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

Russia was as big a butcher as Germany in WW II and basicly got what they deserved. After bullying the Finns and Romanians out of land legally recognised by the League of Nations Germany came along and gave The Soviet Union the beating of it's life.

Only by threat of war did Romania give give up the land and thus any legality in attacking The Soviet Goonian later on using force is quite legitamate.

The only true fact here is that Nato outlasted the Warsaw Pact. I wish Countries like Poland and Romania were part of Nato because it would piss off Russia even more . Russia the x bully boy could not do anything but point a few missiles at someone..

R-35

[edited by admin]

An out of place remark was removed.

R-35, please inspect the forum rules: http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=27

Thank you.

Even if this man said it in another time with another ocasion, here are his words:

"Existenta unei natiuni nu se discuta, ci se afirma".

This post has been edited by 21 inf on June 08, 2007 05:27 pm

I apologise and will be more aware of the Guidelines in the future..

Thankyou..

I think we cannot judge such a question by a court rulling right now. To consider that the war started on 22nd June 1941 on the romanian side as a pre-emptive war cannot be as there were no soviet intentions of attack whatsoever. Besides the soviets had "recovered" both Basarabia and Bucovina so from their point of view their aims towards the Danube were satisfied!!

At the time there was no such thing as a justified war at least in regards to International Law. A war was viewed as an agression, even in cases where we could have seen a "casus belli". See the Society of Nations rullings against Japan from 1931 onwards.

This being said, Romanian legitimacy for war in 1941 must be viewed simply as a moral act. Plain and simple. Basarabia and Northern Bucovina had a majority of romanian population and had been legally integrated in the country in March 1918, that is 8 months before the end of WW1. Besides, this territory did not include Transnistria at the time. This territory beyond the Dniest was always russian and the problem it represents today simply stands from the fact that after 1945 Stalin, always himself, added Transnistria to the Moldavian RSS simply to enhance the number of slavic population against the romanian ethnical background.

I think we must consider it legitimate even when we read the opinions of men like Iuliu Maniu and the subsequent change of opinion of the vast majority of the romanian politicians and people towards the war from a sympathetic point of view for the 1941 campaign to the not so happy presence in the rest of the campaign. It was stated by Maniu, very clearly that with Basarabia and Bucovina, Romania had achieved its aims and to go further represented an act of agression. I think this is still the cause today. 1941 was in every way legitimate, even if not supported by the international law, the rest is history!

Cheers
Mathias

nevertheless the congress of the CPSU defined, that every war, which serves "the liberation of the oppressed proletariat" is a just one. and since the red army would fight only for this "noble goal", every war waged by the SU is inherently just.

other than that, there is a much more pragmatic approach on this issue, by Clausewitz.

It should be pointed out that the judge's decision has been overruled by the Constitutional Court some time ago (1 or 2 years). A foreigner bumping into this thread could be given the idea that his ruling is actually in force.

OSTASI
v am fagaduit din prima zii a noii mele domnii si a luptei mele nationale sa va duc la biruinta astazi a sosit ceasul celei mai sfinte lupte lupta drepturilor bisericii pentru vetrele si altarele romanesti de totdeauna
OSTASI
va ordon treceti prutul
sdrobiti vrasmasul din rasarit si miaza-noapte.
desrobiti din jugul rosu al bolsevismului pe fratii nostrii cotropiti
reimpliniti in trupul tarii glia strabuna a basarabilor si codrii voievodali ai bucovinei OGOARELE SI PLAIURILE NOASTRE
OSTASI
VETI LUPTA COT LA COT SUFLET LA SUFLET LANGA CEA MAI PUTERNICA SI GLORIOASA ARMATA A LUMII
INDRASNITI SA VA MASURATI VITEJIA SI SA VA DOVEDITI MANDRIA CAMARAZILOR VOSTRI
FITI VREDNICI DE CINSTEA PE CARE VA FACUTO ISTORIA ARMATA MARELUI REICH SI NEINTRECUTUL EI COMANDANT ADOLF HITLER
OSTASI
IZBANDA VA FI A NOASTRA
CU DUMNEZEU INAINTE
GENERAL ION ANTONESCU 22 IUNIE 1941 ORA 2:22

