Why Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary joined Germany.

Discussions on all aspects of the smaller Axis nations in Europe. Hosted by G. Trifkovic.
User avatar
CB1
Member
Posts: 249
Joined: 14 Apr 2005 11:18
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Only three? You have read little then...

Postby CB1 » 30 Aug 2007 13:46

Hi,

There is a book on the issue by Julián Borsányi. Although he is an ardent supporter of the Romanian scenario (with PZL-37s if I remember correctly) he takes every country (Hungary, Slovakia, Germany, Romania and the Soviet Union), every combination (Soviet planes with Czech/Slovak pilots, German planes with Hungarian pilots/guide etc.) and airplane from French "beute" aircraft to Soviet types into consideration. But there is no solution...

Bye,
Krisz

User avatar
Csaba Becze
Member
Posts: 636
Joined: 27 May 2002 10:44
Location: Hungary

Postby Csaba Becze » 30 Aug 2007 13:53

Vuk wrote:I don´t think that the Hungarian Airforce has been suspected of being the attackers, the speculations I have read have pointed their fingers on Romania, Slovakia and of course the USSR.


The Slovak version appeared in the yellow press, it was just a hoax, based on the rich fantasy of a journalist (and after the war, it was many times just repeated). Slovakia had only one 2 mot bomber at this time, a license built SB (was calleed as B.71), its maximum bomb load was 600 kg (the three attacking planes dropped 10x100 kg bombs, Soviet built FAB-100's)

The Romanian version is again based on the rich fantasy of a pilot, who remembered on a non-existent Romanian officer, who 'sworn', that they were the attackers (and on some post-communist eastern historians, who'll never admit, that the Soviet version is possible). In fact, it was against Romania's will (as I mentioned before, they hoped a short campaign as well, with quick collapse of the Soviet Union, they wanted some joint action with Germany without the Hungarians, to show their commitment in Hitler's side - in short therm, to grab back Bessarabia and Northern Bucovina, in long term, to Transylvania).

I have never stated, that the Soviets deliberately attacked Kassa. It seems, that it was a navigational error (which was very common during the WW II, btw the Soviet bombers attacked 8 times Sweden as well, instead of Finnish targets between 1939 and 1945).

I know personally pilot eyewitnesses from that day, who knew the own types very well and they were not able to identify the attackers (since did not know the DB-3).BTW dropping FAB-100 bombs was impossible from a German built plane's bomb bay (the shape and size of the bombs are totally different).

User avatar
CB1
Member
Posts: 249
Joined: 14 Apr 2005 11:18
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Very nice...

Postby CB1 » 30 Aug 2007 14:06

Hi Csaba,

Did you show them pictures of a DB-3? Have they recognized those?

Bye,
Krisz

Vuk
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 31 Mar 2006 00:19
Location: Sweden

Postby Vuk » 30 Aug 2007 14:07

Once again you put words in my mouth.

I never said that you claimed that the attack was deliberate (by the Soviets).

User avatar
Csaba Becze
Member
Posts: 636
Joined: 27 May 2002 10:44
Location: Hungary

Re: Very nice...

Postby Csaba Becze » 30 Aug 2007 14:55

CB1 wrote:Hi Csaba,

Did you show them pictures of a DB-3? Have they recognized those?

Bye,
Krisz


Of course, I do not showed any photos to them. It was more, than 60 years ago and most of the eyewitnesses noticed the planes just when the bombs started to explode. The planes were far and they looked them just for few seconds. The human brain and memory are very interesting but elusive as well (and unreliable). If anyone 'can recognize' a plane from a close snap, which he checked from km's just for few seconds more, than 60 years ago, his statement is not reliable. The first impression is important, their opinion after decades and after they read a lot of better or worst materilas in this topic, not always.

BTW I know very well the element leader of the mentioned Senior Corporal Balogh (Pál Nyemecz). He is an old friend of mine. He said, that many times, when the journalists visited and asked him, in the published materials they written false statements under his name (it was not rare during the communism) That's why he is try to avoid this topic always (I know his opinion, but keep it to myself)

User avatar
CB1
Member
Posts: 249
Joined: 14 Apr 2005 11:18
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Nyemecz

Postby CB1 » 30 Aug 2007 15:17

Hi Csaba,

According to Borsányi, Antal Bánhídi claimed that Pál Nyemecz talked about two(!) Blenheims(!) over Bustyaháza.

Bye,
Krisz

User avatar
Csaba Becze
Member
Posts: 636
Joined: 27 May 2002 10:44
Location: Hungary

Re: Nyemecz

Postby Csaba Becze » 30 Aug 2007 17:29

CB1 wrote:Hi Csaba,

According to Borsányi, Antal Bánhídi claimed that Pál Nyemecz talked about two(!) Blenheims(!) over Bustyaháza.

Bye,
Krisz


As I mentoned above, there were two planes over Bustyaháza, not three.
Nyemecz said that these 'looked like the Blenheims', not 'these were Blenheims'.
And these planes were most probably not the attackers of Kassa (it is far in geographically and in time from Kassa).

