Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
WorldWar2.ro Forum > Eastern Front (1941-1944) > We should be proud of Eastern Front victories?


Posted by: aidan zea January 03, 2013 05:17 pm
Because I recently had a conversation in contradiction with a friend on whether we should feel proud about the Romanian Army victories on the Eastern Front from November 1941 until November 1942, when we fought in the offensive started by the Germans in June 1941, or not? My opinion is that we have no reason to be proud because at least for the year 1942 there was no strong justification to continue (from military reasons) the military actions against the USSR after the fall of Odessa. Of course that I know Antonescu's reasons to continue the war from the soviet threat until the issue of Transylvania but I am speaking here about a feeling of pride which in our case should not be as we have nothing to gain from being and fighting in USSR. Agree that we should mention the victories we achieve in Crimeea, Kuban, Caucasus but pride for that is not a feeling that I can have considering what happened after (Don Bend catastrophe from november 1942). So I ask this because my personal feelings are not proud but bended, understanding and respecting the soldiers efforts and sacrifices, but also the drama of the soviet civilians who suffered (not by Romanian of Hungarian troops actions f.i.) from the war so much, being innocent (after they suffered from Stalin's policies before!).

Posted by: MMM January 03, 2013 05:27 pm
But of course! A victory is a victory, isn't that so?
PS: add a poll... wink.gif

Posted by: aidan zea January 03, 2013 05:45 pm
Thanks MMM for your idea! I added a poll...

Posted by: MMM January 03, 2013 07:23 pm
As I said, "a victory is in itself a reward" and, IMHO, the position of Finland - I'm referring to the "limited involvement" policy - was not quite honourable, although the results seem to have justified it: a defeated, yet unconquered Finland! So we did what we had to do, fought on as good as we were able (which wasn't very much, though) and where we were told. Not fundamentally different from today... wink.gif

Posted by: aidan zea January 03, 2013 07:32 pm
I hope everyone understands that my approach on this issue is from moral point of view and does not concern the efforts and sacrifices of our grandparents to which I have an unmeasured respect!


Posted by: Florin January 22, 2013 11:12 pm
QUOTE (MMM @ January 03, 2013 12:27 pm)
But of course! A victory is a victory, isn't that so?
PS: add a poll...  wink.gif

A war alliance is like a marriage: "...for better or for worse." You do not get out at the first bump.
The so called refrain of Finnland to go beyond her pre-1939 borders is just a legend... In 1941 (or 1942 ? ) they had tried an offensive in the territory owned by Soviet Union before 1939, but it did not work. If I am not wrong, the objective was the Murmansk harbor / city.

It is a very normal feeling to feel pride for any victory of the army that represents your nation. You will encounter this feeling in any nation on this Earth.
I understand the others, and the others should understand the Romanians.
What I hate the most in this world are double-standards and hypocrisy.

Posted by: Imperialist January 23, 2013 07:27 am
I voted no.

In his memoris Argetoianu writes, following his meeting (in October 1942) with a captain that was drafted and spent 60 days at the Romanian General Staff headquarters in Rostov:

QUOTE
In armata romana soldatul ca si ofiterul sunt admirabili si se bat ca leii, de teama sa nu fie prost judecati de nemti.

Dar spiritul, pretinde Scanavi, nu e bun... Toti, de la ofiteri la soldati, aproape pe fata, injura de mama pe Antonescu care i-a adus pana in Caucaz, la atata departare de tara! "Sa vie aici sa vada in ce ne-a bagat f... mama lui!"

Posted by: aidan zea January 23, 2013 10:01 am
QUOTE
It is a very normal feeling to feel pride for any victory of the army that represents your nation

If we speak from moral point of view you're wrong! Any nation by its leaders make mistakes at a certain point, and admiting mistake is a matter of common sense! We have not won anything not even from military point of view after the fall of Odessa and the massive involvement in Crimea, Kuban and Caucasus brought us not great experience in battle nor any political advantages later, but just the opposite!

QUOTE
What I hate the most in this world are double-standards and hypocrisy.

Of course me too! But I fail to see a connection with the current discussion! Is there any?

Posted by: Dénes January 23, 2013 07:06 pm
QUOTE (aidan zea @ January 23, 2013 04:01 pm)
We have not won anything not even from military point of view after the fall of Odessa and the massive involvement in Crimea, Kuban and Caucasus brought us not great experience in battle nor any political advantages later, but just the opposite!

Who is "we"?

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Florin January 23, 2013 10:42 pm
QUOTE (Dénes @ January 23, 2013 02:06 pm)
QUOTE (aidan zea @ January 23, 2013 04:01 pm)
We have not won anything not even from military point of view after the fall of Odessa and the massive involvement in Crimea, Kuban and Caucasus brought us not great experience in battle nor any political advantages later, but just the opposite!

Who is "we"?

Gen. Dénes

Yeah, I was also thinking about that, but... whatever.

Posted by: aidan zea January 24, 2013 01:26 pm
Who is "we"? The Salvation Army, Denes biggrin.gif joking of course! What can I answer to such a question? Of course that I was talking about Romania and Romanian army, I think it was clear from the context! If you have a different opinion I invite you to share it with us!

Posted by: Radub January 24, 2013 01:53 pm
This thread is daft. It is like asking "Should Sonny Liston be proud of landing a few punches on Muhammad Ali"?
Radu

Posted by: ANDREAS January 24, 2013 10:33 pm
From my point of view once you engage in a fight (be it individual, group of individuals, military unit or even an army) you have to do everything possible to win it otherwise is bad! If you win it's normal to enjoy the victory (even small) and the one who denies that is lying! But I don't think the Romanian Army victories (except some) in the East were possible without German contribution (direct or indirect) so I voted accordingly!

Posted by: Florin January 24, 2013 11:50 pm
QUOTE (aidan zea @ January 24, 2013 08:26 am)
Who is "we"? The Salvation Army, Denes  biggrin.gif  joking of course! What can I answer to such a question? Of course that I was talking about Romania and Romanian army, I think it was clear from the context! If you have a different opinion I invite you to share it with us!

OK, you answered to Dénes.
The reason I had the same question like him is because in other topic you mentioned that your ancestry is bi-national, and in another you mentioned that you have two citizenships.
From your answer to Dénes I got it: in the moments you are writing in this topic your Romanian part is prevailing.
I have a strange feeling myself due to my two citizenships. I am glad that my soul is not also torn by a bi-national ancestry.

Posted by: Imperialist January 25, 2013 07:52 am
QUOTE (ANDREAS @ January 24, 2013 10:33 pm)
From my point of view once you engage in a fight (be it individual, group of individuals, military unit or even an army) you have to do everything possible to win it otherwise is bad!

That may be true from a military point of view, but don't forget that the political leadership is (or should be) always in charge and sets the goals that the army has to reach. The idea of doing everything possible to win, with no political limits/thresholds, no holds barred, is not very good. Military considerations should have played a role in analysing whether to go beyond the Dniester or not, but they shouldn't have played the decisive role. Yet they did with Antonescu (not a civilian leadership) in charge.

Posted by: Radub January 25, 2013 09:42 am
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". wink.gif


Radu

Posted by: 21 inf January 26, 2013 06:40 am
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?

Posted by: aidan zea January 26, 2013 04:05 pm
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!

Posted by: sebipatru January 27, 2013 06:00 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.

Posted by: aidan zea January 27, 2013 09:44 pm
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!

Posted by: Radub January 27, 2013 11:07 pm
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

Posted by: Florin January 27, 2013 11:35 pm
QUOTE (aidan zea @ January 27, 2013 04:44 pm)
...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!

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. huh.gif

Posted by: MMM January 28, 2013 05:42 pm
QUOTE (Florin @ January 28, 2013 02:35 am)
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.


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. huh.gif

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? cool.gif (we were...)

Posted by: Florin January 28, 2013 07:52 pm
QUOTE (MMM @ January 28, 2013 12:42 pm)
QUOTE (Florin @ January 28, 2013 02:35 am)
.........Why we should care of the British warning from November 1941 ?.........
.........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 ?...........

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? cool.gif (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.

Posted by: MMM January 28, 2013 08:43 pm
QUOTE (Florin @ January 28, 2013 10:52 pm)
QUOTE (MMM @ January 28, 2013 12:42 pm)
QUOTE (Florin @ January 28, 2013 02:35 am)
.........Why we should care of the British warning from November 1941 ?.........
.........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 ?...........

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? cool.gif (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? wink.gif Even a "dottore" could manage that Ctrl-C routine... biggrin.gif

Posted by: aidan zea January 28, 2013 10:15 pm
Florin posted on January 27, 2013 11:35 pm
QUOTE
Why we should care of the British warning from November 1941 ?

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).

QUOTE
P.S: These weeks on History Channel /UK you can see the British version of Russian documentary series about Eastern Front.

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.

Posted by: Florin January 29, 2013 01:06 am
QUOTE (MMM @ January 28, 2013 03:43 pm)
QUOTE (Florin @ January 28, 2013 02:35 am)
.............MMM, I am sorry for adding Post Scriptum. Please try to read again before it.
.............

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? wink.gif Even a "dottore" could manage that Ctrl-C routine... biggrin.gif

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.



Posted by: Florin January 29, 2013 01:23 am
QUOTE (aidan zea @ January 28, 2013 05:15 pm)
Florin posted on January 27, 2013 11:35 pm
QUOTE
Why we should care of the British warning from November 1941 ?

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.

Posted by: MMM January 29, 2013 06:04 am
QUOTE (Florin @ January 29, 2013 04:23 am)

Antonescu was military attaché to the Romanian Embassy in London in the summer of 1940

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

Posted by: Victor January 29, 2013 07:40 am
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.

Posted by: bogy February 01, 2013 09:07 am
Yes, I am proud and we all must be proud for that.

I am sure that the russians were very proud when they occupy the romanian territory in 1940.

Posted by: MMM February 01, 2013 09:16 am
QUOTE (bogy @ February 01, 2013 12:07 pm)
I am sure that the russians were very proud when they occupy the romanian territory in 1940.

