World War II viewed from Romania's Perspective

[Zeprion]

The Greek Army's military academy normally took in about 100 students each year. In 1937 it took in 300 so that in 1940 there would be ample junior officers to properly command a mobilized army. Those were assigned to their units in September 1940, a month before Italy invaded Greece. A line of forts across the border with Bulgaria had also been in construction since 1936 and was well along by 1940. Unfortunately that line wasn't expanded along the border with Yugoslavia, since it was not expected to be a hostile nation, and that's where the Germans got through.

Interesting

An interesting analogy, but I think not quite precise. If the Kurds, after having been abandoned by the Americans, instead allied with ISIS and took part in their crimes against civilization in the hope that they would gain the territory in Turkey populated by a Kurdish majority I believe that might be more like what Antonescu did. And I don't think the rest of the world would be as sympathetic to the Kurds then as it is now.

Good point. But what would you have done in Romania's situation? If it weren't for the German protection, the Russians would have taken a lot more from Romania.

And an alliance with the Soviet Union would be impossible because of this very reason (there's a focus tree in Hoi4, but in real-life the Russians would have never accepted), not to mention that nobody knew the Soivet Union would eventually join the Allies, it was an alliance of convenience anyway, the Russians were the bad guys as much as the Nazi.

Staying neutral? That's free land for both Germany and Russia. Unlike Finland that has the environment in its own advantage, the Russian and the German troops could have steamrolled Romania in not time, making it a 2nd Poland.

From my knowledge, the Soviets wanted to take as much from Romania as they could, if it wasn't for the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact they would have claimed all of Moldavia. Even with the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact the Soviets pushed every boundry they could, the original deal with Germany was that the Sovet Union only takes Bessarabia, but the Sovet Union requested at the last minute to all take Bukovina as well, Nazi Germany was surprised by this request and eventually agreed that the Soviet Union only takes a small piece of Bukovina. But the Soviet Union didn't stop there and kept advancing, the Romanian army was in shock and didn't know what to do so they continued retreating, when the Romanian government saw that the Russian army didn't stop at the agreed borders they had a conference.

Before the conference was over, on the frontline, Major Valeriu Crap gave the following order "From here we do not retreat anymore! They shall not pass over Putna! Go to your units, organize defensive positions and if the Russians make one step forward, on my order and at my own risk open fire!". The Russian advanced, Major Valeriu Crap's battalion started shooting and the situation was about to escalate, both Nazi Germany and the Allies were angry at the Soviet Union for this advance and Stalin was forced to back down and give up his further push in Romania in order to avoid interantional outrage. However, with this trick form a small piece of Bukovina the Soviet Union ended up with half of Bukovina. After Romania switched sides in 1944, Major Valeriu Carp was declared a war criminal by the Soviet Union.

After the Soviet Union took Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina they requested Germany to be allowed to take Southern Bukovina as well, but it was refused. Then the Soviets occupied the Snake Island in the Black Sea.

There was no Soviet offer help and guarantee to Romania as far as I know, and given the events previously described, that seems very unlikely.

The facts later would have been different had the Soviets not taken Bessarabia and Northern Bukvoina. The reason Romania joined the Axis and entered World War II was to recover Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina from the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union wouldn't have taken Bessarabia and Northern Bukvoina Romania would have had no reason to join the war. Ion Antonescu's advance in Transnistria was very unpopular in Romania and even then it was made in hopes that Nazi Germany would reward Romania with Northern Transylvania for their contribution to the eastern front. If the Soviets would not taken Bessarabia and Northern Bukvoina, there would be no coup against Carol II, and most likely Romania would have stayed neutral or joined the Allies to take back Northern Transylvania in 1944.

The only silver lining I can see from Romania is pulling of a miracle like Sweden. German soldiers traveling on leave between Norway and Germany were allowed passage through Sweden. And Iron ore was sold to Germany throughout the war. Romania could have allowed Germany/Russia to move their trooops and sell Oil to Germany/Russia. The problems with this were:
- Russian didn't need Oil.
- Russia wanted to annex big parts of Romania, accepting Romania's neutrality would have been unlikely.
- Germany consided Sweds Aryans, equals to them, Romanians were held to be somewhat inferior, but were tolerated.
- Nations already part of the Tripartite Pact, Hungary and Bulgaria requested territories from Romania.
- Sweden wasn't in a strategically important location for the German-Soviet front.

Ironically, I think the best course of action for Romania's survival would have been to join the Tripartite Pact earlier. As a neutral country, its stance in the war was uncertain and it was better to give that territory to Hungary and Bulgaria that were already part of the Axis. If Romania would have joined the Axis previously, giving that territory away would have been problematic as Romania was already an Axis member and had more manpower than both Hungary and Bulgaria. Germany would have also been more reluctant to give parts of Romania to the Soviet Union. I think Bessarabia would still be given away, but not Northern Bukovina as it wasn't part of the deal in the Ribbertrop-Molotov Pact.

There is a recording from Finland 1942 at the birthday party of Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim when Hitler speaks in private, his voice is calm, unlike in his public speeches, he also talks about Romania. Context should also be taken into account, he was talking to Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim, thus he needed to justify not helping Finland somehow. In that recording, Hitler mentions that he agreed to give up the Baltics and parts of Finland to the Soviet Union so that the Soviet Union won't try to take the Romanian Oil. Until Romania joined the Axis, Hitler was uncertain whether Russia would attack Romania or not.

Adolf Hitler: "Already in the autumn of 1940 there was constantly this question for us: should we risk a break from the USSR? I advised the Finnish government to negociate and to make time to learn how to deal with problems in a different way, because I always had a fear: that Russia would attack Romania in late autumn and occupy oil sources, and we would not have finished preparations until the end of autumn 1940. If Russia would have occupied the Romanian oil sources, Germany would have been lost.

With 60 Russian divisions this could have been aranged, at that time we had no intervention force in Romania, the Romanian government called ous only recently and what we have desplaced there would have been really ridiculous. They should have just occupied the oil soruces. I could no longer start a war, in September of October, with our armament, it was really impossible, we did not in any way prepare for the deployment of our troops in the east, the units had to be consolidated first in the west, the armament had to be consolidated. To be brought in order, because, of course, we also made sacrificed during the Western Campaign. It would have been impossible to align before the spring of 1941 and if now the Russians, in the autumn of 1940, had occupied Romania and annexed the oil sources, then we would have been helpless in 1941.

I had a good German production, but the quantity of fuel that only the Air Force consumes, the quanity that our tank divisions consume is a monstrous thing. It's a consumption that goes beyond imagination. And without the influx of 5 million tons of Romanian oil we could not have dared to start the war. And this worried me a lot, as a consequence, I tried to solve this problem through negociations, until we were strong enough to oppose the exorbitant demands of USSR in 1939 and 1940, the demands were truly exorbitant, they were exorbitant, the Russians knew that we were helpless, in the west, they could squeeze everything from us, and only after the visit of Molotov, then we declared mercilessly that we could not accepted the demands, these many demands, basically the negociations were barely over.

There were 4 points, the only points regarding Finland was giving them the liberty to protect themselves from a Finnish threat. I said - Don't you want to tell me that Finland is threatening you? - He said - Well, in Finland anyone could act against the friends of the Soviet Union, this would be an alliance, the USSR will not be continuously stressed and a Great Power could never accept being threatened by a small state in terms of its existence. - I said - You, your existance, is not threatend by Finland, isn't it? Aren't you trying to tell me that your existance is threated by Finland? - in the background someone said - Ridiculous!"

 

[Selzro]

Romania could have accepted Germany hegemony but done the bare minimum to help it in its war. I don't deny that Romania was in an impossible situation should it have tried to defend itself, but going out of its way to prove itself a useful ally against the Soviets and 'undesirable' civilians within its zone of control in the hope that Germany would give it back land from Hungary makes it an aggressor in my book. Consider how the law works for individuals (although there may be differences from country to country): if someone holds a gun to your head and orders you to commit a crime, you can do that up to a point and claim in your defence that you were acting under duress; and be found innocent. But if that person orders you to kill someone and you do it, the duress defence no longer counts, because it isn't ethical (or legal) to kill an innocent person even if your own life is threatened. If your life isn't even threatened and you kill an innocent person just to impress the guy with the gun, then it isn't even worth arguing over.

 

[Zeprion]

Romania could have accepted Germany hegemony but done the bare minimum to help it in its war. I don't deny that Romania was in an impossible situation should it have tried to defend itself, but going out of its way to prove itself a useful ally against the Soviets and 'undesirable' civilians within its zone of control in the hope that Germany would give it back land from Hungary makes it an aggressor in my book. Consider how the law works for individuals (although there may be differences from country to country): if someone holds a gun to your head and orders you to commit a crime, you can do that up to a point and claim in your defence that you were acting under duress; and be found innocent. But if that person orders you to kill someone and you do it, the duress defence no longer counts, because it isn't ethical (or legal) to kill an innocent person even if your own life is threatened. If your life isn't even threatened and you kill an innocent person just to impress the guy with the gun, then it isn't even worth arguing over.

This is what Bulgaria has done, accepted Germany hegemony but done the bare minimum to help it in its war, and still took at part in the 'undesirable' problem, this wasn't up for negociation. The same policies that happened in Romania happened in Bulgaria, people from the core territories were spared but those from the occupied territories of Thrace, Macedonia, and Pirot had to answer to German law. Bessarabia and Bukovina were not considered core territories because they weren't part of Romania when Romania joined the Axis in 1941.

Ion Antonescu was reluctant and showed initial resistance: "The Jews from Romania are my Jews. Solving the Jewish problem is a Romanian problem that will not be decided in Berlin!", "I won't wait for the German decision and their madness to destroy the European Jews". And during his trial by the defense comitee: "If the Jews from Romania still live, they live due to Marshal Antonescu". He was anti-semitic, he didn't love the jews, but at the same time he was against killing them. But when you have an overlord whose core beliefs are racial purity, it's difficult to negociate your way on this one.

To me, this seems more like holding a gun to your head and ordering you to commit a crime.

You could argue that Romania could have choose not to join the Axis, but we've already discussed that in the previous comment.

* If someone holds a gun to your head and orders you to commit a crime, you can do that up to a point and claim in your defence that you were acting under duress; and be found innocent.
* But if that person orders you to kill someone and you do it, the duress defence no longer counts, because it isn't ethical (or legal) to kill an innocent person even if your own life is threatened.

How are these 2 elements from the comparasion different?
- In the 1st case: he holds a gun to his head, orders you to kill, you kill and can be found innocent because he forced you to, in other words your own life was threatened.
- In the 2nd case: he orders you to kill someone and you do it because your own life is threatened, in other words he forced you to.
It's the same thing using different words, I don't see the difference.

Romania didn't go out of its way to prove itself a useful ally as far as 'undesirable' civilians are concerned, it did that when it comes to the war with the Soviets but from the moment it choose the Axis it already made its bet. You either fight the war with 100% potential in hopes of winning, or fight the war doing the bare minimum to help it and risk losing it. Antonescu didn't want a war with the West but with the West and the Soviet Union now allies this happened.

For Ion Antonescu, the United Kingdom and United States were unwanted enemies, his goal being only the destruction of the Soviet Union. This is why, in the spring of 1943 he tried to present to both Hitler and the Allies, the danger of the Soviet Union in Europe. Arguing that a peace in west would ensure a complete concentration of forces in east and the defeat of the Soviet Union. Whether is was just a pretext to start negociating peace with the Allies without alerting is unknown. What is certrain in that Ion Antonescu tried to convince Benito Mussolini to ask for peace in the name of Germany's allies, which Mussolini refused, and that Hitler got mad when he found out that Romanian diplomats were talking with the Allies through neutral countries such as Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and Turkey.

I make no excuses for the war with the Soviets because I feel like they deserved it, the Soviets started it. If they didn't try to take parts of Finland and Romania then Finland and Romania wouldn't have allied with Hitler against them. The Soviets weren't exactly saints either, more like red fascists. Same authoritarian ideology, different name, not exactly the same but they were more similar than a communist to a socialist or a fascist to a reactionary. To imply that the Soviet Union is like an innocent person is no different from implying that Nazi Germany is like an innocent person and the Americans killed an innocent person in Normandy, the only real difference is that the Soviet Union won the war and history is written by the victors.

 

[Selzro]

How are these 2 elements from the comparasion different?
- In the 1st case: he holds a gun to his head, orders you to kill, you kill and can be found innocent because he forced you to, in other words your own life was threatened.
- In the 2nd case: he orders you to kill someone and you do it because your own life is threatened, in other words he forced you to.
It's the same thing using different words, I don't see the difference.

In the first case I was referring to a crime other than murder. You will generally not be found innocent if you kill an innocent person to save your own life (at least in the legal systems I've read up on).

I've been hesitant to write more clearly about the Holocaust because forum guidelines frown upon discussing war crimes, but from just a cursory reading of the relevant Wikipedia pages it seems that Antonescu's government was the only one to independently embark on it without waiting to be asked by the Germans. That puts a different spin on the quote "The Jews from Romania are my Jews. Solving the Jewish problem is a Romanian problem that will not be decided in Berlin!" A report on those doings came out in 2004, and it seems that there's been a great deal of denial about how extreme they were in traditional Romanian historiography. The Romanian government did change its policy in 1942, but by then it was second only to Germany in the scale of its activities. Bulgaria was not quite at the same level. It was very brutal to Greeks living in the territories it annexed and it allowed the Germans to deport the Jews living there but had no extermination program within its traditional borders; and I also don't see any Bulgarians claiming that what they did was excusable under the circumstances.