According to my knowledge, the situation is similar with Krúdy (I did not know him, since he passed away in 1973). His very fresh statements are interesting - altough you must know, that he hated the Germans - but after the war, a row of ridiculous statements were published under his name about Kassa. He said to a reliable fellow about it, shortly before passed away: 'the journalists are scumbags in every regime'
Should I comment it?

User avatar
bokenzzo
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: 29 Aug 2007 23:41
Location: Belgrade

Re: Minor Axis Nations

Postby bokenzzo » 30 Aug 2007 19:06

Let me rephrase your post a bit. Hungary wanted territories that were taken from her in the first place. In my view calling the Banat of Temes Yugoslav land is the same as if I called Belgrade a Hungarian city (as far as I know in 1427 Stephen Lazarevic made a treaty and ceded it to Sigismund, King of Hungary). If my memory serves me well Serbs and Romanians nearly clashed in the Banat during the land rush after WW1. Serbia also wanted Pécs (occupied it between 1918-1921), what more, Benes wanted a Czechoslovak-Yugoslav corridor right through Western Hungary. Were these Czechoslovak or Yugoslav lands?


Well I am sorry for misunderstanding.Maybe I haven't been precise. I wanted to say that these territories were Yugoslav at the moment.It is well known that Vojvodina has never been Serbian territory until WWI. And also I don't want to go in to disscusion about the Trianon treaty.I didn't say that Hungary is wrong about feeling damaged by it!
One more thing.I also didn't want to offend anyone by saying that Horty was an admiral while Hungary has no sea.It is just interesting.For me at least. We don't have to be serious all the time on forum I think 8-)
I would like to know more about Horty regime.We were taught that he was a quisling and that his regime was hostile towards Serbs. Can anyone give some link or book about the subject?

User avatar
bokenzzo
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: 29 Aug 2007 23:41
Location: Belgrade

Re: Minor Axis Nations

Postby bokenzzo » 30 Aug 2007 19:21

Csaba wrote:

'
bokenzzo wrote:Let me rephrase your post a bit. Hungary wanted territories that were taken from her in the first place. In my view calling the Banat of Temes Yugoslav land is the same as if I called Belgrade a Hungarian city (as far as I know in 1427 Stephen Lazarevic made a treaty and ceded it to Sigismund, King of Hungary). If my memory serves me well Serbs and Romanians nearly clashed in the Banat during the land rush after WW1. Serbia also wanted Pécs (occupied it between 1918-1921), what more, Benes wanted a Czechoslovak-Yugoslav corridor right through Western Hungary. Were these Czechoslovak or Yugoslav lands? '


Well I am sorry for misunderstanding.Maybe I haven't been precise. I wanted to say that these territories were Yugoslav at the moment.It is well known that Vojvodina has never been Serbian territory until WWI. And also I don't want to go in to disscusion about the Trianon treaty.I didn't say that Hungary is wrong about feeling damaged by it!
One more thing.I also didn't want to offend anyone by saying that Horty was an admiral while Hungary has no sea.It is just interesting.For me at least. We don't have to be serious all the time on forum I think 8-)
I would like to know more about Horty regime.We were taught that he was a quisling and that his regime was hostile towards Serbs. Can anyone give some link or book about the subject?

User avatar
bokenzzo
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: 29 Aug 2007 23:41
Location: Belgrade

Re: Minor Axis Nations

Postby bokenzzo » 30 Aug 2007 19:22

Csaba wrote:

'Let me rephrase your post a bit. Hungary wanted territories that were taken from her in the first place. In my view calling the Banat of Temes Yugoslav land is the same as if I called Belgrade a Hungarian city (as far as I know in 1427 Stephen Lazarevic made a treaty and ceded it to Sigismund, King of Hungary). If my memory serves me well Serbs and Romanians nearly clashed in the Banat during the land rush after WW1. Serbia also wanted Pécs (occupied it between 1918-1921), what more, Benes wanted a Czechoslovak-Yugoslav corridor right through Western Hungary. Were these Czechoslovak or Yugoslav lands? '


Well I am sorry for misunderstanding.Maybe I haven't been precise. I wanted to say that these territories were Yugoslav at the moment.It is well known that Vojvodina has never been Serbian territory until WWI. And also I don't want to go in to disscusion about the Trianon treaty.I didn't say that Hungary is wrong about feeling damaged by it!
One more thing.I also didn't want to offend anyone by saying that Horty was an admiral while Hungary has no sea.It is just interesting.For me at least. We don't have to be serious all the time on forum I think 8-)
I would like to know more about Horty regime.We were taught that he was a quisling and that his regime was hostile towards Serbs. Can anyone give some link or book about the subject?[/quote][/quote]

User avatar
bokenzzo
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: 29 Aug 2007 23:41
Location: Belgrade

Re: Minor Axis Nations

Postby bokenzzo » 30 Aug 2007 19:24

Csaba wrote:

'Let me rephrase your post a bit. Hungary wanted territories that were taken from her in the first place. In my view calling the Banat of Temes Yugoslav land is the same as if I called Belgrade a Hungarian city (as far as I know in 1427 Stephen Lazarevic made a treaty and ceded it to Sigismund, King of Hungary). If my memory serves me well Serbs and Romanians nearly clashed in the Banat during the land rush after WW1. Serbia also wanted Pécs (occupied it between 1918-1921), what more, Benes wanted a Czechoslovak-Yugoslav corridor right through Western Hungary. Were these Czechoslovak or Yugoslav lands? '


Well I am sorry for misunderstanding.Maybe I haven't been precise. I wanted to say that these territories were Yugoslav at the moment.It is well known that Vojvodina has never been Serbian territory until WWI. And also I don't want to go in to disscusion about the Trianon treaty.I didn't say that Hungary is wrong about feeling damaged by it!
One more thing.I also didn't want to offend anyone by saying that Horty was an admiral while Hungary has no sea.It is just interesting.For me at least. We don't have to be serious all the time on forum I think 8-)
I would like to know more about Horty regime.We were taught that he was a quisling and that his regime was hostile towards Serbs. Can anyone give some link or book about the subject?

User avatar
banivechi
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: 27 Apr 2007 20:49
Location: Timisoara, ROMANIA

Postby banivechi » 30 Aug 2007 19:25

bokenzzo wrote: Romania also wanted a bit of Yugoslav land (Banat-eastern Vojvodina) so they entered the war also.

I wonder how Romania wanted Vojvodna, but it was the only neighbour who did not attacked it when the Germans and Italians invaded Yugoslavia. Did you know that queen Marija, the wife of Yugoslavia's king Alexander I was the daughter of king Ferdinand of Romania and aunt of - at that time - king Mihai?
vuk wrote:Romania of course wished the return of territory they lost to the USSR (like Finland) but after that this territory was recovered the advance was motivated by the wish to prove their worth as an Axis member and thus regain Transylvania. "Arad via Odessa" and "On to Budapest" where seen on their tanks.

True, but "Arad via Odessa" doesn't means anything that the crew was from Arad - a city who wasn't ceeded to Hungary in september 1940. It was a common impression in 1941 that the Romanian army will stop the advance at Odessa, reinstalling the romanian administration in Bassarabia and the war will be at end from romanian point of wiew. The adventure over Dniestr to Sevastopol and up to Stalingrad was the biggest mistake of Antonescu, and a whole country paid for it. The reason for continuing fighting against Soviet Union was - indeed - to change the Hitler's decisions about Northern Transylvania.
"On to Budapest" I think is a slogan pained after 23 August 1944 when romanian army fight against Axis - it is well known that romanians participated at fights around Budapest in winter 1944-45.

User avatar
Csaba Becze
Member
Posts: 636
Joined: 27 May 2002 10:44
Location: Hungary

Re: Minor Axis Nations

Postby Csaba Becze » 30 Aug 2007 19:44

bokenzzo wrote:I would like to know more about Horty regime.We were taught that he was a quisling and that his regime was hostile towards Serbs. Can anyone give some link or book about the subject?


bokenzzo

Horthy and his Hungarian Kingdom was not hostile towards the Serbs. It was because of the war, that the Hungarians and Serbs clashed. Before the WW II, among the Little Entente countries, Hungary's relationship was far better with Yugoslavia, than with Czechoslovakia or Romania.

Hungary joined to the Balkan-Blitz just after Croatia proclaimed its independence, which caused de facto the collapse and disappearance of the former Yugoslavia and Hungary wanted back only its former territories, no more.

Here is a short quote from Horthy's speech, before the Hungarian troops joined the attack:
"My soldiers action is not intend against the Serb nation. We have not arguments with them and want to live with them with peace in the future."

BTW Horthy's youngest son was arrested by the Germans and Horthy himself was interned in October, 1944 - Szálasi was the Hungarian Quisling, if you want to find a Hungarian one (the leader of the Arrow Cross movement). Even Stalin - who did not like the Hungarians - refused strongly to accuse Horthy in any way after the war. He was just a witness in the Nuremberg Trials (Szálasi was executed in Hungary after the war).

Vuk
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 31 Mar 2006 00:19
Location: Sweden

Postby Vuk » 30 Aug 2007 19:47

Romania was offered the Serbian part of Banat but declined, they also warned the Germans that they would not tolerate that it be occupied by Hungary and thus it was placed under German administration. The slogans were seen as on a parade before the King and Manstein (who was not amused)

EDIT: To slow was meant as an answer to banivechi

User avatar
Serbian boy
Member
Posts: 547
Joined: 14 Jun 2004 20:31
Location: Serbia

Re: Minor Axis Nations

Postby Serbian boy » 30 Aug 2007 22:07

bokenzzo wrote: Vojvodina has never been Serbian territory until WWI


Vojvodina was ruled by Serbs from 1849 until 1860 and in medieval times in 1526-1527.

and thus it was placed under German administration


Banat was part of Serbia during the war, but it had comprehensive autonomy.

Horthy and his Hungarian Kingdom was not hostile towards the Serbs


Almost true, but there were some war crimes, for exemple the "Újvidéki hideg napok"...and the families of serbian volunteers from IWW were deported.


Return to “Minor Axis Nations”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot]