We should be proud of Eastern Front victories?, about the romanian victories 1941/42

From what I know he commanded a Panzer III Ausf. N tank, tank that had a 75mm short gun, fact even more meritorious! But to tell the truth we (Romania) did not have too many as him neither at Stalingrad nore later... and Germany was incapable of ensuring its own troops with enough tanks in 1942 so...

What I mean is that we should not fall into any extreme to find justification to Antonescu regime and his policy or to strongly condemn the decisions taken by him! The middle way is always the best!

O sorry I didn't observed that i falled in extreme I hope that I will not be punished

As someone said as long as the war is started you can not stop before your enemy capitulate. So why we should blame one person for this inevitable action ?

Regarding Velican Pz III you are right , but regarding the fighting deeds of romanian tankers I will not be so negativ like you are.

I don't think the action was inevitable per se. Military operations can be given limited goals, based on political purposes and/or the actual capabilities to conduct the operations.

But it was probably inevitable in the sense that we had an army man as dictator and his thinking was also dominated by the need to show utmost loyalty to Hitler and impress him.

So we allegedly entered the war only to get back what was ours but ended up tagging along in Germany's quest for lebensraum. A big mistake in the opinion of many, including among the contemporaries (so it's not hindsight). In fact, I wonder whether Antonescu really entered the war solely for Bessarabia or whether his thinking was more dominated by the crusade against Bolshevism and the German order in Europe.

Mannerheim:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/catb/7169522987/

Antonescu:

http://www.napocanews.ro/wp-content/upload...07/P1070004.jpg

Hey I think you mistake the types of wars. We are talking here of world war not regional war.
Ofcourse retake only Bassarabia looks like an regional war. But URSS like I said Romania can not defeat alone. So going into a world war near one side no matter if romanian Army was leaded By Maresal Ionescu, Popescu or Hohenzolern regime It would not be possible to win just stoping at the border waiting URSS to sign the treat because we were nice guys.
I agree with you that any leader with the power in hand could take the oportunity to became dictators ( in the name of the cross, bla, bla, bla)and I don't think that only Antonescu was capable of that.

This post has been edited by Cantacuzino on February 02, 2013 03:11 am

What are you talking about?

Gen. Dénes

i'm talking about clausewitz theory and the fact that only romania actualy suported germany on eastern front accordingly this theory
finland hungary croatia sent initialy only simbolic forces on eastern front or never get on soviet soil
maybe if all the axis countries would have used all their military power in the summer of 41 maybe the axis would have won the war
only romania really get in this war alongside germany

@Cantacuzino

Yes, it was a world war but it wasn't our world war. If I'm not mistaken, correct me if I am, Germany was not behind any territorial loss suffered by Finland, like it was in our case in 1940. And even so, Finland did not go significantly out of its way to help the Germans.

In our case, although Germany had chopped us up with USSR in 1939 and twisted our hand in 1940 on the Transylvania and Cadrilater issues too, our attitude was like "if Hitler asks if we can jump, we say yes sir how high you want us to jump. that high? no sir, we'll jump higher!" Add to that the fact that, like MMM pointed out on an older thread, we didn't even have a proper, written treaty of alliance with Germany.

And I think Antonescu is primarily to blame for that attitude. He probably thought he had a special relationship with Hitler, his ego was probably also boosted by the laudatory articles in German press, he probably saw himself as the second or third most important man in Europe.

@sebipatru

Clausewitz refers to the principles of war. Not to the political-(geo)strategic considerations that decide when the war starts, what its goals are, when it should stop etc. Our goal was to take back Bessarabia. Once we did that we could have established a defense line at the Dniester and that's it. Our goal was not to drive deep into Russia to make sure Russia stays down. That was Germany's business.

When he planned Operation Barbarossa, Hitler counted only with the participation of Finland and Rumania, on the flanks, because they were the ones who had something to gain (territory) from the anti-Soviet war.

I suggest you read more and return with some more accurate facts.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on February 02, 2013 11:28 am

Well, you're quite wrong regarding the facts in here. A simple google check, even on wikipedia, could help you.
First of all, Romania has always maintained strong forces (1-st Army) at the Hungarian border; obviously, those forces did not go to the Eastern Front!
Second, neither Finland, nor Hungary have participated only with "token forces" - and, above all data, the number of casualties acknowledgerd by them is quite relevant. Neither country participated with all its forces, not even Germany - until it was too late, anyway!
And, by the way, Clausewitz's theories, however appealing as they are to us, novices in the "Art of War" (Sun Tzu's theories as well), zhey have only limited effect now, in the days of satellite reconaissance, nuclear warfare and other such marvellous inventions.

romania and germany participated with all the forces they could send
the forces kept home were necesary from security reasons
hungary could easilly sent more troops on eastern front
finland could cross the border and close the encirclement of leningrad
none did this
this is my point

Using double standards when you want to blame someone.

If the goal to take back Bassarabia was lost ( because Germany was loosening the war) why the other goal to retake Transilvania you don't treat the same. We should stop at Tisa border establishing a defense line and that's it. Quit simple isnt'it ?
For the death of so many romanians in Hungary and Czechoslovacia we can not blame Antonescu and as we know there is no dictator at power after 23 august.
The Soviet Stalin dream ( to make Europe soviets republics) was less dangerous than the Hitlers dream of lebensraum ?
So the question is who forced romanian soldiers to die on both fronts beyond the borders when was so easy to stop at the border ? ( Ok, for the est everybody agree that only Antonescu to blame)

This post has been edited by Cantacuzino on February 02, 2013 04:01 pm

So sorry sebipatru, but you are far from reality! Although I don't think I could be accused of sympathy for Hungary, the reality is that Hungarian Army contributed as the Romanian and Finnish Army to the military action triggered by Germany against USSR in June 1941, and the important contribution of each can't be analyzed only in relation to the effectives thrown in combat... From another perspective in the German High Command (Hitler too) thinking (in 1941 at least) there was no need to ask his allies (satellites) for a most significant military contribution as they believed they can win alone in a couple of month that campaign!

Antonescu of course
Seriously speaking I really think that he is to blame for the campaign in the west too, because if Romania have had a better relation with the allies (UK, USA f.i.) then our participation at a military campaign against Germany in 1944/45 could have been more limited (theoretically speaking) and at least negotiated in recognizing our co-belligerence! Don't you think so?

No I don't agree with you. I don't think that Stalin and a great power like USSR would forgive Romania just because we stopped at Dnester border ( what a good guys we were should gave us candies )
In my opinion nobody could stop URSS to force Romania to continuu the war after Tisza border with all army (if we wanted to keep Transilvania for us)

Yes teoretically Romania would have better relation with USA and UK but URSS had different goals and the western allies could not change that by contary they helped.

What border was at River Tisza?

Gen. Dénes