So I hope you see why I have sympathy for Romania, and can even understand its participation in the war against the Soviets, but simply cannot excuse Antonescu.

 

[Zeprion]

In the first case I was referring to a crime other than murder. You will generally not be found innocent if you kill an innocent person to save your own life (at least in the legal systems I've read up on).

I've been hesitant to write more clearly about the Holocaust because forum guidelines frown upon discussing war crimes, but from just a cursory reading of the relevant Wikipedia pages it seems that Antonescu's government was the only one to independently embark on it without waiting to be asked by the Germans. That puts a different spin on the quote "The Jews from Romania are my Jews. Solving the Jewish problem is a Romanian problem that will not be decided in Berlin!" A report on those doings came out in 2004, and it seems that there's been a great deal of denial about how extreme they were in traditional Romanian historiography. The Romanian government did change its policy in 1942, but by then it was second only to Germany in the scale of its activities. Bulgaria was not quite at the same level. It was very brutal to Greeks living in the territories it annexed and it allowed the Germans to deport the Jews living there but had no extermination program within its traditional borders; and I also don't see any Bulgarians claiming that what they did was excusable under the circumstances.

So I hope you see why I have sympathy for Romania, and can even understand its participation in the war against the Soviets, but simply cannot excuse Antonescu.

Antonescu was opportunistic and more of a realist than a fanatical fascist, and so he was always sensitive to shifting geopolitical winds. Antonescu was not strictly a fascist either, in fact, he purged the fascist elements from his regime at the beginning of 1941. But he was authoritarian and wanted a Romania only for Romanians. In spite of this, Antonescu ended up keeping the overwhelming majority of Jews inside Romania proper away from the gas chambers. The Jews from the occupied regions of Bessarabia, Bukovina and Transnsitria were persecuted, but the Jews from the territory Romania had before it joinig World War II in 1941 were left alone. Aside from a few raids of the Iron Guard in 1941, not only that they weren't persecuted, but they had schools and hospitals for them.

"If you were a Jew within Antonescu’s Romania proper, you were more likely to survive World War II than if you had been living virtually anywhere else in Axis-occupied Europe. But, on the other hand, if you were a Jew in the areas that Antonescu’s troops recaptured from the Soviet Union, there were few places worse." - Larry L. Watts

Nazi Germany's policy about the Jews wasn't up for negociation. However, when Nazi Germany demanded that Romania gives back the Jews that crossed the border from Northern Transylvania to Southern Transylvania, Antonescu refused. At the same time, 135,000 Jews living under Hungarian control in Northern Transylvania were deported to and died in concentration and extermination camps, out of a total number of 151,000 Jews.

As you can see, there was a form of ressistance from Ion Antonescu, possibly did enough to applease Hitler but also not enough to make a stance, I don't think Hitler would have responded it kindly if no Jews were persecuted. I could also argue that Antonescu stopped sending Jews to Nazi Germany in 1942 but it wouldn't be fair as he might have realised that Hitler may lose the war, but refusing to give up Jews prior to that has no reasoning. Ion Antonescu also sent Romanian officers to escort Jewish war prisoners to make sure that the Nazi wouldn't interrogate them.

"A man who was a realist, militarist, nationalist, and authoritarian, who had no use for parliamentary democracy. But neither was he strictly fascist: He purged the fascists from his regime early on and had a disdain for pageants and parades. He believed in order, but not as a prerequisite to freedom, only as an end in itself. His support for Hitler was heavily determined by the calamitous, quasi-anarchic internal situation he inherited from King Carol II, combined with Romania’s tragic position on the map between expanding Nazi and Stalinist empires. Antonescu made the cold calculation that an alliance with Germany was simply the best option for regaining territories that Romania had lost to the Soviet Union". - Keith Hitchin, American Historian

“I am the ally of the Reich against Russia, I am neutral between Great Britain and Germany, and I am for the Americans against the Japanese.” - Ion Antonescu, declaration to journalists after Pearl Harbor

I never said that Ion Antonescu didn't took part in the Holocaust or that I'm making excuses for him, but that there was a form of ressistance from Ion Antonescu, which is true, yet here you are putting words into my mouth "I also don't see any Bulgarians claiming that what they did was excusable under the circumstances" on this touchy subject, implying that you see me claiming something that I've never actually said. I cannot excuse the Holocaust that Romania took part of, and I don't know whether what Ion Antonescu did was right or wrong, killing an innocent person for your own survival, but at least I understand him and admire that he was able to resist Nazi Germany in some measure, being able to refuse them a few times despite being the lesser state. While he wanted a Romania only for the Romanians, I think he wouldn't have killed any Jews if he had some other choice.

It is estimated that Hungary had an original population of 861,000 people considered Jewish inside the borders of 1941-1944, about 255,000 survived. This gives a 29.6% survival rate overall. While Greater Romania had an original population of 755,000 Jews in 1938, minus the Jews from Northern Transylvania that makes 601.000 Jews. After the loss of Bessarabia, Bukovina and Northern Transylvania it had a population of 356,237 and at the end of the war it had a population of 355,972 Jews though the lowest estimate is 290,000 Jews. Using the lowest estimate (with doesn't take into account immigration to Palestine) we still get 38.1% survival rate overall. Croatia had only 40.000 Jews but with 31.000 Jews being killed the survival rate is 22.5%.

"Marshal Ion Antonescu" - a biography by Jewish writer Tesu Solomovici, who claimed that this biography is "an unprecedented perspective that will dissuade Romanian historians and Jewish historians alike", and that "that there were pressures from the Jewish and Romanian historians, that this detailed biography of Ion Antonescu should not be published", said the following in an interview:

What is the theme of the book?

In general, there is a feud between the Jewish historians and Romanian historians, regarding the way of perceiving and analyzing the ruler of Romania, Marshal Ion Antonescu. Maybe this is fueled and deepened to make some see him as just a monster, animated by a sick hatred of the Jews, and the others view him as an absolute hero of the Romanian world. Basically, there has to be a middle line, because Antonescu can never be excluded from the history of Romania and can never change status in the Romanian mentality. Because, under the conditions under which the Romanian army is ordered to cross the Pruth, Antonescu fulfilled a popular Romanian wish. It was a war through which Antonescu was trying to repair a historical injustice done on a diplomatic level, answering a visible act of aggression in the Red Moscow, through the kidnapping of Bessarabia and in North Bukovina, old and real parts of the Romanian body. In this sense, Antonescu entered the Romanian mind as a hero.

Why did you feel like writing this book?

