Art wrote:Yes, it follows from a definition of self-defense. If you were beaten by a certain person and after a year punched him with a help of your buddies than you will have difficult time proving to a jury that it was self-defense. Romania joined "Barbarossa" not to defend itself against aggression but to take a revanche, as I already said.
Of course the main problem of your analogy is that there is not (and there was not at the time) a "bigger" sovereign.
Second point is that the Soviet transgression was not a temporary one, but it was a continuing one, as the Soviet State was quite in sovereign control of Bessarabia in 1941. Had Soviet transgression been some temporary trespass (e.g. say Soviet Armies crossing through Dobruja/Dobrogea to Tzarigrad/Istanbul) then your point would be slightly stronger.
As it was, Romania was justified in (A) seeking restoration, (B) attempting to prevent future repeats through the destruction/deconstruction/diminution of the Soviet State.
BDV wrote:There was a state of peace (or there was no state of war) which Romania violated by own initiative. Peace treaty wasn't needed simply because there was no war between Romania and USSR.
There was not "peace" there was nothing. Because Soviet aggression had freed the Romanian State of any bounds (arising from treaties or courtesy between sovereign nations) on Romanian actions. Thus, as sovereign nation, the Romanian State was free to act how it pleased versus the Soviet Union and its human support apparatus.
Or at least the Russian/Soviet government treated Romanian actions in such a way. Then follows the question I posed in my previous message: if the feeling of being unlawfully abused justified any Romanian violent actions in 1941 then why didn't it justify Soviet action in 1940?
The short version:
Because there were some treaties signed by the two parts in the 30s which were trampled underfoot by the Soviet Union in 1940, much like 3rd German Reich trampled the Munich Agreement, with the aggravating factor being that Bolshevik aggression was on Romania proper, not it's pact partners.
OTOH should you concede my point on the "the strong do as they want, the weak as they must" and regard Romania as less of a sovereign when compared to countries like France, Great Britain, or Soviet Union I'd be happy to concede your points.
But if we are to continue the charade that Romania was fully sovereign, then, as of July 1st 1940 the Romanian State had the right to use that sovereignity as it pleased, up to and beyond destroying any Soviet material goods, despoiling any Soviet piece of land, and executing any komsomolist, party member, non-conscript military personnel, conscript military personnel with volunteering-based training (e.g. parachutists), and soviet bureaucrat its forces could capture.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion