World War II viewed from Romania's Perspective

[hkrommel]

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.

Fair point. I doubt the Saar Offensive would truly have worked. The French just weren't prepared to follow up a breakthrough, even if they achieved one in the first place. Either way though, a lot of complaints aren't about promised specific offensives and are more about results. I find those completely unrealistic given the situation.

 

[Zeprion]

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.

I see, I wasn't aware of that.

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?

Why do you consider it less rightly for the Romanians to feel betrayed? 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, despire already guaranteeing Romania. Then again at the Theran and Yalta Conferences and ultimately when the refused to intervene in the Soviet Union's schemes. Not necessarily Opperation Unthinkable, that was a hypothetical scenario, in my opinion that would have been better because it would have prevented the Cold War, at that time the Soviet Union was vulnerable, but I can understand the Allies for not doing so, they just fought a war, the last thing they want is another war. But they could have intervened on a political level.

Selzro asked "what did the allies owe to Romania?" in the first case the fact that they already guaranteed it, at the Theran and Yalta Conferences they had no 'debt' so to speak but still gave Romania to the Soviet Union, and in the last case they were allies since 1944.

 

[hkrommel]

Why do you consider it less rightly for the Romanians to feel betrayed?

They joined the Axis. Poland didn't.

But they could have intervened on a political level.

You and I both know the Soviets wouldn't care. Under Stalin, at least, they only responded to force.

 

[Zeprion]

They joined the Axis. Poland didn't.
You and I both know the Soviets wouldn't care. Under Stalin, at least, they only responded to force.

Given its position, what choice did Romania have?

If Britain would have opposed the Soviet Union's annexation of Bessarabia, or even if they couldn't stop the Soviet Union, had cooperated more with Romania making promises that after the war they will give the territory back, instead of simply ignoring it, Romania wouldn't be left alone between the Axis and the Comintern.

At that point, you either needed to please Nazi Germany or please the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union would have never accepted an alliance with Romania. It didn't join the Axis only for taking back territories, but to preserve Romania's independence and keep the Soviet Union at bay, who wanted even more territory. Changing ideologies for the sake of getting along with the bigger nations was realistically the best thing Romania could have done, it couldn't be trusted by Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union due to its previous western stance. "Romania changes ideologies more than a 14 years girl changes her gender" - iSorrowProductions. I don't like what happened during the fascist regime of Ion Antonescu, and winning the war would have been more terrible than losing the war, for Romania included, Ion Antonescu's ideology was pragmatism, he only cared how to get out of this back with Greater Romania.

Good point, but they could have at least tried to do something, they also responded to a display of force and at that time the Soviet Union was weakened and didn't have the Atomic Bomb.

 

[hkrommel]

Given its position, what choice did Romania have?

The same one Poland did.

If Britain would have opposed the Soviet Union's annexation of Bessarabia, or even if they couldn't stop the Soviet Union, had cooperated more with Romania making promises that after the war they will give the territory back, instead of simply ignoring it, Romania wouldn't be left alone between the Axis and the Comintern.

They would though. What was the UK going to do, invade the USSR? Romania (and the rest of the Soviet conquests) was hardly ignored but there was nothing to be done short of another war.

Good point, but they could have at least tried to do something, they also responded to a display of force and at that time the Soviet Union was weakened and didn't have the Atomic Bomb.

Again, short of another war there was nothing that could be done.

 

[Zeprion]

The same one Poland did.

What was the Romania going to do, fight both the Soviets and Nazi Germany? 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.

What I meant by, "what choice did Romania have?", it implies assuming it wants to survive. Something like "Romania should have just stayed there, accepted that it lost those territories and waited for everyone to kill her" is ridiculous, no sane person or country with self-respect would have done that. There should be a moral code in between, but Romania's goal and desire to see its country whole again is just as valid as any other country's, I don't see why you dismiss it as irrelevant, especially when the takings of Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina and Northern Transylvania were historical injustices, considering that all those territories have a long history in Romania and with a Romanian majority, it was in game terms - core territory. This may be just me, but I feel like all of this blame on Romania for joining the Axis ignores all of that. Romania/Ion Antonescu went with Germany as a last resort since no one would guarantee Romania’s integrity.

Ion Antonescu wasn't a fascist, he was a pragmatic who wanted to see his country whole again, and for this he will always be remembered as a hero in Romania, it's kind of difficult not to, considering he tried to make the country whole again, but at the same time he also took part in the Holocaust, he's controversial, as Jewish writer said Tesu Solomovici said, there is a middle line.

Duke of Awesome made the same argument saying that Romania should have resisted to the end and that "Romania chose selfish national interests over human decency". That seems too black&white, there should be a moral code but isn't the selfish national interest part true for every other nation ever? Everyone tries to preserve itself and it's normal that Sweden cares more about Sweden than France but this doesn't give the excuse to be an ahole to France, to say that a country should selflessly sacrifice itself in the name of the greater good is putting her to a standard 99% of people don't live up to. You can expect for 99% of people to be good people, but you can't expect them to be self-sacrificing saints. This was what I was trying to say with Britain and France originally, the appleasement was out of selfish national interest. I'm not blaming that, I'm just pointing out that it exists. In the case of Britain, one can argue whether Britain should have intervened in Europe or not, but in the case of Romania resisting would have equaled suicide.

They would though. What was the UK going to do, invade the USSR? Romania (and the rest of the Soviet conquests) was hardly ignored but there was nothing to be done short of another war.

Cooperate more with Romania making promises that after the war they will give the territory back, instead of simply ignoring it. Britain didn't want to alienate the Soviet Union who could be a great ally of the Allies or of Germany, but I suppose Stalin did not want to alienate the Allies either.

If we are to play the "Romania should have resisted, Romania chose selfish national interests over human decency" card, then the Allies should have invaded the USSR, but they choose selfish national interests over human decency. It wasn't moral not helping other nations in need, not only Romania but all of Eastern Europe. If you don't think the Allies should have done that because "the Allies didn't owe anything to Romania" then it's unfair to hold Romania to a different standard and say they should have resisted the Nazi, Romania didn't owe anything to the free world, especially after the false guarantee.

