|Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
|WorldWar2.ro Forum > Eastern Front (1941-1944) > Romanian Army's contribution in Crimea|
|Posted by: Dr_V October 11, 2003 12:09 am|
| I saw today a TV documentary (Discovery Channel) about the war in Crimea. When analyzing the strength of the German forces that attacked Crimea, the speaker said that the Romanian forces that were part of this force were fightin without any entusiasm because, after the Moldavian provences were conquered, the Romanians lost their interest in fighting on the East front. He also said that the fighting value of the Romanian division was insignificant, as the men were not motivated enough and they were poorly trained. The Romanians were described as one of the weeknesses of the Axes force.
This contradicts most of what I know about this subject. Discovery Channel often tends to alter the historical truth to mach the western point of view of the events in WW2. But I'm starting to have some doubts about the accuracy of the things I've read so far, maybe Romanians also tend to overestimate their contribution. Can you point me a book that covers this domain with an impartial point of view?
|Posted by: Victor October 11, 2003 06:23 am|
| Discovery Channel is not a reliable source of detailed information about WWII. I really doubt that the people who made the documentary actually researched the subject beyond von Manstein's Lost Victories, which is not a really accurate source. Probably they did not even bother to read Third Axis, Fourth Ally
The best book on the subject is by far Romanii in Crimeea by Adrian Pandea and Eftimie Ardeleanu, Ed. Militara, 1995. It is 3 quarters original documents. I do not feel that the authors exaggerated the Romanian contribution, as you think, but have kept a really professional and impartial attitude.
The fact that for 50 years the Western historians had access mainly to German archives and memoirs had created a very German view on the Eastern Front, leaving no room for the military accomplishments of the other players. Read the articles on Crimea 1941-42 on this site. I assure you I tried to be as impartial as I could and show the things how they happened.
|Posted by: Bernard Miclescu October 11, 2003 08:43 pm|
| Please Victor tell me what do you think about the book "Antonescu-Hitler Caucazul si Crimeea" by Jipa Rotaru, L Moise, T Oroian V Zodian???
Ed Paideia . Maybe it is written in the nationalist way by some army historians?
|Posted by: mabadesc October 13, 2003 03:53 pm|
|Does someone know where I can buy "Romanii in Crimea"? I've been looking for it everywhere. Any help appreciated....|
|Posted by: Victor October 13, 2003 05:34 pm|
The book is pretty balanced, IMHO. But it refers to the 43-44 period.
|Posted by: dragos October 16, 2003 11:19 am|
I saw almost all "Battlefield" documentaries about WW2, and the two about Crimea were some of the last I've seen. I think I was expecting a different approach however. IIRC in the "Kerch-Feodosiya" Operation (read about it http://www.worldwar2.ro/operatii/?article=5&language=en), Romanian troops are only stated once or twice.
I believe in the second part authors used as video material, sequences from black/white Soviet movies instead of original footage. There are also little footage with Romanian troops. I've seen 2nd part only once, but I have the impression that gunners firing the medium AT gun (50 or 75mm) at the landing Soviets are Romanians. But again, images are too dramatic to be real.
|Posted by: Benoit Douville October 19, 2003 01:57 am|
Manstein "Lost Victories" not a accurate source??? Huh? How can you say that?
|Posted by: Victor October 19, 2003 06:27 am|
|Simply becauseit comits many mistakes (I am refering here to the Crimea chapter) and leaves out a lot some information. As all memoirs, it is subjective.|
|Posted by: septimiu February 24, 2004 03:22 pm|
| "Simply becauseit comits many mistakes (I am refering here to the Crimea chapter) and leaves out a lot some information. As all memoirs, it is subjective."
It is interesting your point of view. How you can prove? I am speaking about mistakes and the fact that he leaves out a lot of information. Other books maybe?
|Posted by: petru February 24, 2004 04:38 pm|
Check the link Dragos posted. You will find something in there.
|Posted by: Victor February 24, 2004 08:22 pm|
Reports of Romanian units, commanders to the General Staff etc. Do not consider Manstein as infailable, because he was not. He wrote the book 10 years aftyer the war, IIRC, without having access to Romanian documents.
For example, he mentions gen. Lascar as commander of the 1st Mountain Division during the second siege of Sevastopol, when the man was CO of the 6th Infantry Division. Read the text first.
|Posted by: Indrid February 25, 2004 06:20 am|
this is weird. all documentaries i have seen on the discovery channell present hitler not as a lunatic ,stupid, mad, drooling , etc etc...which i think is the western view...
|Posted by: C-2 February 25, 2004 09:38 pm|
|Adolf Galland said the same :!:|
|Posted by: ragewolf February 27, 2004 06:32 am|
Manstein rate german army above anyothers. I remeber in his memoir,
he mentioned sometimes that Don't trust the hope with other Axis troops.
He also said, although romanian had a little battle effectiveness, but like
other East Europe people, they were naturally fear of russian.
So, this is the bias.
|Posted by: Dan Po February 29, 2004 02:40 pm|
In some ways german army was above anyothers. Manstein said too, in his book that the romanian army was the best allied of Germany in east and also, said that the romanian army do her best at eastern front (in ed romana " si-au facut datoria cat de bine au putut"). He talk about the weak quality and training of romanian NCO corp - in opposition with the traditional high quality of german NCO s; about poor motorization etc.
He said also that the romanians was weak in offensive operations ... Antonescu said that romanian soldiers can fight better in offensive than in deffensive ...
If I remember well Manstein have good words about romanian mountain troops who fought at Sevastopol s siege.
Anyway we have to considerate the difference of equipment and weapons between Werhrmacht and romanian army. At least like a retorical question ... Could fought the germans better with a romanian equipment and with a romanian weaponary ?
