WorldWar2.ro Forum [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

WorldWar2.ro Forum > Western Front (1944-1945) > Romanian contribution to the shortening of the war

Posted by: Paulus August 27, 2003 11:42 am

Just about the Romanian switching of side, I've read in a book that the war would have been at least 6 months longer if Romanian troops continued the battle against the Soviets, and I'm quite sure this would have been, as far as Axis still had lots of Oil and Industry capacities in Romania and Hungary, who were immediately threatened and loosed afted September ...

However they were still considered as a looser (as the Axis side) country at the end of the war ...

Posted by: C-2 August 27, 2003 07:10 pm

I'd say 6 weeks not months!

Posted by: Dénes August 28, 2003 12:53 pm

QUOTE

That's the official point of view of Rumanian historiography, intended to boost the importance of the Rumanian about-face. However, if one seriously weighs the actual situation of the German forces in South-Eastern Europe in late August 1944, can easily reach the same conclusion that 'Dr. C-2' reached, namely that the war would have been longer not 6 months but 6 weeks, the most.
The most important defece line that would somewhat delay the Red Army's advance would have been the Carpathians, which could have been defended by a joint German-Rumanian-Hungarian force. However, this did not happen due to the coup of Aug. 23. Therefore, the Soviets could easily penetrate the Carpathians with the help of Rumanian soldiers and local Rumanians.

Dénes

Posted by: dragos August 29, 2003 08:21 am

I believe the Romania's changing of sides had a stronger influence in the shortening of the war. The prompt opening of the Focsani "gate" cleared the way to the central and southern sectors of the eastern front. The following advance was one of the fastest in the history of ww2: between 200 and 700 km in two weeks. Otherwise, even if Focsani "gate" was forced sooner or later by the Soviets, the Axis troops defending the Transylvanian perimeter would have been prepared for a better defense. So I go for somewhere between 6 weeks and 6 months.

Posted by: mars August 29, 2003 02:00 pm

I do not mean any dis-respect to those brave Rumanian soldiers, but I have to say for Soviet red army, the Rumania-Transylvanian -Hungary-Austria was only a secondary-rate direction. Just remember that at the direction (Warsaw-Berlin), each Soviet Red army Front had 2 tank army, each had at least 3 sometimes 4 tank/Mechanic Corps, about 700-900 most modern Russian tanks. At Rumania-Hungary direction, 2 Soviet Front together only had 1 tank army, which only had 2 tank/Mechani Corps, 50% of them were lend-lease American tanks

Posted by: Geto-Dacul August 29, 2003 03:41 pm

mars wrote :

QUOTE

but I have to say for Soviet red army, the Rumania-Transylvanian -Hungary-Austria was only a secondary-rate direction.

Think so? In 1944-45, it was a race between the US and Soviets for influence in Europe. Taking Berlin was only a matter of time... Consolidating Soviet Union's positions in the Balkans was of the greatest importance, because it was part of the Russian imperialist dream of controling the Danube, and the straits.

QUOTE

Just remember that at the direction (Warsaw-Berlin), each Soviet Red army Front had 2 tank army, each had at least 3 sometimes 4 tank/Mechanic Corps, about 700-900 most modern Russian tanks.

The Axis forces of Romania & Balkans were not of the importance of those defending the gateway to Berlin.

Posted by: Paulus September 03, 2003 01:02 pm

If Romanian army fought bravely some months more (suppose January 1945) I think the Reds Wouldn't have avdanced more than southern part of Romania and would have taken serious losses.
I think Romania's army was still a powerful element of Axis forces, it had an important number of soldiers, am I wrong ?
So when the Germans lost all those divisions, they probably had another big lack of troops for the continuation of the war, besides numerous romanian divisions were now fighting 'em ...

Posted by: C-2 September 03, 2003 06:03 pm

In 44 many Romanians had enough of the war.Especialy after Stalingrad.
They felt it's not their war.And they were forced in it.
It was imposible to hold on ,especialy with the USAF bombing!
Glad you like the site!

Posted by: inahurry September 06, 2003 02:28 am

Hmmm, and I thought (I didn't but let's pretend I did) this site could allow some Romanian historiography information to be accesed by other than Romanians and maybe those can judge by themselves. Guess the Hungarian vigilance never ends. Anyway, the "6 months" was a statement first made in the west, "hot", right after August 23, 1944. [ I forgot, there's always Boia (Lucian nu ardei), when is he going to "de-myth-ize (or how's spelled) the Romanian participation in WW2? ]

Posted by: dragos September 06, 2003 09:55 am

QUOTE

Anyway, the \"6 months\" was a statement first made in the west, \"hot\", right after August 23, 1944.

It was France, I believe, on a radio broadcast.

Posted by: Victor September 06, 2003 10:05 am

It was radio station Paris and the message was:
France considers that the Romanian contribution made the war 6 months shorter

Posted by: Paulus September 06, 2003 08:06 pm

What revolted me most is that Romania was treated if it was one of the countries who lost the war ... isn't it right ?

However, in which proportions did romanian sldiers were motivated for the war to the West ?

Posted by: C-2 September 06, 2003 09:45 pm

At the first part of the campain ,motivation was high.
There were Basarabia and Bucovina,which were taken after the Ribent.-molot. pact.
After it there were voices which asked not to cont.the campain far into Russia,but the army was still motivated and moral was high.
The decline came after Stalingrad,and as the losses became enorm and the front line was coming toward the Romanian borders ,teh soldiers felt they are involved in a war that wasn't theirs.
So many felt that the 23/8/44 came as a miracle since all expected an unconditional surrender in the next few Weeks/months...

Posted by: Victor September 07, 2003 06:44 am

Paulus was asking about the anti-Axis campaign. He said West, you know, where Hungary, Slovakia and Austria are.

During the fights in Transylvania motivation was high, but after that it started to decline, as they got further and further from home and as the Red Army treated them more badly. How would you feel if you knew that your "ally" is taking away your supplies and even your victories (see Budapest for example)?

Posted by: Paulus September 07, 2003 08:27 am

QUOTE

Paulus was asking about the anti-Axis campaign. He said West, you know, where Hungary, Slovakia and Austria are.

I was interested by both posts :wink:

In effect, I've heard about problems with the Red Army ...
When I read articles about the campaign to the west in the ancient website I saw they (romanian force) also took as heavy losses as they took on the East ... Am I right ?

Posted by: inahurry September 07, 2003 10:24 pm

QUOTE

How would you feel if you knew that your \"ally\" is taking away your supplies and even your victories (see Budapest for example)?

Very true. I wouldn't like to find myself in the place of Romanian commanders then, it was furiously humiliating. If at least history would do them (and the men who fell there) justice.

Posted by: Victor September 08, 2003 03:14 pm

Paulus,
there were fewer casualties than in the Eastern Campaign (169,822 vs. 624,720). Only one unit was surrounded and captured (4th Infantry Division, which lacked any AT weapons, thanks to the Soviet allies, who had confiscated it :| ). Generally the Romanian units were used, after Transylvania had been reoccupied, in difficult terrain and weather conditions in the Slovakian Mountains (which were very favorable for the defense) or in Operation Budapest (which was yet another Hell on Earth). They were expandable in the eyes of the Soviet marshals and, anyway, the Royal Army needed to be destroyed, one way or the other.

Posted by: dragos September 12, 2003 11:10 am

I found that:

By opening widely the "Focsani Gate" - and, through it, the gates of whole Central Europe along the Danube River Valley - also, those of the Balkans - the Romanian volte face gave to the Red Army the possibility to use what Sir B.H. Liddell Hart considered to be "the widest open flank ever known in the history of modern wars".

Posted by: Geto-Dacul September 12, 2003 03:25 pm

dragos wrote :

QUOTE

By opening widely the \"Focsani Gate\" - and, through it, the gates of whole Central Europe along the Danube River Valley - also, those of the Balkans - the Romanian volte face gave to the Red Army the possibility to use what Sir B.H. Liddell Hart considered to be \"the widest open flank ever known in the history of modern wars\".

And should we be proud of it?

Posted by: dragos September 14, 2003 10:45 am

I try to expose facts and emphasize the contribution of Romanian army on this front, in the conditions that Romania was refused the co-beligerant status at the end of the war. This is the history either you like it or not. To give you something for your taste: the defensive operation of the 4th Army during September 1944, fulfilled exclusively by Romanian troops and under Romanian command, was a materpiece of military strategy.

Posted by: Geto-Dacul September 14, 2003 02:58 pm

dragos wrote :

QUOTE

To give you something for your taste: the defensive operation of the 4th Army during September 1944, fulfilled exclusively by Romanian troops and under Romanian command, was a materpiece of military strategy.

Yep, but the whole campaign in Northern Transylvania cost us the huge losses of 62.000 men. Compare it with the liberation of Bessarabia...

Getu'

Posted by: Bernard Miclescu September 27, 2003 03:02 pm

Yes the difference between the Bessarabian- N Bukovine campaign and Transylvanian campaign is similar to the quality between the Wermacht and USSR army.

bm

Posted by: Dénes September 27, 2003 03:37 pm

[quote]Yes the difference between the Bessarabian- N Bukovine campaign and Transylvanian campaign is similar to the quality between the Wermacht and USSR army.[/quote]
More than half of the Axis troops fighting in Transylvania were Hungarians, not German.

Dénes

Posted by: Bernard Miclescu September 27, 2003 04:15 pm

Ok major, understood.
bm[/quote]

Posted by: C-2 September 27, 2003 08:46 pm

QUOTE

Yes the difference between the Bessarabian- N Bukovine campaign and Transylvanian campaign is similar to the quality between the Wermacht and USSR army.

More than half of the Axis troops fighting in Transylvania were Hungarians, not German.

Dénes

Yes but the Rom.army that fought in the early tays of the war was better than the Rom army that ended the war!
That's also a criterium to the hight nr of losses in the western front.

Posted by: Geto-Dacul September 28, 2003 02:12 am

Dénes wrote :

[quote]More than half of the Axis troops fighting in Transylvania were Hungarians, not German.
[/quote]

That is to show that the Hungarians inflicted heavy losses to Romanian troops... But the Romanians had virtually no armour, in comparison with Hungarian/German (Horthyst-Szalasist-Fascist troops

) troops.

And the Soviet attitude was very "determinant"... See Oarba de Mures...

C-2 wrote :

[quote]Yes but the Rom.army that fought in the early tays of the war was better than the Rom army that ended the war!
That's also a criterium to the hight nr of losses in the western front.[/quote]

That is not exactely true... Romanian Army of 1944 was better equiped and trained than in 1941.

Posted by: Dénes September 28, 2003 05:29 am

[quote]the whole campaign in Northern Transylvania cost us [Rumanians] the huge losses of 62.000 men.[/quote]
The most bloody battles between Axis (i.e., Hungarian and German) and Allied (i.e., Rumanian and Soviet) troops were in southern Transylvania. See, for example, the battle in and around Turda/Torda/Thorenburg, between Sept. 5-Oct.8.

Dénes

Posted by: Dénes September 28, 2003 05:36 am

[quote]Dénes wrote :

[quote]More than half of the Axis troops fighting in Transylvania were Hungarians, not German.
[/quote]

That is to show that the Hungarians inflicted heavy losses to Romanian troops... But the Romanians had virtually no armour, in comparison with Hungarian/German (Horthyst-Szalasist-Fascist troops

) troops.[/quote]
Indeed, the Rumanian troops did not have effective armour assistance in Sept. 1944. However, the Soviets did. For example, in the battle in and around Turda/Torda/Thorenburg, the Soviet 6th Guards Tank Army played a determinant role.

As for the "Horthyst-Szalasist-Fascist" epithet, what can I say... Should we call then the Rumanian troops 'Mihailist-Sanatescist-Pro-Communist"?

:roll:

Dénes

Posted by: Geto-Dacul September 28, 2003 08:01 pm

Dénes wrote :

[quote]However, the Soviets did. For example, in the battle in and around Turda/Torda/Thorenburg, the Soviet 6th Guards Tank Army played a determinant role.
[/quote]

Yes, but only the Soviets... Few Romanian units were subordinated to Soviet armour formations.

[quote]As for the "Horthyst-Szalasist-Fascist" epithet, what can I say... Should we call then the Rumanian troops 'Mihailist-Sanatescist-Pro-Communist"?
[/quote]

It was only to show how absurde can propaganda be with the "Horthyst-Fascist epitet, when Horthy no more in power!!!