Again, short of another war there was nothing that could be done.

Stalin wasn't an idiot, it's just what-if speculation, but he knew he didn't have the atomic bomb and that he would lose in a war against the Allies. Negociating and showing opposition beats doing nothing.

 

[hkrommel]

What I meant by, "what choice did Romania have?", it implies assuming it wants to survive. Something like "Romania should have just stayed there, accepted that it lost those territories and waited for everyone to kill her" is ridiculous, no sane person or country with self-respect would have done that. There should be a moral code in between, but Romania's goal and desire to see its country whole again is just as valid as any other country's, I don't see why you dismiss it as irrelevant, especially when the takings of Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina and Northern Transylvania were historical injustices, considering that all those territories have a long history in Romania and with a Romanian majority, it was in game terms - core territory. This may be just me, but I feel like all of this blame on Romania for joining the Axis ignores all of that. Romania/Ion Antonescu went with Germany as a last resort since no one would guarantee Romania’s integrity.

They could have fought. They also could have acted like Bulgaria did. There's middle ground between fighting and contributing hundreds of thousands of men to the Axis cause.

Duke of Awesome made the same argument saying that Romania should have resisted to the end and that "Romania chose selfish national interests over human decency". That seems too black&white, there should be a moral code but isn't the selfish national interest part true for every other nation ever? Everyone tries to preserve itself and it's normal that Sweden cares more about Sweden than France but this doesn't give the excuse to be an ahole to France, to say that a country should selflessly sacrifice itself in the name of the greater good is putting her to a standard 99% of people don't live up to.

The popularity of a course of action is irrelevant to its rightness or wrongness.

Cooperate more with Romania making promises that after the war they will give the territory back, instead of simply ignoring it.

Cooperate how? Romania was squarely in the Axis camp. Unless you're talking about before that, but I ask again how? Look at a map, there was no way for Britain or France to aid Romania.

Britain didn't want to alienate the Soviet Union who could be a great ally of the Allies or of Germany, but I suppose Stalin did not want to alienate the Allies either.

Britain didn't want to take on an impossible task of invading the USSR while trying to hold Germany in France.

If we are to play the "Romania should have resisted, Romania chose selfish national interests over human decency" card, then the Allies should have invaded the USSR, but they choose selfish national interests over human decency. It wasn't moral not helping other nations in need, not only Romania but all of Eastern Europe. If you don't think the Allies should have done that because "the Allies didn't owe anything to Romania" then it's unfair to hold Romania to a different standard and say they should have resisted the Nazi, Romania didn't owe anything to the free world, especially after the false guarantee.

Once it was feasible, I do think the Allies should have fought the USSR if they didn't relinquish control of Eastern Europe. They didn't because they were war-weary but I don't think that's enough of an excuse. The injustices perpetrated by the Nazis were also perpetrated under the Soviets, and in greater numbers. I wouldn't go so far as to invading the USSR itself, but fighting them back to their borders would be sufficient.

As for what Romania "owed", you're right that it didn't "owe" the free world anything. But, once it enthusiastically supported the Nazis, the free world owed Romania nothing either.

Stalin wasn't an idiot, it's just what-if speculation, but he knew he didn't have the atomic bomb and that he would lose in a war against the Allies. Negociating and showing opposition beats doing nothing.

He also didn't have a high regard for human life. Negotiation was pointless and only going to cause problems.

 

[Zeprion]

They could have fought. They also could have acted like Bulgaria did. There's middle ground between fighting and contributing hundreds of thousands of men to the Axis cause.

Fight to what end? To be occupied and split like Poland? In handsight it's easy to see that the Allies won, but back then there were only estimates. They could have, but they wanted Northern Transylvania back and acting like Bulgaria did wouldn't have ensured that.

The popularity of a course of action is irrelevant to its rightness or wrongness.

I agree, but how is that relevenat?

Cooperate how? Romania was squarely in the Axis camp. Unless you're talking about before that, but I ask again how? Look at a map, there was no way for Britain or France to aid Romania.

When Germany invaded Poland, Britain could have executed the Romanian Bridgehead Plan while France could have executed the Saar Offensive. After 1940, Britain could have reassured Romania that if it joins the Allies or fights Nazi Germany they will get Northern Transylvania back.

Britain didn't want to take on an impossible task of invading the USSR while trying to hold Germany in France.

And in doing so it broke the guarantee.

He also didn't have a high regard for human life. Negotiation was pointless and only going to cause problems.

He cared about one life, his, which was tied to the security of the Soviet Union. If the Allies would have threatened to fight the USSR if they didn't relinquish control of Eastern Europe, it is possible Stalin would have backed down.

 

[hkrommel]

Fight to what end? To be occupied and split like Poland? In handsight it's easy to see that the Allies won, but back then there were only estimates. They could have, but they wanted Northern Transylvania back and acting like Bulgaria did wouldn't have ensured that.

So they chose to sacrifice morality for territory.

I agree, but how is that relevenat?

Because you were arguing that the fact that other nations act in self-interest is a reason that Romania acting in its self-interest by serving the Nazis was ok. It's not.

When Germany invaded Poland, Britain could have executed the Romanian Bridgehead Plan while France could have executed the Saar Offensive. After 1940, Britain could have reassured Romania that if it joins the Allies or fights Nazi Germany they will get Northern Transylvania back.

The Romanian Bridgehead plan wouldn't work without violating Turkish independence or leaving convoys undefended, which wouldn't work against the Soviets. France could not have executed the Saar offensive. Even if the French broke through the German frontline, they had nothing to back them up. Due to strikes, inefficient industry, and political turmoil, the French didn't mobilize in time to stop the Germans in 1940! What makes you think they could have launched a major offensive earlier than that?

As to Transylvania, why would Britain stick it's nose into a Balkan territory dispute? Why would anyone in their right mind do that? Why does that make it Britain's fault that Romania joined the Axis?

And in doing so it broke the guarantee.

Yep. Because it was impossible to enforce. You keep complaining about the impossible situation Romania was put in, yet complain that Britain didn't declare war on the Soviet Union and Germany at the same time!

He cared about one life, his, which was tied to the security of the Soviet Union. If the Allies would have threatened to fight the USSR if they didn't relinquish control of Eastern Europe, it is possible Stalin would have backed down.

It's extremely unlikely. If Stalin wasn't deposed after Barbarossa, what makes you think he would back down when he controls half of Europe? This is pure fantasy.

 

[Zeprion]

So they chose to sacrifice morality for territory.

Morality against the Soviet Union? That's like fighting red nazi.

Because you were arguing that the fact that other nations act in self-interest is a reason that Romania acting in its self-interest by serving the Nazis was ok. It's not.

I was arguing over the fact that Romania acted in self-interest to survive, as opposed to being a martyr and die. The popularity part is that 98% of nations would have done the same thing.

The Romanian Bridgehead plan wouldn't work without violating Turkish independence or leaving convoys undefended, which wouldn't work against the Soviets. France could not have executed the Saar offensive. Even if the French broke through the German frontline, they had nothing to back them up. Due to strikes, inefficient industry, and political turmoil, the French didn't mobilize in time to stop the Germans in 1940! What makes you think they could have launched a major offensive earlier than that?

As to Transylvania, why would Britain stick it's nose into a Balkan territory dispute? Why would anyone in their right mind do that? Why does that make it Britain's fault that Romania joined the Axis?

The fact that the German forces were concentrated in Poland and the defense in the west was rather weak. Germany could have defeated Poland, but can the same be said about Poland, France and England combined? And maybe eventually Romania since they had an alliance with Poland? The Soviet Union may have thinked twice about risking a war with the west then. It was the democracy's hesitation to protect others that Hitler counted on when he invaded Austria and Czechoslovakia.

Reassurance that they will give back Northern Transylvania would have encouraged Romania to join the Allies. You could also say: Why does that make it Britain's fault that Czechoslovakia fell to the Nazi Germany? Because they left it alone.

Yep. Because it was impossible to enforce. You keep complaining about the impossible situation Romania was put in, yet complain that Britain didn't declare war on the Soviet Union and Germany at the same time!

If Britain would have objected Bessarabia it's uncertain what Stalin would have done, the Allies didn't want a war with the Soviet Union but the Soviet Union didn't want a war with the Allies either.

It's extremely unlikely. If Stalin wasn't deposed after Barbarossa, what makes you think he would back down when he controls half of Europe? This is pure fantasy.

Nukes.

I have mixed feelings about the morality of Romania during World War II only due to the Holocaust, but the rest I find it justifiable. From a western country, it’s easy to dismiss it as evil or just another Axis ally, since World War II is an epic war due to the sheer size of the pure evil of Nazi Germany. Generally wars are a conflict of interests, in World War I the war was the enemy, in World War II the Germans are the enemy.

But when you look into details, you find that Romania’s adherance to the Axis was surrounded with circumstnaces, whether those justifiable or not is the question. The Romanians view World War II as a great injustice and a war they were forced into. It originated as an Allied-oriented country and helped Poland during the initial stages of the war, but after France was lost Romania became isolated and Britain did nothing. It is hard to blame them for not backing Romania in 1940 or the Tehran Conference, but they could have done something in 1939 and in 1945 when Churchill urged them to attack the Soviet Union. Mostly due to 1945 World War II is seen as a western betryal.

After the fall of France, Romania was left between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Some on this topic claimed it should have fought to the end and ressist the Nazi, really? Would you in Romania’s situation? There were some who wanted to fight back, including King Carol II who wanted to stand up, but realistically Romania had no chance of defeating Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. It’s mere self-preservation. And if it waasn’t for the alliance with Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union would have taken even more territory, thus joining the Axis protected what was left of Romania.

If you view this from a “I don’t care about Romania but they should have fought the Nazi!” perspective it’s simplistic to assign blame on Romania, since you didn’t care whether they lived or died. But looking from a realistic perspective, if you don’t care about Romania at least know that nations try to preserve themselves, Romania was cornered and was attacked by major powers. Blaming Romania for joining the Axis and fighting the Soviets is implicitly blaming Romania for standing up for itself and trying to take back its rightfull territory, while not blaming the Soviets who stole it in the first place. Antonescu went to Germany as a last resort since no one would guarantee Romania’s integrity. How can you blame it for wanting to survive?

There morally questionable things in my opinion are the participation Holocaust and the massive help it gave to Nazi Germany. For the Holocaust, Selrzo's views are exaggerated with Romania being the only Axis member beside Germany and it’s worth mentioning the Jews that were saved in the Romania 1940’s borders plus that after 1942 the policy stopped regardless of reasons. But this doesn’t excuse the Holocaust, it was still terrible and a dark chapter in Romania’s history, sending innocent people to die in the name of ideology. It is important to learn about the Holocaust so that we will never do it again, but what I disagree with is blaming Romania for the other things, such as joining the Axis and fighting the Soviet Union, while not understanding/caring about its position of being robbed.

For the dedication in the war against the Soviet Union there is no excuse just the justification that Romania wanted to prove itself so that Germany awards Northern Transylvania back. How can you blame Romania for fighting the Soviet Union back with ferocity but not the Soviet Union for stealing Romania’s land in the first place? They deserved it, Romania stood up for itself to take its land back, land that was rightfully theirs. The only problem with this war was that winning was as bad as long, which is why I think Romania should have remained Axis-oriented but neutral if possible, although Antonescu thought the Axis would win the war.

After the loss at Stalingrad, Romania was lucky to be able to do King Michael I’s coup in 1944. The democrats and the communists had internal conflicts almost leading to a civil war while the Romanian army was fighting in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. So, apart from the Holocaust, why should Romania be ashamed with its political and military choices? Joining the Axis? If there was any other choice that didn’t include being smashed by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, Romania would have taken it. Fighting with ferocity? The Soviets started it beside Romania wanted Northern Transylvania back, this wasn’t the case for Bulgaria who already had more land that they initially started with.

