Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> The Infiltration of Rumanian Government by communi, Communist subversion in Rumania
warhunter
Posted: October 03, 2008 03:07 pm
Quote Post


Soldat
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 19
Member No.: 2263
Joined: October 03, 2008



I am interested in the story how the Rumanian government was infiltrated by the communists. Then I want to know how they subverted the Romanian government to the extent that they abruptly turned their back on Germany and agreed to :
-1 Turn their nation over to Stalin
-2 Fight as part of Stalin's Red Army

I am familiar with Romania's invasion of Hungary and its destruction of the communist Bella Hun regime in the 1920s.

How could Rumania change to pro communist after only two decades, which were spent fighting communism in one way or another.

Thank you
PMEmail Poster
Top
dragos
Posted: October 03, 2008 10:47 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



Warhunter,

First, welcome to the forum.

Second, I think you got the wrong idea on how Romania changed sides. The wartime government was not infiltrated by communists, but by 1944 the Romanian people was growing weary of the lengthy war that was obviously turning bad in consequences. Ion Antonescu realized that he has to pull Romania out of the war before the country was devastated, and his aim was to secure a cease fire with Soviet Union, and a friendly terms departure from Germany, but his approach of this goal was so over-cautious in regards of Hitler that not any diplomatically progress was made while the Soviet troops were ready to break in Romania. Antonescu may have been a great patriot, but was a very poor diplomat.

The young and inexperienced king Mihai, influenced by some in his entourage (here I don't know details), who all the past years was overshadowed by the personality of Antonescu, decided it was the time to take the matter in his own hands and decided a coup d'etat in order to save Romania, taking out Romania from the Axis, but having no guarantees from the Allies and disregarding the consequences of not settling the terms with Stalin in advance. For his action, to this day some consider him a hero and some consider him a villain.

The real communist infiltration came during and after 1945, as Soviet troops and services flowed free into Romania, culminating with the force abdication of the king in 1947.

In regard of your second question, fighting against Germany under Soviet command, this was one of the concessions Romania had to make to Soviet Union in order to secure the post war official recognition of Transylvania borders before 1940.
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
warhunter
Posted: October 04, 2008 02:41 am
Quote Post


Soldat
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 19
Member No.: 2263
Joined: October 03, 2008



Aha that cliche will not dismiss me. I know that there was great communist infiltration. I have been researching for years.

There was communist infiltration and thats what precipitated the new alliance with Soviet Russia.


If I am wrong I want to see the evidence. In the meantime I maintain my current research.

I hoped that there would be professional here who knew details about World War II Romania.

Much of what I have read here is of at least two bias categories:
"I heard"
or "This is how I prefer it to be therefore that is how it is"
PMEmail Poster
Top
dragos
Posted: October 04, 2008 01:56 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



Since you came up with this theory, why don't you present the evidence, especially since you have been researching it "for years".
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
warhunter
Posted: October 04, 2008 03:22 pm
Quote Post


Soldat
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 19
Member No.: 2263
Joined: October 03, 2008



" I am just a humble soldat always searching for new info. Since I don't read Romanian, I am hamstrung."

I share stuff with this site as my posts prove.

However, there is no benefit to informing people who have made up their minds.
Integrity requires me to state what I know at the proper point.


I will trade info though.

I am seeking info on communist infiltration of the Romanian monarchy and a specific Romanian Army officers clique.
PMEmail Poster
Top
21 inf
Posted: October 04, 2008 03:44 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Retired
Posts: 1512
Member No.: 1232
Joined: January 05, 2007



QUOTE (warhunter @ October 03, 2008 03:07 pm)
I am familiar with Romania's invasion of Hungary and its destruction of the communist Bella Hun regime in the 1920s.

As Dragos said, it would be nice to see some evidences you have about what you say that you know.

On the other hand, can you define "invasion of Hungary and destruction of communist Bella Hun regime..."?

Finally, you expected to find profesionals here. In how many other history forums you found only or majority profesionals??
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted: October 04, 2008 05:07 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (warhunter @ October 03, 2008 03:07 pm)
Then I want to know how they subverted the Romanian government to the extent that they abruptly turned their back on Germany

Turned their back on Germany? You mean the back that Germany stabbed in 1940?

"Romania betrayed Germany" or "Romania turned its back on Germany" are malicious cliches. Romania was coerced into allying with Germany. If different decisions would have been taken Romania and Germany could have been outright opponents in 1940. (see a long forum debate on whether Romania should have fought Russia and/or Germany in 1940).

Considering what Germany did in 1940, I'd say Romania did more than enough in the following 4 years.
PM
Top
Dénes
Posted: October 04, 2008 05:17 pm
Quote Post


Host
Group Icon

Group: Hosts
Posts: 4348
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



QUOTE (Imperialist @ October 04, 2008 11:07 pm)
...Romania was coerced into allying with Germany.

You have a peculiar view on history, Imp.
I will pick only one point in your ominous previous post (and ignore the allusion to "backstabbing" of 1940): "...Romania was coerced into allying with Germany."

Please enlighten us who exactly coerced Rumania in asking to join the Axis (i.e., to be an ally of the IIIrd Reich)?

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on October 04, 2008 05:21 pm
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted: October 04, 2008 05:57 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (Dénes @ October 04, 2008 05:17 pm)
You have a peculiar view on history, Imp.
I will pick only one point in your ominous previous post (and ignore the allusion to "backstabbing" of 1940): "...Romania was coerced into allying with Germany."

Please enlighten us who exactly coerced Rumania in asking to join the Axis (i.e., to be an ally of the IIIrd Reich)?

Gen. Dénes

You mean who or what.

To answer you briefly, the historical context played the most decisive part in coercing it. And I point you to this thread:

http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?sh...indpost&p=38042

Which opens with Dragos summing up of that context. Note the "left with no allies on the continent" part.

Then Germany coerced it indirectly by pulling the "bad cop/good cop" trick. On one hand by supporting Hungary's territorial claims and on the other by promising to guarantee Romania's territorial integrity afterwards.
PM
Top
Dénes
Posted: October 04, 2008 09:20 pm
Quote Post


Host
Group Icon

Group: Hosts
Posts: 4348
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



Rumania sought the favours of the resurgent Germany well before the mid-1940 date you're referring to.

Initially, Bucharest secured with Berlin an important economic agreement in March 1939, then a lucrative 'oil-for weapons' protocol in Sept. 1939. An even more important Oil Pact was signed in May 1940. Finally, on 2 July 1940, Rumania formally renounced the earlier Anglo-French guarantees and announced that its foreign policy was from then on guided by Hitler's "New European Order". All this don't look to me like 'coercion', but rather a policy reorientation, or Realpolitik, if you will.

Then, after the negotiations with Hungary for a peaceful solution of the Transylvanian issue (pushed by Berlin and Rome) broke down and war was looming, it was Rumania and Hungary who officially asked Germany and Italy to act as arbitrators. The result of this is known as the 2nd Vienna Arbitration. I see no "backstabbing" here.

So I answer your note, namely that in mid-1940 Rumania was "left with no allies on the continent" with this: by then, Rumania had already secured the protection of one of the two main powers in Europe - Germany, that is. This was then formalised in November the same year, when Bucharest signed the Axis Tripartite Pact.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on October 04, 2008 09:24 pm
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted: October 04, 2008 09:54 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (Dénes @ October 04, 2008 09:20 pm)
Rumania sought the favours of the resurgent Germany well before the mid-1940 date you're referring to.

Initially, Bucharest secured with Berlin an important economic agreement in March 1939, then a lucrative 'oil-for weapons' protocol in Sept. 1939. An even more important Oil Pact was signed in May 1940. Finally, on 2 July 1940, Rumania formally renounced the earlier Anglo-French guarantees and announced that its foreign policy was from then on guided by Hitler's "New European Order". All this don't look to me like 'coercion', but rather a policy reorientation, or Realpolitik, if you will.

The result of this is known as the 2nd Vienna Arbitration. I see no "backstabbing" here.

Economic agreements, economic pacts and arms trade agreements are short of an alliance. And informal "protection" is also not the same with a formal alliance.

Regarding the New Order statement, it came after the fall of France, didn't it?

Regarding the backstabbing, if Transylvania does not fit that case in your opinion, then try Cadrilater. You can't argue that was not backstabbing since it happened after Germany promised to safeguard Romania's territorial integrity.
Not to mention Germany's pact with the USSR in 1939. So Germany trampled its own promises, ideology and even treaties, but Romania gets a lot of blame from some people for switching sides in 1944.
PM
Top
Dénes
Posted: October 04, 2008 10:06 pm
Quote Post


Host
Group Icon

Group: Hosts
Posts: 4348
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



QUOTE (Imperialist @ October 05, 2008 03:54 am)
Economic agreements, economic pacts and arms trade agreements are short of an alliance. And informal "protection" is also not the same with a formal alliance.

C'mon Imp., had Germany sold it's top aircraft types (Bf 109E fighter and He 111H bomber) in sizeable number to Rumania in 1939 if it would had not been regarded as a de facto ally?

Gen. Dénes

BTW, as a comparison, in the same time Hungary got none of these (except for a couple of long-range recce He 111Ps)...
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Radub
Posted: October 05, 2008 12:28 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



QUOTE (warhunter @ October 04, 2008 02:41 am)
Much of what I have read here is of at least two bias categories:
"I heard"
or "This is how I prefer it to be therefore that is how it is"

Yet, that is all you have done so far. :blink:
Since it seems that you hate the communists, maybe you should avoid using their tactics. In Communist Romania, an accusation was the equivalent of a sentence. In other words, in those days the idea was that someone was guilty until proven innocent (unlike a proper legal system).
You do the same thing: you make some accusations (in fact, you are literally accusing the army of treason and fraternising with the enemy) but offer no proof to back such accusations, then expect us to take these accusations to be fact just because you uttered them.
In fact all you did was claim that "you heard" these facts and "this is how you prefer it to be and that is how it is". :D
Radu
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Victor
Posted: October 05, 2008 02:27 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4332
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



Off topic posts deleted.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0251 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]