... :wink:

Getu'

Posted by: Dénes September 28, 2003 08:18 pm

[quote]Dénes wrote :

[quote]However, the Soviets did. For example, in the battle in and around Turda/Torda/Thorenburg, the Soviet 6th Guards Tank Army played a determinant role.
[/quote]

Yes, but only the Soviets... Few Romanian units were subordinated to Soviet armour formations.[/quote]

It appears that the 4th Rumanian Army had an armoured element integrated in it in Sept. 1944, namely 'Detasamentul Blindat' (Armoured Detachment), under command of Lt.-Col. Gh. Matei. This unit was equipped with 16 tanks.

[quote]As for the "Horthyst-Szalasist-Fascist" epithet, what can I say... Should we call then the Rumanian troops 'Mihailist-Sanatescist-Pro-Communist"?
[/quote]

It was only to show how absurde can propaganda be with the "Horthyst-Fascist epitet, when Horthy no more in power!!!

... :wink:[/quote]
Of course such labels were/are absurd, I know.
However, it's interesting to read that current Rumanian historiography continues to use such labels (horthyst, or fascist), used extensively during Communism (Remember Gen. dr. Ilie Ceausescu's "history" books?)

Dénes

Posted by: inahurry September 28, 2003 10:51 pm

Yes, some are quite 'shy' in Romania, when it comes to Hungarians. They prefer to hide behind sweet politically correct (and relatively historically incorrect) constructs, like horthysts. But there is some sense in using that moniker. While neither German troops nor Russian ones were comprised of only nazis and bolsheviks(not by far), the regime in Germany was nazi and the Russian one was bolshevik. The regime in Hungary was long associated with Horthy's blend of totalitarianism and the Szalazsy puppets were insignificant as "trade mark". Some words have a greater impact with the public. Imagine how "pilsduskism" would sound. :roll:

Posted by: Dénes September 28, 2003 11:30 pm

Following your (muddled) logic, inahurry, what would then be the similarly proper moniker valid for the Rumanian Army and administration (if you wish, separately prior to and post 23 Aug. 1944)?

Dénes

Posted by: inahurry September 29, 2003 02:51 am

whatever moniker you wish, denes, why don't you pick it then? You seem to have an obsession with mud, do you find yourself often in trenches when the heavy rain starts to fall ? Why do you think all the time I am addressing to you ? When I do you'll surely notice. I found the idea interesting (yours and getu's) but I had no intention to enter direct exchange with you, I don't think there's a burning love between us so I try to avoid direct addressing. But you seem you can't take it but personally and you are so quick to find some adjective to "describe" my posts, like I need your re-interpretations.

Posted by: Dénes September 29, 2003 03:03 am

[quote]whatever moniker you wish, denes, why don't you pick it then? (...)Why do you think all the time I am addressing to you ? [/quote]
This is a prime example of what I was referring to in my previous post.
It was your idea to insist on various labels - like "horthyst" - labels you call 'monikers'. Since it's your brainchild, I've addressed directly and openly to you, instead of just slyly hinting, hoping that you will catch the bait (as you did it earlier by mentioning the Hungarian csárdás dance and the amount of psyhical as well as figurative "spinning" involved, hint obviously addressed to me).

You threw the ball up in the air, inahurry, it's your task to hit it.
So, what's the moniker(s) I was asking about?

Dénes

P.S. Although you apparently prefer your nick-name to start with a small letter - and I respect that - I prefer my name to start with a capital one, a 'D'. You know, it's basic courtesy...

Posted by: dragos September 29, 2003 09:57 am

The firepower of infantry increased significantly from 1941 to 1944. Combine this with the blunt Soviet tactics imposed by force (frontal attacks) and the losses in Transylvania are justified. At Oarba de Mures it was not even necessary to attack the hills. A simple outflanking manneuver would have left Hungarian troops surrounded and starving to surrender. Instead, the Russian command turned this into one of the bloodiest battles of the war. This is the difference between Bessarabia 41 and Transylvania 44. (However, in 1941 campaign we are almost totally responsible for our defeats and losses).

Posted by: inahurry September 30, 2003 04:20 am

[quote]
P.S. Although you apparently prefer your nick-name to start with a small letter - and I respect that - I prefer my name to start with a capital one, a 'D'. You know, it's basic courtesy...[/quote]

It never occured to you that it might be a typo ? As it happens, Getu also was typed with a small cap and as a matter of fact I see the first sentence of the same post starts with a small cap. Typos do happen, even with your name, surprising as it may be.

The labels, as I think you meant the word, imply a groundless, false characterization. To "label" Hungary horthyst is not exactly false. Horthy marked its existence until 1944, when you rule a country for long is almost inevitable to be associated with it. Romania ceausista is both used pejoratively and propagandistic but it also has some truth in it. If it's truth (a lot of propaganda exagerations also, true) in labeling Germany, Russia, Italy's troops with various non-flattering (today more than yesterday)names I think Hungary isn't in a too bad company. Where Germany and Italy could be more easily "identified" with their official regimes (national-socialism, fascism) for Hungary the leader's name - Horthy - came more handy. And, again, some words/names are more suited than others, they sound "right". Szalazsyists is very hard to pronounce, not to mention it would be far more gratuituos than horthyst. To name general Franco's troops franchist was more accurate than to name the other side communist but none was devoid of truth.

Let's see... antonescian troops ?

Not bad, imo. If it serves your imagological war you can use it freely, I need no royalties. After august 23 is harder to "baptize" them, but I'm sure we could find something.

Posted by: Bernard Miclescu September 30, 2003 09:12 pm

A "moniker" for the Romanian Army could be "cascatzii olandezi"

(The Romanian Army didn't have helmets type Holland (casti tip olandez)??????)

Someone said "cimitirele-s pline de oameni ce se credeau indispensabili" (in English I don't know how to write it) So let the anger away, or discuss it in private.

Yours,
BM

Posted by: Dénes September 30, 2003 09:44 pm

QUOTE

A \"moniker\" for the Romanian Army could be \"cascatzii olandezi\" :lol:

Not good, as it has double meaning, i.e. "cel cu casca", or "om cascat"...

Anyhow, the whole earlier exercise from my side was to show how ridiculous and historically amateurish is to use various "monikers" when describing certain armies or administration, i.e. fascist, nazi, communist, horthyst, sexist, etc.

The proper way is, IMHO, to simply use the country name. In case of Hungary: in short Hungarian Army, or the full title: Royal Hungarian Home Defense Force, or the Honvédség, if one really wants to be accurate. It's similarly unprofessional to the 'nazi' soldier (unless you actually know that he was a member of the NSDAP), or 'nazi' airplane, etc.
End of discussion (from my part).

Dénes

Posted by: Florin October 01, 2003 01:51 am

QUOTE

However, it's interesting to read that current Rumanian historiography continues to use such labels (horthyst, or fascist), used extensively during Communism (Remember Gen. dr. Ilie Ceausescu's \"history\" books?)

Dénes

Hi Denes,

The same Communist historians used "antonescian" and "burghezo-mosieresc" in a derogatory way. Well, we lived with that, and for the common folk it turned out it time that not everything related to Antonescu or to the capitalist regime was bad.

The fact that "...current Rumanian historiography continues to use such labels..." is arguable.
Following your logic, somebody may say that the Magyar historians continue to publish books and articles stating that Transylvania should belong to Hungary. Which they also did during the Hungarian communist regime. Which they also did before it...

Best regards from the South,
Florin

Posted by: Dénes October 01, 2003 02:37 am

QUOTE

The fact that \"...current Rumanian historiography continues to use such labels...\" is arguable.
Following your logic, somebody may say that the Magyar historians continue to publish books and articles stating that Transylvania should belong to Hungary. Which they also did during the Hungarian communist regime. Which they also did before it...

This is yet another topic that probably leads to nowhere, except maybe to a closed topic.
Anyhow, here it comes:
1, by definition, a historian researches the past and not the future. Politicians usually do the latter.
2, under Communism, in Hungary it was strictly forbidden to talk about Transylvania and generally the Hungarian ethnics abroad. Let alone revisionist attitude. Something similar to Communist Rumania and the "hot" topic of Bessarabia.
3, in Hungary, currently there is no significant political party that advocates revisionism.

Dénes

Posted by: Florin October 01, 2003 02:46 am

QUOTE

If Romanian army fought bravely some months more (suppose January 1945) I think the Reds Wouldn't have advanced more than southern part of Romania and would have taken serious losses.

Something interesting, forgotten by many people...
Germany, Japan and Hungary had no war on their own territory during the World War I.
Countries like Romania, Russia, France, Italy had.
For countries like Germany or Hungary, fighting on their own territory was an abstract notion, until really happened.
For Romania, were in the World War I the front lines rolled over from East to West, from South to North, most of the people thought in 1944, from the uppermost command to the common folk: "No, not again!"

Regards,
Florin

Posted by: dead-cat October 01, 2003 10:57 am

QUOTE

Something interesting, forgotten by many people...
Germany, Japan and Hungary had no war on their own territory during the World War I.
Countries like Romania, Russia, France, Italy had.

that is not 100% true. in aug. 1914 2 russian armies invaded Eastern Prussia and advanced until the Allenstein area. Japans contribution to WW1 was minor at best. Hungary as such had no territory invaded but Austria-Hungary had. the damage done to the industrial base by these invasions is neglectable, but this is compensated by the reparation payments in the 20ies. also, the italian terrirory occupied was pretty small.

QUOTE

For countries like Germany or Hungary, fighting on their own territory was an abstract notion, until really happened.

except for the franctireur obsession in belgium, atrocities against civilians were rare and on a small scale during WW1. for most poeple who didn't live directly on the front, the invasion experience was limited to watching the invader passing through (ex. Bruxelles). the hardships of war were much more present in form of supply shortages for the populations. but so was the case in Germany. there were no large population dislocations like it happened in WW2.

i'd say, unless you lived next to the front your WW1 experience (as a civilian) wouldn't be much diffrent from the experience of a central powers citizen. it was nothing even remotly comparable to WW2, not even taking all the retaliatory executions in belgium into account, if you compare it to say, yugoslavia.

Posted by: Florin October 01, 2003 02:47 pm

QUOTE

Something interesting, forgotten by many people...
Germany, Japan and Hungary had no war on their own territory during the World War I.
Countries like Romania, Russia, France, Italy had.

that is not 100% true. in aug. 1914 2 russian armies invaded Eastern Prussia and advanced until the Allenstein area.

Oh, yes, I knew that, but I did not specify it. Sometimes I am thinking that my text is too long, and my sentences too complicated.
But I did not mentioned it because it was a matter of weeks, and roughly speaking, at the border. By the way, that part of Eastern Prussia was not a part of Germany, as it was after WWI, but before September 1939.

QUOTE

Japans contribution to WW1 was minor at best.

You are missing my point. I was talking about the general will of the common folk to see an extended war waged on his homeland. It is different when it is approached as a theoretical matter, and different when it was something real, which you don't want repeated.

QUOTE

Hungary as such had no territory invaded but Austria-Hungary had.

The area you are mentioning (Galitia, for example) became a part of Poland after WWI.
Austria and Hungary, as they were after WWI, were untouched by "the Great War".

QUOTE

except for the franctireur obsession in belgium, atrocities against civilians were rare and on a small scale during WW1.

What about the 1.5 million Armenians (men, women, children) killed in the Ottoman Empire?
What about the Serbians killed in the occupied Serbia?

QUOTE

for most poeple who didn't live directly on the front, the invasion experience was limited to watching the invader passing through (ex. Bruxelles). the hardships of war were much more present in form of supply shortages for the populations.

REALLY?... You should try to explain this to my grandmother. At age 5, she saw her brother, 4 years old, dying, and her baby-sister dying.
They were forced to leave her native village in the middle of winter, during freezing temperatures, because the Germans transformed that village into a prisoner camp.
Almost everything hidden in the ground by the villagers was discovered and looted by the POW's.

QUOTE

i'd say, unless you lived next to the front your WW1 experience (as a civilian) wouldn't be much diffrent from the experience of a central powers citizen.

Please read again what I mentioned about my grandmother, to fix it.
In addition... Front lines in World War I rolled over 3 quarters (75%) of the Romanian territory, as it was after 1913 and before 1916.
So 3 quarters of the Romanian territory, as it was before August 1916, "enjoyed" the "next to the front" status.

