Rumania's June-July 1941 Campaign Legitimate, According to a judge's rule

This recognision wasn't necessary anyway. You can see HERE the story of bassarabian union. In 1918 Bassarabia decide to make a union with Romania, not with Russia or USSR.

And, IMAO, let s remember the alliance's terms between Rusia and Romania from 1877. After the war, Rusia take a part from the former ally's teritory - sounthern Bassarabia - a russian style alliance. - see here

later edit :

Infrangerea Rusiei in Razboiul Crimeei (1853-1856) a schimbat radical raportul de forte european. La negocierile de pace Austria a incercat sa determine retrocedarea Basarabiei, fara insa sa reusesca. Prin articolul XX al tratatului de la Paris, Sudul Basarabiei este restituit Imperiului Otoman - in fapt, Moldovei.

Aici este vorba de considerente de "realpolitik". Nimic altceva decat interesul a determinat Marea Britanie sa indeparteze Rusia de Gurile Dunarii, pentru a asigura securitatea importurilor engleze de cereale din Tarile Romane. Aparitia pe piata mondiala a graului american - mai bun si mai ieftin, a facut, alaturi si de alte considerente - ca Regatul Unit sa-si piarda interesul pentru aceasta regiune, astfel ca in urma razboiului ruso-romano-turc din 1877-1878 Rusia a "recuperat" Sudul Basarabiei de la "aliatul" Roman. Rusia asigurase in urma conventiei de la 4/16 aprilie 1877 integritatea teritoriala a Romaniei. Articolul 3 al acestei Conventii prevedea ca partea rusa se obliga "a mentine si a face a se respecta drepturile politice ale statului roman, asa cum rezulta din legile internationale si tratatele existente, precum si de a mentine si apara integritatea actuala a Romaniei"

We cannot talk about preventive war. We have to talk about a liberation war, started at 22 june 1944. There is no comparation between today's preventive war from Iraq and the romanian atack of 22 june or 2 july, 1941.

This post has been edited by Dan Po on March 12, 2007 09:47 pm

Germany played a smart game with Hungary and Romania: Transylvania - if you want more, bring me troops, oil, food, etc. If you'll be a good country maybe I ll decide to prefere you instead of your "ally" .

This is the only reason of the presence of 2nd Hungarian Army at Don s bank: Transylvania.


About the soviet declarations to romanian ambassador - "What did we do to deserve this?" - it s just a cynical blabla. Nothing more.

There is no doubts about one true fact: in 1940 USSR was an agressor and they take a part of romanian lands. Was trully natural - in matter of national interests - for Romania to atack and to fight against a proved enemy.

If we use the same logic, the war against USSR was more "justificated" than the war against Nazy Germany. USSR was by far more "criminal" than Germany and in USSR more inocent peoples was killed. The USSR comited by far more crimes against romanians after the 1940 than witch were comited against romanian in the annexed Transylvania.

Unfortunately we don’t talk about the thousand of Romanians who died in Basarabia. The world should know what happened with the Romanians in Basarabia during WW2 and after.
http://www.gid-romania.com/IndexSections.asp?SID=124

AGC

Why was war more justified against the USSR than against Hungary?

Why Romania fought against Germany after 23 august 1944 ?

Off. rep : because Germany was evil, and because Transylvania.

Comment:

USSR was more evil and also Bassarabia and N Bukovina was liberated >>>>> so, following this logic, the war against USSR was "more" justified.


More than that, you cannot compare the annexation of Bassarabia in 1940 <<< justified in a stupid way because it was annexed first in 1812, with the history of Transylvania - centuries of hungarian/habsburgic/austro-hungarian state civilization and political life.

This post has been edited by Dan Po on April 17, 2007 05:47 am

Romania had nothing with Germany. The German troops had time to leave Romania without making any problems. The German attitude after 23 August led to war with her. Theoretical the enemy was Hungary.
The wars in the East and in the West where equally justified.

AGC

Why would I compare the annexation of Basarabia with the history of Transylvania. No, I'm comparing the annexations of both. My long held opinion is that Romania should have resisted any ultimatums and any annexations. If I'm not mistaken, that would have meant standing up to the USSR first, in Basarabia.

I agree with you. But there I try to think in "official way". Nobody talk today about the war against Hungary in 1944-1945 but against Germany.

Why would I compare the annexation of Basarabia with the history of Transylvania. No, I'm comparing the annexations of both. My long held opinion is that Romania should have resisted any ultimatums and any annexations. If I'm not mistaken, that would have meant standing up to the USSR first, in Basarabia.

Everything is already done. We can talk endless about a lot of "if" s.

You can compare why Romania was "evil" in his Axis war and why was "good" in her ro-soviet brothership with Red Army.

I am not a jurist. Could it bee legally to declare war toward a country under following reason?
1. You have there a large minority (ex. Romanians in Basarabia).
2. The authorities sustain an ethnic cleansing policy against this minority (ex. 300.000 Romanians where deported from Basarabia between 1940 and 1941).

AGC

My intervention started with your claim that the war against USSR was more justified than war against Hungary and Germany.

Since both cases were ones of forced annexations, you based your claim on 2 levels of "evilness":

1. German crimes against people within own borders vs. Soviet crimes within own borders.

2. Soviet crimes in annexed territories vs. German/Hungary crimes in annexed territories.

However this has little to do with this thread, imo, because it takes the whole discussion into an endless talk about who was more evil.

Romania was not justified to attack USSR and get back Basarabia because the USSR was more evil, it was justified because like you said it was trully natural - in matter of national interests - for Romania to atack and to fight against a proved enemy.

But I didn't see why you would call the campaign for Basarabia more justified than the one for Transylvania. And I still don't.

What is Off. rep? Official reply? That's not why Romania fought against Germany (because Germany was evil).

This post has been edited by Imperialist on April 17, 2007 10:47 am

Look, let s talk straight:

In my last post I use a lot of "quotes" about the official policy and about how shy was the romanian autorities in their appreciations about the axis episode.

There is no doubt: we don t have to be shy because the romanian army fought by german side or by soviet side: the romanian desired outcome was the national integrity and nothing else. We don t have to explain nothing, we don t have to excuse our fight. Romania was attacked in 1940. At 22 june 1941 Romania strike back, and the same thing was done after 23 august 1944.

Do you have a source for that figure?

Impoerialist is right. There is no point in diverting the topic towards a who was more evil contest. Please try to stick to the original subject.

http://www.gid-romania.com/IndexSections.asp?SID=124

Florin Matrescu, "Holocaustul rosu sau crimele in cifre ale comunismului international", Bucuresti, 1998, pg.56-57

Victor Barsan, "Masacrul inocentilor", Bucuresti, 1993, pg.18-19
AGC

Of course he s right !

For Romania basicaly there is not any difference between the eastern front and the western front. The final point was the same.

I just tried to be a little bit ironical. Probably not clear enough.