Not only that, but they were even talking about the next phase, meeting in Dobrudja with the Bulgarians (or occupying the rest of Moldavia and Bukovina) or occupying the "oil region".

Posted by: Imperialist February 01, 2013 09:54 am
QUOTE (bogy @ February 01, 2013 09:07 am)
Yes, I am proud and we all must be proud for that.

I am sure that the russians were very proud when they occupy the romanian territory in 1940.

I would have been prouder had Romania fought in 1940.

Giving up in 1940, then going all the way to Stalingrad with the stronger side in 1941 (the one which was behind the 1940 losses too), then ditching it in 1944 when it was no longer the stronger side and joining our former enemies going into Central Europe.... It's politics and can be understood, no problem there, but if the question is put in terms of pride (emotional terms) then I don't think there's much to be proud about this.

A dignified behavior (to use the emotional approach) would have been to fight in 1940 or, if that didn't happen, to at least continue fighting in 1944. A politically cautious behavior (to use the political/rational approach) would have been to limit our involvement in Barbarossa to our own territorial issue with the USSR, just like Finland did.

(BTW, strangely enough, on foreign forums I keep reading opinions on how Finland was the best German ally in Barbarossa, had the best soldiers among Germany's allies, etc.)

Posted by: bogy February 01, 2013 10:25 am
We have to suvive, and I am proud that we make it.

Swich side in 1944? Yes. In 1940 the germans have made a aliance with the soviet and sold romanian teritory to hungarians (north Transilvania) and to the soviets (north Bucovina and Basarabia). At that time nobodies sad nothing about that. We are victims like polish or czeh or austrians. But nobody sey nothings about that injustice.

Posted by: bogy February 01, 2013 10:38 am
Pentru poporul roman se punea problema supravietuirii. Asa a fost din totdeauna. Si sunt mandru de inaintasii mei pentru ca au reusit si datorita lor si noi am reusit.

Suntem acuzati pentru ca am intors armele la 23 august 1944. Dar cand germanii au facut pact cu sovieticii si au dat nordul Ardealului la unguri si teritorii romanesti la sovietici, asta nu a mai vazut-o nimeni. De masacrul de la Fantana Alba, din Bucovina, vorbeste cineva?
Da, sunt mandru de faptele de arme ale Armatei Romane in ww2.


For Romanian people is to survive. That has always been. And I am proud of my ancestors because they succeeded and because of them and we did.

We got back charged for weapons on 23 august 1944. But when the Germans made ​​a pact with the Soviets and gave North Transylvania to Hungarian and Romanian territories to the Soviets that never saw anyone. About The massacre at Fantana Alba, Bukovina, someone speaks?
Yes, I am proud to deeds of arms of the Romanian Army in WW2.

Posted by: Imperialist February 01, 2013 12:42 pm
A question of survival of the people is a bit exaggerated. Poland and Hungary fought (1939 & 1944) and they didn't become extinct as a people.

We were victims, but ended up fighting on the side of both of the powers that were behind our chopping up in 1940. So we made a bad image of ourselves both in the East and in the West. Moreover, Italy, which also switched sides but committed far less troops on the Allied side afterwards, obtained the status of "co-belligerent" at the Peace Conference. We didn't. And our involvement in the Holocaust was like the cherry on top.

Now we easily get flak from all sides, from whoever wants to put the issue in emotional or moral terms or wants to insult us.

Fighting in 1941 was a must, but our military commitment beyond Bessarabia should have been on a low scale. But Antonescu was not listening to anyone.

Posted by: Cantacuzino February 01, 2013 01:19 pm
QUOTE
Fighting in 1941 was a must, but our military commitment beyond Bessarabia should have been on a low scale. But Antonescu was not listening to anyone.


So do you think if Antonescu was a listening guy and would involv in low scale our army beyond Bessarabia we could have different future with soviets. And I would not compare with Italy ( US were there first not the soviets) but rather let say with Czechoslovakia

Posted by: bogy February 01, 2013 01:22 pm
Don't talk about holocaust in Romania. In Romania, holocaust made th hungarian troops in north Transilvania. Romanian army kild jews in Basarabia and Moldova because they atack romanian army in retreat.

Posted by: Imperialist February 01, 2013 01:55 pm
QUOTE (Cantacuzino @ February 01, 2013 01:19 pm)
QUOTE
Fighting in 1941 was a must, but our military commitment beyond Bessarabia should have been on a low scale. But Antonescu was not listening to anyone.


So do you think if Antonescu was a listening guy and would involv in low scale our army beyond Bessarabia we could have different future with soviets. And I would not compare with Italy ( US were there first not the soviets) but rather let say with Czechoslovakia

We're using hindsight, but if our future with the Soviets would have been the same anyway then why go to the lengths Antonescu went? The theory about impressing the Germans in order to get back Transylvania was just an idea, Antonescu never obtained any clear verbal promise from Hitler, let alone something in writing.

It would have been better to conserve our forces, to fight for Bessarabia again when the Soviet forces approached in 1944 (we would have lost it again), then to switch sides and, if possible, to stop on the border with Hungary.

But what we did was fight all the way to Stalingrad (spent a lot, obtained nothing and p**** off the Russians for generations to come), then switch sides and fight all the way into Czechoslovakia (again spent a lot, obtained nothing and p**** off the Germans).

Posted by: Cantacuzino February 01, 2013 02:35 pm
[QUOTE]We're using hindsight, but if our future with the Soviets would have been the same anyway then why go to the lengths Antonescu went?

So Antonescu in 1942 should guess that Germany will loose the war with soviets before starting ? Who believed that when Germany starting with 1939 was conquering Europe step by step. It's easy to judge people after, when you know how the war ended.

Posted by: Imperialist February 01, 2013 02:52 pm
QUOTE (Cantacuzino @ February 01, 2013 02:35 pm)
So Antonescu in 1941 should guess that Germany loose the war with soviets before starting ? Who believed that in 1940-1941 when Germany was conquering Europe step by step. It's easy to judge people after, when you know how the war ended.

I agrew with your point, but your question was based on hindsight so my answer had to use hindsight too. You asked me if doing something different in 1941 would have changed our future with the Soviets. A future we know now.

Antonescu didn't have to guess the future, he had to avoid betting everything on one side (Germany) and keep our involvement in the war based on our territorial issue with the USSR, not on Hitler's crusade/war of conquest.

Posted by: Cantacuzino February 01, 2013 03:47 pm
QUOTE
Antonescu didn't have to guess the future, he had to avoid betting everything on one side (Germany) and keep our involvement in the war based on our territorial issue with the USSR, not on Hitler's crusade/war of conquest.


Agree with you until one point. We could not defeat Soviets alone ( to solve the teritorial issue) Helping Germany to won was the only chance to solve the teritorial issue with USSR for long term. Of course doing that we could not be sure that the other territorial issue (Transilvania) could be solved and I am agree with you that Antonescu could not guarantee that either.



Posted by: Imperialist February 01, 2013 05:05 pm
QUOTE (Cantacuzino @ February 01, 2013 03:47 pm)
Agree with you until one point. We could not defeat Soviets alone ( to solve the teritorial issue) Helping Germany to won was the only chance to solve the teritorial issue with USSR for long term. Of course doing that we could not be sure that the other territorial issue (Transilvania) could be solved and I am agree with you that Antonescu could not guarantee that either.

Ok, but we were not in the position to help Germany win. We were a small agrarian country whose army was not well equipped by industrial standards. Embarking on such a distant and long campaign was beyond our capabilities and it eventually showed. We could have limited our involvement beyond Bessarabia to some mountain troops and the air force for example. We were helping Germany with resources anyway.

Posted by: Cantacuzino February 01, 2013 07:30 pm
QUOTE
Ok, but we were not in the position to help Germany win. We were a small agrarian country whose army was not well equipped by industrial standards. Embarking on such a distant and long campaign was beyond our capabilities and it eventually showed.


Ofcourse that argument could be a good reason not to continuu the war but don't forget that Hitler promised to Antonescu to upgrade romanian army to german standards, Hitler didn't keep his promise . What turning point could be at Stalingrad if romanian received 150 modern tanks ( instead of only 22) ? Comander Lt Velican claimed 5 russian tanks destroyed using a modern Panzer Pz 4.

Posted by: sebipatru February 01, 2013 08:10 pm
„Razboiul este un act de violenta si in folosirea acesteia nu exista limite, astfel fiecare parte ii impune celeilalte legea sa, rezultand o actiune reciproca, care conform definitiei trebuie sa ajunga la extrem. Aceasta este primas actiune reciproca si primul fenemen extrem pe care il intalnim.”(Clausewitz, 1982, 55)
„Razboiul nu este actiunea unei forte vii asupra unei mase inerte, ci pentru ca pasivitatea absoluta, ar insemna negarea razboiului, este intotdeauna ciocnirea a doua forte vii iar ceea ce am spus despre obiectivul final al actiunii militare trebuie gandit de ambele parti. Asadar si aici este actiunea reciproca . Cata vreme nu lam infrant pe adversar trebuie sa mah tem k mah va infrange el pe mine, deci nu mai sunt propriul meu stăpân, ci el imi impune legea , dupa cum eu i-o impun. aceasta este a doua acţiune reciprocă, ce duce la al doilea fenomen extrem.” (Clausewitz, 1982, 56)

„Mărimea fortelor disponibile s-ar putea determina deoarece se întemeiaza( deşi nu in întregime) pe cifre. Puterea vointei înbnsa se poate determina mult mai greu, si poate fi doar evaluata cumva dupa forta motivatiei. Presupunânâd ca am obtine astfel o evaluare acceptabila a capacitatii de rezistenta a adversarului ne putem potrivi, după aceasta eforturile noastre şi fie le sporim întratat încât să ne asigurăm superioritatea fie daca mijloacele noastre nu sunt suficiente sa le sporim la mazximum posibil. Dar adversarul face acelasi lucru, deci o noua supralicitare reciproca, ea implica in pura teorie tendinta de a ajunge la extrem. Aceasta este a treia acţiune reciprocă si al treilea fenomen extrem.”(idem)

sorry but i dont have the text in english
my ideea is it only matters if a war starts as a legitimate one or not in rest it will continue like a war until one side is defeated
in 41 romania started a legitimate war against USSr to recover its territories after it only romania did what it should be done from all germany's allies it continued the war at all cost and using all his military potentially to win it
be broud of it, Hungary Finland Croatia never did it

Posted by: ANDREAS February 01, 2013 08:47 pm
QUOTE
Comander Lt Velican claimed 5 russian tanks destroyed using a modern Panzer Pz 4.

