Waffen-Grenadier Division der SS Rumanische Nr. 1, About these hero's nobody speaK

Here is a link to the Forum Rules. I suggest you read them.

I asked for arguments, not Churchill's opinion. He isn't an icon of morality himself to talk about "betrayal".

Here iI think we get a translation's problem :

1.In american english an argument is a dispute .
2.In french an argument is something like a "strong point" along a talk .
3. If I write what I do personnally think of italian and rumanian switching side in the middle of the war , you claim I am biased .
4. When I give the opinion of Churchill about it ,you say it is not an argument....

I'm afraid I don't understand you well . It seem to me that an "argument" from Churchill -who was delighted by the italian armistice - shows clearly that even if the allies liked it ,they considered this fact ,in reality ,like nothing more than a betrayal .

The same may surely be said about the romanian switching of side .Romania entered happily the war at german side to recover their bessarabian territories.When the war came to a negative way ,with the russians entering Rumania ,so the king (who ended in exile anyway ) tried to save both his crown and his country from that invasion . So far this kind of switching side in the middle of the war was done Russia when after the death of the Czar (in the XVIII century) they stopped fighting the prussians to side with them .And by the prussians which sided with Napoleon to invade Russia and then -when defeated by the russians - stabbed Napoleon's army at the back at Jena (1812 or 1813...)

During WW2 this king of "realpolitik" attitude is surely not elegant but understandable maybe ....Now it worked really only for Finland which avoided a soviet invasion .I think it didn't worked for Rumania since ,anyway ,the russians forced the king to exile and established a bolshevik dictature . If Rumania had kept fighting at Axis side ,the result would have been exactly the same .In this case I think that the dishonor who fallen on the romanian army and monarchy was worth nothing .
One may prefer ,personnally , the last stand of the Carthagians fighting ,hopeless ,until death against the Romans . At last they did it with honor .The result was inavoidable . As inavoidable as a soviet type dictature was inavoidable for all eastern territories "libered" by the Red Army .

Of ocurse I recognize that it is easy to see it that way today when we know what followed ,than at this time when even the craziest solutions looked maybe possible . Anyway ,I think that the king of Romania committed a mistake and was particularly naive .(by the way,after the russians kicked his ass out , he was in exile for sometimes in a fascist country : Franco's Spain ...How ironistic ! )

Argument in English means also a course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood.

So we need to look to the facts. There was no military treaty between Germany and Romania concerning the war against the Soviet Union. The Tripartite Pact only mentioned an alliance in case of one of the parties was attacked. In this case, Germany and Romania were the aggressors.

Romania had lost large parts of its territory in 1940 and Germany was one of the powers that imposed these actions. In September 1940, the Romanian borders were guaranteed by Germany. In August 1944, it was clear that Germany wasn't able to fulfill these guarantees anymore. The Allies had defeated Romania and there was no need to prolong the inevitable. Thus Romania quit the war and admitted defeat.

I would not say that it was a mistake. Romania regained North-Western Transylvania and diminished the level of destruction on its own soil. Many hoped that the Western Allies would not allow Communism to be imposed inside the country. Continuing an already lost fight would have only brought more suffering than it was necessary. Either way, Romania's post war regime had already been decided in early 1944 between Stalin and Churchill.

When I say you are biased, I am referring to your political views, which I know from AHF, where they eventually got you banned. Sincerely, your presence and that of Panzermahn here on this forum brings me no pleasure.

Okay, what about reports from the Kommando Roehwel (the Luftwaffe air-intelligence unit) on the Russians massing Red Army divisions from eastern demarcartion line at Poland to Bessarabia? Isn't this known as the famous " Russikaya provokatsiya"? Is this being agressive? How about Pearl Harbor? It was well known in establishment history books that the Japanese treacherously and cowardly launched a sucessfull attack without declaring war against the American Pacific Fleet and cost approximately 2,000 American casualties and several capital ships. But what made them do so? ISn't Roosevelt cleverly manouevered and provoked the Japanese into launching a first strike so that he wouldn't be seen as an agressor in the eyes of the world...Same thing with Dzugashvilli.

Read Viktor Suvorov's The Icebreaker and Joachim Hoffmann's Dzugashvilli's War of Extermination

Which means Romanians themselves had no right to decide for what is the best for Romania? So much for democracy...

I think Maresal had right to be proud that some Romanians, who are idealistic and brave enough to defend Romania's honor in order to continue the holy war against Bolshevik hordes despite things aren't looking bright during the Russian invasion. Like Italy, numerous fascists and idealistic socialists continue to defend the honor of Italy despite the treachery of the King of Italy and Marshal Badoglio because ordinary Italians knew what is honor and would take up arms just to die for it. Most of the fascist commanders and men, bravely goes to their execution with right hand salute and the final shout of "Viva La Italia". Same case with Finland. Even Finland, looking for an armistice with the Bolsheviks, did not betray the German who were formerly their allies by secretly advising them the situation of the armistice and to retreat

That shows exactly your where your biases are

Viktor :

You should to know better .
My political ideas does not get me banned in AHF ; I was banned after I touched the "sensitive" points of AHF "moderators" who are spying on the mails of the politically incorrect readers . That was what get Marcus and Milcic pissed off .
I hope you don't do that in your forum .

