Why Romania entered the war against the Soviets?

Actually that map is nothing like the one on Wikipedia. You have misunderstood. The borders of the territory designated as Trans-Dnestra and administrated by Romania is not the issue.

The map I found in "From Barbarossa to Odessa" vol. 1, only shows the post-August 1940 Romanian-Soviet border so it's not similar.

There is no similar map in "Armata Romana in al doilea razboi mondial".

The map in "Third Axis, Fourth Ally" is a very good map as it shows Trans-Dnestra as territory proposed by the Germans for annexations, but it clearly a distinct territory from Romania, as the border is on the Dnestr. However the map is obviously not similar to that on Wikipedia.

The problem with the map on Wikipedia is that there is no marking of separation between Romania and Trans-Dnestra and it can lead those who are not familiar with the history of this particular area that it was annexed to Romania. For example, if you were looking at a similar map of Xland, would you know that in fact the region of Yinia is not annexed by Xland?

Furthermore I never said that map is "worthless". My exact word was misleading.

Hi Victor,
You are right about the maps...
I was concentrating on the "Transylvania" bit. Now I see that the issue you are talking about is actually Transdnestra, which I did not really pay enough attention to when I looked at the maps (I only looked at the Western borders as there were questions about Sibiu and Brasov). The map I looked at in "Armata Romana in al doilea razboi mondial" is on page 20. Again, I was concentrating mostly on Transylvania. I should have been more specific.

However, this leads me to another question. Transdnestra was "offered" to the Romanians as an enticement to enter the war. Eventually, the territory of Transdenstra was left far behind by the frontline as it moved further East towards Don, Moscow, Leningrad and life must have returned to some kind of normality (i hope).
Did Transdnestra become at that stage part of Romania as promissed? To what extent? Were there Transdnestran deputies in the Romanian parliament? Were the Transdnestrans taxed by the Romanian state? Were there governors appointed by the Romanian state in Transdnestra?
Are there any maps showing the outline of Romania in, let's say, 1942/1943?
Radu

All right, it was a misunderstanding. I never said that map was worthlesss; just that it was not correct, it was, as Victor said, misleading. And that is exactly the problem with much data from the Net - putting aside my scepticism - you can very easy put misleading, even malitious data, on the Net. Just what you said in a previous message about creating fake refferences. So it is with the books, in a measure, but it is more difficult to write a book than a Net article, right?
Also, regarding the territory in discussion, I strongly believe that in the case of an Axis victory, it would have been eventually accepted by Romania, not as exchange for Transylvania, but as war spoil, much like Bucovina was for the Soviets in 1940, compensation ( ) for the 20-years occupatiion of Bessarabia.

Re: radub
Trans-dnestra or whatever name had it, was only under temporary military administration of Romanian authorities. Incomplete, as well, because the Germans had the last word, and they had authority over ports, railroads etc. The military governor of the region (Gh. Alexianu) was eventually shot alonfgside Antonescu on June first, 1946. And I have to remind you that during the Antonescu regime, there was NO parliament And if there were one, still I do NOT think there could have been representatives of a military administrated region.

I think it is better to consider it a civilian administration while Alexianu was in charge until early 1944. The military was in charge only for keeping the order, but the actual administration was civilian.

I never said anything about fake references. I was talking about real, proper, true information. Often, on internet forums, "they play the player not the ball". A contribution delivered personally can be rubbished if it comes from a certain person. For example, there is a particular forum I used to frequent where any reply by a particular person was immediately rubbished, but when the same information was spotted on another internet site then promptly copied and pasted by the pet "wunderkid" of the forum, then it was taken as proper info. I often find that internet forums are all to do with personal dislikes and personal petty pride.
The truth of the matter is that everyone makes mistakes. I make a lot of mistakes. If incorrect stuff is put on Wikipedia, it is not the work of malicious "agenturili", it can be plain lack of knowledge or ignorance. You can correct anything there. In fact, as a knowledgeable person, you have a duty to correct that. Noblesse oblige.
I am learning here and it is interesting stuff. And I will be the first to say that my knowledge on this issue is shaky. That does not make me illiterate or stupid - the "omul nou multilateral dezvoltat" I am not.
Radu

Not necessarily "agenturili", but "şpionii" sometimes
I reffered to either poor knowledge which is not seen as such, or to another non-innocent purposes...
The administration was run by civilians, but it was militarized, as the Antonescu govt. itself was partially militarized. That was the German idea: that Romanian army should keep the rear of the front "quiet" - and it was, because I do not really know about partisans in the region.

Regarding Transdnestra, my aunt worked there during the war as a functionary

Very nice. That proves what? That Alexianu was a civilian? We know that... That the prefect is a colonel? It was only logical, as it was a war zone.
An observation: the simple fact that it is specified "guvernator civil" sort of implies in the bureaucratic language that somewhere there is a military governor or something...
IMHO, at least

An interesting and rare Death Card of a German soldier KIA in Trans-Dnestra (therefore the Germans also knew this region as such):


[Source: eBay]

The seller's text:

Original Sterbebild des

Georg Hofstetter

Obergefreiter in einem Gebirgsjäger – Regiment,

Inhaber der Ostmedaille, des Krimschildes und des rumänischen Antonescu – Ordens,

Bäckermeister von Neuötting.

Geb. am 8.4.1909, gefallen am 8.4.1944 nach vierjähriger treuer Pflichterfüllung bei Jelisawetpol in Transnistrien.

Gen. Dénes

An interesting and new (to me) vision of annexing Trans-Dnestra for after the war is given by Dennis Deletant in his book discussed here:
http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=5160
He says that Mihai Antonescu had devised a plan according to which, after SU was defeated and a new state (puppet-state?!?!) of Ukraine created, there could have been a three-parties-exchange of territories with Ro, Hu and Ukraine, between the Trans-Dnestra, Northeren Transylvania and the territories of the western Ukraine ("Ucraina Sub-Carpatică"). Now that was really fictitious, even for 1942!
As for the civilian administration of the region, the leaders were not civilians, but colonels or officers. It was semi-militarized (I think that's a new term, but it seems to suit well to the situation).

Not with officers, we didn't! But with jews - that's another story. With or without help of the Germans, we did quite some ugly things in the summer-autumn-winter seasn of 1941!

Not by official policy! And after the NKVD blew up the Romanian HQ in ODessa there was alot of anger on the Romanian side becuase it was thought to be the work of partisans. Generally the he Romanians treated the Russians well and were welcomed as liberators from Stalin! The NKVD left behind wanted to sabotage the Romanians so as to get the Romanians to treat the occupied population badly which in turn would foment resistance behind the lines!

Well, read a little more about Antonescu's policy before summer 1942! Relocation and other stuff... Yep, we didn't have gas chambers, but we had "Special Squads" working along the Germans! Just inform yourself. I was an unconditioned fan of Antonescu and still believe in him, but not in his innocence or sanctity, OK? Let's neither crucify nor sanctify him!!!

Let's not crucify him? He is already crucified. So I guess what you mean is "let's not try to loosen the nails".