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



Pages: (9) « First ... 5 6 [7] 8 9   ( 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! [ 25 ]  [78.12%]
-No, from moral point of view I have no reason to be proud! [ 2 ]  [6.25%]
-There are no "pure" Romanian victories but only in cooperation with the Germans, so... [ 5 ]  [15.62%]
Total Votes: 32
Guests cannot vote 
Victor
Posted on April 12, 2013 07:12 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4336
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



July 1941
- East of the Dnestr (engaged in military operations): 342,123
- West of the Dnestr (not engaged in military operations): 360,932
- Total: 713,055

I will soon add the info to the website.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
luciang
Posted on April 14, 2013 06:05 pm
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 35
Member No.: 3280
Joined: March 18, 2012



I believe that the questions from this poll are in a way misleading. Either we want to know if one is proud from a moral point of view, and in this case the third question seems to me irrelevant - it doesn't matter that there might have been no "pure" victories, because the moral perspective is being emphasized ; or, we want to know if one is proud from a military art or romanian troops combat value point of view which is what the third question seems to lead to.
So, it seems to me that either one or the other perspective has influenced the result.

LucianG
PMEmail Poster
Top
aidan zea
Posted on April 16, 2013 07:32 pm
Quote Post


Caporal
*

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



luciang, from my point of view as initiator of this topic and also of the poll the questions are perfectly logical in terms of individual morality, analyzing the eastern campaign issue between two important moments: the Romanian military participation far beyond the line of security for our country, deep inside USSR and the crushing defeat at Don Bend. The two moments are related to a matter of morality namely if we (our army) should or shouldn't go so far East, the more so as we could no longer speak of imminent threat to our country! So if the majority chose the pride of victory (until november 1942) against morality (we participate in an aggression against a neighboring state, regardless of the fact that we were previously aggressed by this state!) is the choice of each one! I respect everyone's opinion as I expect that my opinion to be also respected!
PMEmail Poster
Top
Taz1
Posted on April 18, 2013 07:53 am
Quote Post


Caporal
*

Group: Members
Posts: 106
Member No.: 2414
Joined: March 05, 2009



More than proud we must have respect for the veterans how participate at the Est Campain. From the moral poit of view we were more o victim then an agresor. With some exceptions romanian army did not comit many war crimes on the est front. And most important from the military point of view the normal, the logic thing to do was to go as deep into the Soviet Union as the military operations demanded to do, until the defeat of the enemy. The same thing on the west front we went as far as military operatins demanded.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Imperialist
Posted on April 21, 2013 12:51 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

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



QUOTE (Taz1 @ April 18, 2013 07:53 am)
From the moral poit of view we were more o victim then an agresor.

And most important from the military point of view the normal, the logic thing to do was to go as deep into the Soviet Union as the military operations demanded to do, until the defeat of the enemy. The same thing on the west front we went as far as military operatins demanded.

The moment the goal of the war went from merely recovering Bessarabia to doing everything "until the defeat of the enemy" (which in practice meant the complete crushing of the Soviet Union) we became aggressors. The case for a legitimate war to get back what was lost in 1940 could no longer be made at Stalingrad or in the Caucasus.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on April 21, 2013 12:51 pm
PM
Top
MMM
Posted on April 21, 2013 03:56 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

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



QUOTE (Imperialist @ April 21, 2013 03:51 pm)
doing everything "until the defeat of the enemy"

As we have seen, if the said enemy is not "crushed", it'll get back on its feet and it'll also get back its prey...
IMHO, if one goes to war, one must defeat the enemy! Otherwise stay put!
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Imperialist
Posted on April 21, 2013 08:45 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

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



QUOTE (MMM @ April 21, 2013 03:56 pm)
As we have seen, if the said enemy is not "crushed", it'll get back on its feet and it'll also get back its prey...
IMHO, if one goes to war, one must defeat the enemy! Otherwise stay put!

One can set limited goals for a war. And we were not in the position to crush the Soviet Union.
PM
Top
Florin
Posted on April 21, 2013 10:16 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1870
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE (Imperialist @ April 21, 2013 03:45 pm)
QUOTE (MMM @ April 21, 2013 03:56 pm)
As we have seen, if the said enemy is not "crushed", it'll get back on its feet and it'll also get back its prey...
IMHO, if one goes to war, one must defeat the enemy! Otherwise stay put!

One can set limited goals for a war. And we were not in the position to crush the Soviet Union.

