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



Pages: (9) [1] 2 3 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> We should be proud of Eastern Front victories?, about the romanian victories 1941/42
 
Are you proud of Romanian Army victories from Nov.1941-Nov.1942?
-Yes, I am proud for our Army victories from November 1941 onwards! [ 24 ]  [77.42%]
-No, from moral point of view I have no reason to be proud! [ 2 ]  [6.45%]
-There are no "pure" Romanian victories but only in cooperation with the Germans, so... [ 5 ]  [16.13%]
Total Votes: 31
Guests cannot vote 
aidan zea
Posted on January 03, 2013 05:17 pm
Quote Post


Caporal
*

Group: Members
Posts: 102
Member No.: 3341
Joined: July 04, 2012



Because I recently had a conversation in contradiction with a friend on whether we should feel proud about the Romanian Army victories on the Eastern Front from November 1941 until November 1942, when we fought in the offensive started by the Germans in June 1941, or not? My opinion is that we have no reason to be proud because at least for the year 1942 there was no strong justification to continue (from military reasons) the military actions against the USSR after the fall of Odessa. Of course that I know Antonescu's reasons to continue the war from the soviet threat until the issue of Transylvania but I am speaking here about a feeling of pride which in our case should not be as we have nothing to gain from being and fighting in USSR. Agree that we should mention the victories we achieve in Crimeea, Kuban, Caucasus but pride for that is not a feeling that I can have considering what happened after (Don Bend catastrophe from november 1942). So I ask this because my personal feelings are not proud but bended, understanding and respecting the soldiers efforts and sacrifices, but also the drama of the soviet civilians who suffered (not by Romanian of Hungarian troops actions f.i.) from the war so much, being innocent (after they suffered from Stalin's policies before!).
PMEmail Poster
Top
MMM
Posted on January 03, 2013 05:27 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



But of course! A victory is a victory, isn't that so?
PS: add a poll... ;)
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
aidan zea
Posted on January 03, 2013 05:45 pm
Quote Post


Caporal
*

Group: Members
Posts: 102
Member No.: 3341
Joined: July 04, 2012



Thanks MMM for your idea! I added a poll...
PMEmail Poster
Top
MMM
Posted on January 03, 2013 07:23 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



As I said, "a victory is in itself a reward" and, IMHO, the position of Finland - I'm referring to the "limited involvement" policy - was not quite honourable, although the results seem to have justified it: a defeated, yet unconquered Finland! So we did what we had to do, fought on as good as we were able (which wasn't very much, though) and where we were told. Not fundamentally different from today... ;)
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
aidan zea
Posted on January 03, 2013 07:32 pm
Quote Post


Caporal
*

Group: Members
Posts: 102
Member No.: 3341
Joined: July 04, 2012



I hope everyone understands that my approach on this issue is from moral point of view and does not concern the efforts and sacrifices of our grandparents to which I have an unmeasured respect!

PMEmail Poster
Top
Florin
Posted on January 22, 2013 11:12 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1867
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE (MMM @ January 03, 2013 12:27 pm)
But of course! A victory is a victory, isn't that so?
PS: add a poll...  ;)

A war alliance is like a marriage: "...for better or for worse." You do not get out at the first bump.
The so called refrain of Finnland to go beyond her pre-1939 borders is just a legend... In 1941 (or 1942 ? ) they had tried an offensive in the territory owned by Soviet Union before 1939, but it did not work. If I am not wrong, the objective was the Murmansk harbor / city.

It is a very normal feeling to feel pride for any victory of the army that represents your nation. You will encounter this feeling in any nation on this Earth.
I understand the others, and the others should understand the Romanians.
What I hate the most in this world are double-standards and hypocrisy.

This post has been edited by Florin on January 22, 2013 11:43 pm
PM
Top
Imperialist
Posted on January 23, 2013 07:27 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

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



I voted no.

In his memoris Argetoianu writes, following his meeting (in October 1942) with a captain that was drafted and spent 60 days at the Romanian General Staff headquarters in Rostov:

QUOTE
In armata romana soldatul ca si ofiterul sunt admirabili si se bat ca leii, de teama sa nu fie prost judecati de nemti.

