Talk:Romanian armies in the Battle of Stalingrad

Annexation vs cession

User:Anonimu keeps introducing the word cession as describing the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, following the ultimatum of June 28, 1940. This is not correct: the right word is annexation. Quoting from the relevant article:

Annexation differs from cession, because unlike cession where territory is given or sold through treaty, annexation is an unilateral act where territory is seized and held by one state and made legitimate by the recognition of the international community. During World War II the use of annexation deprived whole populations of the safeguards provided by international laws governing military occupations. Changes were introduced to international law through the Fourth Geneva Convention that makes it much more difficult for a state to bypass international law through the use of annexation.

I hope this settles that issue. Let's not have any more pointless reverts, when the words that need to be used in this context are crystal clear, based on the historical record, and dictionary definitions of words. Turgidson 03:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The change of Bessarabia's sovereignity was not unilateral, since Soviet entered the territory only after Romania agreed. Thus cessionAnonimu 08:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Annexation under duress, after intimidation via ultimatum. Not "given or sold through treaty". Turgidson 12:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that's the main point, if somebody threatens me with a gun and I give him the wallet it's not because I agree that my wallet should belong to him -- it's called robbery at gun point, not sure what's the exact name for states, but it's probably not something like "agreed to cede" which doesn't reflect the situation at all. -- -- AdrianTM (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Who cares what you think.. on wikipedia we submit to reliable sources.-- Anonimu (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

So you couldn't find reliable sources that call that "annexation" or "occupation", is that the problem? -- -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to sources, Romanian government agreed to retreat from the territory, but avoided to use the word "cede" thus not agreeing with the ultimatum, Great Britain at the request of Romania agreed that this was only a temporary situation. -- -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Given by bilateral agreement, that, while not de jure a "treaty", was legal under internatonal law. Also, the agreement implies that a part of Northern Bukovina was actually sold.Anonimu 16:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The view from the State Department

Check out "Background Note: Romania", United States Department of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, October 2007. This is what it says, in crystal clear prose:

In 1940, the authoritarian General Antonescu took control. Romania entered World War II on the side of the Axis Powers in June 1941, invading the Soviet Union to recover Bessarabia and Bukovina, which had been annexed in 1940.

A peace treaty, signed in Paris on February 10, 1947, confirmed the Soviet annexation of Bessarabia and northern Bukovina, but restored the part of northern Transylvania granted to Hungary in 1940 by Hitler. The treaty also required massive war reparations by Romania to the Soviet Union, whose occupying forces left in 1958.

If this is not just about as official a source as it gets, I don't know what is. -- Turgidson (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's a politicized source. My sources had no interest in promoting a certain view, while a Government most of the time has an interest in supporting certain POVs. -- Anonimu (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am tired of this argument, any source that you don't like it's either "politicized" or "CIA spy" -- -- AdrianTM (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess the US department of state is the most neutral and accurate source there is... i'm wandering where did they put saddam's WMDs.-- Anonimu (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case they were an involved party, I wouldn't necessarily use the source from an involved party, unless they are no other alternatives. -- -- AdrianTM (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, but let's keep in mind that the US had not entered WWII when the Soviet Union annexed Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, in June 1940 (it only entered the war after the Attack on Pearl Harbor, on December 7, 1941), and was in no way an involved party in that annexation. The only other directly involved party that I can think of was Nazi Germany, which, according to a source quoted in the text (Istvan Deak's book) gave the green light: "the Führer ... now allowed his allies to seize Romanian territory." Turgidson (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You must have missed the aftermath.. Cold War i think they call it...Anonimu (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Info box

The info box reads "Battle of Stalingrad" but seems to include only Romanian participation. Thus, should the box be named something else, like "Romanians in Stalingrad" or something? Plus, there are Nazi German flag + other axis flags altho this is about only Romania. Some person with limited historical knowledge could confuse this with real stalingrad and believe that it was mainly Romania vs. Soviet battle. Kuhlfürst (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)