Your country was of enormous help to Hitler while attacking the USSR, and the retribution you had to "endure", given everything you did, was astonishingly mild. So spare me your complaints.
The only reason for why Romania joined the Axis, is because of the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact [1] between Hitler and Stalin from 1939, which amongst other things, for us it meant yielding control of Basarabia and Bucovina to the soviet union. This provided the perfect opportunity for the Romanian parliament to be dissolved and for a military dictatorship to seize power in Romania, which is the one responsible for joining the Axis.
But yeah, thanks for bringing that up - goes to show that what goes around comes around ;-)
Man, it's 2014, the people that did anything in WW2 on both sides are long dead.
And in the context of that time, "the Allies" included Stalin's Russia (read some history, this tyrant killed more of his own people than there were victims of Hitler's holocaust!), so choosing to support Hitler's Germany against an alliance that included Russia was not necessarily a bad idea at that that time, even morally and ethically speaking.
And concerning post-war "retribution" as a way to handle international relationships after a war: basically the only reason Hitler himself came to power in Germany was because this country had to endure an extremely harsh "retribution" post WW1 so maybe the people that made this harsh post WW1 deal really deserved the killings and destruction of WW2! Post WW2 western European countries all benefited from something called the Marshall Plan from the US and of decades of productive cooperation in the EU, regardless of who did what in WW2, whereas the "Eastern Block" countries all got to endure "retribution" and being part of the unhealthy forced economy of the USSR.
International politics is something that should be taken separately from concepts such as "fairness" and "correctitude" and "punishing someone for one's bad deeds". You don't punish a whole people for the consequences of what a leader decided, even if they followed that leader. You try to rebuild countries and economies, regardless of what seems "fair" or not, and you try to accelerate economical growth, even if this even means letting 1 in 10 war criminals get away. You optimize social and economical systems for performance so that they can provide the best average "quality of live", even if this means swallowing some shady politics once in a while and occasionally "forgetting" some historical truths when remembering them is not "productive".
Thankfully the US, UK and modern Germany get these basic principles right, and I really hope they will have as much of an influence as possible on international politics, in the detriment of Russia and China who, despite the immense economic growth of the last, haven't really gotten to the level where they really understand what "healthy modern democracy" is all about and know how to play "the game" and also make the people happy.
"You try to rebuild countries and economies, regardless of what seems "fair" or not"
The problem here: after the cold war, which Russia lost, nobody cared to rebuild its economy; instead everything was done to siphon people and resources away and to destroy industry. Obviously US really did not want to see Russia on the map anymore and so they did that.
Guess what - 20 years pass, Russia is angry like a non-mortally wounded wild animal.
I'm not a fan of mr. Putin but he's very cautious still. With someone less cautious it WILL look like pre-WW2.
And of course it will be a disaster for everyone involved.
First of all, the cold war wasn't a real war, but a competition between the US and Russia. Russia's loss was that they overspent resources they couldn't afford to spend. Russia is also really big and has all the resources it needs to recover from anything. In such a scenario I don't understand why would anybody assume that, if it had been given international help, they would be any different than what they are today.
Second of all, if they lost the cold war, I don't get why they'd want another one. Putin is only cautious because he knows that in such a scenario he will lose. And Putin's nationalistic behavior only happened because Russia was on the brink of another economic recession.
"Russia is also really big and has all the resources it needs to recover from anything"
Sure, but industries will be destroyed and people die, starve and be forcibly relocated. That's what happened to ex-USSR a lot because the rest of world did not see any reason to rebuild a country that in fact yielded to them.
You are free to "don't understand", but the damage I mentioned was done. Don't then be surprised when people you considered harmless want to nuke you for all the good. All the good that, strictly speaking, you did not have to do.
"Second of all, if they lost the cold war, I don't get why they'd want another one"
If Germans lost one world war, why would they want another one?
You don't have to be a centenarian to have fought in WWII. Plenty of them around.
Stalin killing fascists was a good thing. You are retelling a good story but the West, always working on its narrative, does not tell the truth.
And Japan and Italy? Axis powers were trying to join the imperialist game of u.s. and britain of land grabbing colonies. Hence WWII was an inter-imperialist war.
After WWII you get many Third World countries trying to break away from Western puppet governments, colonialism, by flying the red flag.
A lot of the fascist collaborator countries, including Baltic states and Ukraine, are still proud of their support of fascism. The West turns a blind eye to this as its promotion of democracy is a political tool, which is a farce considering the dictatorships it creates and supports like Saudi Arabia.
To me such lines sound like the soviet propaganda we were listening to until the nineties. The communists basically needed enemies, like all good oppressors do and so they were blaming fascism and imperialism for everything.