First of all because, paradoxically, if I live, I live because on October 13, 1942, Ion Antonescu opposed and canceled the order for all Jews to be brought to the Nazis. By this time the trains were being prepared which were to facilitate the deportation of all Jews from Romania to Auschwitz. And Antonescu said no, to the dismay of the Nazis, who had nothing to do. From that moment on, any deportation ceased. Ion Antonescu did not do this out of love for the Jews. It was a gesture that emerged from his legitimacy as a ruler of Romania and from the desire to show that Romania is not at the mercy of Nazi Germany. The volume presents Ion Antonescu not as a monster, but as a man, as a Romanian and military man who loved his country enormously. He believed himself providential and committed a series of great deeds, which Romania will also remember, but also unforgivable mistakes.

Did the marshal have any discussions with Jewish key people?

Nothing was known about his meeting with Chief-Rabbi Alexandru Safran. I discovered that Vlad Davidescu, the son of Colonel Radu Davidescu, who was the head of the Marshal's Military Cabinet. Nothing was moving, no one had access to the marshal without Radu Davidescu's approval. His son told me how one day Chief Rabbi Alexandru Sapran knocked on the door of their house and Colonel Radu Davidescu materialized the meeting of the Rabbi with the Marshal. This is a very important testimony because there are Jewish historians who deny the existence of these meetings. Indeed, the testimony of Colonel Radu Davidescu's son confirms those written by Grand Rabbi Shafran in his memoirs.

Has your version of truth been challenged by historians?

Over the years, I have been in dispute with some leading Jewish historians of the time, including Jean Ancel, who is considered the most important Jewish historian of the Holocaust in Romania. He did not love the Romanians, but he had no respect for the Romanian Jewry either. He was of Bucovina cultural formation, and the Bucovina Jews had no respect for the Romanian world. They considered themselves of German culture, their eyes being pointed towards Vienna and Berlin. Jean Ancel has expressed this contempt for Romania. He enthusiastically subscribed to that phrase issued by Hannah Arendt, a Jewish American historian, who said that Romania was the most anti-Semitic country in the world. In his writings, Ancel wanted to prove this. Or, to see Romania a country more anti-Semitic than Hitler's Germany or more anti-Semitic like Hungary, Poland or Ukraine ... I drew attention to Ancel's flawed vision. He has done something that an honest historian does not. He wrote a book about the Iasi Pogrom, in which he endeavored to show that Antonescu was the initiator, leader and manipulator of all those that happened at the Iasi Pogrom. Which is silly. To accuse Antonescu of being manipulative like some band chief ... It was not at all difficult for him to simply sign a decree and in 2-3 days all the Jews would have been deported. He did not have to invent, manipulate, to kill a few thousand Jews.

Is it a decision that Marshal Ion Antonescu made and which demonizes him?

Transnistria. The deportation of the Jews to a war-torn area, where there was no possibility of feeding, shelter or medical care. Many Jews died of the disease. Transnistria has been transformed into a kind of cemetery, not only of the Jews in Bessarabia and Bukovina, but also of the Jews in Ukraine and Transnistria. It is estimated that between 180,000 and 250,000 Jews were shot dead by Germans, Romanian troops, locals or bandits because of illness, hunger and lack of medicines.

In the book you quote Emil Cioran, who says about Antonescu that, although he was insane, he saved the lives of at least 600,000 Romanian Jews and that there should be a monument in Israel that bears his name. Do you agree with these statements?

And at this point I had a terrible conflict with Jean Ancel, the historian. I published in the newspaper "Ziua" a whole page with these things written by Emil Cioran. And I showed that there is no statue of Antonescu in Israel. Nor is this possible. Cioran was convinced that if there is no, there is a lack in the gratitude of the Jews to the man who saved their lives.

What are the historical mistakes Ion Antonescu made and which altered his image?

One of them is that the war continued beyond the Dniester, to the Caucasus mountains and the Stalingrad steppes. He maintained an alliance with Nazi Germany and implicitly entered into war not only with Soviet Russia, but also with the United States of America, with England, France, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, with the entire democratic world. And the second mistake is that he pursued his anti-Semitic outbursts, which caused great sorrow on the Jewish side. I want you to understand clearly: no one is bound to love the Jews. But no one has the right to take their life or to sign laws that will persecute them, deport them, marginalize them. This is exactly what Antonescu did. With the establishment of power, he joined the anti-Semitic current of the era, which started from Berlin, from Hitler. He acquired this anti-Semitic ideology, translating it into harsh laws. From this moment he entered the ranks of war criminals. Not the Jews invented the term "war criminal." The term was issued and entered into legal discourse by the Nuremberg court, which tried the Nazis' crimes. It is said that Antonescu's trial in May 1946 was a hoax, that it was illegal, that it was run under the shadow of Soviet advisers. By implication, the decision to sentence him to death is unfair and illegal. But any court in the world that respected the letter of the law could not give another verdict, which was the logical consequence of the defeat of the Nazis and the victory of the Allies.

Did you suffer after the book appeared?

Several excerpts from the book have been published over the years. There was no article about Antonescu and the Holocaust that was not violently attacked especially by national historians. Talking about Antonescu, I issued the phrase "Asymmetric Holocaust" in Romania. I was surprised to see what fate the Romanian Jewry had in those years. Somehow the Jews from the old kingdom (southern Transylvania, Muntenia, Moldova, Dobrogea) lived and the Jews of Transnistria and northern Transylvania, occupied by the Hungarian fascists, didn't. And they had the opportunity to study in Jewish schools, they had hospitals and even a theater. A unique case in the history of Nazi-occupied Europe. It is a phenomenon that relates to Antonescu's life and I have underlined this. I think my vision will stir up controversy again, I expect again to be accused of denial and want to raise a monument to Antonescu. Therefore, the book didn't appear for eight months since it was ready, I did not give it to print. But I thought I would publish it, whatever would happen.

Does the book reveal new data on the relations between Ion Antonescu and the Legionary Movement?

Antonescu was not completely immune to the legionary fascination. The photo with Antonescu and the Captain of the Legionary Movement Corneliu Zelea Codreanu skiing together in the Bucegi Mountains says a lot. The two often met, but their association was "artificial", not "organic", as historian Constantin C. Giurescu says, who knew them both well. The general loved the "order", the legionaries did not respect the Law. Of course, the flirtation of the legionaries with the general was for one purpose, to enlarge the Legion with the high military emblem that represented Antonescu. The Antonescu-Codreanu meetings did not lead to any result, although the general liked the Captain. The general was horrified by the successor of the Captain, Horia Sima. After the liquidation of the Legionary Rebellion and the escape of Horia Sima, Antonescu would have expressed that he had escaped great turmoil.

You even met Ion Antonescu, when you were ten?

I lived on the Jewish street in Focsani, and at the end of it was the military command. Towards the end of the war, after the defeat at Stalingrad, Antonescu thought of a last line of resistance of the Romanian army, on the Nămoloasa-Focşani-Galaţi line. There were many casemates built, and my father was focused on this line. We, the children, were playing on the street and we heard that Antonescu was coming. I ran to the column of cars and motorcycles and saw the one I knew from the papers coming down from the car. And it seemed to me that, for a moment, our eyes intersected.

