Talk:Romania in World War II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Romania (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

January 2004[edit]

I am very uncomfortable with MihaiC's recent addition of hte sentence, "Jews in Bukovina and Bessarabia were accused that they supported in an active way the soviet takeover of that teritories." Normally, if a sentence with poor English grammar and usage were added to this article, I'd just fix the grammar, etc., but in this case my problem goes way beyond that:

  1. The statement is devoid of agency: "were accused" by whom?
  2. The statement is relatively ambiguous in the phrase "supported in an active way": does this mean "had an active presence" or "provided material support"? If the latter, it still begs for more concreteness.
  3. The statement makes no indication whether the accusations were accurate.
  4. Even on the unlikely assumption that they were accused of actions that really took place by unbiassed observers holding good evidence, it would seem to merit some discussion why Jews might reasonably have favored Soviet rule over that of a Romanian government allied with the Nazis.

I don't want an edit war. I'm leaving three days for Mihai or someone else to come in and deal with this. If this doesn't happen, I'll feel free to edit it myself, which will probably just consist of removing the sentence.

-- Jmabel 21:45, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I apreciate this Joe. It is my fault that I didn't provided details. I'll edit it out and put it back when I have enough info to make an uncontroversial pharse. From the books in romanian that I read I understood that in some localities romanian solders were harassed while retreating in 1940 after soviet ultimatum (they were under strict orders not to fire against soviet troops and had to retreat very quick). For some reasons (antisemitism could be one of them) jews' role in that was keep in mind more that others. I said "they were accused of" and not "they did that" because there weren't trials about that, but the general feeling was that jews from Bukovina and Bessarabia had helped soviets. A little truth (some jews did that, as well as some romanians etc), the desire of romanian to put blame on someone else for retreating without fight in 1940 and the posibility to action in a somehow anonymity on the front line, all that made that jews in the east were much more badly treated that the jews in the rest of the country.

-- MihaiC 15:00, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC+2)

Eight days later, Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Romania officially remained neutral, but leaned heavily toward the Axis Powers, allowing the Nazi German troops to pass through on their way into Poland.

That would imply either that Romania is located in the no man's land on the German-Polish border, or that I'm missing something related to where the German Nazi troops came from (maybe from Russia?). :) --Gutza 11:19, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I know that Romania allowed to some german units to attack Yugoslavia from Romania, but regarding Poland, I strongly doubt that we allowed any foreign troops to travel thru Romania. As far as I know polish government, their gold and even some solders fled thru Romania. MihaiC 16 Jan 2004

I'm frustrated now that I wasn't keeping better track of my sources when I wrote that, so I can't even say where it came from; it was one of my first entries in Wikipedia, and I hadn't yet realized the importance of noting sources. It could be wrong, but was not intended as disinformation. Looks like someone should give this article a thorough going over. Jmabel 22:23, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I believe that Mihai's version is on the mark. I'm going to replace the relevant passage with content from the (public domain) U.S. Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress Country Studies/Area Handbook Series, sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Army. The relevant passage is at I am also going to take the liberty of removing the "accuracy dispute" notation. Jmabel 07:08, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Carol II did NOT serve as regent for his son Michael from 1927 - 1930. He was in exile, having renounced the throne before Ferdinand's death. A three-man regency was created. Carol was allowed by the government to return in 1930 to serve as regent for Michael, but within days claimed the title of king for himself. This can be double-checked against any number of sources... like an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 18:18, 22 January 2004 (UTC)

This anonymous remark sounds right to me from my understanding of the period. Could someone who knows the history well rewrite to get it right? -- Jmabel 22:23, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Since no one else has weighed in, and I haven't found any reliable sources to sustain the version in the article, I'm going to make the change in question and take the liberty of removing the "accuracy dispute" with respect to this issue. For one of the many sites that says that Mihai's uncle, rather than Carol, served as regent, and that Carol was in exile with Magda Lupescu, see -- Jmabel 06:55, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There is no Ion Cantonese's but Ion Antonescu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killuminati9 (talkcontribs) 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