Dar spiritul, pretinde Scanavi, nu e bun... Toti, de la ofiteri la soldati, aproape pe fata, injura de mama pe Antonescu care i-a adus pana in Caucaz, la atata departare de tara! "Sa vie aici sa vada in ce ne-a bagat f... mama lui!"
PM
Top
aidan zea
Posted on January 23, 2013 10:01 am
Quote Post


Caporal
*

Group: Members
Posts: 102
Member No.: 3341
Joined: July 04, 2012



QUOTE
It is a very normal feeling to feel pride for any victory of the army that represents your nation

If we speak from moral point of view you're wrong! Any nation by its leaders make mistakes at a certain point, and admiting mistake is a matter of common sense! We have not won anything not even from military point of view after the fall of Odessa and the massive involvement in Crimea, Kuban and Caucasus brought us not great experience in battle nor any political advantages later, but just the opposite!

QUOTE
What I hate the most in this world are double-standards and hypocrisy.

Of course me too! But I fail to see a connection with the current discussion! Is there any?
PMEmail Poster
Top
Dénes
Posted on January 23, 2013 07:06 pm
Quote Post


Host
Group Icon

Group: Hosts
Posts: 4347
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



QUOTE (aidan zea @ January 23, 2013 04:01 pm)
We have not won anything not even from military point of view after the fall of Odessa and the massive involvement in Crimea, Kuban and Caucasus brought us not great experience in battle nor any political advantages later, but just the opposite!

Who is "we"?

Gen. Dénes
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Florin
Posted on January 23, 2013 10:42 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1867
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE (Dénes @ January 23, 2013 02:06 pm)
QUOTE (aidan zea @ January 23, 2013 04:01 pm)
We have not won anything not even from military point of view after the fall of Odessa and the massive involvement in Crimea, Kuban and Caucasus brought us not great experience in battle nor any political advantages later, but just the opposite!

Who is "we"?

Gen. Dénes

Yeah, I was also thinking about that, but... whatever.
PM
Top
aidan zea
Posted on January 24, 2013 01:26 pm
Quote Post


Caporal
*

Group: Members
Posts: 102
Member No.: 3341
Joined: July 04, 2012



Who is "we"? The Salvation Army, Denes :D joking of course! What can I answer to such a question? Of course that I was talking about Romania and Romanian army, I think it was clear from the context! If you have a different opinion I invite you to share it with us!

This post has been edited by aidan zea on January 24, 2013 01:28 pm
PMEmail Poster
Top
Radub
Posted on January 24, 2013 01:53 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

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



This thread is daft. It is like asking "Should Sonny Liston be proud of landing a few punches on Muhammad Ali"?
Radu
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
ANDREAS
Posted on January 24, 2013 10:33 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 814
Member No.: 2421
Joined: March 15, 2009



From my point of view once you engage in a fight (be it individual, group of individuals, military unit or even an army) you have to do everything possible to win it otherwise is bad! If you win it's normal to enjoy the victory (even small) and the one who denies that is lying! But I don't think the Romanian Army victories (except some) in the East were possible without German contribution (direct or indirect) so I voted accordingly!
PMEmail PosterYahoo
Top
Florin
Posted on January 24, 2013 11:50 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1867
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE (aidan zea @ January 24, 2013 08:26 am)
Who is "we"? The Salvation Army, Denes  :D  joking of course! What can I answer to such a question? Of course that I was talking about Romania and Romanian army, I think it was clear from the context! If you have a different opinion I invite you to share it with us!

OK, you answered to Dénes.
The reason I had the same question like him is because in other topic you mentioned that your ancestry is bi-national, and in another you mentioned that you have two citizenships.
From your answer to Dénes I got it: in the moments you are writing in this topic your Romanian part is prevailing.
I have a strange feeling myself due to my two citizenships. I am glad that my soul is not also torn by a bi-national ancestry.

This post has been edited by Florin on January 24, 2013 11:51 pm
PM
Top
Imperialist
Posted on January 25, 2013 07:52 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

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



QUOTE (ANDREAS @ January 24, 2013 10:33 pm)
From my point of view once you engage in a fight (be it individual, group of individuals, military unit or even an army) you have to do everything possible to win it otherwise is bad!

That may be true from a military point of view, but don't forget that the political leadership is (or should be) always in charge and sets the goals that the army has to reach. The idea of doing everything possible to win, with no political limits/thresholds, no holds barred, is not very good. Military considerations should have played a role in analysing whether to go beyond the Dniester or not, but they shouldn't have played the decisive role. Yet they did with Antonescu (not a civilian leadership) in charge.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on January 25, 2013 07:54 am
PM
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (9) [1] 2 3 ... Last » Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0295 ]   [ 17 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]