Edric O Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 Edric, the Cadrilater, was overwhelmingly turkish and tartar, not romanian or bulgarian. Well, yes, it was a mistake to take it... but as you said, it was a spoil of war. So why turn it down? On the other hand, it made from Bulgaria an enemy and not a friend, as it was until then. Shit happens.Couldn't have said it better myself. :(Oh, by the way, "the Balkans", don't include Romania. ;) Actually the Balkans are some mountains in Bulgaria..."The Balkans", as a region, are generally considered to include the former Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Albania, Greece, Turkey, and Romania.And we're not eastern-european either, geograficaly we're central european, but who cares? :-Actually, we're right between Central Europe, Eastern Europe, and Southern Europe. I guess that puts us in Southeast Central Europe. ;DAbout the russians: well, I didn't say they had to love us, but they left the hungarians alone. They also send troops against them.Well, Hungary was a much smaller part of the Axis war effort than Romania (we helped the Germans more than Italy did :(). And Hungary didn't have any disputed territories on its border with Russia.After 23rd august 1944 we send 12 divisions against the germans. We were the fourth force against them. That didn't matter, we were a defeated country, though technicaly we won the war. We pushed as far as Wien, Budapest, and the Tatra mountains and Czechoslovachia. That didn't matter either.Well, yes, we were the 4th largest Allied power for the last 9 months of the war, but on the other hand, we had also been the 3rd largest power in the Axis from 1941 to 1944. We fought over 3 years for the Axis, and only 9 months for the Allies. You do the math.Also, you have to keep in mind that these rankings (3rd and 4th) can be misleading, because we were a very distant third in the Axis, and an even more distant fourth among the Allies. Our entire armed forces were a pea-shooter compared to the Soviets, Americans, or Germans.Have you noticed that the finnish were left alone? They supported the germans, then they turned against them, as we did... but Mannerheim remained in office, while we kissed the soviets' ass and executed Antonescu.There was a crucial difference between us and the Finns: Mannerheim fought the Soviets until he took back all Finnish lands, then stopped. He did not invade lands that rightfully belonged to the Russians. Antonescu, on the other hand, did not stop at the Nistru. He wasn't satisfied with retaking historical Romanian lands - he went further into Russia together with the Germans, reaching as far as Stalingrad. That's why the Russians left Mannerheim alone but wanted Antonescu executed. It was a matter of honour. Mannerheim had it, Antonescu didn't.WWII left deep wounds that are very hard to heal... That's what happened in Yugoslavia. The ethnic war. The Croatians and the Serbs wanted to settle the scores from WWII, when the croatians allied with the germans against the serbs. Both wars in Yugoslavia were "total wars" bent on exterminating the enemy.Yes... :( And as a result of their settling of scores, today both the Croatians and the Serbs are in ruins. They were all infinitely better off working together inside Yugoslavia. They were the most prosperous country in Eastern Europe, and richer than quite a few in the West as well. Now look at them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davidu Posted December 6, 2004 Author Share Posted December 6, 2004 I understand your position against Antonescu. As I said before he wasn't the best chiose in those tense times. He showed to be the ONLY choice, as no on else would take the office. He had honour, though, accepting his guilt and his execution. He took the chance and lost. That's it.The crossing of the Dnepir ( Nistru) orderd by Antonescu was meant to make the Germans rethink the Wien Diktat. That never happened, I know... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K4^Raimund Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 Antonescu is a positive thing....Compared to Ceausescu! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edric O Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 Antonescu is a positive thing....Compared to Ceausescu!That's a lot like saying "Stalin is a positive thing compared to Hitler". True, but quite irrelevant, since both were evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.