 

[Selzro]

The main thesis of this (very well researched and informative) thread is that Romanians don't feel shame for what their country did in WWII, because they were only trying to survive and they did what was necessary. But participating in the Holocaust to such an extent was not necessary. Romania wasn't a Germany subject, having to do whatever Germany dictated. It was a German ally, and could have its own policy when it came to such matters. The Kingdom of Italy didn't participate in the Holocaust; that was only enforced after Germany set up the Social Republic as a puppet state. Hungary was similarly loathe to send its Jews to death camps, until the country was taken over by Germany in 1944 (when the Soviets were advancing and the Hungarian government was no longer willing to fight on Germany's side). When Antonescu wound down the killings in 1942 the Germans weren't happy, but what were they going to do about it? Romania was an independent ally. They'd have had to invade it, right in the middle of their war on the USSR, to effect a regime change. They only invaded Hungary because they had good reasons to suspect it would make a separate peace with the Allies, not because it wasn't handing over its Jews. Being an ally instead of a puppet state grants you some privileges, but Antonescu was more concerned with appearing helpful than with protecting his own Jewish citizens. What is calling him a 'realist' but a kind of excuse, even if you don't realize it? Furthermore, I'd say his actions went beyond appearing helpful to the Germans. There was genuine zeal in his character against the Jews that went beyond German requirements, which also needed a strong Romanian economy to provide the Reich with its resources. In the 2004 final report of the international commission on the holocaust in Romania, page 168, we see that:

German Ambassador Killinger informed Berlin at the end of August 1941 that Antonescu had concentrated 60,000 Jewish men from the Regat for forced labor and that he intended to send them to the east 'to areas just now occupied.' This information seriously worried German authorities responsible for the annihilation of the Jews. It was the first hint that Antonescu was determined to immediately solve the Jewish problem in the Regat, too. According to an internal memo of the German Foreign Office sent to a director of the Reichsbank, it was decided that deporting all Romanian Jews would hurt Romania's economy and the commitments the country had taken on vis-a-vis the Reich,since Jews still held key positions in the economy. Moreover, 'Aryanization' was still in its early stages, and many Romanians had been drafted. It went on to warn that deporting the Jews would 'have a deleterious effect on the exchange of merchandise and on the new German business initiatives.'

The German Legation acted immediately, and about a week after Antonescu gave his order to concentrate and deport 60,000 Jews, Mihai Antonescu was asked 'to work toward removing the Jewish elements only in a slow, systematic manner.'

By page 172 the decision to not deport the entire Jewisn population of Romania to Polish death camps is analyzed:

The plan's suspension resulted not from some latent humanity but from the realization that German and Romanian interests no longer coincided: the Romanian army was in a difficult position at Stalingrad, and - despite all material (food, oil, natural resources) and human sacrifices - Hitler would never return Northern Transylvania to Romania. Romania, it seemed, had given everything and received nothing, while Hungary had given little, had not yet renounced its Jews, but had retained Transylvania.

Antonescu and his Iron Guard wanted a pure Romanian state with no Jews in it, but in 1942 they shifted course, probably because it looked like Germany might not actually win and Romania would then be in trouble with the rest of the world; but also because Germany was rebuffing all their requests for Northern Transylvania and Romania had to show its displeasure somehow. That's what I'm getting out of all the quotes you posted and everything else I've been reading.

 

[Zeprion]

The main thesis of this (very well researched and informative) thread is that Romanians don't feel shame for what their country did in WWII, because they were only trying to survive and they did what was necessary. But participating in the Holocaust to such an extent was not necessary. Romania wasn't a Germany subject, having to do whatever Germany dictated. It was a German ally, and could have its own policy when it came to such matters. The Kingdom of Italy didn't participate in the Holocaust; that was only enforced after Germany set up the Social Republic as a puppet state. Hungary was similarly loathe to send its Jews to death camps, until the country was taken over by Germany in 1944 (when the Soviets were advancing and the Hungarian government was no longer willing to fight on Germany's side). When Antonescu wound down the killings in 1942 the Germans weren't happy, but what were they going to do about it? Romania was an independent ally. They'd have had to invade it, right in the middle of their war on the USSR, to effect a regime change. They only invaded Hungary because they had good reasons to suspect it would make a separate peace with the Allies, not because it wasn't handing over its Jews. Being an ally instead of a puppet state grants you some privileges, but Antonescu was more concerned with appearing helpful than with protecting his own Jewish citizens. What is calling him a 'realist' but a kind of excuse, even if you don't realize it? Furthermore, I'd say his actions went beyond appearing helpful to the Germans. There was genuine zeal in his character against the Jews that went beyond German requirements, which also needed a strong Romanian economy to provide the Reich with its resources. In the 2004 final report of the international commission on the holocaust in Romania, page 168, we see that:

By page 172 the decision to not deport the entire Jewisn population of Romania to Polish death camps is analyzed:

Antonescu and his Iron Guard wanted a pure Romanian state with no Jews in it, but in 1942 they shifted course, probably because it looked like Germany might not actually win and Romania would then be in trouble with the rest of the world; but also because Germany was rebuffing all their requests for Northern Transylvania and Romania had to show its displeasure somehow. That's what I'm getting out of all the quotes you posted and everything else I've been reading.

That is correct, 98% of Romanians don't feel shame for what they country did military in World War II. For taking part in the Holocaust yes, although there were circumstances and Nazi pressure, but nothing on a political and on a military scale. The British betrayed us in 1939. After the Italian invasion of Albania, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French Premier Edouard Dadadier announced a joint Anglo-French "guarantee" of the independence of Romania and Greece. France had the excuse that it was occupied, but when the Soviet Union came to ask for Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, the British did nothing, they didn't want to alienate USSR over a small state that they just guaranteed. Someone made a suggestion for "false guarantees" in the forums, if that happens, this is a good place to implement it. And then they betrayed us again at the Theran Conference, Yalta where Churchill gave 90% Soviet influence to Romania was just a continuation of the Theran Conference, and as mentioned in the original post, even before King Michael I's coup, Ion Antonescu tried to talk to the Allies. I guess you cannot consider it betryal if they never really cared in the first place. The British gave up Eastern Europe and they expect us to behave and what for Germany and Russia to take all our territory? that's insane.