From what I know he commanded a Panzer III Ausf. N tank, tank that had a 75mm short gun, fact even more meritorious! But to tell the truth we (Romania) did not have too many as him neither at Stalingrad nore later... and Germany was incapable of ensuring its own troops with enough tanks in 1942 so...

What I mean is that we should not fall into any extreme to find justification to Antonescu regime and his policy or to strongly condemn the decisions taken by him! The middle way is always the best! wink.gif

Posted by: Cantacuzino February 01, 2013 09:53 pm
QUOTE
What I mean is that we should not fall into any extreme to find justification to Antonescu regime and his policy or to strongly condemn the decisions taken by him! The middle way is always the best! 


O sorry I didn't observed that i falled in extreme I hope that I will not be punished tongue.gif

As someone said as long as the war is started you can not stop before your enemy capitulate. So why we should blame one person for this inevitable action ?

Regarding Velican Pz III you are right , but regarding the fighting deeds of romanian tankers I will not be so negativ like you are.

Posted by: Imperialist February 01, 2013 11:36 pm
QUOTE (Cantacuzino @ February 01, 2013 09:53 pm)
As someone said as long as the war is started you can not stop before your enemy capitulate. So why we should blame one person for this inevitable action ?

I don't think the action was inevitable per se. Military operations can be given limited goals, based on political purposes and/or the actual capabilities to conduct the operations.

But it was probably inevitable in the sense that we had an army man as dictator and his thinking was also dominated by the need to show utmost loyalty to Hitler and impress him.

So we allegedly entered the war only to get back what was ours but ended up tagging along in Germany's quest for lebensraum. A big mistake in the opinion of many, including among the contemporaries (so it's not hindsight). In fact, I wonder whether Antonescu really entered the war solely for Bessarabia or whether his thinking was more dominated by the crusade against Bolshevism and the German order in Europe.

Mannerheim:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/catb/7169522987/

Antonescu:

http://www.napocanews.ro/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/P1070004.jpg





Posted by: Cantacuzino February 02, 2013 03:11 am
QUOTE
I don't think the action was inevitable per se. Military operations can be given limited goals, based on political purposes and/or the actual capabilities to conduct the operations.



Hey I think you mistake the types of wars. We are talking here of world war not regional war.
Ofcourse retake only Bassarabia looks like an regional war. But URSS like I said Romania can not defeat alone. So going into a world war near one side no matter if romanian Army was leaded By Maresal Ionescu, Popescu or Hohenzolern regime It would not be possible to win just stoping at the border waiting URSS to sign the treat because we were nice guys.
I agree with you that any leader with the power in hand could take the oportunity to became dictators ( in the name of the cross, bla, bla, bla)and I don't think that only Antonescu was capable of that.

Posted by: Dénes February 02, 2013 06:52 am
QUOTE (sebipatru @ February 02, 2013 02:10 am)
be broud of it, Hungary Finland Croatia never did it

What are you talking about? blink.gif

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: sebipatru February 02, 2013 09:07 am
i'm talking about clausewitz theory and the fact that only romania actualy suported germany on eastern front accordingly this theory
finland hungary croatia sent initialy only simbolic forces on eastern front or never get on soviet soil
maybe if all the axis countries would have used all their military power in the summer of 41 maybe the axis would have won the war
only romania really get in this war alongside germany

Posted by: Imperialist February 02, 2013 10:48 am
@Cantacuzino

Yes, it was a world war but it wasn't our world war. If I'm not mistaken, correct me if I am, Germany was not behind any territorial loss suffered by Finland, like it was in our case in 1940. And even so, Finland did not go significantly out of its way to help the Germans.

In our case, although Germany had chopped us up with USSR in 1939 and twisted our hand in 1940 on the Transylvania and Cadrilater issues too, our attitude was like "if Hitler asks if we can jump, we say yes sir how high you want us to jump. that high? no sir, we'll jump higher!" Add to that the fact that, like MMM pointed out on an older thread, we didn't even have a proper, written treaty of alliance with Germany.

And I think Antonescu is primarily to blame for that attitude. He probably thought he had a special relationship with Hitler, his ego was probably also boosted by the laudatory articles in German press, he probably saw himself as the second or third most important man in Europe.

@sebipatru

Clausewitz refers to the principles of war. Not to the political-(geo)strategic considerations that decide when the war starts, what its goals are, when it should stop etc. Our goal was to take back Bessarabia. Once we did that we could have established a defense line at the Dniester and that's it. Our goal was not to drive deep into Russia to make sure Russia stays down. That was Germany's business.

Posted by: Dénes February 02, 2013 11:27 am
QUOTE (sebipatru @ February 02, 2013 03:07 pm)
finland hungary croatia sent initialy only simbolic forces on eastern front or never get on soviet soil
(...)
only romania really get in this war alongside germany

When he planned Operation Barbarossa, Hitler counted only with the participation of Finland and Rumania, on the flanks, because they were the ones who had something to gain (territory) from the anti-Soviet war.

I suggest you read more and return with some more accurate facts.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: MMM February 02, 2013 11:52 am
QUOTE (sebipatru @ February 02, 2013 12:07 pm)
i'm talking about clausewitz theory and the fact that only romania actualy suported germany on eastern front accordingly this theory
finland hungary croatia sent initialy only simbolic forces on eastern front or never get on soviet soil
maybe if all the axis countries would have used all their military power in the summer of 41 maybe the axis would have won the war
only romania really get in this war alongside germany

Well, you're quite wrong regarding the facts in here. A simple google check, even on wikipedia, could help you.
First of all, Romania has always maintained strong forces (1-st Army) at the Hungarian border; obviously, those forces did not go to the Eastern Front! wink.gif
Second, neither Finland, nor Hungary have participated only with "token forces" - and, above all data, the number of casualties acknowledgerd by them is quite relevant. Neither country participated with all its forces, not even Germany - until it was too late, anyway!
And, by the way, Clausewitz's theories, however appealing as they are to us, novices in the "Art of War" (Sun Tzu's theories as well), zhey have only limited effect now, in the days of satellite reconaissance, nuclear warfare and other such marvellous sad.gif inventions.

Posted by: sebipatru February 02, 2013 12:27 pm
romania and germany participated with all the forces they could send
the forces kept home were necesary from security reasons
hungary could easilly sent more troops on eastern front
finland could cross the border and close the encirclement of leningrad
none did this
this is my point

Posted by: Cantacuzino February 02, 2013 03:24 pm
QUOTE
Our goal was to take back Bessarabia. Once we did that we could have established a defense line at the Dniester and that's it. Our goal was not to drive deep into Russia to make sure Russia stays down. That was Germany's business.


Using double standards when you want to blame someone.

If the goal to take back Bassarabia was lost ( because Germany was loosening the war) why the other goal to retake Transilvania you don't treat the same. We should stop at Tisa border establishing a defense line and that's it. Quit simple isnt'it ?
For the death of so many romanians in Hungary and Czechoslovacia we can not blame Antonescu and as we know there is no dictator at power after 23 august.
The Soviet Stalin dream ( to make Europe soviets republics) was less dangerous than the Hitlers dream of lebensraum ?
So the question is who forced romanian soldiers to die on both fronts beyond the borders when was so easy to stop at the border ? ( Ok, for the est everybody agree that only Antonescu to blame)

Posted by: ANDREAS February 02, 2013 03:25 pm
QUOTE
i'm talking about clausewitz theory and the fact that only romania actualy suported germany on eastern front accordingly this theory
finland hungary croatia sent initialy only simbolic forces on eastern front or never get on soviet soil
maybe if all the axis countries would have used all their military power in the summer of 41 maybe the axis would have won the war
only romania really get in this war alongside germany

So sorry sebipatru, but you are far from reality! Although I don't think I could be accused of sympathy for Hungary, the reality is that Hungarian Army contributed as the Romanian and Finnish Army to the military action triggered by Germany against USSR in June 1941, and the important contribution of each can't be analyzed only in relation to the effectives thrown in combat... From another perspective in the German High Command (Hitler too) thinking (in 1941 at least) there was no need to ask his allies (satellites) for a most significant military contribution as they believed they can win alone in a couple of month that campaign!

Posted by: ANDREAS February 02, 2013 03:39 pm
QUOTE
So the question is who forced romanian soldiers to die on both fronts beyond the borders when was so easy to stop at the border ? ( Ok, for the est everybody agree that only Antonescu to blame)

Antonescu of course laugh.gif
Seriously speaking I really think that he is to blame for the campaign in the west too, because if Romania have had a better relation with the allies (UK, USA f.i.) then our participation at a military campaign against Germany in 1944/45 could have been more limited (theoretically speaking) and at least negotiated in recognizing our co-belligerence! Don't you think so?

Posted by: Cantacuzino February 02, 2013 05:00 pm
QUOTE
Antonescu of course 
Seriously speaking I really think that he is to blame for the campaign in the west too, because if Romania have had a better relation with the allies (UK, USA f.i.) then our participation at a military campaign against Germany in 1944/45 could have been more limited (theoretically speaking) and at least negotiated in recognizing our co-belligerence! Don't you think so?


No I don't agree with you. I don't think that Stalin and a great power like USSR would forgive Romania just because we stopped at Dnester border ( what a good guys we were should gave us candies )
In my opinion nobody could stop URSS to force Romania to continuu the war after Tisza border with all army (if we wanted to keep Transilvania for us)

Yes teoretically Romania would have better relation with USA and UK but URSS had different goals and the western allies could not change that by contary they helped.

