Ebusitanus wrote: Now to Mr. Victor who seems to find more moral highground by begining now personal attacks on my person when he feels that his weak justifications of Romanian behaviour are not good enough.
No, you are the one thinking that my justifications are not good enough. You are also the one seeking "moral highground" to make those backstabbing, treacherous, good for nothing Romanians be ashamed of what they did. As I already stated, I am not trying to justify anything. But again you do not want to understand what I write.
Ebusitanus wrote: You give slanted versions of puntual actions to make your case, trying to portray the German command as almost eager to use Romanians as cannon fodder with total disregard to their fate.
Of course that I as a backstabbing untrustworthy Romanian cannot say the right thing. It is beyond me, right? I believe that I am more familiar with the Romanian army in WWII, than you are. And I am not being overconfident.
Ebusitanus wrote: If you want to say that Germans were aware of Romanian fighting inferiority (out of motivation or equipment) and thus did give them what they perceived as secondary tasks and kept the better equipment, scant supplies and support to the better German units then you are right. Germany was trying to win a war fast and succesfully and not archive some popularity contest by wasting precious resources. The key here is archiving of victory and were more than willing to sacrifice as much their own units and devoid of support and supplies their own units in secondary fronts.
If you would read von Manstein’s memoirs you would see that his opinion was that the Romanian army was the one which subordinated itself with comments to the German command. But he also abused of the Romanian troops he had at his disposal, several times.
Ebusitanus wrote: You want to make out of this some type of mythical hatered were it was not...in any event it suites you well in your later "justifications”.
Have you read any account by Romanian veterans? Have you met any? Do you have Romanian relatives that lived during the war? People were raised to hate the Germans (but also to respect them). This was the result of WWI, when half the country was occupied by the Central Powers, there was a terrible plague and famine, refugees, etc.
Sure there were some good relationships between the soldiers in the beginning, but still there were problems, which were overcome. After Stalingrad things got worse and worse as the front approached Romania.
And, again, I am not trying to make out any "justification". I am only presenting a situation, which you do not seem to like.
Ebusitanus wrote: Like your Soviet masters treated you so good afterwards, eh?..Ah, but you got Transilvania right? Yeah..good.
No, they treated us much more worse. But what does this have to do with anything? This was the best solution, IMO. Can you come up with a better one?
Yes, getting Transylvania back was more important. Again, do you expect Romania to fight until the end for an insane leader of Germany? Why?
Ebusitanus wrote: You asume much my friend, arrogance is an ill councellor...for starters I have read your heroic website.
I have chose not to write all about what happened at Stalingrad. My site can only give you a general idea of the military operations. But if you want I can give more details.
Ebusitanus wrote: More personal attacks? your ad hominem wont give you any more factual weight.
Nope, it was just an observation.
Ebusitanus wrote: Quite hipocritical comming from the same who had no problems running into Besarabia to get some land in that Campaign too.
Well, the Germans seemed then to be able to win a war with the SU. And since Romania had some scores to settle with its neighbor and could not do it on its own, why not? But when Germany lost the war and continued to fight without sense, why die for something which was already lost? Especially since there was another piece of land which Romania wanted?
Ebusitanus wrote: Sorry, let me rephrase that one for you so that you can include it in your list of evil agravations done by Germans to the poor inocent deceived Romanians..."Germans had such hatered for their heroic allies that they kept picking them up and shooting them with no reason whatsoever, why should they need any reason..they were the masters, right?"
It was already included. No need to rephrase, but thank you!
No matter the reason, the Romanians should have been shot by the Romanian army and not by the Germans.
Btw, who shot the German "wargod-general" that concentrated the bulk of German forces inside Stalingrad and exposed the flanks or the guy who the ignored the reports of massive Soviet concentrations?
Ebusitanus wrote: An overwhelmed ally would have done just as the Finns did...halfhartly, not from one day to the next opening borders and front lines to the Soviets to rollup the German flanks. I´m sad you don´t see the difference and the cost to the German troops there
Again, what better solution can you come up with? Do you think that if Romania told Hitler: Hey we want to get out this one! We lost!
Hitler would just have said: No problem, I will just retreat my troops on the borders!
. Are you that naïve? This was, Imo, the only solution. This or total annihilation by the Soviet forces?
Ebusitanus wrote: 60.000 men losses..I rest my case.
Well, 61,000 were lost only in the fights with the Romanian army after 24 August!
Ebusitanus wrote: The sweet Liberation...gotta love those terms...everyone loved and still does to jump on the good side´s bandwagon
Let me ask a question: did or did not the German soldiers that marched into the Sudetenland think themselves as liberators?
The same thing happened here. The soldiers considered NW Transylvania as Romanian land, under foreign occupation. What other term should they used? Btw, the same terms were used at the beginning of the war, in Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. Why do you not object to their use there?