Mulțumesc mult Stefan!!! Seeing my nation given the spotlight by you about this very unstable period of it's history has been great. I'm really glad at how you managed to show how Romania was both a victim and an agressor, something that should not be hidden. We may have had no better option, but the hate of many of my countrymen was there long before. I hope you can come visit Bucharest or any place of beauty in the future, have a great day! :D
Great video Stefan! I'm glad that you covered some bits of the history of Romania. It had a really convoluted history between 1939 and 1944. It was so weird that even Antonescu and co. almost went in a civil war with the romanian Legionaries, both of which were supposed to be on the same Axis side.
The Iron Guard also scrapped with their supposed "Brothers in arms" in the National Christian Party. One of things they disagreed on was the treatment of Romania's Jews. Codreanu & co wanted nothing less than a full on "Final Solution", while the NCP favored a more "incremental approach". Totalitarians, as a general rule, will fight with each other over the slightest disagreement. The Iron Guard vs the NCP was a fascist version of the fight between Stalinism vs Troyskyism in the USSR, or the "Mountain" vs the Girondins in Revolutionary France.
They didn't have much choice by 1940. Poland has fallen, and France as well... Various neighbours have taken Romanian territory. Germany at least didn't want to annex Romania and might help them recover lands taken by Soviets.
Wow. Thank you Stephan for sharing information that is not covered in school. Your videos are very insightful. Once again thanks . Hope you have a happy easter/ spring holiday. Stay safe
Thank you for another most interesting history lesson. Seems many country’s between German and Soviet borders were, as an old saying goes stuck between a rock and a hard place. Just can’t imagine how many leaders, politicians, etc and the general public were on edge. Not an easy time to be a part of. How does one choose when concerning your own country and country men?
The truth is that the Germans, for different reasons, even after the coup of King Michael against the Marshall, when the Romanian Army attacked the German army, did not do any war crimes or repression against the civilians, not like it happened in France and Soviet Union.
@@eedragonr6293 This is true, and not the same can be said about the Red Army ...Im not talking about Romania but about all the countries they passed through. Was an army of rapists and thieves. Not trying to justify any part of WW2 ..just saying when it comes to rapes... the Red Army was by far the "Superior", I mean they dont really teach this stuff in schools but if you truly read history then you know, they didnt even try to maintain some image, when it came to that and stealing from civilians.
@@L2Xenta true. About Romania, the people from the regions first invaded did not mention any rape but brutal war crimes against the young women too, a thing described also in Poland, so hardly to be doubted. The others had time to hide their women until the situation was stabilized. The occupation could be countered better than in Germany.
The situation reminds me of the Godfather film "My father made him an offer he couldn't refuse. Either his brains or his signature on the paper.". Talk about being subjected to death by dismemberment, they had no other options.
Thank you for shedding light on the interwar period and how Hungary & Romania entered the Axis alliance. This subject doesn't get a lot of book or college coverage, sadly (in the US).
Hope you cover more Romanian topics in the future. I love it when I see foreign coverage and perspective on Romanian history, especially for popularizing. Also, it is the first time I hear somebody saying Antonescu was a pragmatist. :)) If you dwell more on his biography, you will see it was hardly the case: he delayed the armistice negotiations with the Allies way too much and killed a lot of Jews without a real reason. Finally, it is that diplomatic blunder, when he declared that he hoped that the USSR will be finished, while the West would win the war. This, while being allied with Germany. :) P.S. Everybody should drink a shot whenever you say „however”. :)
Not at all. A pragmatist is somebody without a set ideology who only wishes to do whatever is needed, no matter how contradictory so long as it helps towards reaching their end goal. Antonescu didn't delay anything, he simply refused to sign a peace treaty UNLESS he had guarantees that the Soviet Union will not occupy Romania after the war, it was a smart move on his part. The problem was that the allies promised King Michael that INDEED, there would be NO Soviet Occupation of Romania after the war, which as we all know, ended up being a lie. Unfortunately, his participation in the holocaust, along with Hungary's were all part of a political game between the two of winning Germany's favour, in the hopes of being backed in the Transylvania issue after the war. Hitler had stated multiple times that the status of Northern Transylvania could be revised if Antonescu contributed enough (whatever that meant) to the war effort. For what other reason do you think Romania would've contributed with a bigger army than that of Italy's to WW2? Why do you think Hungary would've mobilised 1 million men aswell had it not been about keeping their gains? The USSR falling and the West storming Berlin would've been the absolute BEST CASE SCENARIO that history could've gone down with during WW2, it is the most pragmatic way wishing things would go for someone who wanted to keep Romania's territorial integrity at the time. All of the things you listed describe a pragmatist perfectly, which is what Antonescu was. What ruined his efforts was the fact that the Western Allies were quite frankly NOT interested in liberating Eastern Europe, so Antonescu's wishes of both an allied victory coupled with an Axis and USSR defeat were impossible.
@@wallachia4797 I agree partly with your arguments. However, since you mentioned Hitlers promise to return Northern Transylvania, you highlighted a contradiction of character: Antonescu wanted guarantees regarding the Soviets not occupying Romania, yet he never really bargained with obtaining similar guarantees concerning Northern Transylvania. Also, Antonescu wanted to obtain conditions to preserve the prewar borders, which the Soviets refused time and time again. Antonescu had a background in diplomacy at Versailles and knew the importance of a signed document vs verbal promises. Heck, he was the prime minister. Then, the Transnistrean administration was not part of the game played with Hungary for a better status, since Hungary REFUSED to deport Jews before 1944, whereas Romania had its OWN concentration camps and extermination policy and refused to send anyone to the German camps. It was a governorate established more like the German military rule in the rest of Ukraine - to Romanianize or exterminate every non-Romanian. The only „game” played between Hungary and Romania was concerning the military and even then, Romania had oil and larger demographics, so it was uneven. Also, Hitler preferred a smaller, better trained and equipped Romanian army and Antonescu gave cannon fodder, at the expense of his popularity. In the Western historiography, this „game” doesn't seem to be recalled from the Hungarian side, since Horthy pretty much obtained everything he wanted by May 1941. And most Hungarian politicians, except the Fascists, did not understand the objectives of Hungary when declaring war on the USSR. Horthy's rule is more synonymous with stability than anything else, whereas Antonescu was bent on war from the start, whatever the cost. Finally, I want to address the Western interest in Eastern Europe. Everybody knew that by 1940, the West had no military prowess to face the Germans, let alone the Soviets. Antonescu could not obtain real Western support, not because the West was not interested, but because it did not have the resources to back it up. By March 1944, when the Soviets crossed the Romanian border, the Allies were barely marching in Italy and had limited logistical resources to back up their invasion of Europe. It was one thing to land a million men from industrialized and militarized England in France, and another thing from backwards Egypt or the ruined Italian peninsula. Later, in 1945, the British cancelled Operation Unthinkable because it was viewed as unrealistic if a showdown with the Soviets would have occurred.
@@georgecostan3248 In terms of Northern Transylvania, since Romania was already in the Axis sphere of influence, it was the best that he could get at the time, Antonescu had no other alternative than fight alongside the axis. For Transnistria, there never a policy of romanianisation instituted in there and the native slavic population remained untouched, the territory was never intended to be part of Romania, rather it was supposed to at best be traded back to Germany in exchange for further guarantees that they will not intervene in a possible Romanian-Hungarian war after Soviet collapse. I don't know where you got the "Romanianize or exterminate every non-Romanian" part from, I haven't seen any historians claim that, not even Russian ones which truly says a lot. Hitler didn't prefer a "better trained and equipped Romanian army" seeing as Germany constantly sabotaged the proper equipping of its Eastern allies OVERALL (Croatia, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania) and indeed always WANTED cannon fodder; something that is constantly criticized about the German war effort and is common knowledge. It was instead the leaders of these countries which preferred quality which they were unfortunately unable to provide themselves and wouldn't be provided by Germany either so again, I am afraid you got things quite backwards. Both Romanian and Hungarian politicians understood very well the implications of going to war with the USSR and only did so in the context of either preserving their gains or getting back their land respectively, nobody aside from Germany was "bet on war from the start" with the USSR as you are implying. For your last paragraph, you are contradicting yourself quite a bit. Why did the allies guarantee Romanian sovereignty to King Michael if they had no ability to enforce it as you said? Whichever way you fold it, the Allies were either NOT INTERESTED in liberating Eastern Europe, be it because they simply couldn't or because they lied that they would. Operation Unthinkable was cancelled because the at the time SOLE NUCLEAR POWER OF THE WORLD, the USA decided that it would be internally unwise to go on with an invasion of the Soviet Union. Overall you are coming to a lot of backward conclusions that go against the commonly accepted historical narrative. Antonescu and Romania's Axis interests were purely pragmatic, although the success of this policy can be debated.