Quoting you : "Sincerely, your presence and that of Panzermahn here on this forum brings me no pleasure. "

This shows that you are a tolerant person . Thanks for the welcoming words .

Are you not taking the words out of context? Can you provide with the full text, because you quote only words in your own statement.

I don't know as much as Victor about AHF, since he is moderator there, but there is one thing you should know. Promoting or following the lines of an ideology in the statements, be it nazi, fascist or communist, is not welcome here. To put it simple, conclusions that have at the base an ideology, or propaganda style constructions, such as the Panzermahn's "bolshevik hordes" (which in fact is the same with "fascist bands" or something, from another ideology's perspective) we try to avoid as much as possible.

I just have an innocent question for Ostuf Charlemagne. You've stated repeatedly that you are not Romanian.

Yet Ostuf is an anagram for "fostu", a romanian word which means "former" (as in Fostu Charlemagne).

Could you please tell us if this is just a coincidence?

I think in his name, Ostuf means Obersturmfuhrer (SS 1st Lieutenant). I think the "fostu" anagram of Ostuf is just merely coincidence

Ok. Thanks for the explanation, Panzermahn.

Mabadesc : It is just a coincidence . (Too sad I don't speak rumanian but today I learned the word "Fostu") .
My seudo come because I have an uncle who served in the Charlemagne division and because I left the army with the rank of 1st lieutenant . Here "Ostuf" which in the SS was short for "Obersturmführer" ( 1st lieutenant).
No more ,no less ....

Dragos : I read the memory of Mr Churchill years ago ,and I don't have the book with me right now ,so I can't give you the exact reference ,but yes it is writen .By the way it was the part of Churchill's memories which stunned me the most ,so I remember it clearly .

Also I can assure you that I surely does not promote "nazi ideology" 'cause fisrt ; I am not a nazi ( I am a phalangist [I lived in Spain when i was a teenager during the last years of the Franco's regime and I belonged to the Phalangist Youth] ,there is some differences....)
I also don't look to promote fascist ideology (in Rumania ? what for ???) , I think today News World Order and globalisation is doing it pretty much by itself . Look at the french National Front ,the spanish Phalange (which start to reborn as a real alternative force ) etc......
They don't need me as "propagandist".The facts of today life and world's affairs are bringing more and more people over to our side .

In this forum I just look for infos I didn't knew ; I am not romanian so I am learning a lot about the romanian story ;the Tudor V.division ,the romanians SS ,your campaign of 1941 ,etc.....Pretty interesting should I add .

Now if I say a fact as I see it ,I get Viktor -for instance -screaming about my fascist bias ,while he shows as much bias himself on his side . It's kind of childish .So let's stay with historical facts .Now as human beings I think that we have the right to be discrepant with the position or exposition of historical facts by a reader .Comebacking with the topic which started this discussion ; put it the way you want ,with or without Churchill's opinion, it was not "elegant" to stab at the back a loyal allie which whom rumanian troops have been fighting along since 1941 .

Much can be said (and Viktor do it verywell) about if this switching of side saved destruction to Romania or not , but it remain -in my view - a puking deed .
No more ,no less .

(And , OK , we won't talk of "bolshevik hordes" ,if it makes you feel better .)

Thanks for your answer, Charlemagne. It was just a coincidence, but, as you said yourself, now you learned a Romanian word, and I learned how to write Obersturmfuhrer in abbreviated form

What was your uncle's specialty and rank? Any interesting stories from the time he served?

Hi Mabadesc :

About my uncle I know very,very ,few things ,starting with the fact that he was a far-away uncle and when I learned about him i was a kid ,I mean that now my own grandmother and grand -aunts passed away since years ago ,so I have no way to ask more .

What i think to know is the following : He ran in trouble with the french police in 1943 ( I think he stole some bottles of booze in a bar for to sell in black market .Yes ,it is no ideologic heroe story !) So to avoide to be arrested he joined the LVF (french volunteers legion of the german army .) Here the french cops could not reach him ,ahahah....
In 1944 (september) the LVF -which belonged to the Heer - was drafted into the SS Charlemagne french division .For what I know from my grandma ,he was killed "in Poland" ,which may mean ,in Pomerania where the bulk of the SS Charlemagne division was destroyed (more than 3.000 losses) by russian tanks in February -March 1945 .

That's all what I know .

RGDS .

Hi Victor,

May I nominate your post of 0746 on 28 Jan 2005 as the most prophetic ever?

In it you say of the Nazis, "They would have drafted the Pope.... if they could.....".

Since then a former conscripted German anti-aircraft gunner has been elected Pope Benedict XVI!

Did you know something the rest of us didn't back in January?

Yours in amazement,

Sid.