Romania changing sides in WW2

Originally posted by Dacian 1. was it betrayal

no. technically yes but considdering the circumstances there was no other option.

2. was it warranted as Hitler betrayed Romania first with Ribbentrop-Molotov pact?

just look what happened to Italy and Hungary when they changed sides, or tried to. Romania unlike those two countries was the only axis country to come out of Hitlers grip without being occupied or having the government replaced with a puppet regime.

3. did it save lives (even though plenty more soldierst died on the way to Germany)?

yeah i guess so, German troops would have fought for every inch of Romanian soil, they would have not just retreated.

4. was it warranted just because national interest have first priority no matter what

yeah and that's the point here in regards to your first question.

5. was there a better option?

unlikely. even Finland had to declare war on Germany to meet the Soviet demands.

6. what would fighting on and (obviously losing completely) would have achieved? (alternate history question I guess)

well not much i guess, though a Communist regime was installed either way...i don't think Romania would have the possibility to inflict as many casualties as Finland to remain out of Communist influence.


overall i would say it was a good choice and a particularly well-executed one too. on the downside a COmmunist regime was eventually installed and Bessarabia was lost for good.

1. The betrayal was when they allied with the Axis. They betrayed the former allies which helped them and betrayed the justice spirit too.

Hungo, you're right that Romanians have been traitors in WW2 but they didn't made genocide against Hungarians and Saxons but against Jews.

When did happen that? Actually, there were Romanian refugees from Northern Transylvania in 1940 and well-known atrocities against Romanians, especially at Ip and Trasnea (Salaj county). Anyway, lets not change the topic.

Edited by Menumorut - 25-Mar-2009 at 15:16

Hungary signed with Germany 1940november 20, Romania 19040 november 23. Basically Romania spent most of the war time on Germany and his allies side. Then attack Bulgaria, Transylvania, Hungary.


Edited by Hungo - 25-Mar-2009 at 15:54

Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor If the participants in this thread begin squabbling over nationalistic and ethnic rivalries, it will be closed like the other ones lately which have gone this route.  Please stick to the original topic.

no please dont misunderstand me, i didnt wanted to get to that point. I t came to mind i wrote it down for no offence, its far from me. I came to this forum to exhange thoughts.
peace

yeah hungo pls dont get my thread locked

we can make a different squabble topic in which each lists the massacres of the otherside balkanian style.


first affirmations need to be back up (look temujin example above). its easy to follow


you said it was betrayal.

bring arguments. what do you think about hitler betraying Romania first with the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and Viena Diktat.
Basically the relation between Romania and Germany starts on "freindly" note, we join the war on Germany side, fight, promise etc. and Hitler betrays Romania by awarding N Transylvania to Hungary. Was it a good and trust approch from Hitler? Was it betrayel from his side?
(again keep it straight from GErmany-Romania relation not Hungary-Romania)

Then again do you think national interest warrant any decision that keeps it surviving...i.e agree that moral principals dont have any meaning in foreign relations (genocide is not foreign relation so stick on what I said to take holocaust out of disscusion as we the topic is not about this).


Now most of axis sattelites did or try to do the same even though they were not "betrayed by Hitler in the first place.


And regarding morals again remeber Romania was the only axis participant who was offered part of cheholsovakia and refused it. All the other schakals went for the bite so when it is room for moral principles we pretty much stick with it.


Now another betrayel that was truly one was leaving Poland in the claws of SU by the western allies. This was truly bigtime betrayel I would say and I dont think anyone can find an excuse (but weakens in front of Stalin).


So make it easy and nice and participate to the topic at hand if you can rise yourself above the bad blood which I assure is it is shared on both sides. To put it like this there is noone innocent in the Balkans no matter how you look at it.

I'm looking forward for your constructive input and it goes the same for everyone that keeps this thread on topic.


Edited by Dacian - 25-Mar-2009 at 19:35

You have to be on the just side, not on the side of invading Germans and turning the back to the ones who supported the making of Great Romania cann't be justified by any strategical interest.

right guys, i dont want to get lock the topic or harm anyone. sorry for my words if it was harsh for anyone. lets discuss on teh topic, coz its interesting coz we are neighbours.
I agree that romania had to join the allied forces, coz he could not hold back teh soviet army, and would be overrun sooner or later.  The second hungarian army had huge losses on teh eastern front, at the Don river in 1942, what caused many future problems. Hungary got occupied by the nazis in '44. now between the sides of the scissocrs, between Germany and Russia.. Hungary kept to fight against the united soviet&romanian army. Hard years. And i understand you were fighting against the wiena award on the russian side coz stalin made pact about transylvania.
Guys, please dont misunderstand me, im not talking abt trianon and nationalistic stuff. Im just curious about our neighbours ideas about that years.
heers