@@wallachia4797 Hitler preferred at the beginning a smaller, properly trained Romanian army. The fact that over the course of the war, Germany failed to properly equip it is in line with the fact that the Wehrmacht did not initially believe the war would last beyond 1941. And realistically, Germany could not equip and train a million men adequately from 1940 to 1941. But Antonescu had a choice to send an expeditionary force, at least at first, instead of a full blown ill prepared army group. Hungary did so at the beginning. As for the Allies, the guarantees given to the Michael were just symbolic. I wanted just to highlight the fact that it was not due to the common misconception of traditional spheres of influence split, but because of lack of resources to back up a proper guarantee. Also, Unthinkable was not realistically successful due to the Allied military presence in Europe being weaker than the Soviet ones. Neither Allied power had the power or the political support to start another war, although it could be garnered if the Soviets would have made the first step. But there is information that foreign Intelligence services helped the anti-Soviet resistance for a while. Finally, regarding Transnistria, the purpose of the supposed exchange is just not backed up by official documents, but by thoughts of Antonescu on how to approach the Transylvania question. Hitler never gave proper guarantees and Antonescu was never as firm with him as he was with the Soviets, even when it became clear that Romania was becoming a battlefield. There was never an agreement regarding Northern Transylvania, nor a reason given for why administering Transnistria was a better idea than just letting the Germans do it or deporting the Jews directly to Germany, instead of handling them themselves and administrating the conquered territory. More likely, Transnistria was a bait for Romania to silence its claims over Northern Transylvania and Antonescu was played like a fool. And he was one.
Loved it. There is this book I am breading by Vladimir Solonari a moldavian/romanian who wrote about the Romanian occupation of Transnistria/South-western Ukraine. It's title is this *A Satellite Empire: Romanian Rule in South-western Ukraine,1941-1944.* Maybe you could do a video based on it.
Transnitria was tagged into Rep of Moldova by Stalin in order to create friction between minorities. Same with North Bucovina and Ukraine, but ukraininans are a cut above the russians. Same I imagine throughout the socialist republics of the eastern block. I mean look at Prussia and Koenigsburg. When I was young and looking from medieval part maps into modern I was like, something looks off, where in Europe am I exactly?
that is why, because for a time, Moldova fell under the Polish Commonwealth influence while Walachia was for the most under Ottoman influence. Moldova was considered the cultural center of romanian culture while Walachia was the warlike spirit (hence, Vlad the Impaler).
@@HistoryHustle it’s muffled and lacks clarity. But your content is brilliant especially where you consider history from the loser’s perspective! Great!
@@HistoryHustle did Bulgaria avoid the red zone despite being as neutral as you get in the Balkans? The whole affair of WW2 was 0 value for Romania as the soviets took Bessarabia before war declaration with Barbarossa and the Germans gave Transylvania to Hungary for free. Joining the SU was never an options as the russians were trouble ever since they became border neighbors during the Tzardom.
We had no choice since France was defeated and Great Britain was no more interested in defending us. Also, our territories which had a notable Romanian population had to be taken back since the population was treated horribly by the Soviets.
@@HistoryHustle Understood, I guess you're right on that, it's that we in the east got abandoned after the war and it was a hard process of reintegration back into the rest of Europe post-Cold War.
I have a translated book on the Brandenburgers and in the section dealing with Romania it talks of a joint British and French plan to sabotage oil wells with ball bearings. It goes on to explain how the Brandenburgers thwarted the plan. I don't have another source for this story, but if true it would indicate another reason for the choices Romania made.
Once again a great video, The axis was made out of countries that feared being being invaded by the Germans Thanks for this great video and keep it up :) Also, have you ever heard of the game: Hearts of Iron IV?
@@HistoryHustle as 1 ww2 lover to a other, It is a really good game, I will reccomend it, but that is your choise 2. It might be fun to make a History Hustle Discord server where people can talk
Antonescu's pragmatism in joining Germany seems logical, especially in order to have German protection against the USSR. However, Romania would eventually end up fighting USSR due to Barbarossa. How this would end probably was never envisioned by Antonescu.
@@CesaristChannel Antonescu was convinced on what a soviet victory would look and with the allied failures before El Alamein and Romania's geographic location can any1 blame him? Germany slowed down in 1942 before Stalingrad so would it have been that far off that a stalemate a wee further easter than Moldova would lead to cease of hostilities? Just like the end of WW1 ended with a small independent Ukraine as Antonescu did not accept to take the administrative district formed around Odessa despite Hitler not wanting the germans to deal with it.
‘After Romania entered the war at the start of Operation Barbarossa, atrocities against Jews became common, starting with the Iași pogrom. According to the Wiesel Commission report released by the Romanian government in 2004, between 280,000 and 380,000 Jews were murdered in the Holocaust in Romania and the occupied Soviet territories under Romanian control, among them the Transnistria Governorate‘
Nice, dont forget to mention that Romania fought in ww2 from Caucaus to Prague, losing as much soldiers on both being axis and ally (because soviets deliberately ran the RoArmy to the ground) Also Romania is the only country in ww2 to invade mainlands of both USSR and Nazi Germany. And one of the very few to conduct combat actions as ally and as foe with USA, Nazi Germany, USSR. Honestly ww2 romanian history is a bit underrated. Also its said Romania was the third axis power and the fourth allied power in ww2 With the allies, it had the 4th army in europe after ussr, usa and the british. Also 4th place on losses. And yes, RoArmy fought 2500km east to present day Chechnia to Czechoslovakia most notably Prague (which was part if the third reich proper)
Kind of a coincidence as I ran into someone the other day who was in utter denial that was the horror of the Soviet Union during the 1920s-50s. How Soviet Aggression drove so many countries into the arms of Nazi Germany, an very similar scenario you see today in Eastern Europe with NATO... Russia wants it's former soviet republics not to join NATO but acts in a way that drives those former republics literally into NATO's arms. Issue was the Soviet Union did the same thing. Listed off all the territory/countries Russia forcefully annexed, and nations she went to war with between 1919-1940. Because he didn't seem to realize that the Soviet Union invaded or annexed so many countries prior to WWII. He actually thought and I dunno where he got it from but he literally acted as though many of these countries didn't even exist in the Interwar period, like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, he even tried to justify the invasion of Finland when I brought it up "Oh the Finnish aggressively banned communism." With my reply being "And I wonder why they'd aggressive ban communism when they had a hostile communist state right next door."
Giving the fact that most of NATO now and Japan who have a military alliance with the United States a NATO member were once part of the AXIS powers and now Finland want to join NATO because of what happen in Ukraine to Putin mind NATO is still AXIS
@@coreylevine3856 To be honest, Stalin wanted to join the Axis at one point to so... but Hitler's long term plans meant that was impossible any notion of which was pretty much rejected. But could you imagine? A German Soviet Alliance? Thought is scary, two raging collectivist ideologies joining forces.
the poles were legends. They did not manage to defend a 2 side attack in 1939. Same when Prussia and the gang previously pulled a wedgie on the Polish Commonwealth. The only nation I consider being dealt a worse geopolitical hand in recent centuries. First kingdom on my mind before year 1000 would be Middle Frankia and the Brittish Isle mash of kingdoms.
