Russia fury at 1941 war backing (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/russia-fury-at-1941-war-backing-16018031.html)
QuoteRussia has said it is "outraged" at remarks by Romanian President Traian Basescu supporting the 1941 attack on the Soviet Union.
Romania was an ally of Nazi Germany when more than three million troops crossed the Soviet border, starting the most devastating conflict in history.
Mr Basescu said in an interview last week that Romania's war against the Soviet Union was justified because it wanted to regain a territory - Moldova - taken by the Soviets in 1940.
He said: "I probably would have done the same."
The order to attack Soviet troops was given by the pro-fascist dictator Marshal Ion Antonescu.
Russia's Foreign Ministry said in a statement it is "outraged" at Mr Basescu's comments, which attempt to "justify the fascist aggression" and "desecrate the memory of millions of Nazi victims".
:lol:
The Russians really are shameless assholes.
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2011, 01:18:30 PM
The Russians really are shameless assholes.
Yep. While questionable, the Romanian decision to join isn't exactly as black-and-white as the Russians would like to think. They had a decent chance of gaining considerable territory and perhaps even regaining what was jacked by Hungary.
Is the position of President in Romania an elected one? If so, he's probably got to say stuff like that to be popular with his peeps.
They didn't really have much choice.
They didn't trust the Soviets (correctly), but pre-war, they expected their alliance with France to protect them. After the fall of France (really, before that--Munich and the invasion of Poland had already shown them that they couldn't count on France) they were in a position where they had to side with either the Nazis or the Soviets, and at the time, the Nazis seemed a safer choice.
Quote from: dps on June 30, 2011, 01:41:12 PM
they were in a position where they had to side with either the Nazis or the Soviets, and at the time, the Nazis seemed a safer choice.
I think the fact the Soviets invaded their country might have made them decide the Nazis were better.
Of course the Nazis then took Transylvania from them as a price of the alliance.
As usual it sucks to be Romania. But they probably would have stayed out of it if the Soviets had not rolled in and took over. So the Russians bitching is pretty fucking pathetic.
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2011, 01:43:23 PM
Of course the Nazis then took Transylvania from them as a price of the alliance.
As usual it sucks to be Romania.
The Nazis did, however, dangle the carrot of future territorial gains at the expense of the Soviet Union and at least made noises about reversing the Diktat as well.
I think it's time for a small war in that region. Transnistria would be a nice setting, since it would force the media to have to learn to spell and pronounce "Transnistria".
Yeah, I know there was a tiny war fought there in 1992, but nobody noticed.
Quote from: Habbaku on June 30, 2011, 01:44:30 PM
The Nazis did, however, dangle the carrot of future territorial gains at the expense of the Soviet Union and at least made noises about reversing the Diktat as well.
I think the actions of the Romanians during the war was that they were obsessed with restoring their pre-WWII borders. It was the Diktat that kept the Romanians fighting hard in the USSR no doubt but they were not that interested in a bunch of Ukrainian territories.
Quote from: derspiess on June 30, 2011, 01:57:13 PM
I think it's time for a small war in that region. Transnistria would be a nice setting, since it would force the media to have to learn to spell and pronounce "Transnistria".
Yeah, I know there was a tiny war fought there in 1992, but nobody noticed.
Some people definitely noticed. As usual, Russia supported the separatists to fuck with the newly independent republics. Unfortunately for them, unlike in Abkhazia, no genocide broke out, so they didn't get an opportunity to support it.
I dunno, I'm with the Russians on this. It's not like the Russians didn't have reasons to take the Baltics, Poland, and Moldavia, and while they were certainly total assholes, and probably would have done everything they did in less ambiguous circumstances anyway if they felt they could've gotten away with it, I can definitely see the impulse to push into Eastern Europe and keep the Nazis as far away from the USSR proper as possible.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 30, 2011, 02:28:55 PM
I dunno, I'm with the Russians on this. It's not like the Russians didn't have reasons to take the Baltics, Poland, and Moldavia, and while they were certainly total assholes, and probably would have done everything they did in less ambiguous circumstances anyway if they felt they could've gotten away with it, I can definitely see the impulse to push into Eastern Europe and keep the Nazis as far away from the USSR proper as possible.