Posted by: Dénes February 02, 2013 07:17 pm
QUOTE (Cantacuzino @ February 02, 2013 11:00 pm)
In my opinion nobody could stop URSS to force Romania to continuu the war after Tisza border...

What border was at River Tisza? blink.gif

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Imperialist February 02, 2013 07:32 pm
QUOTE (Cantacuzino @ February 02, 2013 05:00 pm)
No I don't agree with you. I don't think that Stalin and a great power like USSR would forgive Romania just because we stopped at Dnester border ( what a good guys we were should gave us candies )
In my opinion nobody could stop URSS to force Romania to continuu the war after Tisza border with all army (if we wanted to keep Transilvania for us)

Yes teoretically Romania would have better relation with USA and UK but URSS had different goals and the western allies could not change that by contary they helped.

In my view the question is not if there was anything the leaders could have done to obtain a better outcome. I don't think there was. We were caught between a rock and a hard place. One way or the other we were going to lose territory and people and fall under the order of one of the great powers.
The question is - in what way would we lose them?

The thread is talking about pride and morality. Emotional elements that may change with time. But I know for sure that since I joined the forum I maintained one opinion all the way through, since the beginning. And that is that we should have fought in 1940.

That would have made me really proud. The rest - our moves in the East and then in the West can be admired for the effort and respected for the sacrifices, but they don't spark pride in me. Because in both cases we were allied with the enemies who humiliated us in 1940 and were ready to invade us if we refused to bow to their ultimatums, and we were fighting way beyond our legitimate borders.

Posted by: Florin February 03, 2013 12:18 am
QUOTE (MMM @ February 02, 2013 06:52 am)
QUOTE (sebipatru @ February 02, 2013 12:07 pm)
i'm talking about clausewitz theory and the fact that only romania actualy suported germany on eastern front  accordingly this theory
finland hungary croatia sent initialy only simbolic forces on eastern front or never get on soviet soil
maybe if all the axis countries would have used all their military power in the summer of 41 maybe the axis would have won the war
only romania really get in this war alongside germany

Well, you're quite wrong regarding the facts in here.............First of all, Romania has always maintained strong forces (1-st Army) at the Hungarian border; obviously, those forces did not go to the Eastern Front! wink.gif
Second, neither Finland, nor Hungary have participated only with "token forces" - and, above all data, the number of casualties acknowledgerd by them is quite relevant. Neither country participated with all its forces, not even Germany - until it was too late, anyway!
..........

Romania had on the Eastern Front more military personnel than the rest of the Axis Allies combined. If I am wrong with this one, this is a good opportunity to get enlightened.

Of course Germany did not participate with all her forces on the Eastern Front - the reason is too obvious to remind it. But by 1942 Germany had thrown all available men into military service. In early 1944 it was very common to see conscripted teenagers - 16 years old. Later that year, it had become standard practice. In early 1944 you could be in service even at 15 years old, but as volunteer (Hitlerjugend - 12 SS division, for example).
Maybe Germany should push more women into the military service - but this is not up to me to decide or comment. As you know, Soviet Union did it.
Something interesting happened at the end of 1944: many thousands of German soldiers were re-oriented from the frontlines back into the German industry, to avoid the collapse of the industrial manufacturing.

Posted by: MMM February 03, 2013 11:48 am
QUOTE (Florin @ February 03, 2013 03:18 am)

Romania had on the Eastern Front more military personnel than the rest of the Axis Allies combined. If I am wrong with this one, this is a good opportunity to get enlightened.

Of course Germany did not participate with all her forces on the Eastern Front - the reason is too obvious to remind it. But by 1942 Germany had thrown all available men into military service. In early 1944 it was very common to see conscripted  teenagers - 16 years old. Later that year, it had become standard practice. In early 1944 you could be in service even at 15 years old, but as volunteer (Hitlerjugend - 12 SS division, for example).
Maybe Germany should push more women into the military service - but this is not up to me to decide or comment. As you know, Soviet Union did it.
Something interesting happened at the end of 1944: many thousands of German soldiers were re-oriented from the frontlines back into the German industry, to avoid the collapse of the industrial manufacturing.

Indeed, but except for Italy, the other Reich-allied countries had small populations: even after all the territorial gains, Hungary was still smaller than Romania; Finland as well; the "puppet-states" (Croatia and Slovakia) didn't exactly matter in the big picture. However, as the war was decided by the technological advance, I see no point in having 10 or 20 or 30 extra infantry divisions (from any ally) without AT or AA support.
What you say about HJ and Volkssturm (respectively the young and the old) begun in Germany only after the catastrophe at Stalingrad and the "gearing" towards total war of the economy and especially of the military production begun only under Speer's leadership.

Posted by: ANDREAS February 03, 2013 12:09 pm
QUOTE
Romania had on the Eastern Front more military personnel than the rest of the Axis Allies combined. If I am wrong with this one, this is a good opportunity to get enlightened.

Florin, from my point of view this fact is completely irrelevant! Or, if applicable, is only relevant for us, Romanians! I want to be well understood: although strong in expressing my pride for the efforts and sacrifices of our Army (and Nation as well) for the war of liberation of Bessarabia and Bukovina in summer 1941 I do believe that at some point general Antonescu "let himself took with the flow" ("s-a lasat luat de val") and entered, also of personal pride (considering his obvious belief that Hitler will reward him with Northern Transylvania) in the "Crusade against Bolshevism". In other words put his personal ambition above the interests of the country, this is why I also think he doesn't deserve to be appreciated by the Romanian Nation as Mannerheim is by the Finns! Which does not mean I condemn him, but merely I can't appreciate him!
Returning to topic, what is relevant for the contribution of Germany's allies in 1941 campaign in Russia is their contribution to the destruction of enemy combat units, and not the occupation of ennemy territory that for the USSR is not important! What USSR had plentiful were the people and vast territory, but relevant was finally the abundance of people and war materiel! So please tell me how many large Soviet units were destroyed by the Romanian Army (without German contribution) in 1941, how many were destroyed by Hungarian/Finn/Italian/Slovak/Croatian/Spanish Armies (Units) to talk about their contribution, important or not?

Posted by: sebipatru February 03, 2013 01:10 pm
QUOTE (ANDREAS @ February 03, 2013 12:09 pm)
QUOTE
Romania had on the Eastern Front more military personnel than the rest of the Axis Allies combined. If I am wrong with this one, this is a good opportunity to get enlightened.

Florin, from my point of view this fact is completely irrelevant! Or, if applicable, is only relevant for us, Romanians! I want to be well understood: although strong in expressing my pride for the efforts and sacrifices of our Army (and Nation as well) for the war of liberation of Bessarabia and Bukovina in summer 1941 I do believe that at some point general Antonescu "let himself took with the flow" ("s-a lasat luat de val") and entered, also of personal pride (considering his obvious belief that Hitler will reward him with Northern Transylvania) in the "Crusade against Bolshevism". In other words put his personal ambition above the interests of the country, this is why I also think he doesn't deserve to be appreciated by the Romanian Nation as Mannerheim is by the Finns! Which does not mean I condemn him, but merely I can't appreciate him!
Returning to topic, what is relevant for the contribution of Germany's allies in 1941 campaign in Russia is their contribution to the destruction of enemy combat units, and not the occupation of ennemy territory that for the USSR is not important! What USSR had plentiful were the people and vast territory, but relevant was finally the abundance of people and war materiel! So please tell me how many large Soviet units were destroyed by the Romanian Army (without German contribution) in 1941, how many were destroyed by Hungarian/Finn/Italian/Slovak/Croatian/Spanish Armies (Units) to talk about their contribution, important or not?

QUOTE

So please tell me how many large Soviet units were destroyed by the Romanian Army (without German contribution) in 1941, how many were destroyed by Hungarian/Finn/Italian/Slovak/Croatian/Spanish Armies (Units) to talk about their contribution, important or not?

how many soviet units were destroyed by germans in southern sector with out romanian contribution?
how many ofensives could germans launch in southern sector with out relieing on romanian help?

Posted by: MMM February 03, 2013 03:23 pm
@sebipatru:
1. most of them
2. all
Explanations:
1. The Romanian Army did not fight alone with the Red Army when it had the opportunity (1940), but after the Wehrmacht attacked the USSR. Remember when our units crossed the Prut river (12 days after the main attack). Why was that?
2. Our troops were used because they were there. If they weren't, the Wehrmacht would have used some other troops, possibly Hungarian... tongue.gif
The Romanian participation was more or less "a crime of opportunity": we did it because we were in the right place at the right time, IMO.

Posted by: Florin February 03, 2013 05:48 pm
Germany could carry on alone the war with Soviet Union if there would be no need for occupation troops in Western Europe and the Balkans, no need for air defense of Europe and no war in Northern Africa. Germany built in 2 years an empire of a size that for other countries required centuries to reach - with the benefits but also with the problems resulting from this.
To make it short, because this overstretching Germany could not carry on alone the war with Soviet Union - from the first day it started. Germany needed any help available on the Eastern Front. The more troops from any ally, the better.
Something neglected under this topic is the huge mistake made by the Germans as "public relations" with the local populations. The Ukrainians hated bitterly everything Stalin and Soviet Union stood for. For them, the Axis troops were liberators. And what was the German response? "Untermensch".
Nazi Germany could easily employ 2-3 million soldiers from Soviet citizens hating Communism. If that would become real, they would not need allies like the Romanian, Italian or Hungarian Armies, and they could win that war.

