Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (7) [1] 2 3 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> WWI in Romania
Carol I
Posted: May 05, 2005 06:51 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2250
Member No.: 136
Joined: November 06, 2003



PM
Top
Petre
Posted: March 18, 2012 01:35 pm
Quote Post


Capitan
*

Group: Members
Posts: 657
Member No.: 2434
Joined: March 24, 2009



PMEmail Poster
Top
contras
Posted: March 30, 2012 09:08 pm
Quote Post


Maior
*

Group: Members
Posts: 730
Member No.: 2693
Joined: December 28, 2009



Dimitrie Dimancescu's memories were the subject of the documentary movie "Hill 789", made by his son and his nephew. In this movie they mentioned the fight against Rommel's unit during the battle of Oituz. It is a very interesting movie, it can be seen online.
PMEmail Poster
Top
21 inf
Posted: March 31, 2012 08:16 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Retired
Posts: 1512
Member No.: 1232
Joined: January 05, 2007



Unfortunatelly, the young Dimăncescu who made "Hill 789" died not quite long ago when he was participating to the making of another historical documentary in Romania...
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
contras
Posted: April 01, 2012 02:03 pm
Quote Post


Maior
*

Group: Members
Posts: 730
Member No.: 2693
Joined: December 28, 2009



QUOTE
Unfortunatelly, the young Dimăncescu who made "Hill 789" died not quite long ago when he was participating to the making of another historical documentary in Romania...


I'm very sorry, RIP!
PMEmail Poster
Top
contras
Posted: December 14, 2012 09:21 pm
Quote Post


Maior
*

Group: Members
Posts: 730
Member No.: 2693
Joined: December 28, 2009



About neutrality period, between 1914-1916:

http://www.cristiannegrea.ro/?p=387
PMEmail Poster
Top
contras
Posted: January 07, 2013 10:17 pm
Quote Post


Maior
*

Group: Members
Posts: 730
Member No.: 2693
Joined: December 28, 2009



Interesting, betrayed before the first shot:

http://www.cristiannegrea.ro/?p=434
PMEmail Poster
Top
dead-cat
Posted: January 11, 2013 07:52 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 559
Member No.: 99
Joined: September 05, 2003



among countless other victimizations:
QUOTE
Dacă căutați pe internet despre ofensiva Brusilov veți vedea că acolo scrie că a durat din 4 iunie până în 20 septembrie 1916. Fals, s-a oprit în iulie, din august până în septembrie e vorba doar de ofensiva română în Transilvania de la sudul frontului rusesc, fără vreo legătură cu ofensiva Brusilov.

which is fantasy. there have been russian offensive operations in galicia in sept. 1916.
there are several books that go into detail regarding the Brusilov offensive, for example Timothy C. Dowling's "The Brusilov Offensive", which could provide the author of that blog with some sorely missed insight, regarding the bespoken operation (and perhaps other things).
although i'm rather sure my well heeded recommendation will fall on deaf ears, as it happens usually in cases of conspiracy theorists.
PMYahoo
Top
21 inf
Posted: January 11, 2013 09:02 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Retired
Posts: 1512
Member No.: 1232
Joined: January 05, 2007



I also had no long time ago the "pleasure" to speak on Internet with Cristian Negrea about one doubtfull information he used on one of his articles. I just pointed to him that one info he used was not in reality sustained with documents and could be a misinterpretation until one would point the original source of the info. He had a deaf ear and not having a behaviour of a real historian, so I stoped to read his blog anymore.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
ANDREAS
Posted: January 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 814
Member No.: 2421
Joined: March 15, 2009



Who had the opportunity to read more books written in the era, including memoirs of generals who led the military operations of 1916-1917, knows that not only external causes (the strength, leadership and better training of the enemy) but especially internal causes (poor quality of the officer corps, betrayal, the services poor organisation, a.o.) led to the tragic outcome of the end of year 1916! So I also don't believe in this theory, being a form of escape from responsibility for the defeat!
PMEmail PosterYahoo
Top
dead-cat
Posted: January 12, 2013 12:35 am
Quote Post


Locotenent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 559
Member No.: 99
Joined: September 05, 2003



it's a genuine problem; authors of books, articles,blogs and whatnot quoting (and sometimes misquoting and that on purpose) sources (or sometimes hearsay) that strengthens their point, on the other side disregarding anything that might contradict them, which turns the effort (if it ever was one) from a research discussion (if ever intended) into propaganda.
PMYahoo
Top
Victor
Posted: January 13, 2013 01:31 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4332
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



I haven't read the article entirely, but it seems to be pretty much based on thesis put forward in book of N. P. Comnčne (and not Conene, as it appears at the end). I inherited from my grandfather the original issue of the book, which was published in France in 1918. I believe the date and place of the publication says enough to draw a conclusion on the theory what the actual purpose of the book was.

