After fall of Stalingrad, and the Romanian war again Germany

Discussions on all aspects of the smaller Axis nations in Europe and Asia. Hosted by G. Trifkovic.
User avatar
Ebusitanus
Member
Posts: 535
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 18:12

Post by Ebusitanus » 14 Sep 2002 19:48

Thanks Andy for speaking up and I.A.R. for being so kind to show how verbally proud and valiant our two clowns are. You wont catch me verbally abusing someone in such a "coward" way...(Do I see a trend here? :wink: )

IAR80
Member
Posts: 184
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 21:05
Location: Satu Mare, Romania

re

Post by IAR80 » 14 Sep 2002 20:15

First off, I was the "coward" that wrote the second remark in the first place. 8)

Second the little "trend " you see here proves that you will forever hold these dirty back-stabbing romanians in contempt for DARING to turn their arms against their superhuman aryan war god masters that have treated them so well ( :? :? :? ) and thus managing to achieve the only "victory" that could be achieved : existence as a nation, am I right? How dreadful indeed, that such a sorry country DARES to preserve itself instead of sacrificing everything (and I mean everything) for their german friends ( :? :? :? )...

Why? Because you refute all evidence presented to you that proves that Germany was in no way a friend, and to back stab by definition implies a certain state of friendship prior to the betrayal, this was not the case here, in fact Romania refused such offers even as early as 1936 if not earlier, this being one of the reasons Hitler endorsed the ceding of romanian territories . Proof of this you can find in earlier posts.

But none are so blind as those who will not see.

User avatar
Ebusitanus
Member
Posts: 535
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 18:12

Post by Ebusitanus » 15 Sep 2002 02:02

It is so much easier for you to portray me like a Nazi, right? I don´t give a flying f@%k about German supermen and other rubish you try to pile on me. I make my observations out of my own opinion, its quite different that you need to find big reasons for your actions in historic Romanian-German hatered, German bad treatment of Romanian troops, etc...Like you wouldn´t have done the same if Germany had treated Romania like a long lost brother...Face it, Romania just did the parctical thing and it is called betrayal no matter how many "reasons" you find for it..And, I will say again, on a pragmatical level there is nothing bad of following a realpolitik and taking your country out of a lost war, its a different matter that they act itself was treacherous in nature.

IAR80
Member
Posts: 184
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 21:05
Location: Satu Mare, Romania

re

Post by IAR80 » 15 Sep 2002 11:51

Oh, brother... :roll:

"I make my observations out of my own opinion, "

Good, then, by definition, you agree, as the reasonable person I hope you are, that you opinions may be a world different from the historical state of facts, which has been presented to you throughout this threat. Yes, these were facts and events that really happened, NOT opinions. And, Ebusitanus, opinions can be biased, yes, even yours.
In other words, you agree you can be proved wrong, which you have, Ebusitanus.

"its quite different that you need to find big reasons for your actions in historic Romanian-German hatered, German bad treatment of Romanian troops, etc..."

These are not big reasons, these are events that happened, the very causes that lead to the events of 23rd of August 1944. And about the "hatred", it's such a strong word, however, the Vienna Award was anything but a sign of friendship from Hitler towards Romania, and yes, WWI offered even less reasons for Romania to be sympathetic towards Germany.

"Like you wouldn´t have done the same if Germany had treated Romania like a long lost brother..."

And here we have the root of all problems: you are actually <insert adjective> enough to think that romanians are somehow natural born backstabbers or something, as if the true cause for the events of 23rd of August 1944 was a "traitor gene" present in every filthy romanian... I will not comment on such a propostrous generalization and leave the members of this forum to judge by themselves this racist affirmation...


"Face it, Romania just did the parctical thing and it is called betrayal no matter how many "reasons" you find for it"

So, if this is just "practical", why does every single one of your posts bear the mark "How could you?", as if Romania had a choice.

"..And, I will say again, on a pragmatical level there is nothing bad of following a realpolitik and taking your country out of a lost war, its a different matter that they act itself was treacherous in nature."