Posted by: sebipatru February 03, 2013 06:06 pm
QUOTE

Explanations: The Romanian Army did not fought alone with the Red Army when it had the opportunity (1940), but after the Wehrmacht attacked the USSR. Remember when our units crossed the Prut river (12 days after the main attack). Why was that?
2. Our troops were used because they were there. If they weren't, the Wehrmacht would have used some other troops, possibly Hungarian... tongue.gif
The Romanian participation was more or less "a crime of opportunity": we did it because we were in the right place at the right time, IMO.

not agree with that
yes romania didn't fight aloane against USSR in 1940 wich is our big shame
but in 1940 the germans need us
operatioan munchen started 2 weeks later because of strategically reasons
soon after invansion germans realised that they simply dont have enough men to fight ussr and requested military support from their allies because of this romanian 4th army sieged odessa, because of this 3rd and 4th romanian armies fought at stalingrad, as well 8th iatlin army and 2nd Hungarian army
yes they could have used other troops but the fact is that we fought in that battles so haw many units destroyed the germans with out romanians asistance
how many operations launched germans on southern sector with out our suport

Posted by: MMM February 03, 2013 08:11 pm
QUOTE (sebipatru @ February 03, 2013 09:06 pm)
QUOTE

Explanations: The Romanian Army did not fought alone with the Red Army when it had the opportunity (1940), but after the Wehrmacht attacked the USSR. Remember when our units crossed the Prut river (12 days after the main attack). Why was that?
2. Our troops were used because they were there. If they weren't, the Wehrmacht would have used some other troops, possibly Hungarian... tongue.gif
The Romanian participation was more or less "a crime of opportunity": we did it because we were in the right place at the right time, IMO.

not agree with that
yes romania didn't fight aloane against USSR in 1940 wich is our big shame
but in 1940 the germans need us
operatioan munchen started 2 weeks later because of strategically reasons
soon after invansion germans realised that they simply dont have enough men to fight ussr and requested military support from their allies because of this romanian 4th army sieged odessa, because of this 3rd and 4th romanian armies fought at stalingrad, as well 8th iatlin army and 2nd Hungarian army
yes they could have used other troops but the fact is that we fought in that battles so haw many units destroyed the germans with out romanians asistance
how many operations launched germans on southern sector with out our suport

@sebipatru, I kinda fail to understand your message, but from what I did understand, you might want to say that Germans needed our help in 1941, not in 1940! Also false, because they actually needed (and requested) a lot of help (in troops) only in 1942. At the beginning, they considered Barbarossa to be a little more than a "walk to Moscow", thus they little needed anyone to share the glory of victory.
Romanians sieged Odessa because they wanted to (Antonescu wanted that, actually, but the reasons for that belong to another thread); the number of operations launched by Germans in the Southern Sector (perhaps you mean "Army Group South" or "Heeresgruppe Süd") was not reduced to the area of the Romanian divisions. Remember the conquest of Kiev, for example? Were there Romanian troops involved there? Please, check your sources better... as well as your English... wink.gif
@Florin: their "PR" was bound to fail, because of their "race superiority", "Ubermensch/Untermensch" crappy theories. As for the 2-3 millions of "turned" soldiers, they eventually had some hundreds of thousands of "hiwis", alongside cossacks and Vlasov's troops and so on. Remember the fact that in the last year of the war, the SS were little more than a colection of foreign nationals who wanted to fight alongside the Reich...

Posted by: sebipatru February 03, 2013 08:59 pm
sorry for my english
actually as far as i know germans requested antonescu on 27 july to cross Dniester and take odessa and antonescu agreed on 31 july
third axis fourth ally page 49

Posted by: Florin February 03, 2013 11:55 pm
QUOTE (MMM @ February 03, 2013 03:11 pm)
@Florin: ....... they eventually had some hundreds of thousands of "hiwis", alongside cossacks and Vlasov's troops and so on. Remember the fact that in the last year of the war, the SS were little more than a colection of foreign nationals who wanted to fight alongside the Reich...

It is almost unbelievable how Waffen SS evolved in few years. In 1939 there was only one regiment, where all volunteers had to be at least 6 feet (1,80m) tall and a bad looking frontal tooth could turn a membership application into a failure. The genealogy (ancestry) was searched into the 1700's.
In 1944, Waffen SS had 1 million people - and literally many of them could not understand German.
They even had Muslim, Hindu and Sikh soldiers - in addition to the guys you know better. The latter were lured from Commonwealth war prisoners.

Posted by: MMM February 04, 2013 02:57 pm
QUOTE (Florin @ February 04, 2013 02:55 am)
It is almost unbelievable how Waffen SS evolved in few years. In 1939 there was only one regiment, where all volunteers had to be at least 6 feet (1,80m) tall and a bad looking frontal tooth could turn a membership application into a failure. The genealogy (ancestry) was searched into the 1700's.
In 1944, Waffen SS had 1 million people - and literally many of them could not understand German.
They even had Muslim, Hindu and Sikh soldiers - in addition to the guys you know better. The latter were lured from Commonwealth war prisoners.

So, in dire needs, they "let go" the Untermensch theory, but by then it was too late already, because:
1. The Slavic people have already witnessed (and paid with their lives) the racial policy of the Reich
2. They were almost expelled from USSR, so there wouldn't have been any other volunteers to fight for a lost cause.

Posted by: contras March 16, 2013 09:57 am
I don't know if it was posted earlier here. An article about Romanian contribution in Eastern Campaign:

http://www.historynet.com/forgotten-army-i.htm

and another one published in NY Times in October 1942:

http://kingofromania.com/2012/10/02/october-1-1942/


Posted by: MMM March 16, 2013 07:03 pm
QUOTE (contras @ March 16, 2013 12:57 pm)
I don't know if it was posted earlier here. An article about Romanian contribution in Eastern Campaign:

http://www.historynet.com/forgotten-army-i.htm

and another one published in NY Times in October 1942:

http://kingofromania.com/2012/10/02/october-1-1942/

Contras, the first story is nice, yet not very accurate: we didn't actually start going east on 22.06, but a little later...

Posted by: dragos March 16, 2013 10:52 pm
QUOTE (MMM @ March 16, 2013 09:03 pm)
Contras, the first story is nice, yet not very accurate: we didn't actually start going east on 22.06, but a little later...

The start of military operations was indeed 22.06.1941 and not later. The fact that the a major offensive was launched later is another matter, but military operations and the first casualties started on 22.

Posted by: Dénes March 17, 2013 06:33 am
I tend to agree with MMM. Although some units did indeed cross the border and there were a few casualties on 22 June, the Rumanian Army got really involved in the war only about ten days later (Operation München).

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: MMM March 18, 2013 08:38 am
The exact quote goes like that "They crossed the Soviet border on June 22, 1941, heading east. While the attacking spearheads made good progress".
One who does not know the exact details of those days - and, IMHO, that site is designed for just such audience! - will be confused, guessing that the Romanian Army rushed forward / eastward from day one!
I will also contest another data: The Romanian Army had nearly 700,000 men under arms in 1941. For all that I know - and it isn't much, as only the archives are saying it, the numbers are 623.524! That's not quite "nearly" 700.000!!!!
Whatever...

Posted by: Dénes March 18, 2013 11:05 am
QUOTE (MMM @ March 18, 2013 02:38 pm)
I will also contest another data: The Romanian Army had nearly 700,000 men under arms in 1941. For all that I know - and it isn't much, as only the archives are saying it, the numbers are 623.524! That's not quite "nearly" 700.000!!!!
Whatever...

And how many of those were outside Rumania, on the front area?

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: MMM March 18, 2013 11:18 am
QUOTE (Dénes @ March 18, 2013 02:05 pm)
QUOTE (MMM @ March 18, 2013 02:38 pm)
I will also contest another data: The Romanian Army had nearly 700,000 men under arms in 1941. For all that I know - and it isn't much, as only the archives are saying it, the numbers are 623.524! That's not quite "nearly" 700.000!!!!
Whatever...

And how many of those were outside Rumania, on the front area?

Gen. Dénes

I don't get it! You mean, how many did our "friendly" neighbours had? Or how many of the Romanian soldiers did actually fight over the borders (of course, you mean the post-september 1940 borders)?

Posted by: Dénes March 18, 2013 07:25 pm
The latter, of course.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: MMM March 18, 2013 08:41 pm
QUOTE (Dénes @ March 18, 2013 10:25 pm)
The latter, of course.

Gen. Dénes

Again, according to the archives, 623.524!
user posted image

Posted by: Dénes March 19, 2013 06:44 am
Nice document. Thanks for sharing.
However, this again seems to me like the total number of soldiers of the Rumanian Army, not the number of men deployed to the Eastern Front.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Victor March 19, 2013 07:35 am
Yes, it's the total number of mobilized soldiers.

Posted by: MMM March 19, 2013 08:51 am
QUOTE (Dénes @ March 19, 2013 09:44 am)
Nice document. Thanks for sharing.
However, this again seems to me like the total number of soldiers of the Rumanian Army, not the number of men deployed to the Eastern Front.

Gen. Dénes

Oh, so you wanted the total number of Romanian soldiers involved in operations in the Eastern front, or, more precisely, the 3-rd and 4-th Armies...
That's another thing!
I've got to look more for that, but in the meantime - the 4-th Army had 127.625 men.
The 3-rd Army, IIRC, had around 110.000, but I'm not very sure!

Posted by: Petre March 19, 2013 02:45 pm
As they wrote there, it means the total number of Ro Army, IMO...

Posted by: MMM March 19, 2013 03:36 pm
QUOTE (Petre @ March 19, 2013 05:45 pm)
As they wrote there, it means the total number of Ro Army, IMO...

You mean, on the site? There's still a difference of about 76.000 people, which would count (in those times) quite about an Army Corps!

Posted by: Petre March 19, 2013 04:55 pm
I mean that humble page from archive. What lapidary records in an official document.

Posted by: MMM March 19, 2013 05:55 pm
QUOTE (Petre @ March 19, 2013 07:55 pm)
I mean that humble page from archive. What lapidary records in an official document.

Oh, sorry, that is actually about a quarter of the entire page. It was something like A2 - that particular book...

Posted by: luciang March 19, 2013 08:52 pm
There is a note written with a pencil on the right side of the 623524 figure which appears to be something like "Camp URSS" - meaning perhaps the USSR Campaign. So this could be the actual number of troops dedicated to the USSR campaign on the 21st of June 1941.

LucianG

Posted by: MMM March 19, 2013 09:15 pm
QUOTE (luciang @ March 19, 2013 11:52 pm)
There is a note written with a pencil on the right side of the 623524 figure which appears to be something like "Camp URSS" - meaning perhaps the USSR Campaign. So this could be the actual number of troops dedicated to the USSR campaign on the 21st of June 1941.

