I wouldn't mix the act of voluntary defection of the state of Rumania with what Stalin had perceived of his former soldiers who involuntarily became POW.

No,I am not considering anything.I am merely quote Patrascanu's remark when he found out the conditions.As for how harsh were both condition (post and after August 23rd) we can only judge based only on the post 23rd.Right? Because this is what we have.The rest were carefully and convenient covered by various parties.That doesn't means that historians could not get their hands on such evidences.

Then why do it?The latest one ,I mean? Lets put the weapons down,no!,worse!,let's put the weapons down,face West and fight whoever we find in that direction.Eastbound fellows will catch up anyway. The worst part is that this was an order.What was in the soul of every soldier we can only imagine.Therefore afirmations like Denes one makes only unjustice to the ones fighting on the Eastern Front.And then compared with Hungary or Bulgaria it becomes defection.It is a very convenient way to see the things.Therefore,until I will have proofs that this was the best thing (please note that today I accept this term) I will consider King Mihai I the only and most noteworthy defector in the WW2 on Romanians side. In fact,laughing at him,Stalin handed him the Pobeda order. Stalin was definitely a cruel man but even him could not stand defectors and traitors.I am reffering to King's Mihai I attitude toward Germany if you ask what I mean.

So true,Carol II needed peace so he can care better of Lulu

Yes,this time Horthy was smarter and faster.He smells that Adolf would go East and embraced the nazi ideology.Now,who would you trust?Horthy or Antonescu (which was in deep doodoo with all Iron Guard all over the place). Hitler was by no mean idiot and definitely a better politician than Horthy and Antonescu.He knew that if he will give Norther Transylvania to Horthy , there will be no rise against Wermacht there since they were busy watching each other

So sad,but true! Without any treaty,but words (including a vague promise that Northern Transylvania will come back to Romania). At least one thing was sure,the teritories taken by Soviet Union were to be liberated.

Yup,like father ... same son. What would you expect?Wasn't Carol responsible for disolving the Parliament?Which led to Antonescu's coup?

What teritory?Where did Romanian Army had control when the famous proclamation came into action?They had to fight the Germans while being shot by the Russians.Cute!

Since you apparently involved my name in this, let me ask you: which words of mine exactly do you think make injustice to the Rumanian soldiers fighting on the Eastern Front?

Hi Denes,
No,it was not "apparently". I did mention your name. Besides,I did not involved you,you involved yourself in this.
But to answer your question :

and later

Note that you used "voluntary" word.Second part of your phrase is incoherent at best.
And later

Hope this answer your question


PS : your quote

First , I suggest you to brush up your English before chastising others. FYI, in contrast to the Rumanian, in English 'apparently' is synonymous to 'obviously'.

From a neutral point of view, Rumania did defect the Axis camp on August 23, 1944. And it was a voluntary action, as opposite to involuntary. Of course, the circumstances in that particular period were quite difficult for Rumania, but the path chosen was done independently from the Germans (or Soviets).

No, it does not. But please don't bother attempting to further escalate this, as I won't be part of your game. So don't expect another exhaustive answer from me to any post that are not strictly related to the topic.

The fact is that Hungary did not defect the Axis camp. There is a historical explanation to this, available in any major history book on World War 2. Please feel free to check them out.

I am sorry if I misunderstood what you said, but the following:

That is very well known.

If you have the text of the treaty I would be most happy.And also it will be interesting which authority signed it.

That and "defection" led to my interpretation of "dezertare".Or it was not what you meant?Because if it was not,then please accept my appologies.See below that I am not talking out my ***. This is the dictionary I have:

First, how an uncoditional surrender could have been better than the armistice with the Soviet Union?

"Why not ... fight to the bitter end? Why send,voluntarly,thousand of men to die after the defeat was a fact?". Fighting to the bitter end was not the same thing with sending men to die after defeat was a fact? And most probably with worse consequences. Are you promoting the useless slaughter commanded by the Nazis in the last days of the Third Reich, in the name of honor?

I am talking,obviously, about the negociators (before 23 and after) ,but you choose what you wanted , of course. Thanks for warning me for weighing with dual standards.
Now that I find outrageous.I see no point in bothering your quotes.

Yes, it was not useless, they were fighting for the "final victory", right!

Well, if the children sent to perish may have believed in what they were told, I'm not so sure about the remaining veterans. Maybe they were tired of dying for the fatherland? Fed up with the lies? Trying to surrender to the Western Allies?

No, they were fighting, for the first time in 6 years, for their actual fatherland, not for Hitler's plans in the East, South or West.