It is clear that the Russians were unhappy with the Romanian entry into WW1, because, unlike the Western Allies, they had to actually support it with troops and transportation of supplies, none of which they had enough for themselves. But from here to the supposed conspiracy it's a long way.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Petre
Posted: January 14, 2013 04:29 pm
Quote Post


Capitan
*

Group: Members
Posts: 657
Member No.: 2434
Joined: March 24, 2009



QUOTE (Victor @ January 13, 2013 01:31 pm)
It is clear that the Russians were unhappy with the Romanian entry into WW1, because, unlike the Western Allies, they had to actually support it

From a Text-Book : The (Admiral) Kolchak interrogation
[...] I came to the Emperor ... He also instructed me on the status of things on the front, mainly in connection with the entry into war of Romania, that extreme care Him, due to the fact that Romania, as can be seen, was not quite ready to start a war, and its entry may not give favorable results " - This only will make lengthen our already large front left flank: we have to enter with our troops in Romania and to extend the front almost up to Danube. This will be a new heaviness for our Army and positive results are unlikely to give."
[…] and also said the Emperor, " - I totally do not sympathize to enter now into war Romania, I'm afraid this will be a not profitable enterprise, which only prolongs our front, but the French allied's Command insists on this, they require Romania to enter, at any cost. They sent a special mission to Romania, ammunition, and we have to yield to the pressure of the allied's Command.”

Anyway, with the war problems was dealing The Tsarist Stavka, not realy Mr. Stürmer

This post has been edited by Petre on January 14, 2013 04:32 pm
PMEmail Poster
Top
ANDREAS
Posted: January 15, 2013 09:56 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 814
Member No.: 2421
Joined: March 15, 2009



QUOTE
Romania’s offensive failed largely because of its own ineptitude. After shrewdly waiting for the best opportunity to intervene in July 1916, Bratianu then waited six weeks to sign an alliance. By then, the Russian offensive had broken down, and Germany could send plenty of reserves to Transylvania. Furthermore, Romania attacked Austria-Hungary instead of Bulgaria, much to the chagrin of the Allies.136 Of course, Romanian leaders had expected the British and French to launch an offensive against Bulgaria from Salonika. Bulgaria anticipated this, however, and attacked Salonika first, delaying any possible Allied response until mid-September. Despite this setback, it was clear Romania’s strategic position favored an offensive into Bulgaria. This would enable Russian reinforcements to strengthen Romanian defenses for the upcoming German attack. By early September, Romania was on the defensive in both the north and south, as Germany prepared its counterthrust.

from Michigan War Studies Review - Germany's Decisive Victory: Falkenhayn's Campaign in Romania, 1916 [M.A. Thesis: Eastern Michigan University, 2004].
Without being a specialist in WWI issues, I share the same opinion on the failure of the offensive campaign in Transylvania in late summer-autumn 1916.
PMEmail PosterYahoo
Top
Petre
Posted: January 22, 2013 11:41 am
Quote Post


Capitan
*

Group: Members
Posts: 657
Member No.: 2434
Joined: March 24, 2009



From a text in russian : Kulitchkin S.P. "The new ally (Military-historical essay)"

[…] The newly appointed commander of the all theaters of war - General Joffre, was looking forward to an inevitable outflow of German divisions from the Western Front. Russia reacted more reserved to the Romanian intervention and proposed two good options for common actions.
The first : a joint strike of the British and French troops from Salonika and of Russian-Romanian troops from Dobrogea towards disable Bulgaria, "then the Transylvania Theater, threatened from the north by Russian and from the south by the Salonika group and the Romanian troops, will fall by itself.”
The second : a possible Russian-Romanian strike from Moldova to the north-east (?) in the rear of the 7th and 3rd Austrian armies, taking them into a bag, and going out to the flanks of all hostile groups, south of Pripyat.
But, as was most often the case in this war, the British and French rejected our proposals and settled on the third, the most unpromising version – an independent Romanian offensive in Transylvania.
We also proposed to strengthen the Romanian Army in the south in Dobrogea by at least one Corps. Russian Stavka, again as usual, meekly agreed this.
I still do not understand what guided "the great strategists" of Entente to taking such a decision. They knew very well that Romanian army, who long time did not fight, bad-prepared (especially the commanders), weakly armed, was not only able to successfully attack, but to successfully defend. One of the many mysteries of the First World War.


This post has been edited by Petre on January 22, 2013 11:45 am
PMEmail Poster
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (7) [1] 2 3 ... Last » Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0533 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]