Florin

Posted by: Florin October 01, 2003 03:02 pm

QUOTE

2, under Communism, in Hungary it was strictly forbidden to talk about Transylvania and generally the Hungarian ethnics abroad. Let alone revisionist attitude. Something similar to Communist Rumania and the \"hot\" topic of Bessarabia.

Well, a book as "History of Transylvania", also translated in English and distributed in West, was published in the 80's.

QUOTE

3, in Hungary, currently there is no significant political party that advocates revisionism.

In this moment this is true, as far as I know.
By the way, that's why I really wish to see Romania in NATO: it will cool down the spirits in the region, on both sides of the border.

Florin

Posted by: Dénes October 01, 2003 04:11 pm

QUOTE

Well, a book as "History of Transylvania", also translated in English and distributed in West, was published in the 80's.

Yes, indeed. But what makes you think that series of books advocates current revisionism? The book is dealing with the history of Transylvania.

Dénes

Posted by: Florin October 01, 2003 04:31 pm

QUOTE

Well, a book as "History of Transylvania", also translated in English and distributed in West, was published in the 80's.

Yes, indeed. But what makes you think that series of books advocates current revisionism? The book is dealing with the history of Transylvania.

Dénes

Well, the Romanians were annoyed by many paragraphs in that book. They were annoyed enough to publish in the Romanian newspapers, as top headlines on the front page, answers and arguments against some parts of that book. And that was in the 80's, when both Hungary and Romania were Communist states, both were in the Warsaw Pact, both were in CAER.

Florin

Posted by: Bernard Miclescu October 01, 2003 06:25 pm

[quote="Dénes"]
Not good, as it has double meaning, i.e. "cel cu casca", or "om cascat"...

I used this "moniker" just for amusement Sometemes it was, it is, and it will be like this.

BM

Posted by: dead-cat October 06, 2003 09:30 am

[quote]
By the way, that part of Eastern Prussia was not a part of Germany, as it was after WWI, but before September 1939.
[/quote]

http://www.mapsarchives.com/cgi-bin/bv.pl?nr=bv4_1939&gr=7&nord=5363.500000&ost=1975.150000

the border of that province shifted only marginally. for example the village of Soldau (place of the battle of Tannenberg) belonged to Poland 1939. the old imperial border was around 10km south in 1914.
so yes, Eastern Prussia was invaded in WW1 and the region i'm talking about still belonged to Germany 1939.

[quote]
What about the 1.5 million Armenians (men, women, children) killed in the Ottoman Empire?
[/quote]

you are correct. however, i was talking about Europe. somehow i doubt the turks wouldn't have massacred the armenians if it wasn't for WW1.

[quote]
REALLY?... You should try to explain this to my grandmother. At age 5, she saw her brother, 4 years old, dying, and her baby-sister dying.
They were forced to leave her native village in the middle of winter, during freezing temperatures, because the Germans transformed that village into a prisoner camp.
Almost everything hidden in the ground by the villagers was discovered and looted by the POW's.
[/quote]

while your grandmothers experience is sad, it's not representative numberwise. if you search long enough, you'll find reports of ppl being tortured shot etc during WW1. but their number was not comparable to WW2.

[quote]
What about the Serbians killed in the occupied Serbia?
[/quote]

there wern't that many. most of them died during the attack on Belgrade in fall 1915 (i read about something like 5000 civilian casualties). the larger number probably starved, but their situation was little diffrent from the rest of the population of the central powers who starved as well. besides, Serbia was overrun in about 2 months.

[quote]
So 3 quarters of the Romanian territory, as it was before August 1916, "enjoyed" the "next to the front" status.
[/quote]

then please give examples of cities razed to the ground by artillery or aerial bombings. there won't be many. once the front passed (and the war in RO wasn't a stalemate as it was in France) there was no more combat action.

Posted by: inahurry October 10, 2003 12:36 am

No revizionists in Hungary today ?!? Really!

Why bother though when one has them here. The present has such an ironic way to bring people back to reality: aren't some "hot heads", "rogue" elements etc. from the UDMR (Hungarian minority party in Romania) organizing elections for an autonomist, non-fictional although quite surrealist, "Tinut al secuilor" exactly these days ? Are they excluded from the party that half-heartedly admits they are extremists? No way. This is the PRESENT. The same with the insulting, for Romanians, monument in Arad. And now the sinister farce of the so-called referundum that was extended to 2 days, maybe-maybe with all the unlawful propaganda enough people will be convinced to go to vote so the last UDMR-PSD pact is fulfilled. This is "democracy" at work, exactly the same kind as the "history" according to some who really misinterpret Romanian patience with eternal gullibility. Don't count on it.

Posted by: inahurry October 10, 2003 02:34 am

Someone seems to believe all arguments contradicting his views and/or, most often 'and' than 'or', Hungarian propaganda are, I quote him, "ridiculuos". He fakes then he is surprised when someone, who didn't find his uncalled for characterizations too amusing, answers back. Always very rigid when his image seems threatened (see the "but he has no hat" as in the bear, the wolf and the rabbit joke like accusation about a minor typing mistake). There is obviously no point in hoping the biblical "the straw in others eye vs the beam in his own eyes" could ever apply to him. All the more when this follows a topic where the discussion was centered on labels or "labels". He has the right to call for strictly objective, even politically correct, descriptions when Hungary is concerned, yet, when the targets of Hungarian propaganda effort dare to point out all is not so rosy-dory and Horthy did have something to do with Hungary, Hungarian army, well, even with certain episodes Romanian won't forget too soon then the same rules he demands to be followed by others suddenly don't apply for himself. The point of this post ? Regarding a certain person, none. Regarding the way Hungarian propaganda operates, a lot. And, because I sometimes have to live up to my nickname, I hurry to say all types of propaganda operate the same.

Posted by: tempesta October 10, 2003 02:54 pm

inahurry wrote:

QUOTE

No revizionists in Hungary today ?!? Really!

Why bother though when one has them here. The present has such an ironic way to bring people back to reality: aren't some \"hot heads\", \"rogue\" elements etc. from the UDMR (Hungarian minority party in Romania) organizing elections for an autonomist, non-fictional although quite surrealist, \"Tinut al secuilor\" exactly these days ? Are they excluded from the party that half-heartedly admits they are extremists? No way.

