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

Post by johnny_bi » 16 Sep 2002 13:03

Reading the posts of Mr. Ebusitanus I remembered about a romanian writer George Calinescu , who some time ago debated the theme of the man who never really had anything to say but who talked often , under the expression "Intelectual mastur*ation" .... no offense .

BI

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

Post by Ebusitanus » 16 Sep 2002 13:10

johnny_bi wrote: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 .
We can easily translate some of the very stellar pieces of this intelectual archivement. You will pardon if I wont make my home-made deduction of what it says public to the rest of this respectable forum. :roll:

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

Post by Ebusitanus » 16 Sep 2002 13:13

johnny_bi wrote:Reading the posts of Mr. Ebusitanus I remembered about a romanian writer George Calinescu , who some time ago debated the theme of the man who never really had anything to say but who talked often , under the expression "Intelectual mastur*ation" .... no offense .

BI
Offense actually quite taken no matter of your poor showing of last minute translation work. I would expect this kind of verbae not to be found here as we can all easily resort to cheap name calling over substance. Either you have something to add to the thread or you better just STFU. :wink:

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

Post by johnny_bi » 16 Sep 2002 13:53

I want to say that a lot of people tried to explain you a lot of things under this thread ... We're sorry if their answers don't coincide your yours ... and as someone said "you just don't get it !" . But remember ,there is a time for every thing :wink:
Case end

BI

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

Post by Ebusitanus » 16 Sep 2002 14:26

No, my poor friend, there have been a lot of people answering questions I didn´t make from the get go and doing quite some thinking for me. There is a little difference there although you might not be able to grasp it.
have a nice day :wink:

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

Post by IAR80 » 16 Sep 2002 19:21

Ok, we are finally clearing this up.

This discussion could end right here since we both made our points and could depart on decent terms, but there are just a few issues here.

Why would Romania still fight?
Well, I would have to write an essay about the collective psychology of the romanian people to make you understand, so I guess you will have to take my word for it that the romanian peasant-soldier can be as determined as any when it comes to fighting for the freedom of his land, and there is some proof in this because the campaign to liberate Romania & beyond was fought largely by green units, since most of the soldiers that fought on the eastern front were imprisoned. Details about this you can find on Victor's site.

As I've said before, the soviets had something to offer, namely more romanian territories than they would annex themselves, a very good bargain indeed considering the circumstances.

You gave the example of the other axis sattelites deserting Germany. I would like to point out that they did so only when the situation was utterly hopeless and even then factions supporting the idea of fighting to the last man existed (exception Finland where the risk of soviet occupation was significantly lower).

Italy - The trick here was the fact that the occupiers were the allies, and the prospect of democracy was not viewed as such a horrible alternative by the majority of italians, that's why separate peace was signed and actively supported by the army and populance.

Finland - Here it was simply to preserve the country. The finns knew that the soviets would concentrate on the germans and that they would not bother to "liberate" them, thus Mannerheim siezed the oportunity and signed separate peace.

Hungary - Here we have the case of a completely hopeless situation, the fact that the germans interviened was because Hungary had a strategic position.

I'm sure you knew this, Ebusitanus, but I wrote this to point out the fact that each of these situations were unique and comparing any two is impossible.

Historical Romania had only one sane option: to join the soviets. Why? To reclaim lands.

Now, Hypothetical Romania is whole, therefore the soviets have nothing to offer in exchange of peace, the romanians would only have to lose by signing peace, so why sign it? There has to be a reason for it, right? And as long as the line along the Carpathians would hold peace would be out of the question. Romania would be up against the wall and would fight until the Carpathians would be breached.

My point is that the reason why Romania so readily embraced the prospect of switching sides is because there were chips down on the bargaining table.

Basically, I do agree with you that separate peace would be signed eventually since the war was already lost, but I was responding to your affirmations in earlier posts:

1) About the romanian veterans feeling ashamed, it was proved that there was no "love affair" to begin with.

2) About praising the finnish "halfhearted" separate peace, I proved that the manner in which Romania acted (swift and decisive) was unavoidable given its strategic position and that the Vienna Award played a huge part in this and also proved that had Germany acted at least neutral and not cut apart Romania, the "halfhearted" (at least) breakup you seem to respect would have been the case (hypothetically) here.

This was the point of this post, to adress your earlier affirmations, because that's how this discussion started.

In conclusion, wether you mean it or not, your earlier posts could be summed up in condemning Romania for her "quick" decision, which is triple wrong, first because international politics have no ethics (just as the entirety of WWII proved), second because it was the only option available and third because the "quick" part was due to the historical context (here including Transylvania as baragining chip and the threat of Romania becoming a battlefield) not because of any bloodlust against Germany or such.

You simply cannot say in international politics "That wasn't very nice" or "Shame on you!", it's naive to think in those terms. And the term "treacherous" falls in this category too.

One last comment here:

"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. "

True, but the offer of Transylvania was not what the soviets would give from good faith, they meant strictly bussiness: you join our side and kick the germans where it hurts (Carpathians and oil) and we'll give you back the territories they took away from you. It was a deal, not a gift, not a "bonus", the soviets were, after all, looking to incorporate as many territories as possible under their influence before the war ended so they wanted to advance quick and the Carpathians and the romanian oil could slow them down, so what did they do? They offered a deal, potentially the best Romania could possibly receive at that time.

Again, my comments were in response to your two affirmations:

1) The romanian veterans should feel ashamed

2) The finnish are not so "treacherous" because they did it "nicer" (sign peace, that is)

otherwise it is understood that Romania would eventually sign separate peace.

User avatar
Daniel S.
Member
Posts: 145
Joined: 26 Apr 2002 15:43
Location: Bucharest,somewhere in old Wallachia,now Romania

Post by Daniel S. » 16 Sep 2002 23:28

Hello friends,

I think to much passion had been involved in this topic.It's really difficult to take a decision when you have to choose between:

1.fight against your former ally
2.save the country from total war and recover the North-Western
part of Transylvania
(in fact,the turncoating can be view from these two angles)
Marshal Antonescu would have been action against first point.But the King and the most part of the army and,generally the roumanian people prefered the second.Although,Antonescu had an iron hand upon the country,the army proved loyal to the King and "betrayed" its military leader.The tears for lost province of NW Transylvania and the belief that Germany lost the war
won.And the honor died.I think Roumania's interests were above the honor question but I could understand also Ebusitanus.The truth is somewhere in middle but more close to "realpolitic".And that was Roumania's way-not very honorable,but wise.

My best regards,
Daniel

Return to “Minor Axis Nations”