Originally posted by Hungo right guys, i dont want to get lock the topic or harm anyone. sorry for my words if it was harsh for anyone. lets discuss on teh topic, coz its interesting coz we are neighbours. I agree that romania had to join the allied forces, coz he could not hold back teh soviet army, and would be overrun sooner or later.  The second hungarian army had huge losses on teh eastern front, at the Don river in 1942, what caused many future problems. Hungary got occupied by the nazis in '44. now between the sides of the scissocrs, between Germany and Russia.. Hungary kept to fight against the united soviet&romanian army. Hard years. And i understand you were fighting against the wiena award on the russian side coz stalin made pact about transylvania. Guys, please dont misunderstand me, im not talking abt trianon and nationalistic stuff. Im just curious about our neighbours ideas about that years. heers

yeah good we are back on topic

loses on the eastern front were plenty on the romanian side. After the germans we had the most prisonaers in the Stalingrad encirclement if I remember correctly.

from what I know about the german occupation of Hungary was that Hitler did not want to to risk Horthy pulling the same trick as the romanians...so suspecting he started negociations with the russians he deposed him. (Hitler was not in position to take anymore chances with his satelite leaders). Hungary had the same fate as Italy while Romania shared the fate with Finnland with regards to changing sides/occupation (as ironical as this pairing outcome might seem). This is what I know about Hungary situation.
 

Romanian situatuation at after R-M pact and Viena Award was that it lost land on both sides (Hitler was smart again) it was not a complete loss of a province but it was half of Transilvania on one side and half of Moldavia on the other. Aparently (this is what I know from romanian history this is why I mention this) is that Hitler's only interest was to get as many soldiers to help from Hungary and from Romania.
So smartly he apparently promised the otehr half of Transilvania to Hungary if Hungary helps on the eastern front and to Romania he promised that Transilvania will be again under Romanian control (as per Trianon) and for sure that Moldavia will be ours again.
First step would be the reunification of Moldova and to do that Romania had to join Barbarossa...which we did and we all know how it went.

Basically Hitler betrayed everyone in his own way, caring only about to get as much help as possible in the East.

This is why I motivate that if you betray a traitor you are not a traitor yourself point of view along with national interest always goes first.

The second point was that Bucharest wasn't devastated as Budapest as it didn't see much war (just a couple of angriff aerial bombardaments from the germans after 23rd August). Anyways just a detail what we managed to avoid by switching sides Ceausescu managed to do it anyway...that is the complete change of Bucharest into the typical communist type city (mirroring Phenian in N Korea). A shame really but heh this is history and I am going offtopic again.

Than after we switched sides we went all the way to the Tatra mountains and after there we were forbidden to go closer to Germany as the honour of defeating it had to stay only with the russians. (not to mention we lost plenty soldiers going that way also).

All in all this is what I know about it, most likely the decision saved alot of romanian civilian lives while bringing the death of more soldiers. In Hungary probably went the other way around, the full blunt was taken by the soldiers and civilians togheter but once it got conquered completely the direct suffering from war stopped.
Still different choices different views nobody knows the result in terms of lives saved if the other option was chosen.


That's why I put the topic to see the different views on what happend, argumentated and ontopic (or as much ontopic as possible) from people closer of further from the actual problem.

Originally posted by Dacian yeah good we are back on topic loses on the eastern front were plenty on the romanian side. After the germans we had the most prisonaers in the Stalingrad encirclement if I remember correctly. Yes i know that many romanian prisoners at stalingrad. ( Hitler was stupid, what the hell did he attack a completely industrial town liek stalingrad? it shold be bombed if he wanted to capture it, not to fight house by house street by street, i think he ww2 turning point was there.) from what I know about the german occupation of Hungary was that Hitler did not want to to risk Horthy pulling the same trick as the romanians...so suspecting he started negociations with the russians he deposed him. Horthy Miklos started negotiating with teh anglo-saxons not the russians. Bolsevizm and soviets wasnt needed in Hungary. THese negotiations were heard by Hitler also, so he started the occupation of Hungary, and "suprisingly" Horthy's son ( who was a very technical pilot) died in a plane "accident". Horthy was in 'sah-mate', one side germans occupiing, on teh other side the ukranian front reaching Hungary... Romanian situatuation at after R-M pact and Viena Award was that it lost land on both sides (Hitler was smart again) it was not a complete loss of a province but it was half of Transilvania on one side and half of Moldavia on the other. Aparently (this is what I know from romanian history this is why I mention this) is that Hitler's only interest was to get as many soldiers to help from Hungary and from Romania. So smartly he apparently promised the otehr half of Transilvania to Hungary if Hungary helps on the eastern front and to Romania he promised that Transilvania will be again under Romanian control (as per Trianon) and for sure that Moldavia will be ours again. First step would be the reunification of Moldova and to do that Romania had to join Barbarossa...which we did and we all know how it went. Let me share you my thoughts about Transylvania. If T. would have created as a confederation ( as Switzerland) with 3 parts, romanian-hungarian-saxon speaking parts, life would be better for both countries, and no offense in ww2... Basically Hitler betrayed everyone in his own way, caring only about to get as much help as possible in the East. This is why I motivate that if you betray a traitor you are not a traitor yourself point of view along with national interest always goes first. anyway i hope that this 2 world war realised in many ppl of europe that this kind of massacre doesnt lead to anywhere.. Europe suffered many wars, no need for a next one. Good day