We should be proud of Eastern Front victories?, about the romanian victories 1941/42

The discussion is veering from "pride in Eastern Front victories" into "logic of Eastern Front campaign". Two different issues. "Pride" is an emotion. "Logic" is a mental process. Just about the only connection between the two is that "emotion" often clouds the "mental process".


Radu

Aidan, I ask you the same question Denes asked: who is "we" in your opinion? I ask you this because on another topic on this forum you claimed to be of mixed origins and said that you are part of another ethnicity and feeling like that. If so, this "we" confuses me. Now you are Romanian?

I dont understand why this discussion is personalized, as I was only inviting you all to to express an opinion on the morality of an military action! I hope that you all understand that I was more interested in your moral approach on this issue because after the fall of Odessa (october 1941) you can not talk about an immediate Soviet threat, and after British requests to withdraw the troops from USSR until 5 december 1941 has intervened a war status with this powerful country. More than that from late autumn 1941 it was obvious that Romania does not only wear a defensive war but a clear aggression one, by supporting German Armies deep inside USSR (that fact became undeniable from 1942)! The fact that my personal feelings are not favorable to Romania (or some Romanians) in respect to certain actions or historical events does not make me less Romanian, having also the citizenship of this country! This topic was therefore approached from my Romanian perspective (my father is Romanian and I have also Romanian feelings) and the fact that not all have voted in one direction confirm my belief that many co-forumist understood my approach!

This post has been edited by aidan zea on January 26, 2013 04:11 pm

romania fought a legitime war against USSR, we entered in this war to recover out lost teritories and soviets never admitted their defeat so we need to go on.

Sebipatru, the war in the East started out as a legitimate one for Romania but became illegitimate when we advanced deep into Soviet territory beyond the limits of a strategic defense. If about Odessa we may say that this city was located close to our borders and pose a threat to us (in this logic Crimea could be seen too...) still the ignored warning of the UK (British Empire) from november 1941 and the state of war which came after it, no longer give the right to any Romanian to complain for "the sale of Yalta" UK doing nothing more than to acknowledge that the Red Army occupied Romania (the military coup of 23 august being completely irrelevant) and there is their right to control it!

The war to take back Bessarabia was legitimate. Bessarabia was won, then lost. It is still not part of Romania. No territory was "won" by Romania in the long run. Then Romania spent a long time under Russian domination, whose "sechele" still ravage it. So there was no "victory", only a brief illusion of it.
Radu

In all important moments of Romanian history preceding 1940, with the exception of 1916-1918, the interests of the British Empire were always against Romanian interests (1859, 1877-1878, 1913, 1920-1921, 1938 - The Munchen Agreement).
Did they ever care about us ? Do they care about us today ? Why we should care of the British warning from November 1941 ?
One of the reasons that plunged Romania into the disaster of 1940 was the reliance on alliances with the British Empire, France, Poland, Czechoslovakia.
The way it looked in the Fall/Autumn 1941, at last Romania was betting on the right horse.

It was mentioned many times before in this website that Romania also had unfinished business in Transylvania, and withdrawing all troops from the front in Fall/Autumn 1941 would not help at all this matter. Aidan, we all know that Romania was not the only Axis ally on the Eastern Front. So what is the point in revolving around "Why Romania continued military involvement after Autumn 1941?", and forget that meanwhile Italy, Hungary, Finland, Slovakia and Croatia continued their involvement there ?
P.S: These weeks on History Channel /UK you can see the British version of Russian documentary series about Eastern Front. In the episodes I could see, I could never hear one word about Axis Allies - Romania, Hungary, Finland, Slovakia and Croatia. The Italians were mentioned once because they sent torpedo boats on Ladoga Lake, during the siege of Leningrad.

This post has been edited by Florin on January 28, 2013 12:40 pm

1. Because it still was a "major power", allied with the US and USSR (also major players).
2. So your point is what? That we were minor allies? (we were...)

1. Because it still was a "major power", allied with the US and USSR (also major players).
2. So your point is what? That we were minor allies? (we were...)

MMM, I am sorry for adding Post Scriptum. Please try to read again before it.
Here, in my message, the selection from my quote under your quote is different - just to focus on my point.

This post has been edited by Florin on January 28, 2013 08:02 pm

1. Because it still was a "major power", allied with the US and USSR (also major players).
2. So your point is what? That we were minor allies? (we were...)

MMM, I am sorry for adding Post Scriptum. Please try to read again before it.
Here, in my message, the selection from my quote under your quote is different - just to focus on my point.

Here we go again...
The No. 1 answer was directed at your "Why should we care" question, whereas No. 2 was directed at your PS.
Is it so difficult? Even a "dottore" could manage that Ctrl-C routine...

This post has been edited by MMM on January 28, 2013 08:43 pm

Florin posted on January 27, 2013 11:35 pm

Because Antonescu was considered to be pro-British formation (I don't remember if he said this about himself or others did!), in order for Romania to not become totally dependent on Nazi Germany (of the global powers we were (until november 1941) in war with Soviet Union, in tense relations with the British Empire, in neutral relations with the USA and in a sort of alliance with Nazi Germany and (??) Japanese empire).

I hope to not confuse but at the end of last year I also had seen one episode just about Stalingrad where was highlighted the resistence of the Romanian troops to the Soviet offensive, mentioning the objective causes which led to the destruction of the two Romanian Armies. If I remember well it was called Soviet Storm: World War II in the East -Stalingrad.

Here we go again...
The No. 1 answer was directed at your "Why should we care" question, whereas No. 2 was directed at your PS.
Is it so difficult? Even a "dottore" could manage that Ctrl-C routine...

If for you my P.S. is more important than what I had mentioned before it (i.e. ".....we all know that Romania was not the only Axis ally on the Eastern Front. So what is the point in revolving around "Why Romania continued military involvement after Autumn 1941?", and forget that meanwhile Italy, Hungary, Finland, Slovakia and Croatia continued their involvement there ?......."), I simply give up.

Because Antonescu was considered to be pro-British formation (I don't remember if he said this about himself or others did!), in order for Romania to not become totally dependent on Nazi Germany (of the global powers we were (until november 1941) in war with Soviet Union, in tense relations with the British Empire, in neutral relations with the USA and in a sort of alliance with Nazi Germany and (??) Japanese empire).
.............

Antonescu was military attaché to the Romanian Embassy in London in the summer of 1940 (when he entered in collision course with King Carol II by disagreeing with the Romanian response to Bessarabia matter) - so we was more familiar with the British Empire than many other Romanians.

Regarding your concern "for Romania to not become totally dependent on Nazi Germany": our relation with the great ally Soviet Union was much worse.
At least the Germans paid with gold for our wheat and petroleum. The Soviets stole that gold.
In regard to the "tense relations with the British Empire": for the European situation from 1941, the Europeans have to thank in part to the attitude of Chamberlain during the meeting in Munchen - November 1938. If Chamberlain would use his brain back then, we would not fight in Odessa in 1941 or near Stalingrad in 1942.

This post has been edited by Florin on January 29, 2013 01:24 am

Check your sources! You are only a couple of years wrong...
As for the Romanian participation, minor ally or not, PS or without: what is your point?

Antonescu was the military attache in London between 1 January 1924 and 14 July 1926. In the summer of 1940 he was under house arrest in the Bistrita Monastery.

Regarding the economic relations between Romania and Nazi Germany, I think that a separate thread would be required as they are way off-topic here.

Please get back to the original subject.