 

[hkrommel]

You say a lot of things, not all are in response to what I was saying, so I'll respond accordingly.

Morality against the Soviet Union? That's like fighting red nazi.

Fighting against both is an option. Poland did it. Fighting against neither is an option. Bulgaria did it. Fighting in a limited manner to take back stolen land and not sacrificing national integrity is an option. Finland did it.

I was arguing over the fact that Romania acted in self-interest to survive, as opposed to being a martyr and die. The popularity part is that 98% of nations would have done the same thing.

Right, and my point is that it's not a justification. The rationale of self-interest led Romania down a deeply immoral path, which is not justified by the rationale being used by other nations.

The fact that the German forces were concentrated in Poland and the defense in the west was rather weak. Germany could have defeated Poland, but can the same be said about Poland, France and England combined? And maybe eventually Romania since they had an alliance with Poland? The Soviet Union may have thinked twice about risking a war with the west then. It was the democracy's hesitation to protect others that Hitler counted on when he invaded Austria and Czechoslovakia.

Reassurance that they will give back Northern Transylvania would have encouraged Romania to join the Allies. You could also say: Why does that make it Britain's fault that Czechoslovakia fell to the Nazi Germany? Because they left it alone.

1. In 1939 there was no chance that the British and French could have defeated Germany. To claim otherwise is pure fantasy and ignorance.
2. 1938 was a slightly different situation. While Germany would still have the upper hand, it was not nearly as ready for war as it was in 1939, particularly without Czech equipment and factories. War over the Sudetanland was much more winnable for the Allies than a 1939 offensive. Still risky, but plausible enough that it's worth considering.

If Britain would have objected Bessarabia it's uncertain what Stalin would have done, the Allies didn't want a war with the Soviet Union but the Soviet Union didn't want a war with the Allies either.

Stalin would have rolled on in anyways. He didn't respect guarantees and there was literally nothing the British could do.

But when you look into details, you find that Romania’s adherance to the Axis was surrounded with circumstnaces, whether those justifiable or not is the question.

It's not under the circumstances. Especially if you compare them with Bulgaria.

The Romanians view World War II as a great injustice and a war they were forced into. It originated as an Allied-oriented country and helped Poland during the initial stages of the war, but after France was lost Romania became isolated and Britain did nothing. It is hard to blame them for not backing Romania in 1940 or the Tehran Conference, but they could have done something in 1939 and in 1945 when Churchill urged them to attack the Soviet Union. Mostly due to 1945 World War II is seen as a western betryal.

It was unjust and they were forced into it. They were not forced to throw everything behind the Axis in order to realize territorial ambitions.

You also fail to realize that there was no reason for the Allies to help Romania after they embraced the Axis cause. Romania was, at that point, an enemy. Why would you care about an enemy's territory?

Romania was cornered and was attacked by major powers. Blaming Romania for joining the Axis and fighting the Soviets is implicitly blaming Romania for standing up for itself and trying to take back its rightfull territory, while not blaming the Soviets who stole it in the first place.

You can blame both. I blame the Soviets for its illegal land grabs. I blame the Romanians for throwing in with the Axis in a real way, unlike the Bulgarians.

For the dedication in the war against the Soviet Union there is no excuse just the justification that Romania wanted to prove itself so that Germany awards Northern Transylvania back. How can you blame Romania for fighting the Soviet Union back with ferocity but not the Soviet Union for stealing Romania’s land in the first place?

Because it was no secret what the Nazis were up to. If the Romanians, like the Finns, stopped at taking back the land the Soviets stole, then I think that's easily justifiable. Anything beyond that is not.

 

[Zeprion]

You say a lot of things, not all are in response to what I was saying, so I'll respond accordingly.

Fighting against both is an option. Poland did it. Fighting against neither is an option. Bulgaria did it. Fighting in a limited manner to take back stolen land and not sacrificing national integrity is an option. Finland did it.

Poland wouldn't have do it if it had a choice, it was attacked. Bulgaria already had extra territory, there was no need to fight on.

The 3rd option is where King Michael I, some Romanian historians and myself agree with you. From the moment Antonescu crossed the Dnister to Transnistria turned it Romania from a victim to an agressor. That's the moment when UK declared war to Romania.

Maybe Antonescu would have picked that option if it wasn't for Northern Transylvania. Should Nazi Germany win the war, Romania would still end up with less territory than it originally had. It was an option, but a fascist government wouldn't have done that, at the same time if it wasn't for the fascist government there was no Axis alliance to protect Romania from the Soviet Union.

Right and my point is that it's not a justification. The rationale of self-interest led Romania down a deeply immoral path, which is not justified by the rationale being used by other nations.

What do you mean?

1. In 1939 there was no chance that the British and French could have defeated Germany. To claim otherwise is pure fantasy and ignorance.
2. 1938 was a slightly different situation. While Germany would still have the upper hand, it was not nearly as ready for war as it was in 1939, particularly without Czech equipment and factories. War over the Sudetanland was much more winnable for the Allies than a 1939 offensive. Still risky, but plausible enough that it's worth considering.

Why not?

Stalin would have rolled on in anyways. He didn't respect guarantees and there was literally nothing the British could do.

Stalin didn't respect anything, not even treaties, but this was about survival, he didn't want the Soviet Union to lose, he knew a war with Nazi Germany was coming despite their facade love before Barbarossa.

It's not under the circumstances. Especially if you compare them with Bulgaria.

It's not like Bulgaria because Bulgaria didn't lose 4 regions, they occupied parts of Greece and Yugoslavia. Had the Axis won Bulgaria would have been great.

It was unjust and they were forced into it. They were not forced to throw everything behind the Axis in order to realize territorial ambitions.

You also fail to realize that there was no reason for the Allies to help Romania after they embraced the Axis cause. Romania was, at that point, an enemy. Why would you care about an enemy's territory?

They did that to take back Northern Transylvania. There is a difference between fighting to take back territory that was rightfully yours and fighting for conquest.

Since 1944 Romania was an ally, it fought 3 years against the Soviets and 2 years against the Nazi.

