Rumanian Stalingrad Survivors?

[19KUBAN43]

Are there any books/documents available from Rumanians who served in the Stalingrad sector, particularly those who served in Soviet POW camps?

[dragos03]

Yes. You can find some of them here:

http://www.worldwar2.ro

[Victor Nitu]

Yes, there were several books/articles published.
I personally interviewed a long range reconnaissance observer shot down and taken prisoner near Stalingrad and then interned in several camps (until he signed into the Soviet sponsored ), but unfortunately I did not have the time to transfer it from tape.

[the.warlord1944]

i`m reading stalins kriegsgefangene.
it`s called stalins pow`s translated in english.
There many info about german and rumanian pow`s.

the rumanians were more brutal towards survival than the germans.
in this book there`s a story that on a ferry at a rivercrossing that rumanian pow`s were kicking german pow`s of the ferry and the russians only laughed at it.
the germans drowned.

very shitty living conditions,deseases etc. told by veterans who were there and survived 12 years forced labour...........

[Victor Nitu]

the rumanians were more brutal towards survival than the germans.
in this book there`s a story that on a ferry at a rivercrossing that rumanian pow`s were kicking german pow`s of the ferry and the russians only laughed at it.
the germans drowned.

Upon retreating from Stalingrad there were cases of German soldiers kicking Romanian soldiers trying to get on the trucks and leaving them behind. There are different types of people everywhere.

[the.warlord1944]

i`m not trying to say that the germans were better than the rumanians.

dont misunderstand me.
what i do take in vain is that in 1944 they went over to the russians.
that was a backstab (my personal view).
for 3 years they fought alongside each other and then you`re fighting each other.
war brings out the worst out of people.

[Victor Nitu]

Alliances are made when two countries have common interests. This happened in 1940, when Germany had strategic objectives in Romania and Romania needed insurance against a Soviet/Hungarian invasion. This is how the situation presented itself when Hitler offered guarantees to Romania and then Romania joined the Axis. In 1944, however, it was obvious that Germany was in no position to fulfill its guarantees. Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina were practically lost, but there was still NW Transylvania, which could be recuperated, not to mention avoid turning the rest two thirds of Romania into a battlefield. There was no reason to die along with Hitler. So Antonescu was toppled and the King asked for an armistice. The German troops were officially given 15 days to retreat, but I do not think anyone really thought they would do so peacefully. The Romanian declaration of war against the Axis came after the Luftwaffe bombed Bucharest. General gerstenberg tried to establish a new government with force, but his troops were defeated.

These are the facts. Sure, the Germans thought that it was a "stab in the back", but that was their selfish view on the events, seen through the way their interests were served. If one would try to see the bigger picture, one would notice that things are not exactly black and white and there are different ways to look at events. From a Romanian selfish perspective, there was no point in fighting in other people's lost war.

Practically every ally Germany quit the war or at least tried to do it. Even in Germany itself there were some that tried to assassinate Hitler and get out of the war.

[the.warlord1944]

Still a backstab in my personal view .
The Rumanians profited from the Germans when they were of no use they joined the winning force .

When you see the comeradship amongst the foreign vollunteers.
Belgians,French,Danes,Dutch from the ss volunteerunits they fought till the end because they stood for something and they rather die than to change their views.

That`s why i respect the Vietcong also .
And that`s what made them to winn the war.
They never surrendered and fought untill every enemy force went away.
First the Japanese
Then the Frence
The the Americans

[Victor Nitu]

Still a backstab in my personal view .
The Rumanians profited from the Germans when they were of no use they joined the winning force .

You make it sound like Nazi Germany was a charity fundation. Nothing was for free trust me and Germany took advantage of its hegemony in the area.

When you see the comeradship amongst the foreign vollunteers.
Belgians,French,Danes,Dutch from the ss volunteerunits they fought till the end because they stood for something and they rather die than to change their views.

You said the magic word: volunteers. Foreign volunteers are one thing, Axis allies are something else. Those people were not fighting for their countries.

