The Flamanda Maneuver

hm i allmost thought that the V. Maracineanu boat didn't fit into the operation because no other source ever mentioned it.

according to P. Halpern's book the 2 barges (lighters? what's the difference btw? any native english speakers?) were empty, which would make sense because they were slow (carried by the current) and would be certainly hit a few times until they reached the bridge, most probably with HE ammo which would cause them to explode. and since nobody was on board how should the explosive be blown up once the boat reaches the bridge?

about the islands i'll try to make a screenshot from encarta.

QUOTE

quote:   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source Records of the Great War, Vol. V, ed. Charles F. Horne, National Alumni 1923   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ain't a german source and somehow i don't see a british/american having access and quoting german sources. the official army comuniquee says nothing like this.

I checked the book and I was right. The book is a collection of facts described by eyewitnesses. It is a chapter called “Mackensen’s Brilliant Campaign” written by General D. Wollman a “German military critic”; this is the text posted on the link (exactly the same words). This is in fact a “semi-official German statement”. I don’t know what it means. The others two contributors to the chpter are gen. Mackensen (a letter of 4-5 lines) and Winifred Gordon (British eye-witness in Rumania).

This is summary of the book (provided by our library):

“Source records of the great war; a comprehensive and readable source record of the world's great war, emphasizing the more important events, and presenting these as complete narratives in the actual words of the chief officials and most eminent leaders presenting documents from government archives and other authoritative sources, with outline narratives, indices, chronologies, and courses of reading on sociological movements and individual national activities; editor-in-chief, Charles F. Horne, PH.D.; directing editor, Walter F. Austin, LL.M., with a staff of specialists ...”

Other authors present the campaign very succinct, in a few words. What amazes me is the fact that the campaign of 1917 is not presented at all. The dissolution of the Russian army is presented very detailed, but Marasesti is not even mentioned.

Halpern book look pretty well documented (he even mentions Marasesti although the book is about the naval history of WWI). However, he expresses the doubts that the Romanian monitors could have reached Rahovo because of the barrages deployed against them, but Averescu didn’t call the monitors anyway.

i suspect the 1917 campaign is not mentioned because ...well from german view it wasn't a campaign. 1917 the goal was to knock out Russia, not Romania. the main goal of 1917 was to resist in the west (Siegfried line retreat) and to facilitate a breakdown of the russian army& society, which was to be archived by military and political means. in late august the situation was favorable. but the german army could not advance towards St Petersurg (or even take Riga) as long the entrance to the Riga gulf was in russian hands, which is the main reason for Operation Albion.

the main purpose of Mackensens attack in the Carpathians was to tie up as many reserves in the south as possible, to ease the attack and seizure of Riga. a breakthrough in Moldova would be a nice-to-have but there was never a serious enough commitment (compare it to Verdun or Gorlice-Tarnovo or even smaller actions) by the Central Powers to divert enough resources to archive a breakthrough, since the main focus, as i said was somewhere else.

but as a proof that the 1917 campaign was not completly ignored by german literature is Rommels book.

QUOTE

i suspect the 1917 campaign is not mentioned because ...well from german view it wasn't a campaign. 1917 the goal was to knock out Russia, not Romania.

The German offensives at Marasesti and Oituz were a reaction to the successful Romanian offensive at Marasti, which achieved an unexpected victory against the strong 9th German Army.

yes of course and it doesn't take away anything from the archivements of aug-oct. 1917 but since, as i said, Romania was not the main focus in 1917, the resources available were commited on the northen section, because threatening St. Petersburg would have a more desired result (knocking Russia out) than the theoretical possibility of occupying Moldova,

[quote]yes of course and it doesn't take away anything from the archivements of aug-oct. 1917 [/quote]

The crisis at Marasesti was over in August (19th August) with the Romanian counterattack at Razoare. The last German offensive was at Varnita and Muncelu(28 august-3 September); the last operation on the front was the unsuccessful Romanian and Russian, offensive at Ciresoaia (9-11 Sept). There were no operations in October.

The book I was talking about (the one that doesn’t present the battle of Marasesti) is a British book (not German): John Keegan “The first world war”. Actually according to him the Romanian occupation in 1916 allowed the Germans to continue the war in 1917 (because of the food requisitioned). It is not the first time I found such a claim. It appears that the British school regards the Romanian contribution as disastrous. Similarly they don’t agree with the border established after the war, denoting very poor knowledge about the actual situation.

I also had the feeling that the British historians generally do not have a friendly attitude towards Romania. However, I was very much surprised to find that The Times History of the War published by the London Times during WWI shows a quite objective attitude towards the Romanian participation to WWI and a good understanding of the reasons that led towards Romania's entry into WWI as well as the circumstances that forced her to conclude a separate peace with the Germans in 1918.

Furthermore, it minimises the importance of the German captures in Romania, both in terms of food and oil, and this is in strong contrast with J. Keegan's statement (brought to our attention by Petru) that the occupation of Romania in 1916 through the food requisitions allowed the Germans to continue the war in 1917. According to The Times History of the War the food warehouses were generally set on fire by the retreating Romanian forces and the oil fields were destroyed by a British officer (col. Norton Griffiths) who thus disabled the production for a long period.

On the other hand, it is true that by the Bucharest Peace Treaty of 7 May 1918 the Germans had secured a steady supply of both food and oil, but the provisions of this treaty referred to a post-war situation that had never materialised.

Dimitrie Dimancescu's recollections about the events at Flămânda.

The bridge at Flămânda (from a site on the The Romanian army during World War One)