You can blame both. I blame the Soviets for its illegal land grabs. I blame the Romanians for throwing in with the Axis in a real way, unlike the Bulgarians.

Because it was no secret what the Nazis were up to. If the Romanians, like the Finns, stopped at taking back the land the Soviets stole, then I think that's easily justifiable. Anything beyond that is not.

Romania was still a loser at that point. If the Nazi would have won the war Romania would have overall lost territory. Where as Bulgaria and Finland has all of it's original territory plus parts of Yugoslavia, Greece and Russia.

 

[DicRoNero]

Because it was no secret what the [National Socialists] were up to. If the Romanians, like the Finns, stopped at taking back the land the Soviets stole, then I think that's easily justifiable. Anything beyond that is not.

How does that work from a purely military perspective, though? I.e. you push the enemy behind these neat border marks and then sit happily on them watching your enemy reorganize since you allowed him to retreat deeper fully intact?

 

[hkrommel]

Poland wouldn't have do it if it had a choice, it was attacked. Bulgaria already had extra territory, there was no need to fight on.

The 3rd option is where King Michael I, some Romanian historians and myself agree with you. From the moment Antonescu crossed the Dnister to Transnistria turned it Romania from a victim to an agressor. That's the moment when UK declared war to Romania.

Maybe Antonescu would have picked that option if it wasn't for Northern Transylvania. Should Nazi Germany win the war, Romania would still end up with less territory than it originally had. It was an option, but a fascist government wouldn't have done that, at the same time if it wasn't for the fascist government there was no Axis alliance to protect Romania from the Soviet Union.

So again it's about territory, and highly disputed territory at that.

What do you mean?

Again, we're talking about whether an action is right or wrong, not whether it gains land or is in the nation's self-interest. Even if we are, other nations acting in self-interest in similar situations didn't throw their lot in with the Nazis and enthusiastically support them all the way to Stalingrad. Only a few did that.

Why not?

As I discussed above:

The Romanian Bridgehead plan wouldn't work without violating Turkish independence or leaving convoys undefended, which wouldn't work against the Soviets. France could not have executed the Saar offensive. Even if the French broke through the German frontline, they had nothing to back them up. Due to strikes, inefficient industry, and political turmoil, the French didn't mobilize in time to stop the Germans in 1940! What makes you think they could have launched a major offensive earlier than that?

As for why 1938 was more feasible, the impact that Czech industry, equipment, and resources overall had on the German war machine cannot be understated. The Germans would have had to fight through fortified lines with worse armor and, in some cases, general equipment against the Czechs, while trying to hold out against France and Britain with its smaller army than 1939 and smaller airforce, all the while hoping that Poland doesn't decide to join in. Basically that war would look very similar to the war that the British and French thought would happen, as opposed to the historical one. French mobilization would still be an issue, but there would be less mobilization necessary given the shorter front, and the BEF would be more useful in this situation as well.

It's not like Bulgaria because Bulgaria didn't lose 4 regions, they occupied parts of Greece and Yugoslavia. Had the Axis won Bulgaria would have been great.

So again it's about land. Except it's not about land, it's about what's right.

They did that to take back Northern Transylvania. There is a difference between fighting to take back territory that was rightfully yours and fighting for conquest.

Since 1944 Romania was an ally, it fought 3 years against the Soviets and 2 years against the Nazi.

So Romania changed sides when it suited them to fulfill its territorial ambitions. I don't see how that helps their case.

Romania was still a loser at that point. If the Nazi would have won the war Romania would have overall lost territory. Where as Bulgaria and Finland has all of it's original territory plus parts of Yugoslavia, Greece and Russia.

And? Why do you think this excuses what Romania did?

How does that work from a purely military perspective, though? I.e. you push the enemy behind these neat border marks and then sit happily on them watching your enemy reorganize since you allowed him to retreat deeper fully intact?

Ask the Finns. It works perfectly well. Go to a point and tell the Germans it's their war from that point on.

 

[DicRoNero]

Ask the Finns. It works perfectly well. Go to a point and tell the Germans it's their war from that point on.

I don't recall them retaining (or regaining) any territory after 1945 which they had previously lost in 1939/1940, so how does it work, then?

To my knowledge, on the contrary, this 'my hut is on the edge' attitude has sabotaged many military campaigns throughout the history, e.g. among the most notable ones: the Russians were repeatedly failing to defeat the Bolsheviks in 1918-1919 largely due to the Cossacks reluctance to advance far beyond 'their' borders.

 

[hkrommel]

I don't recall them retaining (or regaining) any territory after 1945 which they had previously lost in 1939/1940, so how does it work, then?

To my knowledge, on the contrary, this 'my hut is on the edge' attitude has sabotaged many military campaigns throughout the history, e.g. among the most notable ones: the Russians were repeatedly failing to defeat the Bolsheviks in 1918-1919 largely due to the Cossacks reluctance to advance far beyond 'their' borders.

It also has notably backfired to advance beyond one's "hut", like in the Korean War. You can find examples both ways.

 

[Zeprion]

So again it's about territory, and highly disputed territory at that.

I never denied that it's about land. It's about the land taken in 1940 by the Soviet Union and Kingdom of Hungary.

Just because it was disputed it doesn't mean Romania wasn't in the right. Bessarabia and Bukovina used to be part of Moldavia ever since its founding in 1346 and always had a Romanian majority. In 1917 it declared independence from the Russian Empire and in 1918 it declared union with the Kingdom of Romania. Democratically speaking, Bessarabia wanted to be part of Romania, historically speaking, Bessarabia was Romanian ever since the Kingdom of Dacia. For the Russians, it was just another conquest in 1812. When Germany wanted to incorporate all of Poland into the Greater Reich, doesn't that make Warsaw rightfully Polish anymore because it's highly disputed territory? To claim otherwise would be double standards.

Again, we're talking about whether an action is right or wrong, not whether it gains land or is in the nation's self-interest. Even if we are, other nations acting in self-interest in similar situations didn't throw their lot in with the Nazis and enthusiastically support them all the way to Stalingrad. Only a few did that.