UDMR is, technically, a romanian party, so UDMR "revisionism" is not the oficiall policy of Hungary.
The "hot heads" deserve to be excluded from UDMR!. With these stupid elections they actually hurt UDMR's afforts to obtain "collective rigths" (whatever these mean :roll: ) for the Hungarian minority by insulting the Romanian population and enraging the Romanians against the Hungarian minority. And I really don't know what good could brig an "Tinut al secuilor" to the people living in it.
But this is pollitical sfuff, and here we discuss history, not politics. I think history is too often mixed with politics and propanagda.

Posted by: Victor October 11, 2003 07:37 pm

The topic will be closed if the discussion continues off topic and with personal attacks.

Posted by: Chandernagore October 21, 2003 11:55 am

QUOTE

With these stupid elections they actually hurt UDMR's afforts to obtain \"collective rigths\" for the Hungarian minority by insulting the Romanian population and enraging the Romanians against the Hungarian minority.

For the benefit of better comprehension I offer hereby a translation intended for visitors from far away countries less used to the complexities of local customs :

"Exercising their democratic rights, they actually hurt UDMR's efforts to obtain Rumanian rights for the Rumanian population of Hungarian origin by insulting the Rumanian population (presumably from other origin, phanariot for example) and enraging those Rumanians against the (Hungarian) Rumanians. "

No thanks.

And now something actually on topic (before Victor close the folder and everybody says it's my fault) :

I don't understand the topic title. "Contribution to shortening war" . When was that ever an objective ? Why not "contribution to lengthening the war" ?

Posted by: dragos October 21, 2003 12:47 pm

QUOTE

And now something actually on topic (before Victor close the folder and everybody says it's my fault) :

I don't understand the topic title. \"Contribution to shortening war\" . When was that ever an objective ? Why not \"contribution to lengthening the war\" ?

It's contribution to shortening the war because it is about the period Romania fought against Germany.

I urge Victor to start a real moderation of this forum. Instead closing otherwise interesting topics, we should give penalties to those who made a habit in going off-topic.

Posted by: Najroda January 13, 2004 02:31 pm

[quote]No revizionists in Hungary today ?!? Really!

Why bother though when one has them here. The present has such an ironic way to bring people back to reality: aren't some "hot heads", "rogue" elements etc. from the UDMR (Hungarian minority party in Romania) organizing elections for an autonomist, non-fictional although quite surrealist, "Tinut al secuilor" exactly these days ?[/quote]

No. the DAHR did not hold such elections. You are misinformed.

(DAHR is the appropriate abbreviation on an English language forum, not UDHR or RMDSZ)

[quote] Are they excluded from the party that half-heartedly admits they are extremists?[/quote]

1) Since they are not DAHR members they cannot be banned.
2) DAHR did not say they are extremists. They are unhappy with a division within the Transylvanian Hungarian community, in light of the 5% electoral treshold.

[quote]No way. This is the PRESENT. The same with the insulting, for Romanians, monument in Arad.[/quote]

Why insulting? Elaborate.

Why would Romanians be insulted by a Hungarian statue and the Transylvanian Hungarian not be insulted by the hundreds of Romanian statues all over Transylvania, including towns with a Hungarian majority.

BTW, the Arad town council, in which DAHR has no majority, had agreed to re-erecting this statue that was removed in 1925.

[quote]And now the sinister farce of the so-called referundum that was extended to 2 days, maybe-maybe with all the unlawful propaganda enough people will be convinced to go to vote so the last UDMR-PSD pact is fulfilled. This is "democracy" at work, exactly the same kind as the "history" according to some who really misinterpret Romanian patience with eternal gullibility. Don't count on it. [/quote]

I don't see why a referendum lasting for 2 days (shame! shame!) would be undemocratic...[/quote]

Posted by: Najroda January 13, 2004 02:44 pm

[quote]UDMR is, technically, a romanian party, so UDMR "revisionism" is not the oficiall policy of Hungary.[/quote]

How is the DAHR being revisionist? Can I have the relevant excerpts from their party program or quotes of their politicians?

[quote]The "hot heads" deserve to be excluded from UDMR!.[/quote]

They are, see bishop Tõkés.

[quote]With these stupid elections they actually hurt UDMR's afforts to obtain "collective rigths" (whatever these mean :roll: )[/quote]

Check the European charter fro minority rights if you don't know what it means. To give you a hint: it corresponds with what the Transylvanian Romanians desired (but never got) pre-1918.

[quote]for the Hungarian minority by insulting the Romanian population and enraging the Romanians against the Hungarian minority.[/quote]

Can I ask for examples of these "insults"?

[quote]And I really don't know what good could brig an "Tinut al secuilor" to the people living in it.[/quote]

What about stopping the ongoing assimilation and emigration of the Transylvanian Hungarians (dropped by almost 200.000 between the last 2 censuses). You also might also want to consult the recommendation by the Council of Europe called "Positive experiences of autonomous regions as a source of inspiration for conflict resolution in Europe"

Summary:

Most present-day conflicts no longer occur between states but within states and are rooted in tensions between states and minority groups whichdemand the right to preserve their identities. These tensions are partly due to the territorial changes and the emergence of new states which followed the two world wars and the collapse of the old communist system, and also reflect the inevitable development of the concept of the nation-state, which, hitherto, viewed national sovereignty and cultural homogeneity as essential.

Autonomy as applied in states governed by the rule of law can be a source of inspiration inseeking ways to resolve internal political conflicts. Autonomy allows a group which is a minority within a state to exercise its rights, while providing certain guarantees of the state’s unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Autonomous status may be applied to various systems of political organisation and means that autonomous entities are given specific powers, either devolved or shared with central government, while remaining under the latter’s authority.

In order to provide the right conditions for the permanence of autonomy, the report recommends compliance with a number of basic principles, including the creation of a legal framework for autonomous status, a clear division of powers and the establishment of democratically elected legislative and executive bodies in autonomous regions."

[quote]But this is pollitical sfuff, and here we discuss history, not politics. I think history is too often mixed with politics and propanagda.[/quote]

OK, but I felt I had to clear up some misconceptions. I feel a lot of unfounded anti-Hungarian sentiments on this board, and it is only in your own best interest to come to terms with it.

Posted by: dragos January 13, 2004 05:24 pm

I understand your intention, but stop posting off-topic. You posted right after two warnings.

