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!).

But of course! A victory is a victory, isn't that so?
PS: add a poll...

Thanks MMM for your idea! I added a poll...

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...

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!

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.

This post has been edited by Florin on January 22, 2013 11:43 pm

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:

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!

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

Who is "we"?

Gen. Dénes

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

Who is "we"? The Salvation Army, Denes 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!

This post has been edited by aidan zea on January 24, 2013 01:28 pm

This thread is daft. It is like asking "Should Sonny Liston be proud of landing a few punches on Muhammad Ali"?
Radu

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!

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.

This post has been edited by Florin on January 24, 2013 11:51 pm

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.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on January 25, 2013 07:54 am