Exactly, and you zero in on the treacherous romanians that caused probably the most damage to the Reich, denying much needed oil and a formidable defense line, the Carpathians. But why just us? Aren't the germans backstabbers also, violating Belgium's and Holland's neutrality, invading Poland, betraying their "allies" the russians (which were as much allies to them as the romanians, they even exported oil to Germany like the romanians) all surprise actions? Why just romanians, hm?

"It is so much easier for you to portray me like a Nazi, right? I don´t give a flying f@%k about German supermen and other rubish you try to pile on me. "

But otherwise how can I explain the way you attempt to drag through mud the significance of 23rd of August 1944 as if this was the sole, or most horrible, "treachery" of WWII? Sure, this was indeed so for nazi Germany, no doubt about it. Romania joining the allies helped to shorten the war and prevent more unnecesary loss of life and also ensured the existence of Romania more or less intact, it's not like Romania had the sole "treacherous" purpose of lashing out at the throat of Germany just for the heck of it as you might think. But what hurts nazi Germany, hurts you just as bad, right Ebusitanus? Therefore, you are a Nazi apologist.
Quot erat demonstrandum

Have a nice day 8)

User avatar
Ebusitanus
Member
Posts: 535
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 18:12

Post by Ebusitanus » 15 Sep 2002 13:34

IAR...You just want to read into what fits into your, let me try also, <insert adjective> bubble, right? Why don´t you just re-read what I wrote?

And here we have the root of all problems: you are actually <insert adjective> enough to think that romanians are somehow natural born backstabbers or something, as if the true cause for the events of 23rd of August 1944 was a "traitor gene" present in every filthy romanian... I will not comment on such a propostrous generalization and leave the members of this forum to judge by themselves this racist affirmation..
This piece of crap is just amazing and fits clearly into your..He critizes my Romania, since he does so about Sept. 23rd, he must be Nazi or a Nazi apologist..Duh huh" :roll:

I said:
"Like you wouldn´t have done the same if Germany had treated Romania like a long lost brother..."
Comming directly from the idea that according to you guys all what happened on Sept. 23rd can be traced back to the evil doings of the German army against Romanian troops, etc..etc..ad nauseam.
This is trying to justify 23rd Sept by all those bad handlings instead of just saying "Romania realized Hitler had lost and just switched sides to avoid worse"...No, you can´t say simply that..you need to find "good reasons" for that switch besides Realpolitik, then you come up with Truck stealing Germans, Vienna awards and the WWI.

What I meant from my words in quotes is just this...You talk like Germany through his mistreatment of Romaina brought this logical reaction upon herself...Which is complete rubish, Romania by Sept 44 had already realitzed independently of German bad behaviour, that the war was lost and THIS was what made them switch sides, not the stolen trucks and the Wienna Award.

Now, if you would so happen to showe your insulting remarks about "traitor genes" and me being racist up where it certainly will fit you, we would be all much better off.
Exactly, and you zero in on the treacherous romanians that caused probably the most damage to the Reich, denying much needed oil and a formidable defense line, the Carpathians. But why just us? Aren't the germans backstabbers also, violating Belgium's and Holland's neutrality, invading Poland, betraying their "allies" the russians (which were as much allies to them as the romanians, they even exported oil to Germany like the romanians) all surprise actions? Why just romanians, hm?
This freaking thread is about Romania, right? Have you read the thread title? What next? you want to move this thread to the Holocaust forum or discuss about the Rotterdam bombardment? Jesus! get a grip on yourself.
But what hurts nazi Germany, hurts you just as bad, right Ebusitanus? Therefore, you are a Nazi apologist.
I hope one day you will learn to stop hidding behind such unwarranted and insulting acusations to make your point. Perhaps you should just continue insulting in Romanian, its just as helpful.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Post by Andy H » 15 Sep 2002 16:04

C'mon fellas lets calm down and learn.

