Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
User avatar
Appleknocker27
Member
Posts: 631
Joined: 05 Jun 2007 17:11
Location: US/Europe

Re: Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Post by Appleknocker27 » 14 Dec 2015 20:49

Art wrote:
Alixanther wrote:Using your logic, they could have handed down an ultimatum to US too, to retake Alaska
Russia voluntary conceded rights to Alaska to the United States. So no, it's not my logic.
The Soviet Union used coercion and intimidation by threat of war against a much smaller state in a completely predatorial act.
Romania recovering its lost territory may not technically be self defense, but it most certainly was justified. The Soviet occupation of Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina, and Hertza was illegal and there was/is no legal basis for the Moldavian SSR. Romanian recovery of their territory with the help of Axis countries was justified. Any further advance into sovereign USSR territory was not justified.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11972
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Post by ljadw » 14 Dec 2015 22:02

Why was the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia,etc illegal and the Romanian occupation of these territories after WWI legal ?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11972
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Post by ljadw » 14 Dec 2015 22:06

Legality has no place in politics ,it has its place in universities where unwordly professors are wasting the taxpayer's money .

The Soviet occupation in 1940 was as legal as the German occupation of the Alsace in 1871 or the French occupation of the Alsace in 1918.Or the Italian occupation of South Tirol in 1918 or the German occupation of Slovenia in 1941,or,or...

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 6181
Joined: 04 Jun 2004 19:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Post by Art » 15 Dec 2015 09:04

BDV wrote: Soviet Union conceded war as policymaking tool when they joined the League of Nations.
Yes, but it didn't mean that SU revoked claims on Bessarabia.
Not applicable to Soviet Union - Romania relations following the abolishment by the Soviet Union of civilized relations between Soviet Union and Romania in June 1940. As of July 1st 1940 there is vacuum in the Soviet Union - Romania relationship
An observable fact is that SU and Romania maintained diplomatic and other relations after June 1940 and (which is an essential point) there was no state of war de jure or de facto between them. I would also like to see an example of any Soviet-Romanian treaty that lost it force.
Funny how 11 months of inaction creates a bound, but 22 years of inaction doesn't
A state of peace creates a bound to maintain it no matter how long it lasts. It is worth to repeat again that events of June 1940 didn't create changes in this state of peace or in other words didn't led to war.
in June 1941 Romania was 'guilty' of violating something, as long as 'nothing' is included in your definition of something
Please quote any my post where I used the word "guilty". The covenant of the League of Nation was not legally binding for Romania or Soviet Union. However it can be invoked as a sort of universally accepted standard of what was considered a just cause for war. An quarrel over some piece of territory was not.

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 6181
Joined: 04 Jun 2004 19:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Post by Art » 15 Dec 2015 09:14

Appleknocker27 wrote: The Soviet Union used coercion and intimidation by threat of war against a much smaller state in a completely predatorial act.
Romania recovering its lost territory may not technically be self defense, but it most certainly was justified.
Well, 20 years earlier Romania used coercion and military force to grab this territory from a yesterdays' ally. A natural question which I've already asked is why Soviet recovery of Bessarabia was not justified then?
The Soviet occupation of Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina, and Hertza was illegal and there was/is no legal basis for the Moldavian SSR
Again Russia/Soviet Union never recognized Bessarabia as a part of Romania. And not alone:
The US also considered Bessarabia a territory under Romanian occupation, rather than Romanian territory, despite existing political and economic relations between the US and Romania
As I said it was classic case of contested territory.

Max Payload
Member
Posts: 574
Joined: 21 Jun 2008 14:37

Re: Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Post by Max Payload » 15 Dec 2015 11:19

ljadw wrote:Legality has no place in politics ... .
This has to be one of the more absurd generalisations to be found on this site.
ljadw wrote:The Soviet occupation in 1940 was as legal as the German occupation of the Alsace in 1871 or the French occupation of the Alsace in 1918.Or the Italian occupation of South Tirol in 1918 or the German occupation of Slovenia in 1941,or,or...
Most of the changes cited were eventually the result of formal treaties between internationally recognised nation states. In the case of Bessarabia in 1919/20 and in 1940/41 the transfer of territory was not accompanied by treaty terms. Russia/SU never formally ceded the territory to Romania, and in 1940, under pressure from Germany, Romania simply withdrew its military and administrative personnel from the region. The occupation, re-occupation and re-re-occupation of Bessarabia between 1918 and 1942 is a less clear-cut legal issue than Alsace and South Tyrol.
Last edited by Max Payload on 15 Dec 2015 20:30, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Appleknocker27
Member
Posts: 631
Joined: 05 Jun 2007 17:11
Location: US/Europe