@@HistoryHustle Romania love Hitler? I mean, I know Romanians didn't exactly love Hitler, it was an alliance born out of need and desperation because of the fear of the Soviets but I bet there will be people who will take that seriously. The Internet is full of people all too willing to have terrible opinions. For example, a guy I talked with on the Internet once claimed that Eastern Europeans are "Nazis by birthright". That's a quote. Sure, the guy was your classical crazy lefty but I can see people seeing that thumbnail, maybe not even watching the video and jumping to dumb conclusions. For the record, I'm not saying you should change it because it's your work and I don't want you to feel like you should listen to other people what you should and shouldn't do on YOUR channel, I'm just saying that as a Romanian, it didn't sit very well with me. That said, I can't wait for the video about why Romania joined the invasion (it was very controversial at the time and it's still debated to this day) and I hope you'll cover Romania even more in the future.
Thanks for your reply. I did put an question mark at the end. It's also clickbait stuff. It should captivate people and encourage them to watch the video.
Long story short Romania joined the Axis for protection against the USSR who wanted Bessarabia and fellow Axis member Hungary who wanted to regain ALL of their lost territory which included a big chunk of Romania
Strongly recommend readers research "Corneliu Zelea Codreanu" There is also a history of Iron Guardists at Buchenwald and Stalingrad. The Germans preferring a puppet government to a Nationalist one. A very familiar story resonates now. 🇦🇺🙏
Thank you for this video. We had no choice. We were always western minded people, but when you’re in the middle of two evils you have to pick one. Still, what we did to the Romanian Jews and Gypsies is inexcusable. That is fully on us. But I am glad that Romanians never turned their weapons on Americans or any western countries. Even during the Cold War, though on paper we were adversaries, in practice we were pro west and anti-Soviet Union.
Romanian WW2 memory is diametrally opposed to the rest of Europe. The West has no memory of Soviet occupation, but of Nazi, while Romania has no memory of Nazi occupation, but of Soviet. Even the V4 and The Baltics have some memory of Nazi occupation. The Nazis weren't in Romania as an occupation force. Much like the Americans today, the Nazis were invited here, their presence being desired for the same fundamental purpose: Guard against Moscow.
Diametrally opposed to the rest of Europe is exaggerated. The country has similarities with Bulgaria and Slovakia although indeed Romania has a unique story but so has every nation.
@@HistoryHustletrue, but Antonescu was not the scion of the nazi backed Iron Guard in the end. He did not aggree with their madness and brutally ousted them. They took refuge into Germany until Romania siding with the SU. Hitler left Antonescu for the promise of oil. Romania was still underdeveloped for its potential (mainly backwards agrarian but also some competitive modern industry) and it would instantly blow up all the oil refineries as a result letting the 3rd Reich out to dry. Antonescu's story started in WW1 and was a popular war hero, not just a random iron guard zealot but he was fanatically patriotic.
Thanks for covering Romania between the 2 WWs and WW2 itself. Few people outside Romania know Romania is not monolithic and there is quite a bit of difference between the two sides of the Carpathian mountains. I went to Romania during Ceaucescu era (yes many years ago) and I noticed that I encountered nicer people at the ex-Hungarian part of the country , and still have not figured out why.
Cuz Hungary been more civilised and had a higher cultural level than Romania Hungary formed transilvania as a central European region Romanian they only Balkanised it
It does look as if Romania was another case of caught between two alternatives and both of them pretty awful, Hitler on one side and Stalin and the other and in 1940 it was probably better to be on what looked like the "winning" side.
what winning side? Gobbled on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain. The victors stood at the negotiating table. Same story during WW1 when some leaders did not want to side with the Entente because the Russian Tzardom was in it. The difference is that the Tzardom collapsed before the actual negotiating table.
Good video. Could Romania (as well as Hungary and Bulgaria) done things differently, and not joined the Germans, or joined but not been so supportive? Doubtful. Geography was their enemy. The Germans would have steamrolled right through them. Take ding dong care.
Honestly most people in Ro agree that we just should have stopped on the Dniester river, and not go deeper into USSR. Also what most agree was to be done different, is to not give up Basserania without at least firing a shot.
@@healththenopulence5106 Even if we stopped at Nistru it wouldn't have made a differance and dont compare the situation with Finland they are very different and complex. Abandoning our brothers without a fight was a huge mistake, i doubt Germany would stand idle.
@@healththenopulence5106what shot fired? The funds for fortifications were used to party and the civilian government was inefficient. Why do you think the army was in shambles and not having at least light armored vehicles but only the artilery legacy since the birth of the nation? The airforce was somewhat an exception as it was trendy for the king to have his royal airforce and Romania had a tradition in early flight so not too far back despite poor financing. Look into (Industria Aeronautica Romana) IAR 80 mostly home made internal interwar design.
Romania is predominately Orthodox. Greek Catholics were a minority and most of the Roman Catholics in the country are Hungarians, who mainly lived in the territory that was given back to Hungary in 1940.
Hello pretty nice presentation, I would like to add some details. King Carol the 2nd of Romania decided to change the side after the France has fallen and occupied by the Nazis. France was our the best supporter, the Great Power that guarantee the territorial integrity. Romania did not have strong enough army to defend themself against USSR or Nazi Germany. So, Carol II, had a discussion with Adolf Hitler. After this discussion he named pro-German government, ruled by Ion Gigurtu, 04 July - 04 September. Ion Gigurtu accepted Vienna award in august 1940 in order to demonstrate that his loyalty to the Axis powers. That territorial loss created a big fury and big protests in Romania and Gigurtu government fallen. King Carol II appointed Ion Antonescu to be the successor of Ion Gigurtu, and King resigned in the favor of his son Michael. Antonescu arrested Ion Gigurtu for treazon. After a while he was released by Antonescu. This appointment was a surprise, because Antonescu criticized very much Carol when he decided not to defend Basarabia in June 1940.
@@HistoryHustle well... I say the strategy worked. As a little country smashed by 3 empires who for centuries fought on out land and tried to conquer and some even to delete us from earth surface since Romans invaded us. , i say all for all we are here, we have on of top 10 biggest countries in Europe by size and by population... So yea. In war you have to do all to save your people and country. Other may have lost all if in our place.
@@raduholenda7342 others would not have resisted the stress. And the Romanian Principalities were never conquered but had limited autonomy because no empire other than the Russian Tzardom wanted the headache. The russians did because the tzars obsessed over Constantinople and they did not care about ruling, only about size.
Is simple. Romania allied itself with Germany because the interests were common. Germany had to be supplied with oil, which Romania had, plus Germany knew that the Romanians were brave and more than that, at that time there was a head of state in whom Hitler had his personal base, namely Ion Antonescu, a Romanian patriot who presented a total guarantee. At the same time, Romania had lost territory and the union with Germany could recover the territories occupied by the neighbors who were always Romania's enemies!!! Antonescu was betrayed and there was a coup with the help of King Michael of Romania who was the mastermind of this coup. Antonescu was executed by a pre-made trial by the Russians on June 1, 1946, and King Mihai was forced by the Russians through the Romanian communists to abdicate and left Romania with his family, settling in Switzerland. Although Marshal Antonescu did not fully appreciate what Hitler was doing, he did not want to give up the alliance because Romania's enemy was the Russians. King Michael was lied to and driven out by the Russians. The Russians promised King Michael that if Romania left the alliance with the Germans they would get back their occupied territories, which did not happen because they expelled King Michael and communism was established in Romania through Dr. Petru Groza de actually one sent by Stalin to drive out King Michael and his family.