LucianG

Nah... there was some "addenda" on the back of the page: this was the number of soldiers at the beginning of the campaign!
The actual number of troops that crossed the Pruth was around a quarter of million!

Posted by: Victor April 12, 2013 07:12 am
July 1941
- East of the Dnestr (engaged in military operations): 342,123
- West of the Dnestr (not engaged in military operations): 360,932
- Total: 713,055

I will soon add the info to the website.

Posted by: luciang April 14, 2013 06:05 pm
I believe that the questions from this poll are in a way misleading. Either we want to know if one is proud from a moral point of view, and in this case the third question seems to me irrelevant - it doesn't matter that there might have been no "pure" victories, because the moral perspective is being emphasized ; or, we want to know if one is proud from a military art or romanian troops combat value point of view which is what the third question seems to lead to.
So, it seems to me that either one or the other perspective has influenced the result.

LucianG

Posted by: aidan zea April 16, 2013 07:32 pm
luciang, from my point of view as initiator of this topic and also of the poll the questions are perfectly logical in terms of individual morality, analyzing the eastern campaign issue between two important moments: the Romanian military participation far beyond the line of security for our country, deep inside USSR and the crushing defeat at Don Bend. The two moments are related to a matter of morality namely if we (our army) should or shouldn't go so far East, the more so as we could no longer speak of imminent threat to our country! So if the majority chose the pride of victory (until november 1942) against morality (we participate in an aggression against a neighboring state, regardless of the fact that we were previously aggressed by this state!) is the choice of each one! I respect everyone's opinion as I expect that my opinion to be also respected!

Posted by: Taz1 April 18, 2013 07:53 am
More than proud we must have respect for the veterans how participate at the Est Campain. From the moral poit of view we were more o victim then an agresor. With some exceptions romanian army did not comit many war crimes on the est front. And most important from the military point of view the normal, the logic thing to do was to go as deep into the Soviet Union as the military operations demanded to do, until the defeat of the enemy. The same thing on the west front we went as far as military operatins demanded.

Posted by: Imperialist April 21, 2013 12:51 pm
QUOTE (Taz1 @ April 18, 2013 07:53 am)
From the moral poit of view we were more o victim then an agresor.

And most important from the military point of view the normal, the logic thing to do was to go as deep into the Soviet Union as the military operations demanded to do, until the defeat of the enemy. The same thing on the west front we went as far as military operatins demanded.

The moment the goal of the war went from merely recovering Bessarabia to doing everything "until the defeat of the enemy" (which in practice meant the complete crushing of the Soviet Union) we became aggressors. The case for a legitimate war to get back what was lost in 1940 could no longer be made at Stalingrad or in the Caucasus.

Posted by: MMM April 21, 2013 03:56 pm
QUOTE (Imperialist @ April 21, 2013 03:51 pm)
doing everything "until the defeat of the enemy"

As we have seen, if the said enemy is not "crushed", it'll get back on its feet and it'll also get back its prey...
IMHO, if one goes to war, one must defeat the enemy! Otherwise stay put!

Posted by: Imperialist April 21, 2013 08:45 pm
QUOTE (MMM @ April 21, 2013 03:56 pm)
As we have seen, if the said enemy is not "crushed", it'll get back on its feet and it'll also get back its prey...
IMHO, if one goes to war, one must defeat the enemy! Otherwise stay put!

One can set limited goals for a war. And we were not in the position to crush the Soviet Union.

Posted by: Florin April 21, 2013 10:16 pm
QUOTE (Imperialist @ April 21, 2013 03:45 pm)
QUOTE (MMM @ April 21, 2013 03:56 pm)
As we have seen, if the said enemy is not "crushed", it'll get back on its feet and it'll also get back its prey...
IMHO, if one goes to war, one must defeat the enemy! Otherwise stay put!

One can set limited goals for a war. And we were not in the position to crush the Soviet Union.

If "we" defines only the Romanian Army, you are 100 percent right for any moment of the war.
If "we" is that alliance revolving around Germany, there was a chance to crush Soviet Union, but only and only in 1941.
In 1942, the "crush" was out of question, but that was the last time when a honorable way out could be negociated. (I am considering Germany, first of all.)
But whatever "the forever peace" would be called on paper, the war would start again sooner or later, and at re-start Soviet Union would be in much better position.

Posted by: Taz1 April 22, 2013 01:54 pm
Military situation of the 1941 demanded that romanian army should go deeper into the Russia because soviet army was not defeated in a way that in was not to pose a serious threat to Romania in the imediat future . We could stop after the recapture of Basarabia but the fact that we decided to continue it is not so extraordinary giving the military and political situation of that time.
We , romanians seems to questionate our participation to war deep into soviet union but never our participation in the west campain after the eliberation of Transilvania. What was our purpose in fighting in Ungaria, Chehoslovacia, Austria. We could stop at the hungarian borders( in teory at least biggrin.gif ). Or we thing that we fought for the eliberation of East of Europe, freedom and democraty shoulder, to shoulder with Stalin. smile.gif

Posted by: Dénes April 22, 2013 05:02 pm
QUOTE (Taz1 @ April 22, 2013 07:54 pm)
Or we thing that we fought for the eliberation of East of Europe...

That was not the liberation, but rather the occupation of Hungary (along with the Soviet Army).

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Florin April 23, 2013 06:34 am
QUOTE (Dénes @ April 22, 2013 12:02 pm)
QUOTE (Taz1 @ April 22, 2013 07:54 pm)
Or we thing that we fought for the eliberation of East of Europe...

That was not the liberation, but rather the occupation of Hungary (along with the Soviet Army).

Gen. Dénes

As "Taz1" already mentioned, it was the same situation as on the Eastern Front more than 3 years before: Why the side having military initiative would stop at a border, if the enemy is still active, still potent and not willing to sign a surrender ?
Quite often in history, when a side had shown some benevolence and did not push its success to finish the other side for good, the tide rolled back in a disastrous way.

Posted by: Imperialist April 23, 2013 07:10 pm
QUOTE (Taz1 @ April 22, 2013 01:54 pm)
Military situation of the 1941 demanded that romanian army should go deeper into the Russia because soviet army was not defeated in a way that in was not to pose a serious threat to Romania in the imediat future . We could stop after the recapture of Basarabia but the fact that we decided to continue it is not so extraordinary giving the military and political situation of that time.
We , romanians seems to questionate our participation to war deep into soviet union but never our participation in the west campain after the eliberation of Transilvania. What was our purpose in fighting in Ungaria, Chehoslovacia, Austria. We could stop at the hungarian borders( in teory at least biggrin.gif ). Or we thing that we fought for the eliberation of East of Europe, freedom and democraty shoulder, to shoulder with Stalin. smile.gif

Stopping in Bessarabia would have been possible but that's not what Antonescu wanted. Antonescu didn't want just to take back Bessarabia, he wanted to take part in the crusade against bolshevism.

After we went all the way to the Caucasus, allegedly in order to get back Bessarabia, there was hardly the possibility of saying "we will stop at the border of Hungary" in order to get back Transylvania.








Posted by: Florin April 23, 2013 07:34 pm
QUOTE (Imperialist @ April 23, 2013 02:10 pm)
....................
Stopping in Bessarabia would have been possible but that's not what Antonescu wanted. Antonescu didn't want just to take back Bessarabia, he wanted to take part in the crusade against bolshevism.

After we went all the way to the Caucasus, allegedly in order to get back Bessarabia, there was hardly the possibility of saying "we will stop at the border of Hungary" in order to get back Transylvania.

Just as a fact, the Hungarian-Romanian conflict following the 23rd of August, 1944, started with the Romanian troops in defensive and with the Hungarian troops in offensive, the latter crossing the border as it was after the Vienna Treaty of August 1940.

Posted by: Dénes April 24, 2013 04:55 am
QUOTE (Florin @ April 24, 2013 01:34 am)
Just as a fact, the Hungarian-Romanian conflict following the 23rd of August, 1944, started with the Romanian troops in defensive and with the Hungarian troops in offensive, the latter crossing the border as it was after the Vienna Treaty of August 1940.

This "fact" is untrue. The Rumanian border forces crossed the border in Transylvania soon after the 23 August about-face (without a formal declaration of war).

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: MMM April 24, 2013 07:19 am
QUOTE (Dénes @ April 24, 2013 07:55 am)
QUOTE (Florin @ April 24, 2013 01:34 am)
Just as a fact, the Hungarian-Romanian conflict following the 23rd of August, 1944, started with the Romanian troops in defensive and with the Hungarian troops in offensive, the latter crossing the border as it was after the Vienna Treaty of August 1940.

This "fact" is untrue. The Rumanian border forces crossed the border in Transylvania soon after the 23 August about-face (without a formal declaration of war).

Gen. Dénes

Well, AFAIK the Hungarian and German forces attacked first, trying to cross the border. Only afterwards did 1-st Army counter-attack! Do you know something different? wink.gif

Posted by: Dénes April 24, 2013 07:33 am
QUOTE (MMM @ April 24, 2013 01:19 pm)
Do you know something different? wink.gif

It's not that I know different, the facts speak for themselves.
I will look for some details tonight, but this is OT.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: MMM April 24, 2013 02:27 pm
QUOTE (Dénes @ April 24, 2013 10:33 am)
but this is OT.


Of course it is, coming from everybody else...

Posted by: ANDREAS April 24, 2013 09:35 pm
QUOTE
This "fact" is untrue. The Rumanian border forces crossed the border in Transylvania soon after the 23 August about-face (without a formal declaration of war).

Gen. Dénes


I think it is time to overcome the formalisms or hide behind the finger... In august 1940 Hungary took advantage of opportunity and took back with the help of Germany what they think they are entitled to have: Northern Transylvania (actually they wanted the entire Transylvania) and in august 1944 Romania took advantage of the temporary weakness of Germany so the Romanian Army has reentered the former Romanian province. Unfortunately we (Romanian Army) do not have the necessary strength to take advantage of German collapse from late August 1944 so that the Germans had sufficient time to prepare a relatively strong defense that have delayed us and the Russians for about 1,5 months (September and about half October 1944). This also applies to reverse look, the Hungarians (helped by Germans) did not have enough strength to occupy the southern Transylvania until the massive penetration of Soviet forces into the province in mid september 1944!