I've added an "accuracy dispute" notice to the article. If no one else soon addresses the issues raised above, I'll try to fix this myself. In any case, whoever fixes this should probably be explicit about references for the new version of the facts and if we can track down where the false statements came from it would probably be good to cite them as things we are specifically saying are wrong. -- Jmabel 22:31, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As discussed above, I believe I have now fully addressed the issues raised above in the article. I believe that the objections raised were both correct, and no one has refuted them in the three weeks they have been posted here. Accordingly, I have edited the article and removed the "accuracy dispute" notice. -- Jmabel 07:48, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

a lot of editing required[edit]

After a brief period of nominal neutrality, Romania joined the Axis Powers in June 1941

Romania stayed neutral until Carol II ratified the treaties that yielded Half of the country to foreign states. it looks like someone wants to suggest Romania was a hench state of the Axis. i'll edit it BIG, cuz i care for Wikipedia --criztu —The preceding comment was added by Criztu (talk · contribs) 17:30, 24 October 2004 (UTC)

  • It should be written Iasi and Chisinau instead of Jassi and Kishinev. The cities were part of Romania and the latter, today, is the capital of the Republic of Moldova. --deguef (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sentence needs work[edit]

The following recently added sentence is confusing: "Despite the Romanian de facto change of orientation on on August 23, this was only ratified with the Allies on September 12th due to external factors (USSR and the Great Britain negotiating terms)." I think this means "Romania's de facto change of orientation occurred on August 23, but was only recognized by the Allies on September 12th, the USSR and the UK negotiating terms in the meantime." Even then: negotiating terms with one another or with the new Romanian government? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:20, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, here's what I meant (and what I read): the king ordered the Romanian troops to stand down, cease its attacks against Allied (i.e. Soviet) forces and defend Romanian objectives against German attacks, should they occur (and they did). This happened on August 23rd. Therefore, the Romanians had in fact changed their position starting that date. Here's a quote regarding the period between August 23rd and September 12th from the book I used (my translation from Romanian):
"The delay in signing the armistice was not caused -- as it is said -- by USSR, in order to allow the Red Army to act in Romania as in an occupied country, but by... the Great Britain, which needed the approval of its dominions for the changes introduced, at London's suggestion, in the text of the armistice, which doesn't mean that the USSR, or more precisely the Red Army, didn't take advantage of this confuse situation of <<neither peace, nor war>>".
I hope this clarifies your questions. --Gutza 15:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Helped a lot, check my edits & make sure I got this right. Question: do we have someone to cite on this having shortened the war by as much as 6 months? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the edit sounds right, thank you! Unfortunately I don't have any specific person to cite for the shortening of the war -- the book I extracted this information from says "specialists generally agree that the war was shortened by approximately six months", or something to that effect. The logic is that the Carpathians would've bee reasonably easy to defend on one hand, and on the other Romania opened up two strategic axes for the Allies: the Balkans and the Central Europe. I have a couple of citations regarding the importance of the event (historian John Erickson and publicist Sigfried Kogelfranz -- let me know if you think those woul help, I need to Google them out in English as to avoid a double translation), but they don't actually estimate those six months. --Gutza 21:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I would say that your citation should be the secondary or tertiary source that says "specialists generally agree..." That's the authority you've got, after all. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:20, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll translate that paragraph this evening when I get home, and will post it here with the proper credentials. --Gutza 06:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Not a matter of translation, just of citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:02, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've inserted the title of the book, but I don't want to give an ISBN no. for now because I don't have the book in front of me and I don't know which edition I used (added a reference because it's better than nothing, anyway.) Will add proper edition and ISBN tonight. --Gutza 07:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

When you do turn that up, page number would also be good. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:01, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Done, both ISBN and page no. Thank you! --Gutza 18:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Lovely, I knew we'd get there! Duly NPOV'd. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:02, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


I do not see the quote passage that begins "Of all the allies of Nazi Germany…" on the page that is given as a citation. What is going on? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I cited the website with the whole report, rather than the specific chapter and page. It is from the "Executive Summary: Findings and Recommendations," page 7 (the very last link). Here is the link in English and Romanian. I will add the specific cite to the blockquote. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


Of all the allies of Nazi Germany, Romania bears responsibility for the deaths of more Jews than any country other than Germany itself.
According to a report released by the Romanian government in 2004, Romania killed at least 280,000 to 380,000 Jews in Romania and the territories it occupied
from Miklós_Horthy: After he was forced to abdicate, Hungarian cooperation resumed, and, ultimately, of the original 825,000 Jews before the war, 565,000 perished.