Re: Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Post by Appleknocker27 » 15 Dec 2015 18:40

Art wrote:
Appleknocker27 wrote: The Soviet Union used coercion and intimidation by threat of war against a much smaller state in a completely predatorial act.
Romania recovering its lost territory may not technically be self defense, but it most certainly was justified.
Well, 20 years earlier Romania used coercion and military force to grab this territory from a yesterdays' ally. A natural question which I've already asked is why Soviet recovery of Bessarabia was not justified then?
The Soviet occupation of Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina, and Hertza was illegal and there was/is no legal basis for the Moldavian SSR
Again Russia/Soviet Union never recognized Bessarabia as a part of Romania. And not alone:
The US also considered Bessarabia a territory under Romanian occupation, rather than Romanian territory, despite existing political and economic relations between the US and Romania
As I said it was classic case of contested territory.
Seems the territory may have been disputed, but its history and culture were Romanian. Any argument against that seems to follow the usual Russian/Soviet self-justification. Though not as extreme, but similiar to Kaliningrad.

Alixanther
Member
Posts: 411
Joined: 04 Oct 2003 04:26
Location: Romania

Re: Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Post by Alixanther » 15 Dec 2015 19:37

Art wrote:
Alixanther wrote:Using your logic, they could have handed down an ultimatum to US too, to retake Alaska
Russia voluntary conceded rights to Alaska to the United States. So no, it's not my logic.
Also, bear in mind there was no Soviet Union at the moment when Russia conceded these territories
1) Russia didn't legally concede these territories.
2) Both Soviet Russia and Soviet Ukraine were the constituents of the SU, hence the latter inherited their territorial claims.
It's funny you admit we had the right to defend ourselves, but only by defensive measures
I didn't say anything about defensive measures. The point was that in June 1941 Romania didn't defend itself. Another point was that the universally accepted norm in the inter-war period was not to resort to war as a means of policy.
Our discussion was about Soviet Union, not Russia. Whether Russia conceded or not Alaska is not relevant, SU could STILL wage political and even military means to retake Alaska, if they deemed useful / necessary. And trust me, Alaska could have been controversial, but Bucovina and Moldova were centuries old Romanian territories - both by culture and by language.

About the provinces taken by Stalin from Romania in '40:

1) Even if you can prove that Russia didn't legally concede "these territories", Bucovina was NEVER under control of Russia. When Moldavia was under Ottoman tutelage, the Ottomans thought they could bypass vassal suzerainty and sold Bucovina directly to Austrian Empire. So your case is moot, because Stalin effectively invaded territory which never was under Russian control, NEVER. Capisci? Stalin is guilty as charged.

2) Ukraine has never accepted being under Russian control, or Soviet control. They have been forced to do so. Pitting Ukraine alongside Russia in order to make Russian case somewhat relevant at hundreds (if not thousands) of kilometers away of their natural boundaries is childish and worth of contempt. Not to mention the fact that Soviet Union does not inherit any "rights" from the Russian Empire. Any empire - Russian Empire is no exception - was carved by military power, not by legitimate claims. If somehow there would have been any possible natural claims that the Russian Empire was justly residing in Balkan area, Soviet Union hasn't inherited none of these: Soviet Union was not a proponent of panslavism and they did not care for the well-being and political representation of member states, on the contrary, each time Soviet Union annexed a country / province, they employed the most savage purges against indigenous population.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11972
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Post by ljadw » 15 Dec 2015 20:39

Max Payload wrote:
ljadw wrote:Legality has no place in politics ... .
This has to be one of the more absurd generalisations to be found on this site.

