut cunoştinţă ?
- Pe Generalleutnant Gerstenberg l-am văzut prima dată în 1943 la comandamentul Luftflotte 4 a feldmareşalului Richthofen. Atunci am aflat că Gerstenberg este ataşat militar aero şi comandant al Forţelor aeriene germane din România. Mai îndeaproape m-am cunoscut cu Gerstenberg în România, unde am ajuns în august 1944.
- Ce i-aţi spus lui Gerstenberg despre venirea în România?
- I-am spus lui Gerstenberg că am venit cu misiunea de a elibera de sub arest Mis. Militară şi trupele germane din încercuire.
- La interogatoriu Gerstenberg a arătat : «la 27 aug.1944 gen. Stahel a ajuns în aşa numita “tabără din pădure” de lângă Bucureşti, unde se afla statul major german comandat de mine, încercuit de unităţi române. Stahel mi-a raportat că a venit сu sarcini din partea comandamentului suprem al lui Hitler, ... că sarcinile le-a primit personal de la Şeful SMG Guderian, care l-a chemat urgent de la Warşovia, unde Stahel era comandant militar». Confirmaţi asta ?
- Într-adevăr, l-am informat pe Gerstenberg că am venit de la comandamentul lui Hitler cu misiune de la Şeful SMG OKH Guderian. I-am mai spus lui Gerstenberg că pentru călătoria în România am fost chemat de la Warşovia, unde eram comandant militar.
- Ce i-aţi relatat lui Guderian despre activitatea de comandant militar al Warşoviei ?
- Acum nu-mi pot aduce aminte despre asta.
- I-aţi povestit lui Gerstenberg despre participarea înăbuşirii revoltei de la Warşovia ?
- Nu exclud să-i fi spus ceva despre...
The interogatory protocol of Oberst M. Braun
22 sept. 1951, Moscow
Braun М., n.1893 Freising (Bavaria), fără partid, pregătire militară superioară, fost oberstleutnant în armata germană.
- Cu generalul Stahel Reiner vă cunoaşteţi ?
- Pe generalul Stahel nu l-am cunoscut personal, dar am auzit multe despre el din discuţiile cu ofiţerii şi generalii. Gen. Stahel era cunoscut în armata germană ca «spărgător de încercuiri», ca un general aflat în subordine directă a Comandamentului suprem, care executa comenzile speciale, de răspundere, de la Hitler.
La finele aug.1944, când guvernul Anonescu a fost răsturnat şi arestat, iar trupele germane au fost blocate de români, Stahel din ordinul personal al lui Hitler a venit în România pentru a ocupa Bucureştiul, a elibera guvernul Antonescu, Mis.Mil.Germană şi funcţionarii ambasadei. În misiunea lui Stahel intra şi înăbuşirea puciului ofiţerilor din Armata română şi menţinerea României de partea Germaniei în războiul contra Un.Sov.
- Arătaţi ce a făcut concret Stahel pentru a îndeplini ordinul lui Hitler ?
- Stahel împreună cu comandantul aviaţiei germane din România gen. Gerstenberg au făcut o încercare de a ocupa Bucureştiul, în care scop au recurs la operaţiuni ofensive cu trupe terestre şi bombardarea oraşului din aer. Însă forţele armatei române depăşeau forţele unităţilor militare germane existente atunci în România şi de aceea tentativa germanilor de a ocupa Bucureştiul n-a reuşit. Stahel şi Gerstenberg, împreună cu alţi ofiţeri şi rămăşiţele unităţilor mil. germane au fost făcuţi prizonieri de trupele române.
|Posted by: Taz1 January 16, 2017 10:13 am|
|Oberst M. Braun was the comander of the Kampfgruppe Braun from 20 Panzer Divizion ? It was captured by the russians ?|
|Posted by: Petre January 16, 2017 04:54 pm|
| From the interrogation protocol of german mil. attache, generalmajor K. Splacke (former mil. attachee, Bukarest) :
Answer : - Being from 1940 to 1944 as aide of german mil. attache, ( oberstleutnant Max ) Braun pursued an active espionage activity, serving the german intelligence and also vigorously working towards the strengthening of the Romanian-German military cooperation and for use of Romania in the war against the Soviet Union, thus participating in the implementation of the military and political plans of Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union.
|Posted by: Petre January 27, 2017 05:56 am|
| Source, Net (rus).
From the interrogation protocols of Luftwaffe generalleutnant A. Gerstenberg :
15 june 1948, Moscow
În seara de 23 august, împreună cu alţi conducători germani din România, am fost chemaţi la ambasadorul Killinger şi am aflat că Regele l-a arestat pe Antonescu şi a format un nou guvern, care a încheiat armistiţiul cu aliaţii.
Despre asta Killinger a informat la Berlin, iar Hitler i-a ordonat Şefului Mis.mil.germane Hansen să înăbuşe puciul, să-l aresteze pe Rege şi să restabilească puterea lui Antonescu sau să formeze un nou guvern în frunte cu un general român germanofil de încredere, însă Hansen n-a găsit necesar să îndeplinească acest ordiun, motivând cu insuficienţa trupelor germane în Bucureşti.
În scurt timp, pe adresa ambasadorului a venit o radiogramă de la Cdt. Gr. Armate Ucraina de Sud, generaloberst Friessner, care în numele lui Hitler a ordonat să fie înlocuit din funcţie Hansen, iar înăbuşirea puciului să mi se atribuie mie. După aceea, eu, Hansen şi consilierul ambasadei Steltzer am fost chemaţi la noul PM român Sănătescu, care ne-a informat că lângă Bucureşti (raionul Băneasa) trupele germane îi atacă pe români şi ne-a rugat să dăm ordine trupelor să înceteze vărsarea de sânge fără rost.
Hansen a spus că nu poate face asta din lipsa legăturii cu trupele şi împreună cu consilierul Steltzer s-a întors la ambasadă. Eu i-am promis lui Sănătescu să-i îndeplinesc rugămintea dacă mi se va permite să ajung personal la trupe. Sănătescu a fost de acord şi mi-a dat ca însoţitori doi colonei români (numele nu mi le amintesc). Fără să mai dau pe la ambasadă, am plecat imediat cu ei la Băneasa, unde erau dislocate trupe germane.
Ajungând în acel loc, m-am convins că românii şi germanii într-adevăr se luptă între ei, existând morţi şi răniţi. În loc să liniştesc rupele germane, cum îi promisesem lui Sănătescu, le-am organizat pentru a lupta mai departe contra românilor cu scopul ocupării Bucureştiului, arestării Regelui şi readucerii lui Antonescu la putere, iar pe coloneii români care m-au însoţit i-am reţinut ca prizonieri.
La scurt timp m-a sunat Friessner, care a întărit dispoziţiunile lui Hitler ca Hansen să fie schimbat, iar înăbuşirea puciului să îmi revină mie. L-am rugat pe Friessner să-mi trimită la dispoziţie trupe suplimentare, dar n-am primit răspuns, convorbirea s-a întrerupt pe neaşteptate.
A sunat iar telefonul, pe fir erau Jodl şi Hitler. Сu mine a vorbit Jodl, dar după cum am înţeles, dicta vorbele lui Hitler, care stătea lângă el la aparat. Hitler mi-a sugerat să încep imediat cu toată energia o ofensivă asupra Bucureştiului, să ocup capitala cu orice preţ, să-l arestez pe Rege şi să-l readuc la putere pe Antonescu. A mai ordonat să fie arestat Hansen şi să fie adus la el la comandament. Ca răspuns la rugămintea mea, Hitler a promis să-mi trimită la dispoziţie o divizie de trupe motorizate şi paraşutişti şi a mai spus că i-a dat indicaţii Cd-tului Luftflotte 4 privind susţinerea aeriană a operaţiunilor ofensive a trupelor mele.