Romania did not take land from the Russian Empire. Before russians triggered events leading to the little union of 1856 forming the Romanian Kingdom, the Tzars carved the Kingdom of Moldova in half and named it Bessarabia. After the collapse and the madness of the russian red revolution unfolded, displaced border regions including Bessarabia held a referendum to join the Kingdom of Romania rather then be left alone in the chaos. Fast forward Ribbentrop-Molotov, the Soviets came back for Bessarabia in true russian fashion with a 24 hour ultimatum to vacate, same as later the hungarians. The Kingdom of Romania was in frozen conflict with the red russians since the red revolution kicked off during WW1, they killed their white officers and felt like spreading the glorious revolution abroad, had to be disarmed with booze and escorted outside the border. They were leaderless and disorganized, no stupid jokes.
@@HistoryHustle I think he tried to say that Romania couldn't stay neutral anymore after the North Transylvanian, South Dobrogea and Moldavia were annexed by other nations, so it had to seek protection from a larger military power, like it does now with NATO.
Sorry, but Romania didn’t take lands from anyone, if you claim yourself to be a history teacher you should know that Romania was always there and that the migrating people ( Russia, Slovakia, Hungary etc..) took land from Romania! What Romania did in the war world I and II was that she took back was was her’s from the beginning! Why do you spread lies!?!? I don’t understand why all the world hates Romanias with no reason whatsoever, and spread misinformation about Romanians all the time!!!???
The virulence of anti-Semitism in Romania was almost lava-heated. And this ghastly phenomenon was by no means restricted to the Iron Guard and Hora Sima. Antonescu may have eventually become fed up with the Guards continual provocations against the Army ( not to mention its leadership of a grotesque torture-murder ‘ festival ‘ in Bucharest and elsewhere, which involved even abattoirs as space for the literal butchery of even toddlers ), but not before he gave his troops carte Blanche to slaughter tens of thousands of hapless Jews in Romanian - occupied Odessa.
Yes , antisemitism was rampant in the country in the interwar period due to scapegoating from politicians that diddn't improve conditions. But was more of an elite thing, the general populace had neighbours friends and relatives that were jewish and diddn't agree with seeing theyr countrymen taken away. The Jews in basarabia were russian Soviet supporters and were specifically target by the gov as revenge and precautionary measure . But after the war changed its course in 42 the politicians started to revert the antisemitic policies due to opportunistic reasons. Also not all politicians up to that point supported antisemitism but that's another story. Overall romania regardless damaged its soul by participating in the holocaust, we take full responsibility for those events and for the events after ,where we basicly sold Jews to israel for pigs. Although not on par with germany in my view even a single life lost doesn't excuse the gravity of this behaviour and these things must never be forgotten and never be repeated and we must do everything possible to not let these kinds of things happen on the globe ever again, disgracefull.
The Romanian anti-Semitism was so lava-heated that Romania did not send any national Jew to the German concentration camps. A well known thing in Israel. It became lava-heated after the retake of the Moldovan territories occupied by the Soviets according to the Molotov - Ribentropp pact and the discovery of the mass graves of the Romanian population killed by the NKVD and Comintern, mainly Jewish. For those not knowing it, the Romanian Communist Party was mainly of "romanized" Jews, less Romanians. The most butchered by the Iron Guard were the considered traitorous Romanian politicians, guilty for losing the Romanian national territories. I am sorry for anyone asking privileges in a country in a war of attrition, more than Romanian PM and politicians killed by the Iron Guard. This brought their end. But I understand more and more the false image of the West on the Eastern European far - right and extreme right. Especially the views and attitude of D. Eisenhower. The Jewish Romanian community, mainly communists, who emigrated to Israel in the '70s, was around 400, 000 people, the biggest Jewish community before the emigration of the Russians, which says a lot of the holocaust there.
The ruthless massacre of Odesa has been a retaliation for the terrorist bombing killing the entire Head Quarter of the Romanian Army, which indeed was the fault of the Romanians who could have avoided it. It brought the execution of Antonescu and other Romanian politicians. While the communist butchers of the Romanians have never been executed.
@@stefanionutalexandru6916 check out the holodomer. genocides happen all the time, at least the Jews have a national socialist state completely funded by the U.S. now. hopefully someday after they build holocaust memorials all over the world will they be satisfied.
Learn more about non-Germans for the Axis Powers:
ruclips.net/video/F3BPW5WMmDo/видео.html
Your explanation of history is actually 100% reliable, that’s the reason i’m subscribed 😊 (🇷🇸❤️🇳🇱🇷🇴)
👍👍👍
Mulțumesc mult Stefan!!!
Seeing my nation given the spotlight by you about this very unstable period of it's history has been great. I'm really glad at how you managed to show how Romania was both a victim and an agressor, something that should not be hidden. We may have had no better option, but the hate of many of my countrymen was there long before.
I hope you can come visit Bucharest or any place of beauty in the future, have a great day! :D
An aggresor towards who?
@@MMerlyn91 the minorities inside our own borders, the Jassy pogrom is a clear example of anti semitism
Hi Robert, great to read your reply. I will one day return to the city to shoot more on location content. Best regards!
@@MMerlyn91 Uhm... the jewish population?
@@AkeN996 I don't think he was referring to the Jewish population, to be honest. It's why I've asked but it seems like he doesn't want to answer.
Great video Stefan! I'm glad that you covered some bits of the history of Romania. It had a really convoluted history between 1939 and 1944. It was so weird that even Antonescu and co. almost went in a civil war with the romanian Legionaries, both of which were supposed to be on the same Axis side.
Thanks for your reply.
Its not weird Alex because Antonescu was a apolitical general while the iron guard were fascists, they never got along.
The Iron Guard also scrapped with their supposed "Brothers in arms" in the National Christian Party. One of things they disagreed on was the treatment of Romania's Jews. Codreanu & co wanted nothing less than a full on "Final Solution", while the NCP favored a more "incremental approach".
Totalitarians, as a general rule, will fight with each other over the slightest disagreement. The Iron Guard vs the NCP was a fascist version of the fight between Stalinism vs Troyskyism in the USSR, or the "Mountain" vs the Girondins in Revolutionary France.
Those maps on the wall are always impressive to me. I really enjoy your efforts and passion for history.
Obrigado, meu amigo! 🇧🇷
Many thanks!
I would be interested to find out what the relationship was like between Romania/Hungary and Bulgaria when fighting together against the Soviets
Perhaps something for the future 👍
They didn't have much choice by 1940. Poland has fallen, and France as well... Various neighbours have taken Romanian territory. Germany at least didn't want to annex Romania and might help them recover lands taken by Soviets.
True. And there is more to it as always.. please watch the video if you haven't.
You are a great History Teacher and Explainer of Historical Events! Thank you!
Cheers!
Love this guy. Wish he was my history teacher. Great job. Great channel. I am subscribed and always will be.
AWESOME!
Thank you for another presentation of this tragic period.
Thanks Eleanor!
Stefan 👍 Great details to learn about and remember. Thank you for sharing you’re deep knowledge ✌️ stay safe 🇺🇸 ;) Jesse
Many thanks Jesse 👍👍👍
As usual: Another great video
👌
Wow. Thank you Stephan for sharing information that is not covered in school. Your videos are very insightful. Once again thanks . Hope you have a happy easter/ spring holiday. Stay safe
Happy Eastern!
@@HistoryHustle thank you professor
another great vídeo
🥉
Thanks, Stefan. A lesser known piece of WW2 history. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks Marcel!
You never get old enough to learn something new
👍
Thank you for another most interesting history lesson. Seems many country’s between German and Soviet borders were, as an old saying goes stuck between a rock and a hard place. Just can’t imagine how many leaders, politicians, etc and the general public were on edge. Not an easy time to be a part of. How does one choose when concerning your own country and country men?
For a large majority of Romanians, living under German dominion would be far preferable to being one of Stalin's serfs.
The truth is that the Germans, for different reasons, even after the coup of King Michael against the Marshall, when the Romanian Army attacked the German army, did not do any war crimes or repression against the civilians, not like it happened in France and Soviet Union.