If "we" defines only the Romanian Army, you are 100 percent right for any moment of the war.
If "we" is that alliance revolving around Germany, there was a chance to crush Soviet Union, but only and only in 1941.
In 1942, the "crush" was out of question, but that was the last time when a honorable way out could be negociated. (I am considering Germany, first of all.)
But whatever "the forever peace" would be called on paper, the war would start again sooner or later, and at re-start Soviet Union would be in much better position.
PM
Top
Taz1
Posted on April 22, 2013 01:54 pm
Quote Post


Caporal
*

Group: Members
Posts: 106
Member No.: 2414
Joined: March 05, 2009



Military situation of the 1941 demanded that romanian army should go deeper into the Russia because soviet army was not defeated in a way that in was not to pose a serious threat to Romania in the imediat future . We could stop after the recapture of Basarabia but the fact that we decided to continue it is not so extraordinary giving the military and political situation of that time.
We , romanians seems to questionate our participation to war deep into soviet union but never our participation in the west campain after the eliberation of Transilvania. What was our purpose in fighting in Ungaria, Chehoslovacia, Austria. We could stop at the hungarian borders( in teory at least :D ). Or we thing that we fought for the eliberation of East of Europe, freedom and democraty shoulder, to shoulder with Stalin. :)
PMEmail Poster
Top
Dénes
Posted on April 22, 2013 05:02 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4355
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



QUOTE (Taz1 @ April 22, 2013 07:54 pm)
Or we thing that we fought for the eliberation of East of Europe...

That was not the liberation, but rather the occupation of Hungary (along with the Soviet Army).

Gen. Dénes
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Florin
Posted on April 23, 2013 06:34 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1870
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE (Dénes @ April 22, 2013 12:02 pm)
QUOTE (Taz1 @ April 22, 2013 07:54 pm)
Or we thing that we fought for the eliberation of East of Europe...

That was not the liberation, but rather the occupation of Hungary (along with the Soviet Army).

Gen. Dénes

As "Taz1" already mentioned, it was the same situation as on the Eastern Front more than 3 years before: Why the side having military initiative would stop at a border, if the enemy is still active, still potent and not willing to sign a surrender ?
Quite often in history, when a side had shown some benevolence and did not push its success to finish the other side for good, the tide rolled back in a disastrous way.

This post has been edited by Florin on April 23, 2013 07:28 pm
PM
Top
Imperialist
Posted on April 23, 2013 07:10 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

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



QUOTE (Taz1 @ April 22, 2013 01:54 pm)
Military situation of the 1941 demanded that romanian army should go deeper into the Russia because soviet army was not defeated in a way that in was not to pose a serious threat to Romania in the imediat future . We could stop after the recapture of Basarabia but the fact that we decided to continue it is not so extraordinary giving the military and political situation of that time.
We , romanians seems to questionate our participation to war deep into soviet union but never our participation in the west campain after the eliberation of Transilvania. What was our purpose in fighting in Ungaria, Chehoslovacia, Austria. We could stop at the hungarian borders( in teory at least :D ). Or we thing that we fought for the eliberation of East of Europe, freedom and democraty shoulder, to shoulder with Stalin. :)

Stopping in Bessarabia would have been possible but that's not what Antonescu wanted. Antonescu didn't want just to take back Bessarabia, he wanted to take part in the crusade against bolshevism.

After we went all the way to the Caucasus, allegedly in order to get back Bessarabia, there was hardly the possibility of saying "we will stop at the border of Hungary" in order to get back Transylvania.







PM
Top
Florin
Posted on April 23, 2013 07:34 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1870
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE (Imperialist @ April 23, 2013 02:10 pm)
....................
Stopping in Bessarabia would have been possible but that's not what Antonescu wanted. Antonescu didn't want just to take back Bessarabia, he wanted to take part in the crusade against bolshevism.

After we went all the way to the Caucasus, allegedly in order to get back Bessarabia, there was hardly the possibility of saying "we will stop at the border of Hungary" in order to get back Transylvania.

Just as a fact, the Hungarian-Romanian conflict following the 23rd of August, 1944, started with the Romanian troops in defensive and with the Hungarian troops in offensive, the latter crossing the border as it was after the Vienna Treaty of August 1940.
PM
Top
Dénes
Posted on April 24, 2013 04:55 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4355
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



QUOTE (Florin @ April 24, 2013 01:34 am)
Just as a fact, the Hungarian-Romanian conflict following the 23rd of August, 1944, started with the Romanian troops in defensive and with the Hungarian troops in offensive, the latter crossing the border as it was after the Vienna Treaty of August 1940.

This "fact" is untrue. The Rumanian border forces crossed the border in Transylvania soon after the 23 August about-face (without a formal declaration of war).

Gen. Dénes
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
MMM
  Posted on April 24, 2013 07:19 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

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



QUOTE (Dénes @ April 24, 2013 07:55 am)
QUOTE (Florin @ April 24, 2013 01:34 am)
Just as a fact, the Hungarian-Romanian conflict following the 23rd of August, 1944, started with the Romanian troops in defensive and with the Hungarian troops in offensive, the latter crossing the border as it was after the Vienna Treaty of August 1940.

This "fact" is untrue. The Rumanian border forces crossed the border in Transylvania soon after the 23 August about-face (without a formal declaration of war).

Gen. Dénes

Well, AFAIK the Hungarian and German forces attacked first, trying to cross the border. Only afterwards did 1-st Army counter-attack! Do you know something different? ;)
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (9) « First ... 5 6 [7] 8 9  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0381 ]   [ 17 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]