.
No : it is the truth : a government de facto is a government de jure .

Might is justice .

Jeruzalem is the capital of Israel because it is a part of Israel,if Jeruzalem was no part of Israel,it would not be the capital of Israel .

All governments are legal governments: illegal governments do not exist .In 1945 the Polish government in exile was not the legal government of Poland, the legal government of Poland was the government that was ruling Poland .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11972
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Post by ljadw » 15 Dec 2015 20:47

Alixanther wrote:
Art wrote:
Alixanther wrote:Using your logic, they could have handed down an ultimatum to US too, to retake Alaska
Russia voluntary conceded rights to Alaska to the United States. So no, it's not my logic.
Also, bear in mind there was no Soviet Union at the moment when Russia conceded these territories
1) Russia didn't legally concede these territories.
2) Both Soviet Russia and Soviet Ukraine were the constituents of the SU, hence the latter inherited their territorial claims.
It's funny you admit we had the right to defend ourselves, but only by defensive measures
I didn't say anything about defensive measures. The point was that in June 1941 Romania didn't defend itself. Another point was that the universally accepted norm in the inter-war period was not to resort to war as a means of policy.
Our discussion was about Soviet Union, not Russia. Whether Russia conceded or not Alaska is not relevant, SU could STILL wage political and even military means to retake Alaska, if they deemed useful / necessary. And trust me, Alaska could have been controversial, but Bucovina and Moldova were centuries old Romanian territories - both by culture and by language.

About the provinces taken by Stalin from Romania in '40:

1) Even if you can prove that Russia didn't legally concede "these territories", Bucovina was NEVER under control of Russia. When Moldavia was under Ottoman tutelage, the Ottomans thought they could bypass vassal suzerainty and sold Bucovina directly to Austrian Empire. So your case is moot, because Stalin effectively invaded territory which never was under Russian control, NEVER. Capisci? Stalin is guilty as charged.

2) Ukraine has never accepted being under Russian control, or Soviet control. They have been forced to do so. Pitting Ukraine alongside Russia in order to make Russian case somewhat relevant at hundreds (if not thousands) of kilometers away of their natural boundaries is childish and worth of contempt. Not to mention the fact that Soviet Union does not inherit any "rights" from the Russian Empire. Any empire - Russian Empire is no exception - was carved by military power, not by legitimate claims. If somehow there would have been any possible natural claims that the Russian Empire was justly residing in Balkan area, Soviet Union hasn't inherited none of these: Soviet Union was not a proponent of panslavism and they did not care for the well-being and political representation of member states, on the contrary, each time Soviet Union annexed a country / province, they employed the most savage purges against indigenous population.

This is all irrelevant :no one cared about what Ukraine accepted:Ukraine belonged partly to Russia, to Austria .Later it belonged to the SU and to Poland .

Any empire,any country was carved by military power :so was Romania: till 1918 Transsylvania belonged to Hungary,after WWI to Romania, in 1940 to Hungary,in 1945 to Romania .as both countries had as much "legitimate" claims on this territory, none of both had any "legitimate" claim and the dispute was solved by weapons .So was it with the Ukraine .So was it with Tecsin . So was it with Wilna .

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 6181
Joined: 04 Jun 2004 19:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Post by Art » 16 Dec 2015 12:32

Appleknocker27 wrote: Seems the territory may have been disputed, but its history and culture were Romanian.
Not completely. The southern part was predominately Ukrainian. Actually the man who commanded the Soviet Army in June 1940 was born in Bessarabia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semyon_Timoshenko
Anyway the population of Danzig and many border territories of Poland in 1939 was mostly German. Does it provide a legal justification for their annexation by Germany or German attack on Poland? Most of the world in 1939 believed that it didn't. By 1918 Bessarabia was a legal part of the Russian Empire/Russian Republic, it was taken by Romania by force against the will of the Russian government. Hence applying the same type of logic used by my opponents Russia/USSR have a full right to return it by violent measures. Either we have to admit certain flaws in that reasoning or admit that it is based on some ad-hoc considerations instead of universal rules that are equally applied to all countries.