Thanks for your reply Edward.
@@eedragonr6293 This is true, and not the same can be said about the Red Army ...Im not talking about Romania but about all the countries they passed through. Was an army of rapists and thieves. Not trying to justify any part of WW2 ..just saying when it comes to rapes... the Red Army was by far the "Superior", I mean they dont really teach this stuff in schools but if you truly read history then you know, they didnt even try to maintain some image, when it came to that and stealing from civilians.
@@L2Xenta true. About Romania, the people from the regions first invaded did not mention any rape but brutal war crimes against the young women too, a thing described also in Poland, so hardly to be doubted. The others had time to hide their women until the situation was stabilized. The occupation could be countered better than in Germany.
The situation reminds me of the Godfather film "My father made him an offer he couldn't refuse. Either his brains or his signature on the paper.". Talk about being subjected to death by dismemberment, they had no other options.
I understand.
Thank you for shedding light on the interwar period and how Hungary & Romania entered the Axis alliance. This subject doesn't get a lot of book or college coverage, sadly (in the US).
Same here.. thanks for replying!
@@HistoryHustle , You're very welcome, Professor!
Hope you cover more Romanian topics in the future. I love it when I see foreign coverage and perspective on Romanian history, especially for popularizing. Also, it is the first time I hear somebody saying Antonescu was a pragmatist. :)) If you dwell more on his biography, you will see it was hardly the case: he delayed the armistice negotiations with the Allies way too much and killed a lot of Jews without a real reason. Finally, it is that diplomatic blunder, when he declared that he hoped that the USSR will be finished, while the West would win the war. This, while being allied with Germany. :)
P.S. Everybody should drink a shot whenever you say „however”. :)
Hahaha, spot on George. That "however" became a thing. Thanks for your reply and more on Romania in WWII in the future.
Not at all. A pragmatist is somebody without a set ideology who only wishes to do whatever is needed, no matter how contradictory so long as it helps towards reaching their end goal.
Antonescu didn't delay anything, he simply refused to sign a peace treaty UNLESS he had guarantees that the Soviet Union will not occupy Romania after the war, it was a smart move on his part. The problem was that the allies promised King Michael that INDEED, there would be NO Soviet Occupation of Romania after the war, which as we all know, ended up being a lie.
Unfortunately, his participation in the holocaust, along with Hungary's were all part of a political game between the two of winning Germany's favour, in the hopes of being backed in the Transylvania issue after the war. Hitler had stated multiple times that the status of Northern Transylvania could be revised if Antonescu contributed enough (whatever that meant) to the war effort. For what other reason do you think Romania would've contributed with a bigger army than that of Italy's to WW2? Why do you think Hungary would've mobilised 1 million men aswell had it not been about keeping their gains?
The USSR falling and the West storming Berlin would've been the absolute BEST CASE SCENARIO that history could've gone down with during WW2, it is the most pragmatic way wishing things would go for someone who wanted to keep Romania's territorial integrity at the time.
All of the things you listed describe a pragmatist perfectly, which is what Antonescu was. What ruined his efforts was the fact that the Western Allies were quite frankly NOT interested in liberating Eastern Europe, so Antonescu's wishes of both an allied victory coupled with an Axis and USSR defeat were impossible.
@@wallachia4797 I agree partly with your arguments. However, since you mentioned Hitlers promise to return Northern Transylvania, you highlighted a contradiction of character: Antonescu wanted guarantees regarding the Soviets not occupying Romania, yet he never really bargained with obtaining similar guarantees concerning Northern Transylvania. Also, Antonescu wanted to obtain conditions to preserve the prewar borders, which the Soviets refused time and time again. Antonescu had a background in diplomacy at Versailles and knew the importance of a signed document vs verbal promises. Heck, he was the prime minister.
Then, the Transnistrean administration was not part of the game played with Hungary for a better status, since Hungary REFUSED to deport Jews before 1944, whereas Romania had its OWN concentration camps and extermination policy and refused to send anyone to the German camps. It was a governorate established more like the German military rule in the rest of Ukraine - to Romanianize or exterminate every non-Romanian.
The only „game” played between Hungary and Romania was concerning the military and even then, Romania had oil and larger demographics, so it was uneven. Also, Hitler preferred a smaller, better trained and equipped Romanian army and Antonescu gave cannon fodder, at the expense of his popularity. In the Western historiography, this „game” doesn't seem to be recalled from the Hungarian side, since Horthy pretty much obtained everything he wanted by May 1941. And most Hungarian politicians, except the Fascists, did not understand the objectives of Hungary when declaring war on the USSR. Horthy's rule is more synonymous with stability than anything else, whereas Antonescu was bent on war from the start, whatever the cost.
Finally, I want to address the Western interest in Eastern Europe. Everybody knew that by 1940, the West had no military prowess to face the Germans, let alone the Soviets. Antonescu could not obtain real Western support, not because the West was not interested, but because it did not have the resources to back it up. By March 1944, when the Soviets crossed the Romanian border, the Allies were barely marching in Italy and had limited logistical resources to back up their invasion of Europe. It was one thing to land a million men from industrialized and militarized England in France, and another thing from backwards Egypt or the ruined Italian peninsula. Later, in 1945, the British cancelled Operation Unthinkable because it was viewed as unrealistic if a showdown with the Soviets would have occurred.
@@georgecostan3248 In terms of Northern Transylvania, since Romania was already in the Axis sphere of influence, it was the best that he could get at the time, Antonescu had no other alternative than fight alongside the axis.
For Transnistria, there never a policy of romanianisation instituted in there and the native slavic population remained untouched, the territory was never intended to be part of Romania, rather it was supposed to at best be traded back to Germany in exchange for further guarantees that they will not intervene in a possible Romanian-Hungarian war after Soviet collapse. I don't know where you got the "Romanianize or exterminate every non-Romanian" part from, I haven't seen any historians claim that, not even Russian ones which truly says a lot.
Hitler didn't prefer a "better trained and equipped Romanian army" seeing as Germany constantly sabotaged the proper equipping of its Eastern allies OVERALL (Croatia, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania) and indeed always WANTED cannon fodder; something that is constantly criticized about the German war effort and is common knowledge.
It was instead the leaders of these countries which preferred quality which they were unfortunately unable to provide themselves and wouldn't be provided by Germany either so again, I am afraid you got things quite backwards.
Both Romanian and Hungarian politicians understood very well the implications of going to war with the USSR and only did so in the context of either preserving their gains or getting back their land respectively, nobody aside from Germany was "bet on war from the start" with the USSR as you are implying.
For your last paragraph, you are contradicting yourself quite a bit. Why did the allies guarantee Romanian sovereignty to King Michael if they had no ability to enforce it as you said? Whichever way you fold it, the Allies were either NOT INTERESTED in liberating Eastern Europe, be it because they simply couldn't or because they lied that they would.
Operation Unthinkable was cancelled because the at the time SOLE NUCLEAR POWER OF THE WORLD, the USA decided that it would be internally unwise to go on with an invasion of the Soviet Union.
Overall you are coming to a lot of backward conclusions that go against the commonly accepted historical narrative. Antonescu and Romania's Axis interests were purely pragmatic, although the success of this policy can be debated.
@@wallachia4797 Hitler preferred at the beginning a smaller, properly trained Romanian army. The fact that over the course of the war, Germany failed to properly equip it is in line with the fact that the Wehrmacht did not initially believe the war would last beyond 1941. And realistically, Germany could not equip and train a million men adequately from 1940 to 1941. But Antonescu had a choice to send an expeditionary force, at least at first, instead of a full blown ill prepared army group. Hungary did so at the beginning.
As for the Allies, the guarantees given to the Michael were just symbolic. I wanted just to highlight the fact that it was not due to the common misconception of traditional spheres of influence split, but because of lack of resources to back up a proper guarantee. Also, Unthinkable was not realistically successful due to the Allied military presence in Europe being weaker than the Soviet ones. Neither Allied power had the power or the political support to start another war, although it could be garnered if the Soviets would have made the first step. But there is information that foreign Intelligence services helped the anti-Soviet resistance for a while.