Posted by: Najroda January 13, 2004 11:43 pm

[quote]I understand your intention, but stop posting off-topic. You posted right after two warnings.[/quote]

I apologize. I will, and I trust those that I addressed will stop posting nationalistically biassed and plain incorrect "information". If anyone wants to respond to my posts, please do so in the general forum, I will try to keep an eye on it.

Otherwise, congratulations, you have an excellent board, very informative, sometimes entertaining, and the overall majority of the posters here are of a quality that most internet forums can only dream of these days. I hope I will find some time to read further into it.

Posted by: dragos April 30, 2004 05:24 pm

The German war production minister, Albert Speer, said about the consequences of the Romanian volte-face of 23 August 1944:
"Beginning with June 1944, we could supply 50,000 tons of petrol per month, but from August 1944, when our troops had to leave Romania, the quantity dropped to 20,000 tons. It was clear that we were heading to disaster. This was the cause of defeat. Not because of the strategic bombings of British and American air forces (...), but because of the loss, after 23 August 1944, of our supply sources from Romania (...). It is undeniable that the day of 23 August 1944 was the turning point of the war production, therefor of the war itself."

Posted by: dragos May 10, 2005 07:42 pm

This is based on a statement in the yesterday show on OTV. In the balance of the post war negociations, Romania was refuted the contribution for shortening the war with 200 days, as having lengthening the war much more in the previous three years. But someone stated (sorry, I can't remember the name) that the shortening of the war with 200 days in the end was much more important, because the Americans were initially preparing the A-bombs for Germany, and if the war in Europe was a little longer, Germany would have been the test grounds for the Atomic bombs, thus turning the center of Europe into a nuclear wasteland with the horrendous consequences in the years to follow.

Posted by: Imperialist May 10, 2005 08:12 pm

QUOTE (dragos @ May 10 2005, 07:42 PM)

I disagree with that nuke assessment.
Lets remember that the main reason/justification for nuking Japan was the high cost of landing on the islands.
By August 23rd 1944, the Allied main military effort was already 2 and 1/2 months after a successful landing on Festung Europe.
Besides, I;ve started to think that the number of days Romania would have been able to resist is overstated anyways.

Posted by: dragos May 10, 2005 09:11 pm

QUOTE (Imperialist)

Lets remember that the main reason/justification for nuking Japan was the high cost of landing on the islands.

AFAIK, this evaluation has been made after the capitulation of Germany. While I have found only reliable references on the assessments of using the A-bomb against Japan, there is none I know about not using it against Germany.

Posted by: Imperialist May 10, 2005 09:24 pm

QUOTE (dragos @ May 10 2005, 09:11 PM)

QUOTE (Imperialist)

Lets remember that the main reason/justification for nuking Japan was the high cost of landing on the islands.

Yes, but I mean the main Allied military effort was in Europe.
British, American, Russian forces were on the ground.
In comparison, the nuke was an important force replacement on the secondary theater. Plus, it saved them a landing.
I do agree that a nuke attack would have been possible against Festung Europe, but only against an intact fortress. The fortress was breached before August 23rd '44, so I dont think Romania hanging on for 100-200 days more would have had any impact on an already penetrated continent.

As for Romania hanging on, for a while I too thought about the famous FNG line, but I started to think that it could have been outflanked through Transylvania anyway.

p.s. what is AFAIK?

Posted by: dragos May 10, 2005 10:20 pm

QUOTE (Imperialist)

In comparison, the nuke was an important force replacement on the secondary theater.

At the time the A-bombs were used, the Pacific theater was no longer a secondary theater.

QUOTE (Imperialist)

I do agree that a nuke attack would have been possible against Festung Europe, but only against an intact fortress.

This is only speculation in my opinion.

QUOTE (Imperialist)

As for Romania hanging on, for a while I too thought about the famous FNG line, but I started to think that it could have been outflanked through Transylvania anyway.

A totally different topic, feel free to open it.

QUOTE (Imperialist)

p.s. what is AFAIK?

As far as I know

Posted by: Imperialist May 10, 2005 10:24 pm

QUOTE (dragos @ May 10 2005, 10:20 PM)

At the time the A-bombs were used, the Pacific theater was no longer a secondary theater.

In terms of importance, no.
In terms of force levels there, it retained its secondary character from the previous period. As stated on another thread by somebody else, a lot of force redeployments were required to deal with Japan, mostly from the other theater.

QUOTE

This is only speculation in my opinion.

True, but them OTV guys saying Europe was going to be nuked if Romania held on in august '44 is speculation too.

Posted by: dragos May 10, 2005 10:28 pm

QUOTE (Imperialist @ May 11 2005, 01:24 AM)

QUOTE (dragos @ May 10 2005, 10:20 PM)

At the time the A-bombs were used, the Pacific theater was no longer a secondary theater.

But you miss the main clause, of main theater of war still in action, unless in your opinion the A-bomb would have been used only in a secondary theater (for which cause?)

Posted by: dragos May 10, 2005 10:31 pm

QUOTE

True, but them OTV guys saying Europe was going to be nuked if Romania held on in august '44 is speculation too.

Of course, but the possibility of using the A-bomb over Germany in case of an extended war in Europe deserves attention IMO.

Posted by: Alexandru H. May 10, 2005 10:33 pm

As Far As I Know

Just consider it my small contribution to this thread:)

Posted by: Imperialist May 10, 2005 10:43 pm

QUOTE (dragos @ May 10 2005, 10:28 PM)

But you miss the main clause, of main theater of war still in action, unless in your opinion the A-bomb would have been used only in a secondary theater (for which cause?)

No, what I'm trying to say is that because Europe was chosen the main theater, forces of all Allies were converging on the center of German power, while in the Far East Japan was an island fortress.
So I think the thought process was that if they were to test the bombs, they would do it somewhere where the effect would have been greater. Afterall, for Germany they still had the city-busting bombers...

Posted by: Imperialist May 10, 2005 10:44 pm

QUOTE (Alexandru H. @ May 10 2005, 10:33 PM)

As Far As I Know

Just consider it my small contribution to this thread:)

Thanx Alex, but Dragos already answered... thank you both.

Posted by: dragos May 10, 2005 10:45 pm

The first test of the A-bomb was on 16 July 1945. The second test was on 6 August 1945 (Hiroshima)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_project

Posted by: Florin May 12, 2005 03:46 am

QUOTE (Imperialist @ May 10 2005, 03:12 PM)

By August 23rd 1944, the Allied main military effort was already 2 and 1/2 months after a successful landing on Festung Europe.
Besides, I;ve started to think that the number of days Romania would have been able to resist is overstated anyways.