If Britain would have opposed the Soviet Union's annexation of Bessarabia, had cooperated more with Romania making promises that after the war they will give it back or had sent troops to Poland to begin with through the "Romanian Bridgehead Plan" history would be very different today. Romania would have no reason to join the Axis if the Soviets wouldn't have taken Bessarabia and Northern Bukvoina. King Carol II would have most likely stayed in power, and most likely Romania would have stayed neutral or joined the Allies to take back Northern Transylvania. I don't know where you're from but let's assume the US. If Mexico somehow becomes more powerful and annexed Texas and New Mexico from US wouldn't you feel vengeful to take it back? Wouldn't you want to ally with Mexico's enemies to Texas and New Mexico take back? a lot of the population would.

A former western ally between Russia and Germany, what choice did Romania have? The Russians just wanted more "republics". The fascists in Romania only won 15% in the last free elections of 1937. The democratic PNL had 36% and the democratic PNT had 20%. But King Carol II instituted a royal dictatorship to create an Axis-oriented govnerment to win the sympathy of Nazi Germany. But Hungary and Bulgaria already had the simpathy of Nazi Germany and with German support demanded territories from Romania. In this sense, the greatest mistake that Romania made was to no join the Tripartite Pact earlier. As a neutral country, its stance in the war was uncertain and it was better to give that territory to Hungary and Bulgaria that were already part of the Axis. If Romania would have joined the Axis previously, giving that territory away would have been problematic as Romania was already an Axis member and had more manpower than both Hungary and Bulgaria. Germany would have also been more reluctant to give parts of Romania to the Soviet Union. I think Bessarabia would still be given away, but not Northern Bukovina as it wasn't part of the deal in the Ribbertrop-Molotov Pact.

No apologises because there's nothing to apologise for, it was a war we did not want but were dragged into, and we were betrayed by the so called "defenders of democracy". If there was no Assad's Regime and Russia in Syria, the Kurds would have rather allied with ISIS than wait to be killed by Turkey after America abbandoned them. The only problems is that ISIS's fanaticism is not compatible with Kurdistan's 'degenerate' way of life.

This is not just me, this is the majority of Romanians, it's hard to feel shame when you were dragged into it and betrayed by those that want you to feel shame. How about Britain feels shame for betraying Czechoslovakia and Romania? No, it was "their finest hour!". How about France feels shame for Vichy France? No, it was a puppet government "they did what they had to survive!". How about Russia feels shame for being equal to Nazi Germany in attrocities? No, "we saved Europe!" even though it was more like "congratulations! you are being saved, please, do not fight back!". There is a difference between doing something on your own initiative and because the circumstances force you to do it.

Participating in the Holocaust was not up for negociation for Nazi Germany, even Croatia that had barely 40.000 Jews did it. Italy didn't do it because it was strong enough to face Germany as an equal, minor nations weren't exactly in the same position of negociation. Participating to such an extent because we wanted Northern Transylvania back. Being an ally to Nazi Germany is close to being a subject, Germany could have occupied Romania and institute a pupper government whenever something catastrophic happened or they felt that Romania refused too much. By 1942, Germany was already in a losing war and couldn't risk fighting alienating Romania.

The Wiesel Commision of 2004 was led by Elie Wiesel and Jean Ancel, who was already described by Jewish Tesu Solomovici as a stunch anti-Romanian. The report has as much objectivity as the leader of the comission.

Has your version of truth been challenged by historians?

Over the years, I have been in dispute with some leading Jewish historians of the time, including Jean Ancel, who is considered the most important Jewish historian of the Holocaust in Romania. He did not love the Romanians, but he had no respect for the Romanian Jewry either. He was of Bucovina cultural formation, and the Bucovina Jews had no respect for the Romanian world. They considered themselves of German culture, their eyes being pointed towards Vienna and Berlin. Jean Ancel has expressed this contempt for Romania. He enthusiastically subscribed to that phrase issued by Hannah Arendt, a Jewish American historian, who said that Romania was the most anti-Semitic country in the world. In his writings, Ancel wanted to prove this. Or, to see Romania a country more anti-Semitic than Hitler's Germany or more anti-Semitic like Hungary, Poland or Ukraine ... I drew attention to Ancel's flawed vision. He has done something that an honest historian does not. He wrote a book about the Iasi Pogrom, in which he endeavored to show that Antonescu was the initiator, leader and manipulator of all those that happened at the Iasi Pogrom. Which is silly. To accuse Antonescu of being manipulative like some band chief ... It was not at all difficult for him to simply sign a decree and in 2-3 days all the Jews would have been deported. He did not have to invent, manipulate, to kill a few thousand Jews.

In the book you are quoting by Emil Cioran, who said about Antonescu that, although he was a mandman, he saved a life of at least 600,000 Romanian Jews and that there should be a monument in Israel that bears his name. Do you agree with the statements?

And at this point I had a terrible conflict with Jean Ancel, the historian. I am published in the newspaper "Ziua" or a whole page with the things written by Emil Cioran. And I am shown that there is no statue of Antonescu in Israel. This is not even possible. Cioran was convinced that if the statue doesn't exist it is a lack of gratitude of the Jews to the man who saved their lives. And with Cioran it happened or changed the heart. He, from the ardent pro-legionary publicist, when he reached manhood he became more understanding of the fate of the Jewish people.

 

[Cavalry]

Staying neutral? That's free land for both Germany and Russia. Unlike Finland that has the environment in its own advantage, the Russian and the German troops could have steamrolled Romania in not time, making it a 2nd Poland."

That is a possible thing when the German would not allow Soviet to gain and the Romanian can threaten to destroy the oil wells if the German invade.
But of course that is impossible if Antonescu is the leader. No one thought he made a coup just to stay neutral! Once again, Antonescu is not the King that allied to the Polish and the West. Under the neutrality of the King, the German did never try to invade Romania, as long as they get the oil.

 

[JackAlNXT]

But Hungary and Bulgaria already had the simpathy of Nazi Germany and with German support demanded territories from Romania. In this sense, the greatest mistake that Romania made was to no join the Tripartite Pact earlier. As a neutral country, its stance in the war was uncertain and it was better to give that territory to Hungary and Bulgaria that were already part of the Axis. If Romania would have joined the Axis previously, giving that territory away would have been problematic as Romania was already an Axis member and had more manpower than both Hungary and Bulgaria.

One small problem with that argument:
- Bulgaria joined the Axis in March 1941.
- Romania joined in November 1940.

The Bulgarian claim on Dobrudja should be viewed completely separate from the Transylvania transfer, as it was supported by all sides. The Allies (UK in particular) supported It in the hope that it would maintain Bulgarian neutrality, and the Soviets were willing to support a claim to the entirety of Dobrogea.

 

[Duke of Awesome]

I feel the need to interject into this pretty complicated conversation. There's a lot of discussion of politics and morality which don't often mix well. However, what the Romanian government did during WW2 is morally indefensible. They willingly and zealously took part in the genocide of the Jewish people. That, alone, condemns the government, regardless of their other fascistic crimes. However, beyond that, the Romanian government made a conscious decision to cooperate with an evil system (the Nazis) instead of resisting to the end. They made a choice to try to negotiate to preserve their territorial integrity instead of rejecting the Germans. I'm not saying this is a wholly unsympathetic decision, as they certainly had their reasons. However, at the end of the day, Romania and Romanians chose to help Nazi Germany conquer the world instead of fighting with them. Romania chose selfish national interests over human decency. That's why people today condemn Romania during WW2, and why Romanians should feel shame for their country's actions during that time period.