There's a contradiction between the first affirmation and the figures in the following two. bogdan | Talk 07:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

There isn't really a contradiction here, as even the two sentences indicate: Romania killed Jews, Hungary, primarily after it was German-occupied in 1944, deported them where they were killed in the death camps in Poland. Romanian forces carried out massacres, ran their own concentration camps, and directly carried out their own extermination program. Most of the deaths in Hungary came after 1944, when Germany had taken over the country, and Eichmann took control of the anti-Jewish program. Then, in cooperation with the Germans, Hungarian forces worked with the Germans to deport Jews, but did not engage in the same sclare of direct massacres and killings. This does nothing to excuse Hungary's massive collaboration, but the report is accurate, it was written by a large panel of experts, and was accepted by the Romanian government. --Goodoldpolonius2 13:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
As far as I know most of the Jews that Romanian forces killed were from Bessarabia and Ukraine. Usually the controvercy comes when Romania is held responsable for the deaths of Jews from Hungarian occupied part of Transylvania.MihaiC 04:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
The numbers given above (280,000 to 380,000) do not include the Hungarian deportations. They include the actions of Romanian forces and groups against Jews, primarily in Odessa, Bessarabia, Bukovina, Moldavia, and Dorohoi. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Recent large cut[edit]

Vasile recently cut* the bulk of this article, saying "pre war at pre war article". I don't necessarily agree—I think it is very hard to get any comprehension of Romania during World War II unless one looks at most of the reign of Carol II—but I won't argue. I've moved the material to Kingdom of Romania and added a {{cleanup}} tag there; the material needs to be integrated. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

* My link on "cut" above. (Didn't want Jmabel to think I went mad and started editing his comments, so I added this note as well.) --Gutza T T+ 20:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Territorial changes[edit]

This is a very nice article and the maps are excellent, however there is at least one map that is missing. From the 1930s or 1940 to 1945 Romania had lost northern Transylvania to Hungary in addition to the losses to the Soviet Union from the Nazi-Soviet Pact. A map showing this would be good. Also in the article there is no mention of the areas annexed by Romania between the Dnepr and Dnister (Nistria) rivers, which on some maps of the period are referred to as "Transnistria". A map (plus at least a mention of this) would make the article more complete. Also shouldn't "Transnistria" become a disambiguation page since there are two entities that share the name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 1 Jan 2006

On your last question: the overwhelming number of references to "Transnistria" will be to the present-day entity, so it should stay where it is, but if you are correct on this, we could create a Transnistria (disambiguation) and a Transnistria (WWII) to flesh out the other matter. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I know the majority of internet searches will bring back results for the present day entity, but just check out these two sites:

- 17:41, 7 January 2006

Again: I agree that both topics should exist. But when one meaning is considerably more common, it gets the unqualified name, and the disambiguation page gets "(disambiguation)" as part of its name. That's what we are faced with here. See, for example United States and United States (disambiguation). -- Jmabel | Talk 20:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

More cuts by Vasile[edit]

Vasile recently cut the following:

Historians disagree as to whether the continued pleas of Antonescu's Jewish former classmate Wilhelm Filderman had a major role in this, whether Antonescu calculated that western Romania was not sufficiently anti-Semitic to make deportation practical, whether he was unwilling to sacrifice the Jewish contribution to the Romanian economy, or whether he was simply hedging his bets.

Sounds absolutely correct to me though I don't have citations offhand; does someone else? In general, the article could use more explicit citation; I strongly recommend the new <ref> system, very easy to maintain. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


From the article: "In 1944 Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, had reached an agreement with the dictator of the Soviet Union Joseph Stalin on how to split up Europe between them after the war. Stalin was given a 90% share of influence in Romania.[1]" Techically true, but given that the Red Army was there in any case, not of much significance. Yalta may have mattered significantly for the fate of several countries, but it's hard to construct a scenario in which the Soviet Union would not have dominated Romania after occupying it. Also, if this stays: why single out Churchill and not mention Roosevelt? And, while we are on it, the Soviet Union, not Stalin personally, was assigned a 90% share of influence in Romania. - Jmabel | Talk 04:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The document is logged as "The dividing up of Europe, according to Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin (1944)", and placed under the Teheran conference section, not the Yalta section. This probably places the agrement in December of 1943 or January of 1944. Lacking further information on the consequences of this agreement I suggest we just let it stand as is in the text, as an isolated fact regarding the future of Romania, and make no judgement on it for now. It would of course be intresting to know what kind of leverage the West had on the USSR, and if it was, or could have been, used to influence the USSR on the fate of Eastern Europe. I recall reading somewhere that the Soviets could not have made the final offensive through Poland in 1944 without the massive amounts of U.S. supplied trucks. The Soviet logistics chain would not have coped without the Western aid. --Stor stark7 05:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Read the linked document, don't just look at the title. It (lightly) covers both the Tehran and Yalta conferences (both of which also included Roosevelt) and doesn't mention Romania at all (it is a pretty lightweight article, hardly worth waiting through all of the multimedia loading it takes to reach it). It was at Yalta, well after D-Day, that Europe was, arguable "carved up". (See our own articles Tehran Conference and Yalta Conference articles.) I stand by what I wrote. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
So, the scrap of paper was written on October 9, 1944. [2] (Yalta was not for another 4 months) I still think it is notable enough to be included in the text.--Stor stark7 Talk 21:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Deportation of jews in Transnistria[edit]

The Romanian jews and the jews from the territories occupied by Romania during WW II were deported not in the republic of Transnistria (or what is known today as Transnistria) but in a region between Dniester and Bug which was occupied by Romania in 1941.

Transnistria means the place "beyond Dniester". From this point of view both places named "Transnistria" are beyond of the Dniester. The place were the jews were deported was much larger then the actual Transnistria and did include for ex. Odessa.

In the map included in the article showing the Romanian territories during WW II the Transnistria in the period 1941-1944 is correctly represented between Dniester and Bug.

In the Report of the Commission leaded by E.Wiesel you can read: " Tighina Agreement On August 30, Transnistria’s status was finally resolved: The province was transferred to Romania, in keeping with Hitler’s promise to Antonescu. General Nicolae Tataranu of Romanian War Headquarters and General Arthur Hauffe of the Wehrmacht signed the “Agreement for the Security, Administration, and Economic Exploitation of the Territory between the Dniester and the Bug and the Bug-Dnieper.” " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monicad (talkcontribs) 08:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

See Transnistria (World War II), the link points now to this article. Mentatus 09:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


I have a question about how to break-up the material into sections, and how to add pointers to related articles. About a week ago, I split what I viewed as being too big a section ("Antonescu comes to power"), into 3 sections (that one, plus "The war on the Eastern Front" and "The bombing of Romania"). Each of the new sections was pointing to several pages, where the respective subjects are treated in more detail. Now, user has made a whole new batch of additions and/or re-organizations, of which I am not quite sure what to say (I only corrected a factual error, regarding what the capital of Romania really is). For one, a new section has been added ("The war comes to Romania"), whose title sounds rather odd, coming as it does two sections after "The bombing of Romania" (didn't the war come to Romania already, when it was bombed?). For another, some of the references to other articles have now been moved to the bottom, in a separate "See also" section, while other references have been left in the previous sections. I'd prefer the pointers be where they were (right there, in the narrower context), making navigation easier and more intuitive -- but, at the very least, things should be consistent. Any other opinions? Turgidson 14:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


Fixed abbrevations, like turning RIP into KIA and the others since "Killed in Action" sounds more better (and is official) than "Rest in Peace". Statistics are always useful, but gotta tell that I can't get a bit of this. What does it show? Romanian achievements 1944-5? Soviet-romanian cooperation? What? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuhlfürst (talkcontribs) 20:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Romanian achievements. --Alex:Dan (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

File:Romanian soldiers in Transilvania 1944.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Romanian soldiers in Transilvania 1944.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Roma in the Holocaust??[edit]

Seeing as how Romania is home to Europe's largest Roma population, and as the Roma make up a larger proportion of the Romanian people than any other country in the world, it seems ludicrous that the entry on "Romanian and the Holocaust" should focus only on the Jews in Romanian during the Holocaust, and not also include a discussion of the fate of the Roma in Romanian during the Holocaust, as we know that the Nazi ideology abhorred "Gypsies" about as much as it vilified Jews.

If anyone has any information on this subject, I would love for you to add it. I am currently researching a novel in which one of the principle characters is of partial Roma descent, and would like to know more about the fate of the Roma during the Holocaust in Romania; as a result, I should soon have more information on this subject myself, in which case I will add it myself when that time comes if no one else has done so yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CormanoWild (talkcontribs) 16:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, at least this needs to be added. This discrepance seems to stem from the fact that the term "Holocaust" is mostly used for the extermination of the Jews. For example, the "Final Report of the International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania" doesn't appear to mention Roma at all. --illythr (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
It actually does. In any case, some thorough coverage of the issue is on Ion Antonescu, but, yes, it belongs in other articles as well. The main one should be a Holocaust in Romania article (note the redirect), but who's got the time to write it? Dahn (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Whuh, you out-edited me by less than a minute there! Yup, it's there, I just looked into the wrong chapter.--illythr (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Still the fastest gun in the East!
Slightly off-topic (since we agree on the major issue, but for accuracy's sake): Neither Nazism nor Antonescu vilified Romani people "as much" as Jews. Nazism exterminated them, but not exhaustively so; Antonescu had a characteristic hysteric fit and wanted some-to-most Romani people expelled somewhere out of the country - some Romani people who were deported even had relatives serving in the Romanian army. In neither case are the number of victims and the percentages comparable, to the best of my knowledge. This comment of mine does not condone what happened, and of course does not skip over the terrifying antiziganism of Romania's recent history, wartime included. Dahn (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, added a summary line from the report to the article anyways. And yeah, kinda odd that the only two wikis to have a "Holocaust in Romania" article are the Hebrew and Russian ones. --illythr (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


"unaware that the currently dominant European power had already granted its consent to Soviet territorial claims in a secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, signed back in 1939."

This sentence cannot be more than a guess. Romania had secret services at that time, the story I grew up with was quite different around this subject. They tried to stay neutral, but the evolution of the territorial attacks from both directions did not allow for that. The impression the text leaves is different, it almost suggests they were dissociated from the Allies _anyhow_. This is more than interpretation, it is close to difamation, and sometimes used to this purpose.

"In summer 1940, a series of territorial disputes were resolved unfavorably to Romania, resulting in the loss of most of the territory gained in the wake of World War I."

This phrase is even more confusing. The series consists of two: The Viena dictate (which should be correctly called like this, since Jmabel rightfully notices that the term of award appears to be a Wiki neologism, that contrasts the very fact that these "awards" are clearly declared in the text as unlawful. This way the title suggests a rightfull, positve decision - and only at the end of the text a small section explains that the Allies regarded these decisions as unlawful since the very begining - this is very problematic!), and the "peace of Craiova, concerning the Cadrilater. Together these covered hald of Transilvania and a bit. The occupation of Bessarabia and Bucovina was not even a "dispute" - it was an occupation on base of the Hitler - Stalin treaty. More transparency would be welcome in this context. The impression left by the presentation, that Romania inclined towards Germany anyhow is tendencious and should not be encouraged by Wikipedia. Facts are sufficient to make clear the background of the country's decision. Maybe it helps to recall that the Iron Guard was put outside the law by Antonescu - while mentioning that this decision was not enforced from the beginning. But these are facts, and facts which help understand the fragility of Romania's politics during the war and its alience with the axis. PredaMi (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I wish more would know...[edit]

I really had enough of my country being called a satellite of Germany just because we waged war along with them. American "historians" treat us like we were fighting only because the Germans were forcing us, while we had our own, different agenda. I also don't think we were really part of "the bad guys". Are we at fault for invading Russia? I don't think so. The Russians took our lands and massacred our people, we had the RIGHT to fight back and do the same to them. I don't regret anything, not even the Romanian presence at Stalingrad. On the contrary, I think that was a matter of honor and justice, no matter who you are. you can't just take Romanian land and expect no consequences. Give Romania what is Romania's, or suffer the consequences. -_- Romanian-and-proud (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

IP edits[edit]

@Eik Corell: The recent IP edits are likely to belong to the banned user Romanian-and-proud. Pls see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Romanian-and-proud.3F. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)