Posted by: Florin April 25, 2013 02:32 am
QUOTE (ANDREAS @ April 24, 2013 04:35 pm)
QUOTE
This "fact" is untrue. The Rumanian border forces crossed the border in Transylvania soon after the 23 August about-face (without a formal declaration of war).

Gen. Dénes


I think it is time to overcome the formalisms or hide behind the finger... In august 1940 Hungary took advantage of opportunity and took back with the help of Germany what they think they are entitled to have: Northern Transylvania (actually they wanted the entire Transylvania) and in august 1944 Romania took advantage of the temporary weakness of Germany so the Romanian Army has reentered the former Romanian province. Unfortunately we (Romanian Army) do not have the necessary strength to take advantage of German collapse from late August 1944 so that the Germans had sufficient time to prepare a relatively strong defense that have delayed us and the Russians for about 1,5 months (September and about half October 1944). This also applies to reverse look, the Hungarians (helped by Germans) did not have enough strength to occupy the southern Transylvania until the massive penetration of Soviet forces into the province in mid september 1944!

Considering my previous quote subject of disagreement with Gen. Denes:
Who started the first military attack in Transylvania after August 23rd, 1944 ?
I just wrote that the first to attack were the Hungarian troops (... and German - the latter not in my quote) .
From a military point of view, it was logical - the attempt to stabilize the front line along the Carpathian Mountains, before Soviet and Romanian reinforcements would reach the area.
Logical indeed, but as Rambo would say, "They drew first blood". wink.gif

Posted by: Radub April 25, 2013 08:35 am
QUOTE (Florin @ April 25, 2013 02:32 am)
Who started the first military attack in Transylvania after August 23rd, 1944 ?

Who cares? There is no secret/surprise that Romania wanted to take Transylvania back. So, irrespective of who started the "fight", the "fight" was definitely going to happen.

Radu

Posted by: Florin April 25, 2013 12:31 pm
QUOTE (Radub @ April 25, 2013 03:35 am)
QUOTE (Florin @ April 25, 2013 02:32 am)
Who started the first military attack in Transylvania after August 23rd, 1944 ?

Who cares? There is no secret/surprise that Romania wanted to take Transylvania back. So, irrespective of who started the "fight", the "fight" was definitely going to happen.

Radu

In the diplomacy and mentality of those days, it mattered.
Remember how carefully the Nazi leadership staged the theater show with Polish Army attacking first, to justify their own action to the rest of the world, compared to the more recent approach of countries like Israel & Company, who just do it first and thinks like you: "Who cares?"

Posted by: Radub April 25, 2013 02:02 pm
So, let me see if I got this right: you are saying that Romania had no intention to take back Transylvania. The Hungarians started the fight and as a result Romania found itself going to war with Hungary.
When you mention the staged "Germany was attacked by Poland" trick you mean that Romanians actually faked this "they started it" Hungarian attack?

Are you saying that Transylvania is now part of Romania simply by dint of an accident (Romania was tripped by the evil Hungarians) or maybe by dint of a trick (Romania faked a "they started it" Hungarian attack) and not becasue Romanians wanted to take it back.

Diplomacy shmiplomacy! Everyone knew that Romania had every intention to take back Transylvania. Why would Romania need to masquerade a "provocation" to do it?

Radu

Posted by: Florin April 26, 2013 10:41 am
QUOTE (Radub @ April 25, 2013 09:02 am)
So, let me see if I got this right: you are saying that Romania had no intention to take back Transylvania. The Hungarians started the fight and as a result Romania found itself going to war with Hungary.
When you mention the staged "Germany was attacked by Poland" trick you mean that Romanians actually faked this "they started it" Hungarian attack?

Are you saying that Transylvania is now part of Romania simply by dint of an accident (Romania was tripped by the evil Hungarians) or maybe by dint of a trick (Romania faked a "they started it" Hungarian attack) and not becasue Romanians wanted to take it back.

Diplomacy shmiplomacy! Everyone knew that Romania had every intention to take back Transylvania. Why would Romania need to masquerade a "provocation" to do it?

Radu

I was considering to not answer at all to your last comments. If I would not do it, it meant to accept them.
No, I did not claim anything of what you wrote. There are rare occasions when you twist things in a way that shock me - for a short moment.

Yes, the Romanians would attack if the Hungarians and Germans would not do it first.
I just tried to remind that the continuation of war after August 23, that ended with the occupation of Hungary, was not a monotone one way conquer. The Romanians saw themselves in defensive in many occasions - including at the very beginning of that part of war.

Posted by: Radub April 26, 2013 11:38 am
QUOTE (Florin @ April 26, 2013 10:41 am)
There are rare occasions when you twist things in a way that shock me - for a short moment.

There is no "twist". Facts are facts! Look at it logically.
Romania wanted to take Transylvania back. The loss of Transylvania was a severe trauma that affected Romanians at the time and Romanians wanted it back, just to close a festering open wound.
What you said was basically that somehow Romania went to war with Hungary just because Hungary "started it" and Romanians could not stand the affront.
Fact is that Romania intended to fight to take Transylvania back, no matter who "started it". Romania did not go to war with Hungary just to have a brawl with Hungarians. They did not go to war in the west just to push the Germans out (the Russians were doing that anyway) Romania could have said "we had enough of war, we stop here". They did not. Why? Because Romania went to war in the West to take back Transylvania and secure it. So... who cares who "started it"?

Anyway, what is the point of this in a thread about "victories on the Eastern Front"?

Radu

Posted by: Florin April 26, 2013 02:05 pm
Radu, my original comment was:
"Just as a fact, the Hungarian-Romanian conflict following the 23rd of August, 1944, started with the Romanian troops in defensive and with the Hungarian troops in offensive, the latter crossing the border as it was after the Vienna Treaty of August 1940."

As I said: "Just as a fact". I did not claim anything.
Yes, I had expected answers, even some anger - so I do not claim innocence.
But it looks it was a snowball rolling out of control ...
PS: At the time I wrote that text, people before me already touched the war after August 1944 under this topic.

Posted by: Dénes April 27, 2013 08:20 am
Let's return to the facts.

Excerpt from a report of Corpul vanatorilor de munte, 30 Aug., 8:15:
"In urma incursiunilor facute in noaptea de 29/30 August peste frontiera: La Valcele (Tekerőpatak), focuri, la Sfantu Gheorghe (Sepsiszentgyörgy), focuri puternice (...)".

Another document of 1st Rumanian Army, dated 30 August 1944, 17:00:
"1, satul Valcele (Tekerőpatak) a fost cucerit..."

Rumania declared war on Hungary only on 7 Sept. (IIRC).

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: ANDREAS April 27, 2013 08:52 am
QUOTE
Let's return to the facts.
Excerpt from a report of Corpul vanatorilor de munte, 30 Aug., 8:15:
"In urma incursiunilor facute in noaptea de 29/30 August peste frontiera: La Valcele (Tekerőpatak), focuri, la Sfantu Gheorghe (Sepsiszentgyörgy), focuri puternice (...)".
Another document of 1st Rumanian Army, dated 30 August 1944, 17:00:
"1, satul Valcele (Tekerőpatak) a fost cucerit..."
Rumania declared war on Hungary only on 7 Sept. (IIRC).
Gen. Dénes

For the sake of the game let's suppose that Romanian Troops attacked first the positions of the Hungarian troops beyond the borders arbitrarily set by Hitler and Mussolini in summer 1940 in Transylvania... this would mean what? I ask because I do not understand what would that mean and what would be the consequences of this fact?

Posted by: Florin April 27, 2013 09:35 am
QUOTE (Dénes @ April 27, 2013 03:20 am)
Let's return to the facts.

Excerpt from a report of Corpul vanatorilor de munte, 30 Aug., 8:15:
"In urma incursiunilor facute in noaptea de 29/30 August peste frontiera: La Valcele (Tekerőpatak), focuri, la Sfantu Gheorghe (Sepsiszentgyörgy), focuri puternice (...)".

Another document of 1st Rumanian Army, dated 30 August 1944, 17:00:
"1, satul Valcele (Tekerőpatak) a fost cucerit..."

Rumania declared war on Hungary only on 7 Sept. (IIRC).

Gen. Dénes

OK...
So, according to you, there was no Hungarian offensive action before the night of August 29/30, 1944. Of course I accept this point, until I will learn something proving the opposite.

Posted by: Dénes April 30, 2013 10:26 am
QUOTE (ANDREAS @ April 27, 2013 02:52 pm)
For the sake of the game let's suppose...

This is not a game, these are not suppositions, these are historical facts.
I am really tired to repeat over and over again the same basic things after all those years.

Politics should be set aside, as it's the death of history.
If some facts are unconfortable for some, it's these people's personal issue, they should overcome it (or not).
Until this can be achieved, it's pointless any further discussions.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: luciang April 30, 2013 12:26 pm
Clearly the discussion has gone off topic but - related also to the poll which is the subject of this thread - I believe this illustrates how difficult it is to untangle the various perspectives when trying to evaluate these historical events.
Now, regarding the post 23rd of august 1944 military actions, this is a quote from king Michael's proclamation broadcasted on radio during that evening:

"Side by side with the allied armies and with their help, by mobilizing all forces of the Nation, we will cross the borders imposed by the unjust Vienna document in order to free our Transylvania's land from foreign domination."

I believe that after this declaration it's hard to claim that any military action came by surprise. Also, further diplomatic actions between the two countries - which seems to have taken place, for instance, on the 30th of August 1944 - would be a natural consequence of this statement.

Lucian G.

Posted by: Dénes April 30, 2013 12:51 pm
QUOTE (luciang @ April 30, 2013 06:26 pm)
I believe that after this declaration it's hard to claim that any military action came by surprise.

Any prerequisite to cross the border is a declaration of war.
Rumania declared war on Hungary on 7 Sept. (IIRC).