So their big solution was to attack all their neighbors and destroy every opponent the Germans had in Eastern Europe eh? Well the results sure justify the idiocy of their plan.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 30, 2011, 02:28:55 PM
I dunno, I'm with the Russians on this. It's not like the Russians didn't have reasons to take the Baltics, Poland, and Moldavia, and while they were certainly total assholes, and probably would have done everything they did in less ambiguous circumstances anyway if they felt they could've gotten away with it, I can definitely see the impulse to push into Eastern Europe and keep the Nazis as far away from the USSR proper as possible.
The Soviets were stupid with Bessarabia and northern Bukovina, though (maybe the Russians weren't, but the Soviets definitely were). Rumania was in a state of civil war, and the USSR pushed its own enemies into power with its foolish territorial grab. It moved the axis back 100 miles and forward 400 miles. The Soviets weren't just total assholes, they were moronic total assholes.
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2011, 02:40:18 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 30, 2011, 02:28:55 PM
I dunno, I'm with the Russians on this. It's not like the Russians didn't have reasons to take the Baltics, Poland, and Moldavia, and while they were certainly total assholes, and probably would have done everything they did in less ambiguous circumstances anyway if they felt they could've gotten away with it, I can definitely see the impulse to push into Eastern Europe and keep the Nazis as far away from the USSR proper as possible.
So their big solution was to attack all their neighbors and destroy every opponent the Germans had in Eastern Europe eh? Well the results sure justify the idiocy of their plan.
What opponents? Poland? Blame that one on the Poles, who refused any defensive pact with the Soviets that would allow Soviet forces to move into Poland and actually, you know, fight Nazis. (See also, Baltic states.) Not that I don't understand Poland's position, and maybe I'd have been a dick like Jozef Beck too. (Except for the part about him taking German bribes. I looked him up just now basically to recall his name--but that's new. That wasn't information available when I was doing my thesis on the M-R Pact back in 2006.)
Quote from: grumblerThe Soviets were stupid with Bessarabia and northern Bukovina, though (maybe the Russians weren't, but the Soviets definitely were). Rumania was in a state of civil war, and the USSR pushed its own enemies into power with its foolish territorial grab. It moved the axis back 100 miles and forward 400 miles. The Soviets weren't just total assholes, they were moronic total assholes.
I'm a lot less knowledgeable about the Romanian invasion than events further north. Was it more possible to have a working alliance with the Romanians than with the Poles or Balts? Or even keep them neutral?
Still, this is probably not the most diplomatic thing for the Romanian President to say. Part of the art of Diplomacy is to avoid saying the offensively obvious truth. It's true the Romania was a tough position in the the 1940's and if it didn't invade the Soviet Union it probably would have been invaded by the Russians anyway.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 30, 2011, 03:09:26 PM
What opponents? Poland? Blame that one on the Poles, who refused any defensive pact with the Soviets that would allow Soviet forces to move into Poland and actually, you know, fight Nazis. (See also, Baltic states.) Not that I don't understand Poland's position, and maybe I'd have been a dick like Jozef Beck too. (Except for the part about him taking German bribes. I looked him up just now basically to recall his name--but that's new. That wasn't information available when I was doing my thesis on the M-R Pact back in 2006.)
The Poles knew that if the Russians moved troops through Poland they probably would have stayed. Poland was also pretty much screwed.
Anyway, with regard to the OP: is there ever any time when Russians aren't angry? :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2011, 03:14:59 PM
Anyway, with regard to the OP: is there ever any time when Russians aren't angry? :hmm:
five seconds or so before they pass out from alcohol poisoning.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 30, 2011, 03:09:26 PM
What opponents? Poland? Blame that one on the Poles, who refused any defensive pact with the Soviets that would allow Soviet forces to move into Poland and actually, you know, fight Nazis. (See also, Baltic states.) Not that I don't understand Poland's position, and maybe I'd have been a dick like Jozef Beck too. (Except for the part about him taking German bribes. I looked him up just now basically to recall his name--but that's new. That wasn't information available when I was doing my thesis on the M-R Pact back in 2006.)
Romania, Yugoslavia, Greece, and so forth. All the countries interested in the status territorial quo. The Soviets either attacked them themselves or gave the Germans their blessing to destroy them. And I am totally sure the Finns would have joined the Germans if Stalin had not attacked them...because you know preparing to fight Nazis is a perfectly logical time to take care of border disputes. Yeah totally the motherfucking Poles fault.
Russians are always in the wrong.
I think Ide's naive American soft spot for the Soviet Union and Communism in general is pretty cute. Keep it up.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 30, 2011, 03:09:26 PM
(Except for the part about him taking German bribes. I looked him up just now basically to recall his name--but that's new. That wasn't information available when I was doing my thesis on the M-R Pact back in 2006.)