Since the war started for U.S.S.R in June 1941, the Oriental Carpathian Mountains was the first real chain of mountains the Russians encountered during their offensive period.
In such a place their superiority in armor (tanks) and artillery would not make their effect. Remember, later in Tatra Mountains they called the Romanian mountain units any time they were not able to advance in the Czech territory.

I think the weak link in the Romanian-German defense was the part along Siret river. Also, the Soviets could pass over Danube, but it wouldn't make sense, because they would face Danube again, and if they would go ahead for Bulgaria, they could face counterattacks in the rear.

Posted by: Imperialist May 12, 2005 04:12 am

QUOTE (Florin @ May 12 2005, 03:46 AM)

For Romania the passes were more of a reliability than an asset.
In WWI it was obvious that holding those mountain passes in the face of a superior enemy is not that easy. And secondly, the main question would be one of overstretch.
Romania could have faced a combination of the 3 Ukrainian Fronts.
Ofcourse, I'm not saying all these would have converged on Romania, but they offered plenty of assets for a two pronged assault on Romania.
I think the 1st and 2nd Ukrainian Fronts would have deployed forces in Transylvania while other forces of the 2nd and 3rd would have attacked the FNG line. Then the question would be what and where was Romania to deploy its remaining forces (about 20 divisions?).

Posted by: Iamandi May 12, 2005 05:54 am

Was real chances to obtain more than 200 days, if Romania don't switch the sides?

Iama

Posted by: Imperialist May 12, 2005 05:59 am

QUOTE (Iamandi @ May 12 2005, 05:54 AM)

Was real chances to obtain more than 200 days, if Romania don't switch the sides?

Iama

IMO no.
Also the question is, 200 days for whom? For the collapsing German army? To do what? The russian hammer was already advancing at great speed, the allies landed, the bombings continued, Italy, etc.

Posted by: Iamandi May 12, 2005 06:27 am

Neah! I don't had in mind this things. I just asked if were chances to rezist more than 200 days. Just that.
Sure, even if we keep russians more time this don't result in a succes, the war was lost by Hitler briliant mind, not by his allies and vasals. Of course, Mussolini had his part of the game result.

Iama

Posted by: mabadesc May 12, 2005 06:16 pm

QUOTE

I think the weak link in the Romanian-German defense was the part along Siret river.

That's an interesting statement, Florin, and you may have a valid point. Could you please elaborate on your theory?

Thanks.

Posted by: Imperialist May 12, 2005 10:17 pm

QUOTE (mabadesc @ May 12 2005, 06:16 PM)

QUOTE

I think the weak link in the Romanian-German defense was the part along Siret river.

That's an interesting statement, Florin, and you may have a valid point. Could you please elaborate on your theory?

Thanks.

Interesting, but what part of the Siret?
The russians advanced to Cernauti. The Romanian attempt to prepare defenses on the Siret/FNG line left the Oriental part of the Carpathians exposed.
From Cernauti the russians could have entered Transylvania through the Mestecanis or Ghimes passes or thru Maramures. If the romanian forces were concentrated on FNG, and would have been pinned there, what chances were there to hold on to Transylvania?
How many days? 200? Isnt that too much?

Posted by: Dénes May 13, 2005 01:50 am

QUOTE (Imperialist @ May 13 2005, 04:17 AM)

The Romanian attempt to prepare defenses on the Siret/FNG line left the Oriental part of the Carpathians exposed.
From Cernauti the russians could have entered Transylvania through the Mestecanis or Ghimes passes or thru Maramures.

The Carpathian Mountains (referred to here as the Oriental Carpathians) were not undefended, as Hungarian troops were preparing for defense in their sector for quite a long time.
In concern with the Rumanian troops, it would have been a formidable natural defense line against the Red Army.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Imperialist May 13, 2005 04:11 am

QUOTE (Dénes @ May 13 2005, 01:50 AM)

The Carpathian Mountains (referred to here as the Oriental Carpathians) were not undefended, as Hungarian troops were preparing for defense in their sector for quite a long time.

I did not assume they were undefended [edit - I assumed the main romanian forces would have been withdrawn to FNG line]
Yet other situations are known where the soviet army managed to punch thru well defended chokepoints and overwhelmed them.

Posted by: Florin May 20, 2005 04:27 am

QUOTE (mabadesc @ May 12 2005, 01:16 PM)

QUOTE

I think the weak link in the Romanian-German defense was the part along Siret river.

That's an interesting statement, Florin, and you may have a valid point. Could you please elaborate on your theory?

Thanks.

Napoleon said once that a river should not be trusted as a serious obstacle when a defense is organized.

Thinking of the Eastern Front, the Axis was able to cross all big Russian rivers, up to Volga. Then the Russians were able to cross back their own rivers while coming back toward West.
The fortifications built along Siret may incur some difficulty during a crossing attempt, but I think it was easier than passing over the Carpathians, which happen to be wider along Moldavia, and in 3 parallel rows of crests (along Moldavia).
As I previously wrote, real mountains were an experience not encountered by the Russians in their offensive period, before August 1944. (They used mountains in Caucas for defensive.) However they reached the tip of Slovakia in July 1944, using a wide mountain gorge.

Posted by: Imperialist June 16, 2005 05:40 pm

QUOTE (Florin @ May 20 2005, 04:27 AM)

Mountains and mountain passes arent all on the defender's side, neither are rivers.
They both offer advantages but disadvantages also.
A mountain pass cannot be held indefinitely in front of an enemy with superior artillery and air support. Also, it depends on the actual characteristics of the moldavian passes.
Also important was the level of forces available to Antonescu. Were there only 20 division operational, like I read?

Posted by: Valium April 13, 2011 02:49 pm

Due to strategic position, oil reserves, and, why not the amount of soldiers(who should count double:germans lost, allies gained), I think 6 months is not an exagerate period

Posted by: bansaraba April 13, 2011 03:56 pm

Maybe this might share some light on the subject. From Cazanisteanu C., Ionescu M. E., Sub semnul victoriei, Editura Albatros, Bucuresti, 1985.

http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/1436/23august.png