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: dragos April 30, 2013 03:41 pm
Just of curiosity, did Hungary declared war when they invaded Yugoslavia in 1941?

Posted by: ANDREAS April 30, 2013 06:28 pm
QUOTE
QUOTE (ANDREAS @ April 27, 2013 02:52 pm)
For the sake of the game let's suppose...
This is not a game, these are not suppositions, these are historical facts.
I am really tired to repeat over and over again the same basic things after all those years.
Politics should be set aside, as it's the death of history.
If some facts are unconfortable for some, it's these people's personal issue, they should overcome it (or not).
Until this can be achieved, it's pointless any further discussions.
Gen. Dénes


I realize of course that I speak off-topic but I did not get the answer to the question so... I have to repeat my question: what significance have the border crossing into Northern Transylvania of the Romanian Army at the end august 1944? Given that Hungary was virtually a country occupied by the Germans in March 1944 (Margarethe Operation) and the German troops crossed the Hungarian border into Romania from 24/25 August 1944 in an attempt to gain control over some areas (I can give numerous examples if necessary!) I could hardly understand what Denes wanted to emphasize through this?

Posted by: Dénes April 30, 2013 07:55 pm
QUOTE (dragos @ April 30, 2013 09:41 pm)
Just of curiosity, did Hungary declared war when they invaded Yugoslavia in 1941?

Hungary waited until Yugoslavia ceased de facto to exist on 10 April 1941, and only then crossed the (former) Yugoslav borders.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: dragos April 30, 2013 08:06 pm
QUOTE (Dénes @ April 30, 2013 09:55 pm)
QUOTE (dragos @ April 30, 2013 09:41 pm)
Just of curiosity, did Hungary declared war when they invaded Yugoslavia in 1941?

Hungary waited until Yugoslavia ceased de facto to exist on 10 April 1941, and only then crossed the (former) Yugoslav borders.

Gen. Dénes

In that case can't we say that after 23 August 1944 the Vienna Diktat or Award of 1940 ceased de facto to exist?

Posted by: ANDREAS April 30, 2013 10:32 pm
QUOTE
Hungary waited until Yugoslavia ceased de facto to exist on 10 April 1941, and only then crossed the (former) Yugoslav borders.
Gen. Dénes

I'm sure you believe that, otherwise you would not say! In reality Yugoslavia continued to exist until the surrender of the Royal Yugoslav Army on 15 April 1941 (there were signs in this direction from 13 April indeed!), and the so-called break-up of Yugoslavia was a required "maneuver" of Horthy to Hitler caused by the opposition of some of hungarian political and military leaders. This was also consequence of the suicide of Hungarian Prime Minister Pál Teleki caused by his opposition to German troops passing through Hungary into their purpose of attacking Yugoslavia, because Hungary had a peace and friendship treaty signed with the Kingdom of Yugoslavia from December 1940. The "maneuver" is connected to the need of the Hungarian Regent to show a different picture than the real one, in this case the participation along with German and Italian troops to the invasion of Yugoslavia! The Hungarian forces had established a definite front sector since April 3, 1941, the military cooperation with the German troops, units participating in the invasion a.o. being clearly defined! The condition posed by Horthy for participation of the Hungarian army to the operations was the secession of Croatia (who happened as a consequence to the activities of German agents in Zagreb and the promises for a croatian independent state) and, consequently, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia cease to exist. So if there was no Yugoslavia, no treaty could be broken! After the proclamation of an Independent State of Croatia in Zagreb on 10 April, this scenario was realized and Hungary joined the invasion, its army crossing into Yugoslavia the next day. Of course that in the economy of the war the participation the Hungarian army in the invasion was insignificant, but that action can not be passed over in silence!

Posted by: Florin May 01, 2013 12:39 am
QUOTE (ANDREAS @ April 30, 2013 01:28 pm)
...... and the German troops crossed the Hungarian border into Romania from 24/25 August 1944 in an attempt to gain control over some areas (I can give numerous examples if necessary!) .........

From this every side reading this topic can understand my confusion, when I claimed that the Hungarian troops were the first to attack (rather than the Romanian troops) after August 23, 1944.

Posted by: MMM May 01, 2013 10:14 am
QUOTE (ANDREAS @ May 01, 2013 01:32 am)
QUOTE
Hungary waited until Yugoslavia ceased de facto to exist on 10 April 1941, and only then crossed the (former) Yugoslav borders.
Gen. Dénes

I'm sure you believe that, otherwise you would not say! In reality Yugoslavia continued to exist until the surrender of the Royal Yugoslav Army on 15 April 1941 (there were signs in this direction from 13 April indeed!), and the so-called break-up of Yugoslavia was a required "maneuver" of Horthy to Hitler caused by the opposition of some of hungarian political and military leaders. This was also consequence of the suicide of Hungarian Prime Minister Pál Teleki caused by his opposition to German troops passing through Hungary into their purpose of attacking Yugoslavia, because Hungary had a peace and friendship treaty signed with the Kingdom of Yugoslavia from December 1940. The "maneuver" is connected to the need of the Hungarian Regent to show a different picture than the real one, in this case the participation along with German and Italian troops to the invasion of Yugoslavia! The Hungarian forces had established a definite front sector since April 3, 1941, the military cooperation with the German troops, units participating in the invasion a.o. being clearly defined! The condition posed by Horthy for participation of the Hungarian army to the operations was the secession of Croatia (who happened as a consequence to the activities of German agents in Zagreb and the promises for a croatian independent state) and, consequently, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia cease to exist. So if there was no Yugoslavia, no treaty could be broken! After the proclamation of an Independent State of Croatia in Zagreb on 10 April, this scenario was realized and Hungary joined the invasion, its army crossing into Yugoslavia the next day. Of course that in the economy of the war the participation the Hungarian army in the invasion was insignificant, but that action can not be passed over in silence!

So, bottom line, ANDREAS, your point is that - much like the hatred and despised moves of USSR-towards-Poland in 1939 and Germany-towards-USSR in 1941, Hungary actually "broke" a friendship pact? Who'd have thought that? dry.gif

Posted by: ANDREAS May 01, 2013 11:32 am
QUOTE
So, bottom line, ANDREAS, your point is that - much like the hatred and despised moves of USSR-towards-Poland in 1939 and Germyny-towards-USSR in 1941, Hungary actually "broke" a friendship pact? Who'd have thought that?

I am sure you understand from the context what I wanted to emphasize! Romania undoubtedly violated a similar treaty signed with Yougoslavia by allowing German troops to attack from Banat, but Denes suggested that Hungary was correct and respect treaties signed while Romania has violated them! I wanted only to highlight this!

Posted by: ANDREAS May 01, 2013 12:39 pm
QUOTE
From this every side reading this topic can understand my confusion, when I claimed that the Hungarian troops were the first to attack (rather than the Romanian troops) after August 23, 1944.

Florin, I give you just a local example from my place, Arad! The main concentration of German forces was in the area of the airport of Arad! In 24 August 1944 the frontier post nr. 88 was attacked a romanian border guard soldier being wounded. In 25 August 1944 the frontier post nr. 76 had the same fate, being destroyed and the border crossed by about 40 hungarian soldiers. In the Elek area (hungarian side of the border, 25 km to Chisinau Cris) was identified a Hungarian motorized regiment (part of the Hungarian 1st Armoured Division) who attacked in 26 August 1944 on two columns:
- with about 300 men supported by 3 trucks with 4x20mm aa guns mounted on, and 2 Boehler 47mm AT guns the romanian positions in the Varias area (4 km south from the Romanian-Hungarian border) towards Gai, Arad;
- with about 400 men supported by 4 trucks with 4x20mm aa guns mounted on, and 2 Boehler 47mm AT guns the romanian positions towards Turnu near the border;
During this battles about 15 german planes take off from Arad airport attacked the romanian positions from Gai area and also Vinga village (20 km south from Arad).
The attack was stopped by the romanian 2nd Border Guards Battalion on 27 august 1944 with the support of the troops of the Romanian 1st Training Cavalry Division who counterattacked the next day (...).
From the book Dimensiunea istorica a primei operatii a romanilor in razboiul antihitlerist, Ed. Facla, Timisoara, 1985, pag. 118-119.

Posted by: Florin May 01, 2013 11:04 pm
QUOTE (ANDREAS @ May 01, 2013 07:39 am)
QUOTE
From this every side reading this topic can understand my confusion, when I claimed that the Hungarian troops were the first to attack (rather than the Romanian troops) after August 23, 1944.

Florin, I give you just a local example from my place, Arad! The main concentration of German forces was in the area of the airport of Arad! In 24 August 1944 the frontier post nr. 88 being wounded a romanian border guard soldier. In 25 August 1944 the frontier post nr. 76 had the same fate, being destroyed and the border crossed by about 40 hungarian soldiers. In the Elek area (hungarian side of the border 25 km to Chisinau Cris) was identified a Hungarian motorized regiment (part of the Hungarian 1st Armoured Division) who attacked in 26 August 1944:
- with about 300 men supported by 3 trucks with 4x20mm aa guns mounted on, and 2 Boehler 47mm AT guns the romanian positions in the Varias area (4 km south from the Romanian-Hungarian border) towards Gai, Arad;
- with about 400 men supported by 4 trucks with 4x20mm aa guns mounted on, and 2 Boehler 47mm AT guns the romanian positions towards Turnu near the border;
During this battles about 15 german planes take off from Arad airport attacked the romanian positions from Gai area and also Vinga village (20 km south from Arad).
The attack was stopped by the romanian 2nd Border Guards Battalion on 27 august 1944 with the support of the troops of the Romanian 1st Training Cavalry Division who counterattacked the next day (...).
From the book Dimensiunea istorica a primei operatii a romanilor in razboiul antihitlerist, Ed. Facla, Timisoara, 1985, pag. 118-119.

Thank you for mentioning these very interesting facts.

Posted by: Victor May 03, 2013 08:16 am
There is no need to inflame this topic any further. One post was deleted.

Posted by: Dénes May 03, 2013 02:01 pm
Thank you for deleting the politically charged message.

Gen. Dénes

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)