Is it wrong to try to fix a historical injustice? Is it wrong to attack the nation that attacked you 1 year ago? There was no other nations in similar situations, except for Czechoslovakia who lost so much land that it didn't exist anymore.

The Romanian Bridgehead plan wouldn't work without violating Turkish independence or leaving convoys undefended, which wouldn't work against the Soviets. France could not have executed the Saar offensive. Even if the French broke through the German frontline, they had nothing to back them up. Due to strikes, inefficient industry, and political turmoil, the French didn't mobilize in time to stop the Germans in 1940! What makes you think they could have launched a major offensive earlier than that?

As for why 1938 was more feasible, the impact that Czech industry, equipment, and resources overall had on the German war machine cannot be understated. The Germans would have had to fight through fortified lines with worse armor and, in some cases, general equipment against the Czechs, while trying to hold out against France and Britain with its smaller army than 1939 and smaller airforce, all the while hoping that Poland doesn't decide to join in. Basically that war would look very similar to the war that the British and French thought would happen, as opposed to the historical one. French mobilization would still be an issue, but there would be less mobilization necessary given the shorter front, and the BEF would be more useful in this situation as well.

If the French and the British would have attacked in 1939 it would have been much easier for the Polish to hold out. It didn't had to a major breakthrough offensive, just an offensive that required the Germans to fight on 2 fronts. It's likely Turkey would have accepted, it was part of the Balkan Pact with Romania, Yugoslavia and Greece since 1934. And was part of the Peace Front with Britain, France, Poland, the Soviet Union, Romania, Greece and Yugoslavia. It's not like Britain tried but Turkey refused.

So again it's about land. Except it's not about land, it's about what's right.

It's about you using Bulgaria as an example of what Romania should have done while ignoring that they had different circumstances. Had Romania had Northern Transylvania as well, it would have no reason to go deep into Soviet territory.

So Romania changed sides when it suited them to fulfill its territorial ambitions. I don't see how that helps their case.

You said that the Allies to no reason to help Romania because Romania was an enemy at that point. I pointed out that since 1944 Romania was an ally. It's pretty clear how this helps their case and makes your original argument invalid.

So now Romania is both at fault for joining the Axis in 1941 and for switching sides in 1944? Is Romania also at fault for the global warming or too much plastic in the ocean?

Romania was still a loser at that point. If the Nazi would have won the war Romania would have overall lost territory. Where as Bulgaria and Finland has all of it's original territory plus parts of Yugoslavia, Greece and Russia.

And? Why do you think this excuses what Romania did?

This is why:

Romania was still a loser at that point. If the Nazi would have won the war Romania would have overall lost territory.

Why are you so offended that Romania attacked the Soviet Union? It didn't want to fight the UK and US, Ion Antonescu publicly declared that, it's war was only with the Soviet Union, which was just as bad as Nazi Germany.

It also has notably backfired to advance beyond one's "hut", like in the Korean War. You can find examples both ways.

Except in your example the reason for North Korea turning the tieds is called China.

 

[hkrommel]

I never denied that it's about land. It's about the land taken in 1940 by the Soviet Union and Kingdom of Hungary.

Just because it was disputed it doesn't mean Romania wasn't in the right. Bessarabia and Bukovina used to be part of Moldavia ever since its founding in 1346 and always had a Romanian majority. In 1917 it declared independence from the Russian Empire and in 1918 it declared union with the Kingdom of Romania. Democratically speaking, Bessarabia wanted to be part of Romania, historically speaking, Bessarabia was Romanian ever since the Kingdom of Dacia. For the Russians, it was just another conquest in 1812. When Germany wanted to incorporate all of Poland into the Greater Reich, doesn't that make Warsaw rightfully Polish anymore because it's highly disputed territory? To claim otherwise would be double standards.

I was talking about Transylvania. Hungarians and Romanians will be fighting about that for the next million years.

Is it wrong to try to fix a historical injustice? Is it wrong to attack the nation that attacked you 1 year ago?

No and no. But it's wrong to try to do either one by perpetrating some of the worst injustices in human history and enthusiastically aiding the Germans all the way to Stalingrad and back.

If the French and the British would have attacked in 1939 it would have been much easier for the Polish to hold out. It didn't had to a major breakthrough offensive, just an offensive that required the Germans to fight on 2 fronts.

There is zero evidence that this is true. I've provided reasons, you're just asserting.

It's likely Turkey would have accepted, it was part of the Balkan Pact with Romania, Yugoslavia and Greece since 1934. And was part of the Peace Front with Britain, France, Poland, the Soviet Union, Romania, Greece and Yugoslavia. It's not like Britain tried but Turkey refused.

You're forgetting your own scenario. If the UK is at war with Germany and the USSR, it would need to escort convoys to Romania through the Black Sea in order to execute the bridgehead plan. Even if the Soviets don't declare war on Romania for sustaining the Poles (which they would), they would attack the convoys heading to Romania. Turkey would not agree to allow British military ships through the straits when the Soviets are right next door to them, since the Soviets would see this as an act of war. Even if they did, there's no way the British could get sufficient air cover so the Soviets would just bomb the convoys with impunity. It's just not feasible.

Had Romania had Northern Transylvania as well, it would have no reason to go deep into Soviet territory.

If you have a problem with Hungary, fight Hungary. If you have a problem with the USSR, fight the USSR. If some guy steals your wallet, and another steals your watch, you don't chase the guy with the watch to get your wallet back.

You said that the Allies to no reason to help Romania because Romania was an enemy at that point. I pointed out that since 1944 Romania was an ally. It's pretty clear how this helps their case and makes your original argument invalid.

So now Romania is both at fault for joining the Axis in 1941 and for switching sides in 1944? Is Romania also at fault for the global warming or too much plastic in the ocean?

Romania transparently switched to whatever side was "winning" in order to realize its territorial ambitions. Where I'm from, if you do stuff like that, nobody likes you. You're seen as an opportunist. If it comes down to giving an opportunist stuff or your friend who has been with you through good and bad, you give everything to the friend. It's like if some guy started punching me along with his friend, then once I start winning the fight, he turns around and starts punching his friend too. You don't get credit for that.