HAHAHA THE RUSSIANS beated the romanians hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaha the best JOKE I EVER HEARD

Causes and reasons about Dniestr crossing:

http://cristiannegrea.blogspot.com/2011/10...-pe-nistru.html

Can someone who read the entire article post a resume? That would be helpful for those who can't read Romanian and for those like myself who don't have the patience to read that wall of text to get to the point.

I will refer only briefly to the issue of crossing the Dniester by the Romanian army, as presented in this article. Cristian Negrea said that in order to answer the question of title (Crossing the Dnestr), he'll have to take into account several types of cases: operational causes, political causes, military causes and strategical causes.
Operational causes :
Even the shape portion of the Prut and Dniester, wider and narrower south to north, one could deduce that our army couldn't reach at the same time simultaneously the Dniester. There was also the nature of the land (areas with difficult terrain to cross) and degree of resistance (areas with enemy forces who defending themselves with energy) to the enemy. Thus it was that 3rd Romanian Army to occupy Northern Bukovina faster than the 4th Romanian Army and the 11th German central and southern Bessarabia. So the next mission of the 3rd Romanian Army was forcing the Dnestr in the area of Mogilev, operation conducted in July 17, 1941 3.45 pm, in the evening they built two bridgeheads east of the Dniester that are developed by heavy fighting, operation that takes place while heavy fighting took place in Bessarabia in order to liberate it from the Soviet forces. From these bridgeheads, because the situation was favorable, on July 21, 1941, the 3rd Romanian Army started their offensive in general direction of Voznesensk Bug. No doubt that the action from Mogilev and subsequent offensive was of real help to the other armies that fought in Bessarabia, Cetatea Alba city was occupied only five days later, on 26 July.

Political causes :
Return to the international political and geopolitical situation back in 1941, France, one of the great powers of the interwar period had ceased to exist. England, another great power, have a fight in conditions of isolation, desperately trying to defend the island against the german aviation, in air and at sea, trying not to be totally blocked. The entire western and central Europe was either under german occupation or in alliance with Germany. Germany became the dominant power on the continent, and it seemed that nobody could stand in the way. Nor was who.
The U.S. public opinion was clearly against intervention in the war, she was willing to let the Europeans to fight among themselves as they wish. The experience of World War I, with five hundred thousand American soldiers dead, wounded and missing on the plains of France were still traumatized. Precisely because of that Franklin Delano Roosevelt could not openly supported the British in 1940 for fear campaign that followed. Only after Pearl Harbor at the end 1941 and with the support of Hitler WHO unilaterally declared war on U.S. in december the US entered the war.
More on that is that the British declared war on us not in June 1941 when we crossed the Prut River, not in July when we crossed the Dniester, not in October when we besieged Odessa, but that on December 6, when our troops passing the Bug river.
Suppose that we stopped on the Dnestr river and we said to the germans that our objectives were reached. But the Hungarians went on, even if they had lower troops involvement in the campaign. If the war ended with a German victory, which was very likely in 1941, in light of geopolitical considerations above, who think that North of Transylvania would remain : to the Hungarians who went all the way or Romanians who stopped at the Dnestr river? Any analysis made ​​after 1941 or 1942 can be qualified as postfactum, so unrealistic for the situation we speak.

