You are saying that giving up a chunk of their territory because Germany told them so does not mean Romania was under Germany’s control. That is the quality of your post. Pretty much the same quality in everything else you wrote (like for example what you wrote about the Einsatzngruppen troops)

Alas, you are mistaken.

Simply put: there's a huge difference between being outright conquered, occupied, and subject to the control of a puppet regime (like Poland, Ukraine, Greece), and the local regime proactively deciding to form an alliance (as did the governments of Hungary, Finland, and Romania). Even if that decision was made under a considerable degree of duress.

That's just the basic storyline of the war. And it's all I have time for. But trust me, just take another look at the basic event chronology and you'll easily see why.

Yes, I'm saying that being forced to make concessions to a more powerful ally doesn't make them "entirely under the control of Germany". Furthermore, the loss of territory you mentioned was before the coup that put Antonescu in power and had Romania join the Axis.

You wrote your initial comment stating a patent falsehood: that Romania was "basically under German occupation". It was under nothing of the sort. Their fascist dictatorship eagerly helped the Germans and it's officially considered part of the Axis (just not one of the major three powers).

> (like for example what you wrote about the Einsatzngruppen troops)

Romanian troops participated in the Odessa massacre and, as one of the Axis nations other than Germany most involved on the Eastern Front, participated in Einsatzkommando actions.

And the point still stands: Romanian Jews certainly don't remember the Germans "fondly".