Finally, regarding Transnistria, the purpose of the supposed exchange is just not backed up by official documents, but by thoughts of Antonescu on how to approach the Transylvania question. Hitler never gave proper guarantees and Antonescu was never as firm with him as he was with the Soviets, even when it became clear that Romania was becoming a battlefield. There was never an agreement regarding Northern Transylvania, nor a reason given for why administering Transnistria was a better idea than just letting the Germans do it or deporting the Jews directly to Germany, instead of handling them themselves and administrating the conquered territory. More likely, Transnistria was a bait for Romania to silence its claims over Northern Transylvania and Antonescu was played like a fool. And he was one.
Love ur content one of the best historians on RUclips
Many thanks!
Love your channel. I'm glad your students have a great teacher. Keep up the great work 👍.
Great to read.
You are the best history teacher ❤
Many thanks!
Loved it. There is this book I am breading by Vladimir Solonari a moldavian/romanian who wrote about the Romanian occupation of Transnistria/South-western Ukraine. It's title is this *A Satellite Empire: Romanian Rule in South-western Ukraine,1941-1944.* Maybe you could do a video based on it.
Thanks for sharing.
The title is just wrong,Romania was never a satellite of Germany. Neither did Romania have imperial aspirations.
Transnitria was tagged into Rep of Moldova by Stalin in order to create friction between minorities. Same with North Bucovina and Ukraine, but ukraininans are a cut above the russians. Same I imagine throughout the socialist republics of the eastern block. I mean look at Prussia and Koenigsburg. When I was young and looking from medieval part maps into modern I was like, something looks off, where in Europe am I exactly?
Great content.
Thanks Dan.
Thanks. 😃👍
Thanks for watching!
Ploesti Oil Fields...closer than Baku.
Also true.
Bombed
Excellent time these days
Another excellent video!
Had no idea Poland and Romania once shared a border.
Thanks for commenting.
Prince of Transylvania was at one time King of Poland
that is why, because for a time, Moldova fell under the Polish Commonwealth influence while Walachia was for the most under Ottoman influence. Moldova was considered the cultural center of romanian culture while Walachia was the warlike spirit (hence, Vlad the Impaler).
Mans your channel stopped showing up on my recommendation so I had to search never forgot about you
Strange... Did you hit the bell button?
@@HistoryHustle indeed i did
Stephan, I love your content but you really have to improve your audio quality!
Whats wrong with it?
@@HistoryHustle it’s muffled and lacks clarity. But your content is brilliant especially where you consider history from the loser’s perspective! Great!
I see. Not sure what to do about it so quickly. Also, i've seen not much complains about it so far.
Hi Stefan your chanel is fantastic can u make some episode about Macedonia in ww2 and for lost romanian gold
👍👍👍
Stefan once again shining a spotlight on the all too often neglected parts of European history.
👌
Thanks for sharing this one 👍🇮🇪
👍
At the start you got the maps wrong, Romania already had southern Dobrogea. It didn't get it during ww1 but the second balkan war.
Really interesting one! 5:00 My last video is about that topic :) The Great Evacuation of 1939-1940
Very interesting!
Thank you 🙏 History will never be forgotten aslong as someone is willing to tell about it 💯👍
👍👍👍
Hello Stefan, I am back. For your information, my previous account was Hayley Baby Yu. I think you would remember that! Nice video too ! Keep it up!
Thanks for replying!
@@HistoryHustle 👍👍👍
Perfect short explanation! Thank you!
Romania had no other option in that point. Joining Germany actually helped Romania a lot.
In the short them perhaps, in the long term not really. Thanks for watching.
@@HistoryHustle did Bulgaria avoid the red zone despite being as neutral as you get in the Balkans? The whole affair of WW2 was 0 value for Romania as the soviets took Bessarabia before war declaration with Barbarossa and the Germans gave Transylvania to Hungary for free. Joining the SU was never an options as the russians were trouble ever since they became border neighbors during the Tzardom.
We had no choice since France was defeated and Great Britain was no more interested in defending us.
Also, our territories which had a notable Romanian population had to be taken back since the population was treated horribly by the Soviets.
@@superyamky It was always about protecting their empire nothing else.
Oversimplification. The last comment. The first one is spot on.
@@HistoryHustle Understood, I guess you're right on that, it's that we in the east got abandoned after the war and it was a hard process of reintegration back into the rest of Europe post-Cold War.
all things considered, we managed to save our most important regions so it's all good
At the end yes.
I think it would be interesting if you had an episode dedicated to Ion Antonescu, he's basically the Petain of the East.
I will in a month or so!
I have a translated book on the Brandenburgers and in the section dealing with Romania it talks of a joint British and French plan to sabotage oil wells with ball bearings. It goes on to explain how the Brandenburgers thwarted the plan.
I don't have another source for this story, but if true it would indicate another reason for the choices Romania made.
Interesting aspect!
you should do the nkvd relocations before wwii you will be amazed what you'll find and mass orders
Your point?
@@HistoryHustle it just reminded me of the attrocities before the second world war and people dont know bout it
Think anyone with a decent knowledge of history knows about it.
O i guess the CompUters have really advanced through the ages chek it out!
Once again a great video, The axis was made out of countries that feared being being invaded by the Germans
Thanks for this great video and keep it up :)
Also, have you ever heard of the game: Hearts of Iron IV?
Thanks. Have heard of the game. Don't play it.
@@HistoryHustle as 1 ww2 lover to a other, It is a really good game, I will reccomend it, but that is your choise
2. It might be fun to make a History Hustle Discord server where people can talk
Not into discord, sorry
200K here they come 👍
💪
Antonescu's pragmatism in joining Germany seems logical, especially in order to have German protection against the USSR. However, Romania would eventually end up fighting USSR due to Barbarossa. How this would end probably was never envisioned by Antonescu.
Indeed, more on him later. Thanks for watching.
On the contrary, Antonescu envisioned, and was convinced, that Germany would win. Too bad this did not happen.
@@CesaristChannel Antonescu was convinced on what a soviet victory would look and with the allied failures before El Alamein and Romania's geographic location can any1 blame him? Germany slowed down in 1942 before Stalingrad so would it have been that far off that a stalemate a wee further easter than Moldova would lead to cease of hostilities? Just like the end of WW1 ended with a small independent Ukraine as Antonescu did not accept to take the administrative district formed around Odessa despite Hitler not wanting the germans to deal with it.
for the love of god, i really enjoy your videos but you need to echoproof this room place or get a lavalier. Bless up.
I do have such a mic actually. See if I can make the room echo proof.
‘After Romania entered the war at the start of Operation Barbarossa, atrocities against Jews became common, starting with the Iași pogrom. According to the Wiesel Commission report released by the Romanian government in 2004, between 280,000 and 380,000 Jews were murdered in the Holocaust in Romania and the occupied Soviet territories under Romanian control, among them the Transnistria Governorate‘
More on that later.
Tweede "Yes yes yes" 🥈🏆🍾🥂👏🇳🇱
🥈
👍
🥇
Nice, dont forget to mention that Romania fought in ww2 from Caucaus to Prague, losing as much soldiers on both being axis and ally (because soviets deliberately ran the RoArmy to the ground)
Also Romania is the only country in ww2 to invade mainlands of both USSR and Nazi Germany.
And one of the very few to conduct combat actions as ally and as foe with USA, Nazi Germany, USSR.
Honestly ww2 romanian history is a bit underrated.
Also its said Romania was the third axis power and the fourth allied power in ww2
With the allies, it had the 4th army in europe after ussr, usa and the british. Also 4th place on losses.
And yes, RoArmy fought 2500km east to present day Chechnia to Czechoslovakia most notably Prague (which was part if the third reich proper)
More on Romania later👍
The quandary for Romania 1940-44 was when devils approach you to dance, which one do you choose?