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 6181
Joined: 04 Jun 2004 19:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Post by Art » 16 Dec 2015 12:56

Alixanther wrote:1) Even if you can prove that Russia didn't legally concede "these territories", Bucovina was NEVER under control of Russia. When Moldavia was under Ottoman tutelage, the Ottomans thought they could bypass vassal suzerainty and sold Bucovina directly to Austrian Empire. So your case is moot, because Stalin effectively invaded territory which never was under Russian control, NEVER
My case was that If Romania was justified in returning lost territories by force then the Soviet Union was justified too. Lost territories meaning Bessarabia. The second part if you followed me attentively was that by common standards territorial conflicts were not considered a just cause for war.
2) Ukraine has never accepted being under Russian control, or Soviet control.
Actually the Ukrainian government did:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on ... f_the_USSR
Ukraine was legally a part of the USSR until its dissolution. That was accepted by virtually all governments maintaining diplomatic relations with the USSR, Romania included.
Not to mention the fact that Soviet Union does not inherit any "rights" from the Russian Empire
No Russian Republic was a legal successor of the Russian Empire and a constituent part of the Soviet Union.

Alixanther
Member
Posts: 411
Joined: 04 Oct 2003 04:26
Location: Romania

Re: Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Post by Alixanther » 16 Dec 2015 12:58

ljadw wrote:

This is all irrelevant :no one cared about what Ukraine accepted:Ukraine belonged partly to Russia, to Austria .Later it belonged to the SU and to Poland .

Any empire,any country was carved by military power :so was Romania: till 1918 Transsylvania belonged to Hungary,after WWI to Romania, in 1940 to Hungary,in 1945 to Romania .as both countries had as much "legitimate" claims on this territory, none of both had any "legitimate" claim and the dispute was solved by weapons .So was it with the Ukraine .So was it with Tecsin . So was it with Wilna .
No, it is not irelevant. Because Art bundled together Russia and Ukraine for the sake of the argument and without bundling there is no logic for his PRESENT DAY argument. If you have read a little more carefully, you'd had noticed that Bukovina was NEVER Russian territory, although Stalin annexed it.
The cases you cite have nothing in common with our argument and - besided historical general information - bring nothing to the discussion. Nobody claimed that Romania was free and independent since Boerebista. On the contrary, most or all of its parts were vassals or constituents of other empires. That does not offer any moral or diplomatic uphand to raze / decimate such provinces, on the grounds "they once were part of such and such empire". Got it?

Alixanther
Member
Posts: 411
Joined: 04 Oct 2003 04:26
Location: Romania

Re: Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Post by Alixanther » 16 Dec 2015 13:00

Art wrote:
Alixanther wrote:1) Even if you can prove that Russia didn't legally concede "these territories", Bucovina was NEVER under control of Russia. When Moldavia was under Ottoman tutelage, the Ottomans thought they could bypass vassal suzerainty and sold Bucovina directly to Austrian Empire. So your case is moot, because Stalin effectively invaded territory which never was under Russian control, NEVER
My case was that If Romania was justified in returning lost territories by force then the Soviet Union was justified too. Lost territories meaning Bessarabia. The second part if you followed me attentively was that by common standards territorial conflicts were not considered a just cause for war.
2) Ukraine has never accepted being under Russian control, or Soviet control.
Actually the Ukrainian government did:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on ... f_the_USSR
Ukraine was legally a part of the USSR until its dissolution. That was accepted by virtually all governments maintaining diplomatic relations with the USSR, Romania included.
Not to mention the fact that Soviet Union does not inherit any "rights" from the Russian Empire
No Russian Republic was a legal successor of the Russian Empire and a constituent part of the Soviet Union.
If BOTH Romania and Soviet Union are justified, then who the f>>k is the agressor here? I'd say the bigger, meaner opponent. Because underdogs are never asked their opinion about.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11972
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Barbarossa, Delay: Balkans or Rain

Post by ljadw » 16 Dec 2015 14:31

Why do you talk of aggressor ? Such words are meaningless .In june 1941,romania was the aggressor,because it lost;if Romania had won, no one would talk about aggression .

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”