Pentru îndeplinirea exemplară a ordinelor date, Hitler mi-a promis Crucea Cavalerilor pentru asigurarea realizării apărării Ploieştiului.
Dup aceste discuţii cu Hitler, din dimineaţa 24 аug.1944 am început o ofensivă decisivă asupra Bucureşti şi în urma a patru zile de lupte susţinute, am luat prizonieri 4500 militari români, şi de asemenea am lovit 14 tancuri «Тiger» din cele 25 contra noastră, primite de români de la germani.
La 27 aug.1944 a ajuns la mine cu un avion gen. Stahel, considerat un specialist în scoaterea din foc a trupelor împresurate. După venirea lui am încetat acţiunile de luptă, nefiind în măsură să continuăm lupta cu forţele române superioare şi am ieşit din împresurare.
- Şi întăririle promise de Hitler nu le-aţi primit ?
- Întăririle au fost trimise de fapt cu 25 avioane de transport, dar numai unul a ajuns la Bucureşti, aducând o companie de soldaţi. Restul de 24 avioane au fost lovite de ruşi şi nu şi-au atins ţinta. Ştiind că vin întăriri, am luptat susţinut timp de patru zile contra unei armate române de mii de oameni, având în total doar 1800 trupă, din care în urma luptelor am pierdut 800, restul au ieşit din încercuire.
Operaţiunile ofensive ale trupelor mele au fost susţinute de aviaţia Luftflotte 4. În acele zile Bucureştiul a fost supus unui puternic bombardament aerian, în urma cărora au avut de suferit serios câteva cartiere şi populaţia.
- Aţi încercat să fugiţi din România după ieşirea din încercuire ?
- Da, după ce eu şi Stahel am scos din încercuire trupele germane rămase, am avut intenţia să ieşim cu ele din România spre Apus. La cam 150 km. de Bucureşti l-am întâlnit întâmplător pe col. român Dragomir, de la St.maj. al Armatei 4 şi l-am rugat să ne indice un drum peste Carpaţi.
Dragomir a spus că el cunoaşte prost acele locuri şi ne-a recomandat să mergem cu el la St.maj Armata 4 unde să rezolvăm problema cu Şeful SMG român gen. Şteflea care se pare era acolo. Aşa am şi făcut. Lăsând trupele în câmp, eu şi cu Stahel am mers cu col. Dragomir la St.maj. Armata 4, unde pe 28 aug.1944 am fost făcuţi prizonieri de români şi trimişi la Bucureşti, iar pe 2 sept. Predaţi reprezentanţilor Armatei sovietice şi duşi la Moscova. Eu şi Stahel am înţeles că românii ne-au întins o cursă, bineînţeles că gen. Şteflea nu era la St.maj. al Amatei.
- Cum vă reevaluaţi ultimele acţiuni, orientate spre menţinerea României ca aliat al Germaniei, la acea vreme când, cum aţi spus singur, le era clar tuturor că războiul este pierdut ?
- D.p.d.v. militar aceste acţiuni ale mele le consider o aventură. Dar, considerând că nu eram doar un general simplu, ci un general-politician, adept credincios al naţional-socialismului, atunci devine limpede că altfel nici nu puteam face, pentru că eu am luptat pentru triumful ideilor naţionaliste. Cu atât mai mult că pentru îndeplinirea cu succes a misiunii lui Hitler, mi se promisese o înaltă distincţie.
17 august 1945, Moscow
( ... )
- Ce s-a făcut practic cu scopul de a forma un nou guvern român ?
- Ambasadorul german von Killinger s-a sfătuit cu mine în această problemă la finele 1943 — începutul 1944. În principal s-a discutat candidatura generalilor Dragalina şi Korne ca posibili membri ai guvernului. I-am răspuns atunci lui Killinger că gen. Dragalina nu are un caracter puternic, iar Korne nu este « legionar », ci mason.
Practic în problema formării unui nou guvern nu s-a făcut nimic.
|Posted by: Taz1 January 05, 2018 12:49 pm|
|A romanian officer that participated in 23 august operation.|