 

[hkrommel]

why Romanians should feel shame for their country's actions during that time period.

I more or less agree with the rest but I'm not sold on this. Collective guilt is a dangerous path, sins of the father and all that. If people weren't alive at the time, why should they feel responsible?

 

[Duke of Awesome]

I more or less agree with the rest but I'm not sold on this. Collective guilt is a dangerous path, sins of the father and all that. If people weren't alive at the time, why should they feel responsible?

Perhaps I worded that poorly because I absolutely agree. When I say shame, I don't mean that current Romanians should feel responsible, but they should feel a sense of "never again," if you get my meaning.

 

[Zeprion]

That is a possible thing when the German would not allow Soviet to gain and the Romanian can threaten to destroy the oil wells if the German invade.
But of course that is impossible if Antonescu is the leader. No one thought he made a coup just to stay neutral! Once again, Antonescu is not the King that allied to the Polish and the West. Under the neutrality of the King, the German did never try to invade Romania, as long as they get the oil.

That's a good argument. Antonescu became leader after Romania lost Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina, Northern Transylvania and Southern Dobrogea. Before that, Carol II was the king.

If Romania would have said to Germany something like "If you allow the Soivet Union to take Bessarabia and Bukovina/If you allow Hungary to take Northern Transylvania we will start a defensive war and burn all our Oil fields, we may lose but since you need our oil you will go down with us!", I don't know how the situation would have played out.

One small problem with that argument:
- Bulgaria joined the Axis in March 1941.
- Romania joined in November 1940.

The Bulgarian claim on Dobrudja should be viewed completely separate from the Transylvania transfer, as it was supported by all sides. The Allies (UK in particular) supported It in the hope that it would maintain Bulgarian neutrality, and the Soviets were willing to support a claim to the entirety of Dobrogea.

Bulgaria already agreed in principle to join the Axis in November 1940, but wished to delay its signing for the time being. And previously had good relations with Germany. The Bulgarian claim on Dobrudja is completely separate from the Transylvania transfer, however it was enforced by German and Italian pressure put on Romania, the Allies agreed with the treaty for the reasons you mentioned but they didn't initialize or enforce it. However, Southern Dobrogea wasn't viewed as historical Romanian territory even at that time, as a ressult nobody cares about that land, it was only a minor thing. In my first game of Hearts of Iron 4 as Romania I just wanted to give Southern Dobrogea to Bulgaria and keep the rest of the country intact.

I feel the need to interject into this pretty complicated conversation. There's a lot of discussion of politics and morality which don't often mix well. However, what the Romanian government did during WW2 is morally indefensible. They willingly and zealously took part in the genocide of the Jewish people. That, alone, condemns the government, regardless of their other fascistic crimes. However, beyond that, the Romanian government made a conscious decision to cooperate with an evil system (the Nazis) instead of resisting to the end. They made a choice to try to negotiate to preserve their territorial integrity instead of rejecting the Germans. I'm not saying this is a wholly unsympathetic decision, as they certainly had their reasons. However, at the end of the day, Romania and Romanians chose to help Nazi Germany conquer the world instead of fighting with them. Romania chose selfish national interests over human decency. That's why people today condemn Romania during WW2, and why Romanians should feel shame for their country's actions during that time period.

On the political and military side, you could also blame Britain for betraying Czechoslovakia and Romania, they also choose selfish national interests over human decency in this case. For not backing Finland when the Soviet Union demanded territory. France for Vichy France who also choose selfish national interests over human decency. And the Allies in 1945 for not executing Opperation Unthinkable who also choose selfish national interests over human decency.

If countries were always these purely altruistic beings World War II would have been over before it even started, Nazi Germany wouldn't have resisted an attack from Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Yugoslavia, Poland and Denmark at the same time. But most of them were trying to be neutral, to preserve themselves, only Sweden succeded in doing that by collaborating with Nazi Germany. Romania helped Nazi Germany because it was left to die by the Allies and if it weren't for Nazi Germany then the Soviet Union would have taken even more territory from Romania, when World War II started Romania was Allied-oriented, it could have been a useful ally, buy the Allies didn't help Romania.

It seems kind of hypocritical to blame Romania for putting national interests first, without considering that any other nation also did the same thing, or for joining the Axis, without considering those who pushed Romania to join the Axis, the western betrayal. They made a choice to try to negotiate to preserve their territorial integrity instead of rejecting the Germans, but the other choice was suicide.

Why would they try to resist to the end? for what? So that they can be destroyed? With what help? The Allies weren't there and the Soviets were just red nazi. Every country made a choice to try to negotiate to preserve their territorial integrity when given the chance, how is Romania different? When Nazi Germany took Czecholsovakia you know what Poland did? They took a piece of Czecholsovakia as well.

When World War II ended Romania was again Allied-oriented since King Micahel's coup in August 1944, how did that help Romania? Why didn't the Allies help Romania? They also choose selfish national interests over human decency in this case.

"During the period from 1944 to 1947 I was very unhappy. I can't say I was very hurt, but I was upset and disappointed, because I really hoped that the United States and the United Kingdom would do something to stop the Russians" - King Micahel I

 

[Duke of Awesome]

This is whataboutism so let me just issue a blanket statement in regards to the rest of the countries. You are correct, if we existed in a perfect world where governments were perfectly altruistic, not only would Nazi Germany not have existed, the rest of the world would have united to put them down in 1933. However, we don't live in that perfect world, and no one claims we do. It is a goal to reach for though, and that's where Romania (the topic of this thread) fails. The Romanian did not just fail to meet the standards of human decency, they fully embraced evil, so to speak.

 

[Selzro]

The British widely consider their policy of appeasement to have been a regrettable mistake. Vichy France is remembered with scorn in France. But neither the UK nor Free France sent thousands of their own citizens to death camps. In fact, no Axis members did that apart from Germany and Romania. Italy, Hungary, and Bulgaria all resisted such German requests and Japan was too distant for this to be an issue (although Japan has its own skeletons in the closet). Only German puppet states had no choice in the matter. Romania refused only belatedly, when it became certain that there was nothing to be gained by it. That's the main thing I'm hung up on. To go back to simplistic analogies, you can't murder someone and then say "I don't see why you think it's so bad, everyone cheats on their taxes". There's a qualitative gap there. And no, the UK should not have launched Operation Unthinkable, nor did the western Allies owe Romania anything at that point. Poland yes, but Romania had gone too far down the other end. You can't do the things Antonescu did and then just say "we're pro-Allies now! Send us an army to protect us from the Soviets." Romania is amazingly fortunate to have been given back its lands from Hungary under the circumstances - especially in light of what the Russians did to Germany. Instead of complaining about how sad your king was (who would have almost certainly been deposed if the western Allies had taken over Romania, like the Italian king was), you should consider that.

 

[Zeprion]

This is whataboutism so let me just issue a blanket statement in regards to the rest of the countries. You are correct, if we existed in a perfect world where governments were perfectly altruistic, not only would Nazi Germany not have existed, the rest of the world would have united to put them down in 1933. However, we don't live in that perfect world, and no one claims we do. It is a goal to reach for though, and that's where Romania (the topic of this thread) fails. The Romanian did not just fail to meet the standards of human decency, they fully embraced evil, so to speak.

The "whataboutism" is perfectly valid. No one claims we do, but you just argued that Romania prioritized self-interest over self-sacrifice in the name of the greater good.

The rest of your comment already has an answer in the comment you replied to: It seems kind of hypocritical to blame Romania for putting national interests first, without considering that any other nation also did the same thing, or for joining the Axis, without considering those who pushed Romania to join the Axis, the western betrayal. They made a choice to try to negotiate to preserve their territorial integrity instead of rejecting the Germans, but the other choice was suicide.

 

[egslim]

If the war ended with Germany winning, Finland would have gained territory. This wasn't the case for Romania, Romania still had Northern Transylvania under Hungary. A region with 50,2% Romanians and 37,1% Hungarians of a total population of about 2.600.000 people. This means 1,304,903 Romanians and 978,074 Hungarians. In aiding Nazi Germany better than Hungary, Ion Antonescu hoped that Romania will gain Germany's favour in another arbitration of Transylvania.

How realistic was it to expect Germany to rescind its own treaty?

In my opinion, Ion Antonescu was either too naive, or hoped to gain additional territory in Ukraine to compensate for the loss of Transylvania. Which, in case of German victory, would likely have made him a hero in Romania - history is written by the victor.

So in hindsight, I think the Romanian army should not have pushed beyond its own prewar borders. But compared to Finland, 1) Ion Antonescu was no Mannerheim and 2) from a German logistics perspective Finland was a much tougher nut to crack. Easy to judge him after the fact, but considering he was executed for his actions, no point to spit on his grave.

Taking a helicopter view, the whole Balkans are a mix of groups who each identify themselves as unique. And because they're geographically overlapping, it's practically impossible to design state borders in accordance with these unique identities. This inevitably results in some level of conflict or tension, which encourages non-ethical behaviour.
At a lower level from his perspective a representative from one group blames another, and for good reason. We see that in this thread, though in a very civilized and informative manner. At a higher level each group has its fair share of historical figures with morally questionable actions.
But while every person is personally responsible for his own actions, each person is also the product of his environment. Which is the tragedy of the Balkans (and some other places in the world.)

 

[George Parr]

The British weren't the ones stabbed in the back, they were the ones who stabbed in the back, they weren't forced by the circumstances, the only circumstance for their policy of appeasement was an incompetent government.

Not going into the whole discussion, but this bit is simply incorrect. Just like you claim Romania had valid reasons to act in a certain way for its own good, so did Britain. Appeasement wasn't something that happened because everyone thought Hitler was such a lovely chap who wouldn't want a war, it happened because neither Britain nor France could afford a war. Not only was public opinion vehemently against another war (especially over matters that involved territory mostly settled by Germans), but the military told Chamberlain in clear terms that it was incapable of sending anything beyond a badly equiped token force to continental Europe. British intelligence also vastly overestimated German military strength, especially in the air. So Chamberlain did the obvious thing: buy time and ramp up rearmament. Chamberlain had the unfortunate idea of believing that Hitler cared about treaties, but in general terms he did the only logical thing with the information that was available to him.

That obviously doesn't change the fact that France (and in a way also Britain) didn't quite keep to what they told other nations they would do. And it also doesn't change that their refusal to engage Germany earlier (which did have valid reasons) pushed all the smaller nations in eastern Europe (plus the Finns) into a bad situation in which they could be threatened by either Germany or the Soviet Union, making a deal with the devil the most obvious choice to protect their respective nations from further harm.

 

[hkrommel]

Not going into the whole discussion, but this bit is simply incorrect. Just like you claim Romania had valid reasons to act in a certain way for its own good, so did Britain. Appeasement wasn't something that happened because everyone thought Hitler was such a lovely chap who wouldn't want a war, it happened because neither Britain nor France could afford a war. Not only was public opinion vehemently against another war (especially over matters that involved territory mostly settled by Germans), but the military told Chamberlain in clear terms that it was incapable of sending anything beyond a badly equiped token force to continental Europe. British intelligence also vastly overestimated German military strength, especially in the air. So Chamberlain did the obvious thing: buy time and ramp up rearmament. Chamberlain had the unfortunate idea of believing that Hitler cared about treaties, but in general terms he did the only logical thing with the information that was available to him.

That obviously doesn't change the fact that France (and in a way also Britain) didn't quite keep to what they told other nations they would do. And it also doesn't change that their refusal to engage Germany earlier (which did have valid reasons) pushed all the smaller nations in eastern Europe (plus the Finns) into a bad situation in which they could be threatened by either Germany or the Soviet Union, making a deal with the devil the most obvious choice to protect their respective nations from further harm.

Exactly, but I would even put it a bit stronger. I get that Poles (rightly) feel betrayed over how the war ended, and the Romanians less rightly feel the same. But in 1939 what, exactly, were the British and French supposed to do? Waltz through Germany? Send their fleets into the Baltic to get bombed, torpedoed, and mined into oblivion?

 

[Secret Master]

But in 1939 what, exactly, were the British and French supposed to do? Waltz through Germany?

They should not have lied and said they were attacking Germany when, in fact, they weren't.

They could have made good on the Saar Offensive. Whether this would have ultimately been successful is a bone of contention (some German generals indicated that the failure to capitalize on the Saar Offensive saved them from defeat, but then again, you always have to take their memoirs with a grain of salt), but telling Poland "Hey, we're going to attack," then not really doing it, stinks of betrayal, especially when the Saar Offensive encountered little resistance.

Hell, in HOI4, the AI is better about that than the historical Allies. If you leave the Maginot with insufficient coverage, France and Britain will try to attack. Even the AI gets it.

True story: in an MP game some time ago, the German player didn't cover the Maginot properly. He left one province uncovered by mistake. By the time he was knee deep in Benelux, he noticed that he had lost most of Bavaria to the French.

I was the US that game, and I was the first to notice it as a saw a blue snake go into German lands. The Allies spent about half an hour wondering if this was a fiendish new strategy or just a mistake in our Discord.

Germany still beat the French, but we had a good time with it.