It's explained in the video.
Famines during ww2 would be great topic too
One Day. Please stop spamming.
any prediction about the winner of today's Russia V USA war
We'll see.
Russia vs USA? Are they at war?
Nope.
Kind of a coincidence as I ran into someone the other day who was in utter denial that was the horror of the Soviet Union during the 1920s-50s. How Soviet Aggression drove so many countries into the arms of Nazi Germany, an very similar scenario you see today in Eastern Europe with NATO... Russia wants it's former soviet republics not to join NATO but acts in a way that drives those former republics literally into NATO's arms. Issue was the Soviet Union did the same thing. Listed off all the territory/countries Russia forcefully annexed, and nations she went to war with between 1919-1940. Because he didn't seem to realize that the Soviet Union invaded or annexed so many countries prior to WWII. He actually thought and I dunno where he got it from but he literally acted as though many of these countries didn't even exist in the Interwar period, like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, he even tried to justify the invasion of Finland when I brought it up "Oh the Finnish aggressively banned communism." With my reply being "And I wonder why they'd aggressive ban communism when they had a hostile communist state right next door."
Giving the fact that most of NATO now and Japan who have a military alliance with the United States a NATO member were once part of the AXIS powers and now Finland want to join NATO because of what happen in Ukraine to Putin mind NATO is still AXIS
@@coreylevine3856 To be honest, Stalin wanted to join the Axis at one point to so... but Hitler's long term plans meant that was impossible any notion of which was pretty much rejected. But could you imagine? A German Soviet Alliance? Thought is scary, two raging collectivist ideologies joining forces.
And Stalin, pragmatist as he became, wanted to join the Allies also.
@@HistoryHustle I know post Stalin the USSR also wanted to join NATO originally.
the poles were legends. They did not manage to defend a 2 side attack in 1939. Same when Prussia and the gang previously pulled a wedgie on the Polish Commonwealth. The only nation I consider being dealt a worse geopolitical hand in recent centuries. First kingdom on my mind before year 1000 would be Middle Frankia and the Brittish Isle mash of kingdoms.
Music distracts, detracts.
I see.
As a Romanian, I love the topic but the thumbnail kills me.
Please explain.
@@HistoryHustle Romania love Hitler? I mean, I know Romanians didn't exactly love Hitler, it was an alliance born out of need and desperation because of the fear of the Soviets but I bet there will be people who will take that seriously. The Internet is full of people all too willing to have terrible opinions. For example, a guy I talked with on the Internet once claimed that Eastern Europeans are "Nazis by birthright". That's a quote. Sure, the guy was your classical crazy lefty but I can see people seeing that thumbnail, maybe not even watching the video and jumping to dumb conclusions.
For the record, I'm not saying you should change it because it's your work and I don't want you to feel like you should listen to other people what you should and shouldn't do on YOUR channel, I'm just saying that as a Romanian, it didn't sit very well with me.
That said, I can't wait for the video about why Romania joined the invasion (it was very controversial at the time and it's still debated to this day) and I hope you'll cover Romania even more in the future.
Thanks for your reply. I did put an question mark at the end. It's also clickbait stuff. It should captivate people and encourage them to watch the video.
👍👍👍👍
👍
Long story short Romania joined the Axis for protection against the USSR who wanted Bessarabia and fellow Axis member Hungary who wanted to regain ALL of their lost territory which included a big chunk of Romania
Pretty much. History continues to resist simplicity. That's why I made this video.
Strongly recommend readers research "Corneliu Zelea Codreanu"
There is also a history of Iron Guardists at Buchenwald and Stalingrad.
The Germans preferring a puppet government to a Nationalist one.
A very familiar story resonates now. 🇦🇺🙏
Interesting topic yes.
@@HistoryHustle 👍🇦🇺
Try a coup against a military dictatorship and we will see how are you doing
@@eedragonr6293 I didn't say where my sympathies lie. I just recommended some reading for public consumption. 🇦🇺👍
Thank you for this video. We had no choice. We were always western minded people, but when you’re in the middle of two evils you have to pick one. Still, what we did to the Romanian Jews and Gypsies is inexcusable. That is fully on us. But I am glad that Romanians never turned their weapons on Americans or any western countries. Even during the Cold War, though on paper we were adversaries, in practice we were pro west and anti-Soviet Union.
I understand. Thanks for sharing this.
Romanian WW2 memory is diametrally opposed to the rest of Europe. The West has no memory of Soviet occupation, but of Nazi, while Romania has no memory of Nazi occupation, but of Soviet. Even the V4 and The Baltics have some memory of Nazi occupation. The Nazis weren't in Romania as an occupation force. Much like the Americans today, the Nazis were invited here, their presence being desired for the same fundamental purpose: Guard against Moscow.
Diametrally opposed to the rest of Europe is exaggerated. The country has similarities with Bulgaria and Slovakia although indeed Romania has a unique story but so has every nation.
@@HistoryHustletrue, but Antonescu was not the scion of the nazi backed Iron Guard in the end. He did not aggree with their madness and brutally ousted them. They took refuge into Germany until Romania siding with the SU. Hitler left Antonescu for the promise of oil. Romania was still underdeveloped for its potential (mainly backwards agrarian but also some competitive modern industry) and it would instantly blow up all the oil refineries as a result letting the 3rd Reich out to dry. Antonescu's story started in WW1 and was a popular war hero, not just a random iron guard zealot but he was fanatically patriotic.
Thanks for covering Romania between the 2 WWs and WW2 itself.
Few people outside Romania know Romania is not monolithic and there is quite a bit of difference between the two sides of the Carpathian mountains. I went to Romania during Ceaucescu era (yes many years ago) and I noticed that I encountered nicer people at the ex-Hungarian part of the country , and still have not figured out why.
Thanks for your reply.
Multicultural competitive diverse environment
Cuz Hungary been more civilised and had a higher cultural level than Romania
Hungary formed transilvania as a central European region
Romanian they only Balkanised it
@@GM-os6fo Nicolaus Olahus
Watching from 🇷🇴 Ion, not Aion.
Ok.
That's a magnificent beard.
It does look as if Romania was another case of caught between two alternatives and both of them pretty awful, Hitler on one side and Stalin and the other and in 1940 it was probably better to be on what looked like the "winning" side.
That's where it came down to.
what winning side? Gobbled on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain. The victors stood at the negotiating table. Same story during WW1 when some leaders did not want to side with the Entente because the Russian Tzardom was in it. The difference is that the Tzardom collapsed before the actual negotiating table.
@@cristibrad6742 Between Hitler and Stalln it was the best of two bad choices.
Blame geography.
Good video. Could Romania (as well as Hungary and Bulgaria) done things differently, and not joined the Germans, or joined but not been so supportive? Doubtful. Geography was their enemy. The Germans would have steamrolled right through them. Take ding dong care.
Indeed, I doubt it too.
Honestly most people in Ro agree that we just should have stopped on the Dniester river, and not go deeper into USSR.
Also what most agree was to be done different, is to not give up Basserania without at least firing a shot.
@@healththenopulence5106 Even if we stopped at Nistru it wouldn't have made a differance and dont compare the situation with Finland they are very different and complex.
Abandoning our brothers without a fight was a huge mistake, i doubt Germany would stand idle.
@@healththenopulence5106what shot fired? The funds for fortifications were used to party and the civilian government was inefficient. Why do you think the army was in shambles and not having at least light armored vehicles but only the artilery legacy since the birth of the nation? The airforce was somewhat an exception as it was trendy for the king to have his royal airforce and Romania had a tradition in early flight so not too far back despite poor financing. Look into (Industria Aeronautica Romana) IAR 80 mostly home made internal interwar design.
Romania joined because the
Roman Catholic Church said SO
Just like VIchy France
Romania is predominately Orthodox. Greek Catholics were a minority and most of the Roman Catholics in the country are Hungarians, who mainly lived in the territory that was given back to Hungary in 1940.