Never heard of it. Link?
Quote from: Ideologue on June 30, 2011, 03:09:26 PM
I'm a lot less knowledgeable about the Romanian invasion than events further north. Was it more possible to have a working alliance with the Romanians than with the Poles or Balts? Or even keep them neutral?
I don't think the Soviets could have gotten the Rumanians to declare war on Germany, but with tacit Soviet backing the government might have survived rather than being overthrown by Ion Antonescu. The Soviets were too busy sucking Nazi cock to recognize their opportunity, though, and it might not have worked. What is sure is that Soviet toadying to the Nazis killed any chance that Rumania wouldn't see the Nazis as better allies than the Soviets.
Quote from: Sahib on June 30, 2011, 03:50:47 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 30, 2011, 03:09:26 PM
(Except for the part about him taking German bribes. I looked him up just now basically to recall his name--but that's new. That wasn't information available when I was doing my thesis on the M-R Pact back in 2006.)
Never heard of it. Link?
Its from a Russian history source, the History Foundation (http://historyfoundation.ru/ru/news_item.php?id=2114) via "Red Ant Liberation Army News" (http://redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/polish-minister-of-foreign-affairs-jozef-beck-was-recruited-by-the-nazis-in-1938/). The spin placed on it by the Russian "historian" in this piece makes me suspicious, but if the original transcripts are real and translate this way, I certainly could believe it.
Actually, Russian historians tend to be the best in the field. Russian history is a very dynamic field, whereas for example American history tends to be very stale.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2011, 03:14:13 PM
The Poles knew that if the Russians moved troops through Poland they probably would have stayed. Poland was also pretty much screwed.
They effectively would have been annexed the minute Soviet troops stepped foot in Poland. That's how Uncle Joe rolled.
Did I miss Ide becoming a Stalin apologist or is it a new thing?
Quote from: Martinus on June 30, 2011, 05:26:14 PM
Did I miss Ide becoming a Stalin apologist or is it a new thing?
It got worse after he went to law school.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 30, 2011, 03:09:26 PM
I'm a lot less knowledgeable about the Romanian invasion than events further north. Was it more possible to have a working alliance with the Romanians than with the Poles or Balts? Or even keep them neutral?
During the Munich crisis, Romania agreed to let Soviet troops have access through Romania to get to Czechslovakia to support the Czechs, so I'd say yes, even though they did put a lot of limits on the Soviets.
Incidentally, Poland apparantly actually threatened to attack Romania if they actually allowed the Soviets passage, which doesn't at all detract from your point that the Poles were dicks about the whole business.
Quote from: citizen k on June 30, 2011, 05:29:36 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 30, 2011, 05:26:14 PM
Did I miss Ide becoming a Stalin apologist or is it a new thing?
It got worse after he went to law school.
You can't blame him. We've all confused lawyers with Stalinists.
Quote from: Sahib on June 30, 2011, 03:50:47 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 30, 2011, 03:09:26 PM
(Except for the part about him taking German bribes. I looked him up just now basically to recall his name--but that's new. That wasn't information available when I was doing my thesis on the M-R Pact back in 2006.)
Never heard of it. Link?
It's on Beck's Wikipedia page. I make no claim about the veracity of it, like I said it's the first time I heard of it.
Quote from: dps on June 30, 2011, 05:59:26 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 30, 2011, 03:09:26 PM
I'm a lot less knowledgeable about the Romanian invasion than events further north. Was it more possible to have a working alliance with the Romanians than with the Poles or Balts? Or even keep them neutral?
During the Munich crisis, Romania agreed to let Soviet troops have access through Romania to get to Czechslovakia to support the Czechs, so I'd say yes, even though they did put a lot of limits on the Soviets.
Incidentally, Poland apparantly actually threatened to attack Romania if they actually allowed the Soviets passage, which doesn't at all detract from your point that the Poles were dicks about the whole business.
Indeed.
Anyway, I don't think I'm a "Stalin apologist," only that I recognize that the USSR was in a very bad position in 1939 (largely because of Stalinist rule), and the inability of the Western Allies to recognize and allay Soviet fears of being abandoned (which were pretty well-founded), and the inability of Poland to trust the USSR (albeit with exceedingly good reason), is what permitted a Nazi near-conquest of the continent. This was, both at the time and today, generally considered a bad thing, especially since it led to what no one, other than Stalin, ever wanted--the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.
I'm glad Poland got raped in '39.