Romania during WW2

[Admiral Alder]

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but.....

Whilst not strictly a Wargames related question, I know that most Wargamers are often very well read, and make an excellent knowledge bank.

A friend of mine is struggling to research Romanian Resistance and Collaboration, I was wondering if anyone on here knew of any books which might help, having exhausted my limited WW2 knowledge.

[former user]

this is a very complicated topic, due to it being constantly reinterpreted.

What languages does Your friend read?

[former user]

this is a very complicated topic, due to it being constantly reinterpreted.

What languages does Your friend read?

anyway there is this country study
http://countrystudies.us/romania/22.htm
by U.S. Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress, courtesy of the rather acceptable Wiki article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania_in_World_War_II
should be a useful entry

beware of soviet/communist propaganda or nationalistic apologetic explanations of afterwards.
Regardless of the shade of dictatorship, royal or faschist, Romania had interests of its own in the invasion of the SU, the left movement was rather thin, basically was either incarcerated or fled to Moscow. Therefore the term "collaboration" is rather inappropriate for the brother-in-arms of the Wehrmacht until 23 August 1944, as ist the term "resistance" overrated and more a child of the romanian socialist movie industry.

[carlos marighela]

I know it has its critics but Axworthy's 'Third Axis, Fourth Ally' is probably the most accessible English language tome on Romania's war effort. I don't think it makes any serious mention of Romanian opposition, save for the period from 1944 on when Romania defected from the Axis.

[Cubs]

There's an illuminating section in a book called 'A Man Called Intrepid', about the intelligence services and the role Romania was playing in the lead-up to being drawn into the Axis.

The picture the author paints is one of a reluctant Romania forced into an impossible position with the Soviets on one side, the Axis on another and the Allies too geographically remote to help them. They wanted to be left alone and stayed neutral as long as possible before being threatened into taking what they thought was their least bad option.

[Gothic Line]

 I do have some books on the army etc but not about the resistance...although I can say the book "Reluctant Axis" is a great read!
 www.gothiclineminiatures.com
 Gui

[Doomhippie]

There's an illuminating section in a book called 'A Man Called Intrepid', about the intelligence services and the role Romania was playing in the lead-up to being drawn into the Axis.

The picture the author paints is one of a reluctant Romania forced into an impossible position with the Soviets on one side, the Axis on another and the Allies too geographically remote to help them. They wanted to be left alone and stayed neutral as long as possible before being threatened into taking what they thought was their least bad option.

Fits perfectly to what I've read in a book about German counterinsurgency activities in WW II. There was a statement about Romania that basically said something like "Romania's heart beat for France but the mind saw better chances with Germany". the book itself is very crappy, written in an adventure like style. Still the author seemed to have got that right.

[Cubs]

Aye. Recent events in the Ukraine have shown that every nation has its extremists and when the brown stuff hits the fan, a minority can seize power whilst the majority of moderates are paralysed into inaction, either by indecision or events outside of their control.

Imagine the Romanian government being told by the Soviets, "Join us or we'll invade," as the left-wing extremists sharpen their knives; then they're told by the Nazis, "Join us or we'll invade," as the right-wing extremists sharpen their knives. After seeing what happened to Greece, it's hardly surprising that Romania didn't see joining the Western Allies as a realistic option, whilst being sandwiched between the other two factions.

[former user]

Yes, I agree in principle with that, only it is a bit out of context in this case. One could see Spain in a neutral way You described, with factions actually competing for political power, or maybe France, in the interwar years. But not Romania. They had a good deal of fascist and right-wing nationalism before being part of the Axis, and they were anti communist in the first place. The King had become openly faschist authoritarian ruler by overthrowing the constitution in a coup d'etat 1938 himself, before Romania suffered setbacks from the Hitler-Stalin pact. Before this he had played nationalist and anti-semitic parties for his own interest, and even pacted with the iron-guards whom he later abolished, very much like Hitler did with the SA. Only after 1940 the next coup d'etat ocurred, when the  Marshal Antonescu took over and joined the Axis.
So, no. Romania was an imperialist country itself, faschist and anti-communist,  (any left wing political movement was banned in 1924 by anti-constitutional death penalty, much earlier than in Germany or Spain, all politicians were incarcerated) participated in the holocaust by it's own initiative and on a scale only overshadowed by Germany, fielded the second-largest army that invaded Soviet Russia and signed the peace treaty afterwards as a defeated country. It is only due to it being part of the Warsaw pact that history has been reinterpreted a bit, but that was soviet propaganda.

I would see Romania as taking the opportunity to settle things with the soviet union by joining germany, not being coerced to participate.  They just did not feel strong or mad enough to start it on their own, like Italy, probably because they were so close to the SU.

[Cubs]

And yet they actively cooperated with the Allies in aiding Polish refugees escape right up the moment they signed up to the Axis. Spain was also Fascist and they remained neutral. The example is a good one, since (as in Spain) just because the ruling party was Fascist, doesn't mean there wasn't a strong Communist undercurrent too - in fact the anti-Communist policies suggest that Romania's government feared them enough to try to stamp them out.

When I talk about the nation of Romania in this way, I don't necessarily just refer to its government or its policies.

[former user]

I understand
well, I can't engage into retrospecting about the romanian people. But there might have been romanian neutrals or non-nationalists as in Germany.
Then, from what I know, the Polish forces evacuated into romania were fleeing from the arch-enemy, the soviets.
As to the spanish communists after the SCW, I read a lot about  Nationalists taking revenge and exterminating a lot of them and their relatives and also about refugee camps in France, so there might be a scale dissonance in Your comparison.

Anyway, I have good reason to see Romania as a fully comitted Axis member that turned the moment the Allies overran them, just like Italy. And I very much doubt that the two romanian armies that invaded the SU, participated in the round-up and extermination of partisans and jews behind the lines (I am leaving out the massacre of Odessa 1941 under Romanian control) and were later annihilated in Stalingrad were coerced into participating or accepted it for the better political reasoning....

[Cubs]

Nope, I won't argue with that either. Once they finally jumped in the Axis bed, they were willing partners.

[former user]

I wonder whether the OP has got the Info required, since we've been drifting about quite some