👍 exact
Thanks for pointing this out András.
Yeah but the people don't make the decision. The Pope did. The Vatican had strong political sway in every European country (besides Soviet Union)
@@vanpaul147 How the hell does the Pope dictates his will to an Orthodox Patriarch? Grow up, child!
For Oil Income and protection from Stalin
Spot on.
i guess they were more effective that italy
Yes
Hello pretty nice presentation, I would like to add some details. King Carol the 2nd of Romania decided to change the side after the France has fallen and occupied by the Nazis. France was our the best supporter, the Great Power that guarantee the territorial integrity. Romania did not have strong enough army to defend themself against USSR or Nazi Germany. So, Carol II, had a discussion with Adolf Hitler. After this discussion he named pro-German government, ruled by Ion Gigurtu, 04 July - 04 September. Ion Gigurtu accepted Vienna award in august 1940 in order to demonstrate that his loyalty to the Axis powers. That territorial loss created a big fury and big protests in Romania and Gigurtu government fallen. King Carol II appointed Ion Antonescu to be the successor of Ion Gigurtu, and King resigned in the favor of his son Michael. Antonescu arrested Ion Gigurtu for treazon. After a while he was released by Antonescu. This appointment was a surprise, because Antonescu criticized very much Carol when he decided not to defend Basarabia in June 1940.
Thanks for sharing.
lets say germany made Romania a godfather style offer they cant refuse
Pretty much yeah.
They were based.
I see.
No
Ok
Remember that Romanian King never signed the documents :)
Could be true right, yet he did suppport the Romanian invasion of the USSR.
@@HistoryHustle well... I say the strategy worked. As a little country smashed by 3 empires who for centuries fought on out land and tried to conquer and some even to delete us from earth surface since Romans invaded us. , i say all for all we are here, we have on of top 10 biggest countries in Europe by size and by population... So yea. In war you have to do all to save your people and country. Other may have lost all if in our place.
@@raduholenda7342 others would not have resisted the stress. And the Romanian Principalities were never conquered but had limited autonomy because no empire other than the Russian Tzardom wanted the headache. The russians did because the tzars obsessed over Constantinople and they did not care about ruling, only about size.
Is simple.
Romania allied itself with Germany because the interests were common.
Germany had to be supplied with oil, which Romania had, plus Germany knew that the Romanians were brave and more than that, at that time there was a head of state in whom Hitler had his personal base, namely Ion Antonescu, a Romanian patriot who presented a total guarantee.
At the same time, Romania had lost territory and the union with Germany could recover the territories occupied by the neighbors who were always Romania's enemies!!!
Antonescu was betrayed and there was a coup with the help of King Michael of Romania who was the mastermind of this coup.
Antonescu was executed by a pre-made trial by the Russians on June 1, 1946, and King Mihai was forced by the Russians through the Romanian communists to abdicate and left Romania with his family, settling in Switzerland.
Although Marshal Antonescu did not fully appreciate what Hitler was doing, he did not want to give up the alliance because Romania's enemy was the Russians.
King Michael was lied to and driven out by the Russians.
The Russians promised King Michael that if Romania left the alliance with the Germans they would get back their occupied territories, which did not happen because they expelled King Michael and communism was established in Romania through Dr. Petru Groza de actually one sent by Stalin to drive out King Michael and his family.
Why not watch the video instead?
Romania did not take land from the Russian Empire. Before russians triggered events leading to the little union of 1856 forming the Romanian Kingdom, the Tzars carved the Kingdom of Moldova in half and named it Bessarabia. After the collapse and the madness of the russian red revolution unfolded, displaced border regions including Bessarabia held a referendum to join the Kingdom of Romania rather then be left alone in the chaos. Fast forward Ribbentrop-Molotov, the Soviets came back for Bessarabia in true russian fashion with a 24 hour ultimatum to vacate, same as later the hungarians.
The Kingdom of Romania was in frozen conflict with the red russians since the red revolution kicked off during WW1, they killed their white officers and felt like spreading the glorious revolution abroad, had to be disarmed with booze and escorted outside the border. They were leaderless and disorganized, no stupid jokes.
Same reason it is NATO now.
Please explain.
@@HistoryHustle I think he tried to say that Romania couldn't stay neutral anymore after the North Transylvanian, South Dobrogea and Moldavia were annexed by other nations, so it had to seek protection from a larger military power, like it does now with NATO.
Sorry, but Romania didn’t take lands from anyone, if you claim yourself to be a history teacher you should know that Romania was always there and that the migrating people ( Russia, Slovakia, Hungary etc..) took land from Romania!
What Romania did in the war world I and II was that she took back was was her’s from the beginning!
Why do you spread lies!?!?
I don’t understand why all the world hates Romanias with no reason whatsoever, and spread misinformation about Romanians all the time!!!???
An angry nationalists folks, who gets pissed about a few words to write an angry reply.
But everybody loves the Russians
@@HistoryHustle We need to be wary of such people. They are the same kind supporting the russian invasion based on nationalistic rhetorics.
The virulence of anti-Semitism in Romania was almost lava-heated. And this ghastly phenomenon was by no means restricted to the Iron Guard and Hora Sima. Antonescu may have eventually become fed up with the Guards continual provocations against the Army ( not to mention its leadership of a grotesque torture-murder ‘ festival ‘ in Bucharest and elsewhere, which involved even abattoirs as space for the literal butchery of even toddlers ), but not before he gave his troops carte Blanche to slaughter tens of thousands of hapless Jews in Romanian - occupied Odessa.
Thanks for your reply. More on this later.
Yes , antisemitism was rampant in the country in the interwar period due to scapegoating from politicians that diddn't improve conditions. But was more of an elite thing, the general populace had neighbours friends and relatives that were jewish and diddn't agree with seeing theyr countrymen taken away. The Jews in basarabia were russian Soviet supporters and were specifically target by the gov as revenge and precautionary measure . But after the war changed its course in 42 the politicians started to revert the antisemitic policies due to opportunistic reasons. Also not all politicians up to that point supported antisemitism but that's another story. Overall romania regardless damaged its soul by participating in the holocaust, we take full responsibility for those events and for the events after ,where we basicly sold Jews to israel for pigs. Although not on par with germany in my view even a single life lost doesn't excuse the gravity of this behaviour and these things must never be forgotten and never be repeated and we must do everything possible to not let these kinds of things happen on the globe ever again, disgracefull.
The Romanian anti-Semitism was so lava-heated that Romania did not send any national Jew to the German concentration camps. A well known thing in Israel.
It became lava-heated after the retake of the Moldovan territories occupied by the Soviets according to the Molotov - Ribentropp pact and the discovery of the mass graves of the Romanian population killed by the NKVD and Comintern, mainly Jewish. For those not knowing it, the Romanian Communist Party was mainly of "romanized" Jews, less Romanians.
The most butchered by the Iron Guard were the considered traitorous Romanian politicians, guilty for losing the Romanian national territories. I am sorry for anyone asking privileges in a country in a war of attrition, more than Romanian PM and politicians killed by the Iron Guard. This brought their end. But I understand more and more the false image of the West on the Eastern European far - right and extreme right. Especially the views and attitude of D. Eisenhower.
The Jewish Romanian community, mainly communists, who emigrated to Israel in the '70s, was around 400, 000 people, the biggest Jewish community before the emigration of the Russians, which says a lot of the holocaust there.
The ruthless massacre of Odesa has been a retaliation for the terrorist bombing killing the entire Head Quarter of the Romanian Army, which indeed was the fault of the Romanians who could have avoided it. It brought the execution of Antonescu and other Romanian politicians. While the communist butchers of the Romanians have never been executed.
@@stefanionutalexandru6916 check out the holodomer. genocides happen all the time, at least the Jews have a national socialist state completely funded by the U.S. now. hopefully someday after they build holocaust memorials all over the world will they be satisfied.
👍
👍