Why are you so offended that Romania attacked the Soviet Union?

I'm obviously not as a general matter, but it's important how and why they did it.

You're transparently not reading my posts at this point so I'm done responding to you. I've made the same point dozens of times but you refuse to respond to it, instead acting as if I'm arguing something else.

 

[Zeprion]

I was talking about Transylvania. Hungarians and Romanians will be fighting about that for the next million years.

The same is true for Transylvania. Just because it's claimed by Hungary too it doesn't mean it's not rightfully Romanian territory. I had an in-depth and civillized discussion with a Hungarian on pages 2 on this topic.

To make a summary:
- At no point in history ever, there was a census to say that Hungarians were a majority in Transylvania.
- The first population census ever in Transylvania was made in 1842 under the Austrian Empire by Hungarian Fényes Elek and shows a population of 62% Romanians and 23% Hungarians.
- Romanian historians argue Romanians were the majority in the middle ages, Hungarian historians argue Hungarians were the majority in the middle ages, British and American historians argue Romanians were the majority in the middle ages.
- Before the Hungarians came the Dacians and Romans (ancestors of Romanians) used to live in Transylvania.
- According to Gesta Hungarorum "the deeds of the Hungarians" by Anonymous, there were 3 Romanian counties in Transylvania that were conquered by the Hungarians, the voivodships of: Gelu in Transylvania proper, Glad in Banat and Menumorut in Crisana. Though Anonymous' reliability is a matter of debate.
- The first non-debateable doccument that mentions the Romanians is a Hungarian royal charter from 1223, the doccument says that the Romanians used to live in Carta, but the Hungarian crown took their land in 1202 to build a church there.
But many Hungarians don't know these because they are not thought in school. There are probably others I missed too.

No and no. But it's wrong to try to do either one by perpetrating some of the worst injustices in human history and enthusiastically aiding the Germans all the way to Stalingrad and back.

I already said that the Holocaust is a regretable part, I am only arguing about the military and political decisions. As for going all the way to Stalingrad, it was for Northern Transylvania. Even if it wasn't for Northern Transylvania, militarily speaking it was a sound decision, since if Romania would have stopped it would only have increased the chance of German defeat, this only ensured that the territory Romania took: Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, would be lost again. Look at Finland, they took back all their original land + parts of Russia then stopped. Germany lost and they lost all the territory they took plus a small part of the 1940s territory.

There is zero evidence that this is true. I've provided reasons, you're just asserting.

It's not about evidence, it's simple logic. If you're fighting both in the West and East you have to split your army in 2. From my point of view you're asserting as well.

You're forgetting your own scenario. If the UK is at war with Germany and the USSR, it would need to escort convoys to Romania through the Black Sea in order to execute the bridgehead plan. Even if the Soviets don't declare war on Romania for sustaining the Poles (which they would), they would attack the convoys heading to Romania. Turkey would not agree to allow British military ships through the straits when the Soviets are right next door to them, since the Soviets would see this as an act of war. Even if they did, there's no way the British could get sufficient air cover so the Soviets would just bomb the convoys with impunity. It's just not feasible.

You're combining my scenarios. If the Britain and French would have went on the offensive it's not certain that USSR would have declared war on Poland. Stalin's main enemy was still Hitler. But in the worst case scenario that USSR does, Romania may be able to hold on the Soviet Union considering that their shared border was a large river, UK reinforcements were coming and the coast was 2.5 larger than today. It's not certain, but war is like entering a dark room, you never know what to expect. I already discussed previously why Turkey would have been more likely to accept, unless you have an answer to that, repeating myself has no purpose, you could argue that it's not a fact that they would accept, of course it's speculation, at the same time it's not a fact that they would refuse either, the best we can do is educated guesses. Unlike Poland alone vs Nazi Germany and USSR, now you have Poland, Britain, France, Romania and Turkey against Nazi Germany and USSR. It's worth pointing out that the Soviet Union in 1939 it's not the same Soviet Union as in 1941, it was not yet at a level of readiness suitable for winning a war. This has multiple ramifications, it's unlikely that Bulgaria would have joined the Axis in these condition, but Italy would have most likely still joined. Greece and Yugoslavia are under a question mark, probably neutral but if they would ever join it will be on the side of the Allies.

If you have a problem with Hungary, fight Hungary. If you have a problem with the USSR, fight the USSR. If some guy steals your wallet, and another steals your watch, you don't chase the guy with the watch to get your wallet back.

I absolutely agree, which is why I don't get why you blame Romania for fighting the Soviet Union or you call it morally wrong. Why not fight Hungary directly? Because it's not wise to fight Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as a minor nation.

Romania transparently switched to whatever side was "winning" in order to realize its territorial ambitions. Where I'm from, if you do stuff like that, nobody likes you. You're seen as an opportunist. If it comes down to giving an opportunist stuff or your friend who has been with you through good and bad, you give everything to the friend. It's like if some guy started punching me along with his friend, then once I start winning the fight, he turns around and starts punching his friend too. You don't get credit for that.

Romania didn't care about Nazi ideology about as much as it didn't care about communist ideology, it's alliance was purely out of common interest, it didn't owe its loyality to Nazi Germany, especially since Nazi Germany previously took 2 pieces of Romania, they were never friends. The goal of Romania, whether it was under Ion Antonescu or King Micahel I, was always to retake it's core territories that it originally lost, Nazi Germany knew this. It's more like: You and Bob decide to beat George, so you both beat George, then you and Bob start fighting each other, George takes advantage of this and goes to Bob so he can at least beat you, after you start beating Bob he turns around so he can at least beat Bob, he doesn't care about you and Bob equally, he just wants to beat you and can't do it alone, this is hardly a betrayal. The Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States were allies, but the Soviet Union wasn't exactly a friend of the United States and United Kingdom, it was purely an alliance of convenience.

I'm obviously not as a general matter, but it's important how and why they did it.

What is wrong in how they did it and why? From our discussion, you seem to argue that they decided to fight all the way to Stalingrad thus "wenting too far down the nazi path and was helping evil". As mentioned previously, the alliance was purely out of common interest, Ion Antonescu was an authoritarian dictator but he was no fascist, in fact he purged fascist elements from Romania in 1941 because they were too extreme. And not to mention that Romanians weren't Aryans. Militarily, fighting to the end was the best choice, Finland eventually stopped but it still lost. You blame Romania for working with the Nazi except you don’t blame the Allies for working with the Soviet Union. Some here (not you) blamed Romania for not resisting to the Nazi, except they didn’t blame the Allies for not fighting the Soviet Union in 1945. These are all double standards.

When Finland was attacked, I don’t find it morally evil that it attacked the Soviet Union in the continuation war afterwards, thus helping Nazi Germany, because they did that to get their land back. You don’t find it morally evil either and your excuse is that Finland eventually stopped, where as Romania didn’t. But Finland already had all its original territory back, Romania didn’t. And yes it was about land. It was about land for Finland, it was about land for Bulgaria, it was about land for Hungary, it was about land for Romania, it was about land for the Soviet Union, it was about land for Nazi Germany, it was about land for Poland, it wasn’t about land for Britain and France because it was about containing German aggression, but one war ago it was about land for Britain and France too.

At least in Romania’s case, it only wanted back the land that was originally theirs, despite Hitler also offering as much of Russia as he wants and Western Banat from Yugoslavia, this cannot be said for Finland and Bulgaria who took parts of the Soviet Union too and parts of Greece and Yugoslavia.

I'm like: What Romania did was morally right because the Soviet Union took Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina unprovked so Romania had all the right to retaliate, the Soviet Union was just as bad as Nazi Germany, the only pseudo-forgiving feature of the Soivet Union was it's convenient alliance with the west. Ion Antonescu publicly declared that he didn't want to fight the UK and US, his war was only with the Soviet Union.

You're transparently not reading my posts at this point so I'm done responding to you. I've made the same point dozens of times but you refuse to respond to it, instead acting as if I'm arguing something else.

I have read all your posts, I'm sorry if you feel that way, that was not my intention. I'm not trying to win by rhetoric but to have a genuine discussion. I know it can be frustrating when you're trying to have a conversation to someone and he just seems to ignore all your points and constatly repeat his rethorics. I believe I have responded to all your points, if I didn't or I have misinterpreted some of them, just point them out. Personally, I feel like there is a double standards coming from you too, not holding Romania to the same standards as you hold other countries, it is this double standard that I mostly point out in my answers, like saying Romania went deeper into Soviet territory despite Finland also pushing past their original borders. Saying Romania helped the nazi despite Finland also helping the Nazi, only that they stopped after one point, and they stopped because they already had all the territory they wanted, all core + parts of Russia, this wasn't the case for Romania.

I think our whole discussion can be summed up to this:
- You don’t find it justifiable that Romania tried to fight the Soviet Union to take back Northern Transylvania.
- I find it justifiable that Romania tried to fight the Soviet Union to take back Northern Transylvania.
So my question is: Why don’t you find it justifiable?
- Because it helped the Nazi? How else would you want them to take on the Soviet Union?
- Because it advanced to Stalingrad? again, Northern Transylvania.
- Because core land was not worth helping the Nazi? It was. You wouldn’t say the same thing if it was your country and your home region that was lost. The goal was not to help Germany, that was just a side effect, it was

 

[hkrommel]

You're combining my scenarios. If the Britain and French would have went on the offensive it's not certain that USSR would have declared war on Poland. Stalin's main enemy was still Hitler. But in the worst case scenario that USSR does, Romania may be able to hold on the Soviet Union considering that their shared border was a large river, UK reinforcements were coming and the coast was 2.5 larger than today. It's not certain, but war is like entering a dark room, you never know what to expect. I already discussed previously why Turkey would have been more likely to accept, unless you have an answer to that, repeating myself has no purpose, you could argue that it's not a fact that they would accept, of course it's speculation, at the same time it's not a fact that they would refuse either, the best we can do is educated guesses. Unlike Poland alone vs Nazi Germany and USSR, now you have Poland, Britain, France, Romania and Turkey against Nazi Germany and USSR. It's worth pointing out that the Soviet Union in 1939 it's not the same Soviet Union as in 1941, it was not yet at a level of readiness suitable for winning a war. This has multiple ramifications, it's unlikely that Bulgaria would have joined the Axis in these condition, but Italy would have most likely still joined. Greece and Yugoslavia are under a question mark, probably neutral but if they would ever join it will be on the side of the Allies.

You really need to do more research. Britain's army was tiny. They and the French couldn't stop the Germans in 1940 on the defensive. The fact that you think they were capable of offensive operations in 1939 is laughable. The fact that you think they were capable of offensive operations and giving the Romanians enough reinforcements to hold off the freaking Soviet Union is laughable. The fact that you think Turkey would somehow choose the distant allies with small and ill-equipped armies over not getting invaded by the freaking Soviet Union is laughable. Your united front is a dream, nothing more.

I absolutely agree, which is why I don't get why you blame Romania for fighting the Soviet Union or you call it morally wrong. Why not fight Hungary directly? Because it's not wise to fight Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as a minor nation.

I think most of what you're saying can be summarized here. The issue isn't fighting against the USSR, it's fighting for the Nazis. You consistently ignore this. The rest of your argument is as follows:

1. Romania wanted X land
2. Romania needed to team up with a larger power to get X land
3. Romania teamed up with the Nazis
4. Therefore teaming up with the Nazis is justified

This just isn't true. I'm arguing that it doesn't matter what Romania's reasons were, the fact that it helped the Nazis far beyond what was necessary to reclaim the lands the Soviets took is utterly inexcusable, regardless of the goal. There is no double standard because Finland did not do what Romania did, it took back what the Soviets stole and stopped. Finland also didn't give the Germans nearly as many concessions as the Romanians did. It was more fighting a simultaneous war than fighting WW2. The Romanians kept going into Soviet lands and tied their fate to the Nazis.