[Tomis]

Yeap,it is better to stay and die with the loosers for a cause it is not your,instead of trying to rescue what can be rescue.
Germany atacked the Soviet Union to help Romania?Nope...we simply had the same enemy in that moment in time.

[Helmut Von Moltke]

hah. I see another of those heated debates of foreign volunteers, etc. What hyprocrisy. The foreign volunteers joined the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS to fight against the Soviet Union, whose influence and aggression was a threat to Europe and their native countries, so in a sense they were defending their coutry against Bolshevism by fighting with the Germans. Also some, like the Wallonians volunterred, so the Germans would recognise and respect their countries more, after their coutnry's name was in the mud after their occupation by the Germans in 1940. In a sense they were succesful in doing so before the German surrender. The Wallonians raised the name of Belgium to legend through pain and suffering at the Battle of Cherkasssy in 1944, the Flemish at Grenadier hill, etc, all the European nationalities at the Battle of Narwa. The Eastern volunteers of the Wehrmacht and Waffen - SS fought for the liberation and safety of their countries under Soviet occupation. Truly an accomplishment, and not true treason, considering that most of them did not fight against the Western Allies, etc. A person is NOT really a traitor in my sense, if he fights conventionally within the rules of war for what he thinks is best for his country, future, loved ones, and continent. The Romanians probably fought against the Soviet Union, considering that they were next to the beast and the Bolsheviks had already grabbbed off some of their land, Bessarabia.

Kevin

[sid guttridge]

Hi Guys,

Germany had guaranteed Romanian security in 1940, but couldn't keep its guarantee by Auguist 1944. In early 1944 Hitler had promised to keep a lot of armour to protect Romania, but withdrew most of it in mid summer. At their meeting of early August 1944 Antonescu had asked Hitler for certain guarantees. Hitler was unable to give them. Therefore Germany's guarantee of Romania had no more validity.

Romania didn't actually switch sides directly. It reached a separate armistice with the USSR and gave the Germans time to withdraw from the country (much like the Finns). However, within a day the Germans attacked Bucharest. Romania therefore declared war on Germany.

There was no "back-stab".

Cheers,

Sid.

[Helmut Von Moltke]

hi Sid, not exactly true, as Anotnescu was overthrown. He was more hard line, and probably would not have agreed to the armistace. So in a certain way, yes, it was a back stab.

Kevin

[dragos03]

Indeed, there was some backstabbing involved. Germany gave two Romanian provinces to Stalin in 1940, by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, trading millions of Romanians to the Red Beast for its own political purposes. Later in the same year, they forced Romania to secede another province to Hungary and one to Bulgaria.

In 1944, Romania simply declared its neutrality after it was obvious that all was lost and the Soviets were approaching the capital. And the Germans replied by attacking Bucharest. Yet another backstab.

Not to mention the absolutely incompetent German High Command, which placed two Romanian armies in a suicidal position in 1942, against all the warnings of Antonescu. Or the incompetent Gen. Friesssner, whose disastrous leadership during the Yassy-Kisinev Operation in 1944 led to the Romanian armistice and the loss of hundreds of thousands Romanian soldiers.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Helmut,

Why on earth do you persist in making posts about which you know virtually nothing?

Antonescu's regime had already negotiated the armistice terms with the knowledge of the opposition. The problem was that he was being indecisive as to when to implement them at a moment of gravest national crisis.

Romania did not stab Germany in the back. If anything, the reverse was true. As dragos03 correctly pointed out, Germany had shorn Romania of a third of her inter-war national territory in 1940 and then guaranteed what was left. However, by 1944 Germany could no longer guarantee what was left of Romania. It withdrew most of the armour it had promised to keep in Romania in March 1944 and in early August Hitler admitted to Antonescu's face that he couldn't guarantee Romania's air defence. Then the Red Army began to over run the country after 20 August.

Romania therefore had to find a diplomatic solution. This was an armistice with the USSR that allowed the Germans 25 days (I think) to withdraw from Romania without interference. The Finns negotiated similar terms less than a month later. In both case the Germans refused to withdraw and instead attacked their former Allies. If you are looking for a "stab-in-the-back", then Germany is where you need to search.

Cheers,

Sid.