Like today I have learn't that Pig in Romanian is Porcul

:lol: Andy from the Shire

User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002 22:35
Location: Europe

Post by Marcus » 15 Sep 2002 16:05

Like Andy just said, relax and drop the unfriendly tone.

/Marcus

IAR80
Member
Posts: 184
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 21:05
Location: Satu Mare, Romania

re

Post by IAR80 » 15 Sep 2002 16:10

Alright, I'll be good, I guess I already proved my point anyway.

Oh, Andy, Pig in Romanian is Porc, Procul is the articulate "the pig".

User avatar
Ebusitanus
Member
Posts: 535
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 18:12

Post by Ebusitanus » 15 Sep 2002 17:17

I rest my case, its just so anoying when people just want to put words into your mouth (Straw Man) to prove their point.
I have nothing more to say, thanks and soory for this unwanted upheaval.

IAR80
Member
Posts: 184
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 21:05
Location: Satu Mare, Romania

Post by IAR80 » 15 Sep 2002 17:53

Now, Mr. Ebusitanus, I see the discussion is now concentrated on one phrase:

"Like you wouldn´t have done the same if Germany had treated Romania like a long lost brother..."

I'd first like to say that is a very peculiar way of NOT insulting the citizens of a nation, but anyway, on to the discussion itself:

So, let me get this straight, you say that we "talk like Germany through his mistreatment of Romaina brought this logical reaction upon herself...Which is complete rubish, Romania by Sept 44 had already realitzed independently of German bad behaviour, that the war was lost and THIS was what made them switch sides, not the stolen trucks and the Wienna Award. ".

Good, finally we have come down to the very source of our disagreement.

Here's what I respond:

The Vienna Award was the main reason behind Romania switching sides. Because of the Vienna Award, Romania would gain more territory than it would lose by siding with the russians, as simple as that. The other ad nauseam reasons only made this "transition" easier because the romanians (civilians and soldiers) did not percieve the german soldier as a close friend, therefore neutralizing the risk of a civil war between pro and anti nazi factions. So my point is exactly that which you deny : "Germany through his mistreatment of Romaina brought this logical reaction upon herself..."
Now, I'd like to know why this is rubbish. Let's step into hypothetical realm, shall we?

If Hitler did not agree to the ceding of Transylvania and the Quadrilater (it would still have to cede Bessarabia and northern Bucovina to USSR, I guess), it would gain the trust of the romanian people, and this would come in very handy in the summer of 1944, when Transylvania (now part of Romania) would be viewed as the last romanian fortress standing in the face of the red tide. In short, the romanians, having their territory intact and being "helped" by Hitler during Barbarossa to regain their lost territories taken by the USSR, would have every reason to defend their territory to the very last man because they would lose everything and gain nothing in exchange by whitching sides. But historically, the romanians had no reason to fight for a Germany that cut apart their country.

Oh, and Ebusitanus, by September 1944 Romania was already well at war with Germany, since the actual insurrenction took place on the 23rd of August 1944 and resulted in the liberation of the capital days later. Perhaps you meant September 1943?

So, you see, Romania would simply gain more than it would lose (or so it was thought then) by switching sides, and would gain exactly what Germany had taken away in 1940, if Romania was whole when the front would close in, it is unclear wether peace would be seriously considered as a viable option, perhaps once the Carpathians would eventually be breached there would have been a civil war between the supporters and opposers of separate peace... But anyway, separate peace would be well in the "finnish halfhearted break up" area you seem to hold in very high regard.
[/b]

User avatar
Ebusitanus
Member
Posts: 535
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 18:12

Post by Ebusitanus » 15 Sep 2002 18:37

Lets see...btw..I meant August 23rd, sorry for that slip.

So, you are saying basically that if Germany would have favoured Romania on the Vienna award, thus favouring a Romanian Transylvania from the get go, that in such an event (forgetting in this hipothetical case all the rest of tactical and strategical misgivings among the two) Romania would have undoubtly have fought on on the German side since they would only "loose" in the event of an allied victory. I´m right?
Even to the point that a civil war might have flared out about some faction wanting peace.