Is true that romanaians and another east europe peoples had a kind of naturaly fear of russians -? I don t think so ... :ro:
|Posted by: Florin February 29, 2004 05:28 pm|
| [quote]... He also said that the fighting value of the Romanian division was insignificant, as the men were not motivated enough and they were poorly trained. The Romanians were described as one of the weeknesses of the Axes force.
This contradicts most of what I know about this subject. Discovery Channel often tends to alter the historical truth to mach the western point of view of the events in WW2.....[/quote]
To make a bitter joke, it is a progress anyway. Usually in the documentaries made until recently the Romanian contribution was not mentioned at all.
Do not hope for too much fairness in the Western documentaries about WWII. In the recent or more distant past they underestimated the Soviet contribution for the victory (especially the American documentaries). They also overestimated the importance of the Allied material help given to Soviet Union. Here I should not be misunderstood. The Allied help in war equipment, raw materials and food was very important, but Soviet Union could win the war without that. Another simple truth "forgotten" during the Cold War by either side was that neither Soviet Union, neither the Western Allies couldn't win the war alone.
|Posted by: Florin February 29, 2004 05:39 pm|
Manstein "Lost Victories" not a accurate source??? Huh? How can you say that?
What other books did you read about the same subject, to allow you to compare?
PS: Not only some Romanians counter-argue to some of von Manstein quotes. Some of von Manstein remarks were discussed / criticized by the Western historians, or by the Russians.
BTW: In such a hot topic as WWII, every involved part feels somehow that its truth is the real truth. (Maybe this sounds somehow stupid, but anyway.)
|Posted by: dragos February 29, 2004 06:34 pm|
| [quote]Is true that romanaians and another east europe peoples had a kind of naturaly fear of russians -? I don t think so ... [/quote]
I would say it was the fear specific to the untrained and unmotivated soldiers. The situation is best described here:
"As regards the structure of the troops, most of the military were over 30 and came from 12 contingents who had undergone fairly brief training because of many leaves accorded to save money in the period before the war which resulted in the fact that the fortified system of Odessa was attacked by an "infantry made up of individuals lacking the enthusiasm of youth which in so necessary in such operations". "
|Posted by: dragos February 29, 2004 06:48 pm|
|I have read in a report of 1941 that there were cases, when the Soviets attacked, Romanian soldiers were crouching in the bottom of their foxholes and were firing their rifles in the air, or when it was ordered an assault junior officers had to drag by force the soldiers out of their holes.|
|Posted by: Petre June 13, 2016 05:26 pm|
| Source : Net. Book - V.V. Abramov, Disaster at Kerch, 1942.
În august activitatea în subterane a încetat, pentru acţiuni mai lungi nu prea mai aveau oameni, din cauza umidităţii de sub pământ s-au umezit şi cartuşele şi dăteau rateuri adesea. Forţele mai ajungeau doar să apere ieşirile şi pentru mici raiduri de cercetare noaptea. Oricum, şi inamicul i-a deranjat mai puţin pe cei încercuiţi, pentru că nemţii au predat poziţiile lor din jurul carierelor de piatră românilor, care la acea vreme le spuneau deschis localnicilor că nu vor să lupte împotriva Rusiei.
Care a fost însă soarta ultimilor apărători din subteranele de la Adjimuşkai ? Să revenim la amintirile lui S.F. Iliasov. " În satul Adjimuşkai ne-au ţinut până la 5 nov. Până atunci fiecare din noi a fost interogat, ameninţaţi că ne împuşcă. Fasciştii ne cereau să recunoaştem că suntem partizani şi că am rămas în carierele de piatră din însărcinarea NKVD, au întrebat de legături cu clandestinii din Kerci. Iar pe P.M. pentru că a recunoscut asta, chiar l-au dus să îl împuşte. Dar în general nu s-au purtat rău cu noi (ne păzeau românii), ne-au dat să mâncăm potrivit, apă, ne-au ţinut într-un grajd, femeile separat. Dar nu întâmplător s-au purtat bine cu noi, trebuiau să ne ducă la Simferopol iar drumul lung puţin probabil să-l fi făcut, din cauza extenuării. Pe 5 nov ne-au transportat într-o maşină închisă la Simferopol. Pe drum a murit L..., trupul i l-au lăsat se pare la Marfovka. La sosire în Simferopol, G..., Ş... şi H... au fost separaţi de noi, erau toţi foarte slăbiţi. Mai târziu am auzit că ultimii doi au murit. La Simferopol ne-au dus la Statul major al Corpului de armată român, în jurul nostru s-au strâns mulţi ofiţeri şi soldaţi români. Apoi a ieşit generalul principal român cu alţi generali şi ofiţeri superiori. A rostit o cuvântare, care ne-a fost tradusă în limba rusă. " Uitaţi-vă la oamenii ăştia, şi-au îndeplinit îndatoririle militare până la capăt, este un exemplu pentru noi toţi. Dacă soldaţii şi ofiţerii români luptau aşa bine, noi şi armata germană am fi învins deja Sovietele ". Aceste aprecieri au fost pentru noi neaşteptate şi plăcute. Apoi generalul a spus că trebuie să ne predea în mâna serviciului german de securitate SD ".
|Posted by: Petre December 28, 2017 06:30 pm|
| In the last days of oct. 1941 the German troops of gen. Manstein’s 11.Army broke the Soviet defense at the Perekop isthmus. For the defenders of Crimeea the problem was now : will they be able to withdraw to Sevastopol and defend here before the Germans get close to the city? In order to overtake the retreating troops of the Soviet Coastal Army, the German Command has set up a formation (Large Unit) - the so-called "Ziegler Brigade" ...
Here is the translation :