What were Romania's objectives in fighting Russia?

We only had limited territorial claims and our means to support our military did not extend as far as we actually went. This wasn't our total war against the Soviet Union. We could have stopped after Odessa or at the Bug at the farthest.

No, we can t stop to Bog or Volga. We or Hungarians , we should have stop the fight only Transilvania was entirely in our hands (or in Hungarian hands). Why ? Because the Big Boss, Adolf Hitler was the master of Europe in that time. And he would give Transilvania to his best ally ....

That`s a good point. And if you decide to have the trouble to go into a war, you go all the way until you win it. It has no logic to go in war and than to stop, waiting for the enemy to strike back when he recovers from initial shock.
Our presence in the field at the moment of signing of the capitulation (or armistice) would have guaranteed that Basarabia remained ours, and would have given us a good negociation position regarding Transilvania.

Imperialist,
I think I guess what you think and, if so, I shall argue... If you think that stopping at Bug river, would mean a difference of treatment from the Western powers after the war (or at Churchill-Stalin negotiations), don't even think at that! The U.K. or U.S. had other geopolitical interests, so it would mean nothing for them... If you think that without losing so many soldiers in Crimea or at Stalingrad, our army would be stronger, you are again far from the truth (without german weapon deliveries and training and without the experience gained from battles fought...). And if you think Germany had accepted in 1941 or 1942 an alliance with us in such conditions, is rather naive... Remember that in 1942 the Hungarian Army received 108 Panzer 38(t)G, 10 Panzer III N, 22 Panzer IV F1 and 10 Panzer IV F2/G just for his Armored Division from the front line, while our army just 26 Panzer 35(t), 12 Panzer III N, 12 Panzer IV G... Not to speak about the refusal to give Hungary the license to produce the Panzer III/ IV tank, to "not irritate the Romanians". You really think, realistically speaking, that there was any other possibility?

Hitler gave no clear promise to return northern Transylvania to Romania. In fact he said something about giving us land to the east of Basarabia as compensation for northern Transylvania! And if the amount of commitment on the eastern front was to decide Transylvania's fate, how come Hungary did not enter such a competition with us? They could have committed more forces yet they didn't. So they didn't seem worried of falling behind us in the "favorite ally" chapter.

@Hadrian - It was Germany's business to give the death blow to the Soviet Union, not ours! In fact we were unable to support our own military effort some distance beyond Basarabia. From then on we became dependent on the Germans for logistics. Why not stop on the Bug or earlier and focus on defense works in Basarabia?

No, they did seem worried about this. I can give you as an argumentum what I read in the book "Trecerea Nistrului 1941" Florin Constantiniu, Ilie Schipor, ed Albatros, Bucuresti 1995, pg 124, a former Hungarian prime minister Miklos Kallay being quoted:
"Practicaly, the only reason to send the army against the Russians were the Romanians" ....

Thank you for that quote and source!
However that only says why they sent troops in the first place. But why didn't they send more if they were in a competition with us to be the best ally? In fact, I remember reading Antonescu complained to Hitler that the Hungarians were holding back forces while he commited almost everything he had.

If I remember well, Hungary had 120.000 honveds at Stalingrad. The way how the 2nd Hungarian Army was destroyed at Stalingrad was a national drama for Hungary, as it was the Don s bend for Romania.

Considering this, and another Hungarian particularities (internal policy, Horty, Hungarian politicians) I think that Hungary has push the things as far she was able to push.

This post has been edited by Dan Po on March 24, 2010 10:01 pm

IMO, the facts are more simplist. The main aim for a war is to destroy your enemy. I realy believe that Antonescu want's to destroy the Russian threat once for ever. And if he can do it along Germans, so be it. He do it, and he believe he can reach this goal.

i think moldova is the key when you think about main reason for Romania to fight Russia...plus Transnistria territory...Odessa and some obligations Romania had for Hitlers regime

Or, more precisely, the extinction of USSR/Russia would have been the only way in which our eastern fronteer (be it Prut or Dniester or whatever) could be safe; the Russians were the only power neighbouring us who could defeat us easily; at that time, the Romanian army could have dealt with the Hungarians and the Bulgarians at the same time, but not with the Russians.
To conclude, it was a "simple" matter of crushing the aggressor until extinct! Unfortunately, Russia was simply too big!

Russia was too big, and a harsh climate. This defeated also Napoleon. There were also strategic errors, like attacking on three diverging fronts instead of giving one decisive blows. For example, taking Moscow and then turning south and sweeping all to the Black Sea.

This post has been edited by Hadrian on July 10, 2010 10:12 pm

Indeed, but these "small inconvenients" were of German origin; thus, the Romanian had no say in these matters!

That is correct. And when they said, they were not listened.

There was a "joke": when Horthy came to see Hitler in 1943 at Klessheim (which, btw, was set up very luxurious, as to impress the allies of 3-rd Reich), the Fuhrer told him after looking on a piece of paper "If you get 10 more divisions on the Eastern front, you'll receive Oradea and Cluj". Horthy, puzzled, replied: "But we already have Oradea and Cluj".
Hitler, annoyed, said: "Concentration camp for my assistent! That was my speech for Antonescu!"
That sums up the situation quite well - it was a mean of blackmailing both countries...