Your position might have some merit yet I fail to see why would have the Transylvania lands been so paramount to keep Romania in the axis field. Hungary got just those lands in the Vienna award and that didn´t stop them trying to secure a separate peace with the allies, nonwithstanding that the Germans had to change rather violently their goverment for that. Italy switched sides also, eventhough they had been far more courted by Hitler. Finnland switched sides eventhough they had closer an friendly relations to Germany.
It is my position IAR, that I can not see why Romania would have been more inclined to fight on beyond what other more
favoured axis satelites had done. All of them switched sides because they basically realitzed that the war was lost and it was better to get to some understanding with the victorious allies no matter how good or bad they felt about Germany as a nation or the Wehrmacht as a fighting force. They used Realpolitik to help their own nations to save what there was to save in such a desperate time.
I can not agree with you IAR, that Romania would have been any more "loyal" that those other nations just because Transylvania. I would say that the main aim of the Romanian Goverment was to save what there was to save and would have done just the same even if the Soviets hadn´t offered them Transylania as a "bouns". To think that the Romanian Goverment would have trusted the Communists to be more benevolent towards them out of good faith, when it was just those who had outrightly anexed Bessarabia and northern Bucovina in 1940 is to look for goodness where there is none.
Romania would have switched sides no matter if they got Transylvania back or not. This is not being treacherous, this is being real..as real as all those other axis nations who did just the same. I understand that you are proud of being a Romanian and I have no problems about it. Its a whole different spectrum to go and find some "special justifications" that would make that switch look less...and I say so in a despasionate way, ok?..trecherous from an allied point of view as Germany certainly hoped and prayed for Romania would stay. You can twist and turn this all what you want but at the end it has only one definition, and that has nothing to do with genes or racial sterotypes (I´m from Spain, ok?). Many acted so in such hard times and it was definetly the best way for Romania.

User avatar
johnny_bi
Member
Posts: 228
Joined: 10 Sep 2002 07:24
Location: Romania

Hmmmmmmmm.......

Post by johnny_bi » 16 Sep 2002 08:03

I think that Ebusitanus tried to explain us that we had the opportunity to die like lions besides the germans :D and we refused such honour from an "older brother" which during our childhood used to slap us ...
I think that Germany behaved like russians latter "We gave'em the wheat and in exchange they took us our corn" :mrgreen:

User avatar
Ebusitanus
Member
Posts: 535
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 18:12

Re: Hmmmmmmmm.......

Post by Ebusitanus » 16 Sep 2002 11:56

johnny_bi wrote:I think that Ebusitanus tried to explain us that we had the opportunity to die like lions besides the germans :D and we refused such honour from an "older brother" which during our childhood used to slap us ...
I think that Germany behaved like russians latter "We gave'em the wheat and in exchange they took us our corn" :mrgreen:
You shouldn´t think so hard when you are not able to understand what I write. Perhaps you should re-read the thread before making falacious comments like those above since I never said anything of the sorts. This whole thread discussion derived at my question wether Romanian foot soldiers would have felt bad about "switching over". This question has clearly been answered with a rotund "No" since Romanians had no love whatsoever for Germans. This was my original question, the same one Mr. Juha Hujanen answered with exact opposite results regarding the Finns.
It is from here that the question itself evolved into if Romania needed further encouragement to defect as i.e. Transylvania, and there is where we are now. Pls read and the post. thanks for the time.

User avatar
johnny_bi
Member
Posts: 228
Joined: 10 Sep 2002 07:24
Location: Romania

Post by johnny_bi » 16 Sep 2002 12:22

Citind posturile domnului Ebusitanus mi-am adus aminte de George Calinescu ce trata problema celor care nu au de fapt nimic de spus sub expresia "masturbare intelectuala" ... :mrgreen:
Mi-e jena sa traduc asa ceva in engleza .

User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002 22:35
Location: Europe

Post by Marcus » 16 Sep 2002 12:45

Please write in english.

/Marcus

Return to “Minor Axis Nations”