Military reasons :
One of the strengths of the arguments that support that we could stop our advance on the river Dnestr is the fact that we were not asked by Hitler to continue. But Hitler asked specifically someone to continue? In 1941 his position was so strong that he didn't had to ask. He act only if somebody does not, as in Yugoslavia. Another argument is that the Romanian army was not prepared for such a war. But who was prepared for such a war? Who would have thought that the war will last another four years? Was Germany prepared for such a war in summer 1941 with only 3500 tanks (half of them light) on a 2900 km front line, or England, which coastguard was armed in 1940 with clubs? And which recruits troops were training with broom handles, each platoon having only one rifle? The truth is that nobody was prepared for such a war, but in 1941 nobody suspected that the war would be so long!
Furthermore, who made ​​Romania not ready for war, when all the signs were clear for years that we are heading towards a confrontation? Our political class our leaders from the middlewar period who stand and do nothing and have seen only on their domestic political bickering and petty (as they do today, in fact) making Iorga to speak of "our political hara that embarrass us in face of all nations"? What could Antonescu make in just one year to turn the mistakes and indolence of twenty years? When the time comes, it don't ask you if you're ready or not, it just comes so you need to act.
Another stupid argument to justify, in the minds of some, that we could stop to the Dnestr river, is that Hitler did not put any basic on the Romanian troops, that he consider weak. His opinion was biased, but many forget Hitler's statement after Romania entered the war, on 12 August 1941, to the Spanish ambassador, Espinoza de los Monterosi : "Romanian troops, our allies are absolutely outstanding." Earlier, on 29 June, Hitler wrote to thank him Antonescu for "valiant attitude and activities of the Romanian army." Many other German officers and generals experienced in combat, most able to judge behavior and combativeness of fighters, wrote in appreciative terms about the Roman troops.
And you think that the Germans would give up slightly of the contribution of such soldiers? That would be simply to give up the main force of the southern armies of Army Group South? That would have brought troops to besiege in the place of Romanians the city of Odessa, Odessa who was the only major city conquered by an ally of Germany without their competition (it is true, with heavy losses)?

Strategical causes:
Tracking enemy forces is essential in improving the victory on the battlefield. It is not enough to defeat your opponent but you must follow him to get him out (eliminate him) of the war, lest you find yourself fighting him again tomorrow. All the great generals and commanders had scrupulously respected this basic principle of military strategy.
And could we violate this basic principle, by refusing to follow and catch the soviet forces as they withdrew in disarray? If we have left them, we woke up tomorrow with the same forces on the front line fighting, as happened to us in other occasions.
Other analysts said they we didn't have to go over the Dnestr because we don't conduct a war outside our borders, only went to war to defend our territory. Another stupidity who shows a total ignorance of not only military strategy but also our history. And those who support such nonsense can see they don't know basic things such as the difference between a war of aggression and a preventive war.
A preventive war is to attack your opponent where you are sure that he wants to attack you, attack him before he is ready to attack you. Examples are enormously more in history, including our history. And Romanians brought many wars outside the national territory, preventive wars of defense. The purpose of any war is destruction of the opponent forces. Not only to defeat them but to destroy them. Following his forces, that we are talking about, is a mean, a corollary of the destruction operation. And the destruction of the opponent's forces involves the pursuit, often beyond his borders. If you do not make that, you pay a heavy price later, as we did in 1919. We have not followed the Hungarian troops over the Tisza in April 1919, they came back and attacked us in July 1919. Other losses, other victims could have been avoided.
There were voices in the Entente even then in July, who asked us to stop on the Tisza. Why, to be attacked once again when the Hungarians regroup? King Ferdinand acted correctly in passing the Tisa river, follow the opponent and the occupation of Budapest.
More recent examples: In 1991, the international coalition drove Saddam Hussein out from Kuwait, but not pursued his forces and not stripped him of power. He remained a threat despite the 1998 bombing or air interdiction areas. It was removed only in 2003 after Baghdad was taken. In 2008, the Russians drove the Georgian back, but did they stop at the border of South Ossetia? No, they went on their trail in the Georgian territory.
And we, was it not normal and logical to follow the soviet troops across the Dnestr river to their destruction, as it is only natural and possible in 1941? If not, the Soviets would have regrouped and we would be attacked again on the bank line of Dnestr, this time even stronger. A military adage says that when you enter a war, you must have the stomach to take him to the end. We were forced to enter the war, and had to get him through.